[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 2, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77384-77404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26379]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 320

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0085, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0086, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0087, 
FRL-10017-87-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AH03


Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) 
for Facilities in the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 
Distribution Industry; the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 
Industry; and the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final actions.

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

SUMMARY: EPA (or the Agency) is finalizing its proposed decisions to 
not impose financial responsibility requirements under section 108(b) 
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (CERCLA) for facilities in three industry sectors: The 
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution industry, 
pursuant to EPA's proposal of July 29, 2019; the petroleum and coal 
products manufacturing industry, pursuant to EPA's proposal of December 
23, 2019; and the chemical manufacturing industry, pursuant to EPA's 
proposal of February 21, 2020. Today's final rulemakings are based on 
the individual administrative records for each of the three proposed 
rulemakings, supported by additional analysis conducted in 
consideration of comments received in the public comment period for 
each proposed rule. In particular, after examining the existing 
environmental protections and regulations in place today and analyzing 
the Superfund program's experience cleaning up sites in each industry, 
the Agency concluded that facilities in these three industries 
operating under a modern regulatory framework do not present a level of 
risk that warrants financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA 
section 108(b). Today's final rulemakings are based on the record for 
these rulemakings, and do not affect EPA's authority to take a response 
or enforcement action under CERCLA with respect to any particular 
facility or industry, and do not affect the Agency's authorities that 
may apply to particular facilities under other environmental statutes. 
This combined final rulemaking comprises the Agency's final actions on 
each of the three proposed rules.

DATES: These final actions are effective on January 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for these actions under Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0085, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0086, and EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2019-0087. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this document, 
contact Charlotte Mooney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 
of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Mail Code 5303P, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (703) 308-7025 or 
(email) [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Overview
    B. Purpose of This Action
II. Authority
III. Background Information
    A. Overview of Section 108(b) and Other CERCLA Provisions
    B. History of Section 108(b) Rulemakings
    1. 2009 Identification of Priority Classes of Facilities for 
Development of CERCLA section 108(b) Financial Responsibility 
Requirements
    2. Additional Classes 2010 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    3. 2014 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
    4. Additional Classes 2017 Notice of Intent To Proceed With 
Rulemakings
    5. The Hardrock Mining Proposal and Final Rulemaking
    a. Proposed Rule
    b. Decision to Not Impose Requirements
    c. Litigation and D.C. Circuit Decision
IV. Statutory Interpretation
V. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution Industry
    A. Proposed Rule
    B. Summary of Key Comments Received and Agency Response
    1. Comments in Support of the Proposal
    2. Comments Opposed to the Proposal

[[Page 77385]]

    C. Decision to Not Impose Requirements
VI. Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry
    A. Proposed Rule
    B. Summary of Key Comments Received and Agency Response
    1. Comments in Support of the Proposal
    2. Comments Opposed to the Proposal
    C. Decision to Not Impose Requirements
VII. Chemical Manufacturing Industry
    A. Proposed Rule
    B. Summary of Key Comments Received and Agency Response
    1. Comments in Support of the Proposal
    2. Comments Opposed to the Proposal
    C. Decision to Not Impose Requirements
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act

I. Executive Summary

A. Overview

    Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) directs EPA to develop 
regulations that require classes of facilities to establish and 
maintain evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the 
degree and duration of risk associated with the production, 
transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous 
substances. The statute further requires that the level of financial 
responsibility be established to protect against the level of risk that 
the President, in his/her discretion, believes is appropriate, based on 
factors including the payment experience of the Hazardous Substance 
Superfund (Fund). The President's authority under this section for non-
transportation-related facilities has been delegated to the EPA 
Administrator.
    On January 6, 2010, EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM),\1\ in which the Agency identified three industrial 
sectors, to follow the hardrock mining industry, for the development, 
as necessary, of proposed section 108(b) regulations. Those industries 
identified were the electric power generation, transmission, and 
distribution; petroleum and coal products manufacturing; and chemical 
manufacturing industries. In August 2014, the Idaho Conservation 
League, Earthworks, Sierra Club, Amigos Bravos, Great Basin Resource 
Watch, and Communities for a Better Environment filed a lawsuit in the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking a 
writ of mandamus requiring issuance of CERCLA section 108(b) financial 
responsibility rules for the hardrock mining industry, and for the 
three additional industries identified in the 2010 ANPRM. Following 
oral arguments, EPA and the petitioners submitted a joint motion for an 
order on consent, filed on August 31, 2015, which included a schedule 
for further administrative proceedings under CERCLA section 108(b). The 
court order granting the motion was issued on January 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 816 (Jan. 6, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to requiring EPA to publish a proposed rule on hardrock 
mining financial responsibility requirements by December 1, 2016, the 
January 2016 order required EPA to sign for publication in the Federal 
Register a determination whether EPA will issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking on financial responsibility requirements under section 
108(b) in the electric power generation, transmission, and distribution 
industry; the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry; and 
the chemical manufacturing industry by December 1, 2016. EPA signed the 
required determination on December 1, 2016; the document was published 
on January 11, 2017 \2\ and announced EPA's intent to proceed with 
rulemakings for all three of the additional classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 82 FR 3512 (Jan. 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Purpose of This Action

    The purpose of today's action, containing three final rulemakings, 
is to finalize the Agency's proposed rulemaking decisions that 
financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA section 108(b) are 
not warranted for facilities in the electric power generation, 
transmission, and distribution industry; the petroleum and coal 
products manufacturing industry; and the chemical manufacturing 
industry. EPA has reached these conclusions based on the analyses 
described in the proposed rules for (1) the electric power generation, 
transmission, and distribution industry proposal (84 FR 36535), (2) the 
petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry proposal (84 FR 
74067), and (3) the chemical manufacturing industry proposal (85 FR 
10128); consideration of comments on those proposed rules; and 
additional analyses based on those comments. The evidence examined in 
each of these analyses has led EPA to the finding that the degree and 
duration of risk posed by each of these three industries does not 
warrant financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA section 
108(b).
    EPA is publishing this document, containing three final 
rulemakings, to comply with its obligations under CERCLA section 108(b) 
to determine whether requirements that classes of facilities establish 
and maintain evidence of financial responsibility are appropriate, and 
to satisfy the Agency's obligations under the Mandamus Order issued on 
January 29, 2016. See In re: Idaho Conservation League, et al., No. 14-
1149. A copy of the Mandamus Order can be found in the docket for this 
document.
    These final rulemakings are not applicable to and do not affect, 
limit, or restrict EPA's authority to take a response action or 
enforcement action under CERCLA at any facility in the electric power 
generation, transmission, and distribution industry; the petroleum and 
coal products manufacturing industry; or the chemical manufacturing 
industry, including any requirements for financial responsibility as 
part of such response action. The set of facts in the rulemaking record 
related to the individual facilities discussed in the proposed and 
final rulemakings support the Agency's decision not to issue financial 
responsibility requirements under section 108(b) for these industries 
as a class. At the same time, a different set of facts could 
demonstrate a need for a CERCLA response action at an individual site. 
These rulemakings do not affect the Agency's authority under other 
authorities that may apply to individual facilities, such as the Clean 
Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
    This document is structured to present the Agency's final 
rulemakings for the electric power generation, transmission, and 
distribution industry; the petroleum and coal products manufacturing 
industry; and the chemical manufacturing industry. As

[[Page 77386]]

the three rulemakings contained in this document share common features, 
such as statutory authority and regulatory history, background 
information which is consistent across the three industries and 
intended to be applied to all industries is presented first in a 
unified manner. Additionally, certain executive orders that relate or 
may relate to these rules are discussed in unison in the last section 
of this document. Discussion of public comments received on the 
proposed rules for each industry and industry specific analyses, which 
were relied upon to reach unique final rulemaking decisions, is 
presented separately. The Agency's conclusions for each industry were 
reached based on the specific consideration of risk for each industry.

II. Authority

    EPA is issuing this document, containing three final rulemakings, 
under the authority of sections 101, 104, 108 and 115 of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 9601, 9604, 9608 and 9615, and 
Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987).

III. Background Information

A. Overview of Section 108(b) and Other CERCLA Provisions

    CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 
Act of 1986 (SARA), establishes a comprehensive environmental response 
and cleanup program. Generally, CERCLA authorizes EPA \3\ to undertake 
removal or remedial actions in response to any release or threatened 
release into the environment of ``hazardous substances'' or, in some 
circumstances, any other ``pollutant or contaminant.'' As defined in 
CERCLA section 101, removal actions include actions to ``prevent, 
minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the 
environment,'' and remedial actions are ``actions consistent with [a] 
permanent remedy[.]'' Remedial and removal actions are jointly referred 
to as ``response actions.'' CERCLA section 111 authorizes the use of 
the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund) established under title 26, 
United States Code, to finance response actions undertaken by EPA. In 
addition, CERCLA section 106 gives EPA \4\ authority to compel action 
by liable parties in response to a release or threatened release of a 
hazardous substance that may pose an ``imminent and substantial 
endangerment'' to public health or welfare or the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although Congress conferred the authority for administering 
CERCLA on the President, most of that authority has since been 
delegated to EPA. See Exec. Order No. 12580, 52 FR 2923 (Jan. 23, 
1987). The executive order also delegates to other Federal agencies 
specified CERCLA response authorities at certain facilities under 
those agencies' ``jurisdiction, custody or control.''
    \4\ CERCLA section 106 authority is also delegated to other 
Federal agencies in certain circumstances. See Exec. Order No. 
13016, 61 FR 45871 (Aug. 28, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authorities established by CERCLA work alongside other EPA 
statutes which created programs designed to control releases of 
contaminants, such as the CAA, the CWA, RCRA, and TSCA. Features of the 
RCRA program, in particular, complement objectives of CERCLA and help 
to prevent the types of releases that might become CERCLA sites. 
Pursuant to RCRA, as amended by HSWA (Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments), statutory and regulatory requirements, RCRA established a 
system of cradle-to-grave management of hazardous wastes. Implemented 
by EPA and authorized state RCRA programs, RCRA permitting requirements 
for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities 
detail technical standards, set reporting requirements, and include a 
requirement to establish financial assurance. Where releases do occur, 
the corrective action program established by RCRA provides a mechanism 
to clean up contamination as well as authority to require financial 
assurance. Under RCRA's corrective action program, EPA requires owners 
and operators of TSDs to investigate and clean up releases of hazardous 
waste and hazardous constituents from any solid waste management units, 
thus reducing the likelihood that these facilities would require 
cleanup under Superfund. RCRA's role was considered so relevant that 
financial assurance requirements established under RCRA Subtitle C 
(RCRA Sec. Sec.  3001-3023) were referenced in Senate Report on 
legislation that was later enacted as CERCLA section 108(b). That 
language stated ``[I]t is not the intention of the Committee that 
operators of facilities covered by section 3004(6) of that Act be 
subject to two financial responsibility requirements for the same 
dangers.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ S. Rept. 96-848 (2d Sess, 96th Cong.), at 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CERCLA section 107 imposes liability for response costs on a 
variety of parties, including certain past owners and operators, 
current owners and operators, and certain generators, arrangers, and 
transporters of hazardous substances. Such parties are liable for 
certain costs and damages, including all costs of removal or remedial 
action incurred by the Federal Government, so long as the costs 
incurred are ``not inconsistent with the national contingency plan'' 
(the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 
or NCP).\6\ Section 107 also imposes liability for natural resource 
damages and health assessment costs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CERCLA section 107(a)(4)(A).
    \7\ CERCLA section 107(a)(4)(C)-(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 108(b) establishes authority to require owners and 
operators of classes of facilities to establish and maintain evidence 
of financial responsibility. Section 108(b)(1) directs EPA to develop 
regulations requiring owners and operators of facilities to establish 
evidence of financial responsibility ``consistent with the degree and 
duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, 
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances.'' In turn, 
section 108(b)(2) directs that the level of financial responsibility 
shall be initially established, and, when necessary, adjusted to 
protect against the level of risk that EPA in its discretion believes 
is appropriate based on the payment experience of the Fund, commercial 
insurers, court settlements and judgments, and voluntary claims 
satisfaction. Section 108(b)(2) does not, however, preclude EPA from 
considering other factors in addition to those specifically listed. The 
statute prohibited promulgation of such regulations before December 
1985.
    In addition, Section 108(b)(1) provides for publication within 
three years of the date of enactment of CERCLA a ``priority notice'' 
identifying the classes of facilities for which EPA would first develop 
financial responsibility requirements. It also directs that priority in 
the development of requirements shall be accorded to those classes of 
facilities, owners, and operators that present the highest level of 
risk of injury.

B. History of Section 108(b) Rulemakings

1. 2009 Identification of Priority Classes of Facilities for 
Development of CERCLA Section 108(b) Financial Responsibility 
Requirements
    On March 11, 2008, Sierra Club, Great Basin Resource Watch, Amigos 
Bravos, and Idaho Conservation League filed suit in the U.S. District 
Court for the Northern District of California against then EPA 
Administrator Stephen Johnson and then Secretary of the U.S. Department 
of Transportation Mary E.

[[Page 77387]]

Peters. Sierra Club, et al. v. Johnson, No. 08-01409 (N. D. Cal.). On 
February 25, 2009, that court ordered EPA to publish the Priority 
Notice required by CERCLA section 108(b)(1) later that year. The 2009 
Priority Notice and supporting documentation presented the Agency's 
conclusion that hardrock mining facilities would be the first class of 
facilities for which EPA would issue CERCLA section 108(b) 
requirements.\8\ Additionally, the 2009 Priority Notice stated EPA's 
view that classes of facilities outside of the hardrock mining industry 
may warrant the development of financial responsibility 
requirements.\9\ The Agency committed to gather and analyze data on 
additional classes of facilities and to consider them for possible 
regulation. The court later dismissed the remaining claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 74 FR 37214 (July 28, 2009).
    \9\ Id. at 37218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Additional Classes 2010 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    On January 6, 2010, EPA published an ANPRM,\10\ in which the Agency 
identified three additional industrial sectors for the development, as 
necessary, of proposed section 108(b) regulations. To develop the list 
of additional classes for the 2010 ANPRM, EPA used information from the 
CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL) and analyzed data from the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Biennial Report and the 
Toxics Release Inventory created under the Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 75 FR 816 (Jan. 6, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 2014 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
    In August 2014, the Idaho Conservation League, Earthworks, Sierra 
Club, Amigos Bravos, Great Basin Resource Watch, and Communities for a 
Better Environment filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking a writ of mandamus requiring 
issuance of CERCLA section 108(b) financial assurance rules for the 
hardrock mining industry and for three other industries: Electric power 
generation, transmission, and distribution; petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing; and chemical manufacturing. Thirteen companies and 
organizations representing business interests in the hardrock mining 
and other sectors sought to intervene in the case.
    Following oral argument, the court issued an order in May 2015 
requiring the parties to submit, among other things, supplemental 
submissions addressing a schedule for further administrative 
proceedings under CERCLA section 108(b). Petitioners and EPA requested 
an order from the court with a schedule calling for the Agency to sign 
a proposed rule for the hardrock mining industry by December 1, 2016, 
and a final rulemaking by December 1, 2017. The joint motion also 
included a requested schedule for the additional industry classes, 
which called for EPA to sign by December 1, 2016, a determination on 
whether EPA would issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for classes of 
facilities in any or all of the other industries, and a schedule for 
proposed and final rulemakings for the additional industry classes as 
follows:

    EPA will sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice 
of proposed rulemaking in the first additional industry by July 2, 
2019, and sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of 
its final action by December 2, 2020.
    EPA will sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice 
of proposed rulemaking in the second additional industry by December 
4, 2019, and sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice 
of its final action by December 1, 2021.
    EPA will sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice 
of proposed rulemaking in the third additional industry by December 
1, 2022, and sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice 
of its final action by December 4, 2024.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In re Idaho Conservation League, No. 14-1149 (D.C. Cir. 
Jan. 29, 2016) (order granting joint motion).

    While the joint motion identified the three additional industries 
as the chemical manufacturing industry, the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry, and the electric power generation, transmission 
and distribution industry, and set a rulemaking schedule, the motion 
did not indicate which industry would be the first, second or third. 
The joint motion specified that it did not alter the Agency's 
discretion as provided by CERCLA and administrative law.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Joint Motion at 6 (``Nothing in this Joint Motion 
should be construed to limit or modify the discretion accorded EPA 
by CERCLA or the general principles of administrative law.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 29, 2016, the court granted the joint motion and issued 
an order that mirrored the submitted schedule in substance. The order 
did not mandate any specific outcome of the rulemakings.\13\ The Agency 
has met the deadlines for all three proposed rulemakings, and today's 
document meets the requirement for announcing final actions on all 
three additional industry classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In granting the Joint Motion, the court expressly stated 
that its order ``merely requires that EPA conduct a rulemaking and 
then decide whether to promulgate a new rule--the content of which 
is not in any way dictated by the [order].'' In re Idaho 
Conservation League, at 17 (quoting Defenders of Wildlife v. 
Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317, 1324 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Additional Classes 2017 Notice of Intent To Proceed With Rulemakings
    Consistent with the January 2016 court order, EPA signed on 
December 1, 2016, a determination regarding rulemakings for the 
additional classes--a Notice of Intent to Proceed with Rulemakings for 
all three of the additional industry classes. The document was 
published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2017.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 82 FR 3512 (Jan. 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The document formally announced EPA's intention to move forward 
with the regulatory process and to publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking for classes of facilities within the three industries 
identified in the 2010 ANPRM. The announcement in the document was not 
a determination that requirements were necessary for any or all of the 
classes of facilities within the three industries, or that EPA would 
propose such requirements. In addition, the document gave an overview 
of some of the comments received on the 2010 ANPRM and initial 
responses to those comments. The comments on the ANPRM which 
specifically addressed the need for CERCLA section 108(b) requirements 
for the three additional classes fell into four categories: (1) Other 
laws with which the industry complies that obviate the need for CERCLA 
section 108(b) regulation; (2) the sources of data that EPA used to 
select the industries; (3) past versus current practices within each 
industry; and (4) the overall need for financial responsibility for 
each industry. In discussing the ANPRM comments in the 2017 document, 
the Agency stated its intent to use other, more industry-specific and 
more current sources of data to identify risk; to consider site factors 
that reduce risks, including those that result from compliance with 
other regulatory requirements; and to develop a regulatory proposal for 
each rulemaking.
    At the time of the 2017 document, EPA had not identified sufficient 
evidence to determine that the rulemaking was not warranted, nor had 
EPA identified sufficient evidence to establish CERCLA section 108(b) 
requirements. The document described a process to gather and analyze 
additional information to support the Agency's ultimate decision, 
including further evaluation of the classes of facilities within the 
three industry sectors. The document stated that EPA would decide 
whether proposing

[[Page 77388]]

requirements was necessary and, accordingly, that EPA would propose 
appropriate requirements or would propose not to impose requirements.
5. The Hardrock Mining Proposal and Final Rulemaking
a. Proposed Rule
    On January 11, 2017, EPA proposed requirements in a new 40 CFR part 
320 that owners and operators of hardrock mining facilities subject to 
the rule demonstrate and maintain financial responsibility as specified 
in the proposed rule. The proposed rule identified two goals for 
section 108(b) regulations--the goal of providing funds to address 
CERCLA liabilities at sites, and the goal of creating incentives for 
sound practices that will minimize the likelihood of need for a future 
CERCLA response. The proposed rule explained that first, when releases 
of hazardous substances occur, or when a threat of release of hazardous 
substances must be averted, a Superfund response action may be 
necessary. Therefore, the costs of such response actions can fall to 
the taxpayer if parties responsible for the release or potential 
release of hazardous substances are unable to assume the costs. Second, 
the likelihood of a CERCLA response action being needed, as well as the 
costs of such a response action, are likely to be higher where 
protective management practices were not utilized during facility 
operations. The proposed rule discussed information assembled by EPA in 
the record for the action, which included information on legacy 
practices and legacy contamination, as well as information not related 
to risk. Based on that record, EPA had proposed to presume that 
hardrock mining facilities as a class present the type of risks that 
section 108(b) addresses. The proposed rule then proceeded to establish 
a methodology to determine a level of financial responsibility in 
accordance with a proposed formula. The formula then allowed 
adjustments to the level of those requirements if a facility could 
demonstrate site specific conditions that rebut the presumption that 
the hardrock mining facilities that would be regulated under the rule 
pose a risk. EPA proposed limiting the applicability of the rule to 
owners and operators of facilities that are authorized to operate or 
should be authorized to operate on the effective date of the rule 
(hereinafter referred to as ``current hardrock mining operations''). 
The proposed rule relied, in part, on the grounds that these owners and 
operators are more likely to further the regulatory goals of section 
108(b) requirements than are owners and operators of facilities that 
are closed or abandoned. EPA also proposed limiting the applicability 
of the rule to current hardrock mining operations because those 
facilities are readily identifiable and, since they are ongoing 
concerns, they are more likely to be able to obtain the kind of 
financial responsibility necessary under the regulation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 82 FR 3388-3512 (January 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Decision To Not Impose Requirements
    On February 21, 2018, EPA issued its final section 108(b) rule for 
the hardrock mining industry, concluding that it was not appropriate to 
establish financial responsibility requirements on this class of 
facilities. The Agency stated that despite its focus on currently 
operating facilities, the proposed rule relied on a record of releases 
of hazardous substances from facilities and payments to respond to such 
releases that did not present the same risk profile as the facilities 
operating under modern conditions to which the rule would apply. These 
modern conditions, the Agency stated, include state and federal 
regulatory requirements and financial responsibility requirements that 
currently apply to operating facilities. As a result, EPA determined 
that the analysis of risk presented in the proposed rule was 
inconsistent with the scope of the proposed rule and EPA's intended 
approach under the statute. The final rulemaking did not seek to rely 
on historical practices, many of which would be illegal under current 
environmental laws and regulations, to identify the degree and duration 
of risk posed by the facilities that would be subject to financial 
responsibility requirements. Instead, in the final rulemaking EPA 
considered modern federal and state regulation of hazardous substance 
production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal at hardrock 
mining facilities. EPA concluded the record did not document 
significant risks associated with such facilities. Further, the final 
rulemaking did not rely on the cost of responding to historic mining 
activities and instead reflected the reduction in the risk of federally 
financed response actions at modern hardrock mining facilities that 
result from modern practices and modern regulation. EPA concluded that 
the record demonstrated that, with a few exceptions, EPA had made 
minimal Fund expenditures for modern hardrock mining operations. EPA 
also engaged in significant discussions with, and received significant 
comments from, commercial insurers and other financial instrument 
providers. These providers suggested that the availability of financial 
responsibility instruments in the form and amount proposed by EPA may 
be limited for regulated entities, should EPA require companies to 
obtain them. Thus, to the extent that risks remain at current hardrock 
mining operations, the information provided by commenters further 
convinced EPA that it was not appropriate to establish financial 
responsibility requirements on this class of facilities. EPA also 
concluded that issuing final financial responsibility requirements was 
not necessary to achieve the stated goals of the proposed section 
108(b) rules for hardrock mining, namely, the goal to increase the 
likelihood that regulated entities will provide funds necessary to 
address CERCLA liabilities if and when they arise, and the goal to 
create an incentive for sound practices. EPA's economic analysis 
showing that the proposed rule would avoid governmental costs of only 
$15-$15.5 million a year supported that conclusion. Based on these 
estimates, commenters objected that the projected annualized costs to 
industry ($111-$171 million) were an order of magnitude higher than the 
avoided costs to the government ($15-15.5 million) sought by the 
proposed rule. Further, given the fact that federal and state laws, 
including potential liability under CERCLA, already created incentives 
for sound practices, promulgating additional financial responsibility 
regulations for hardrock mining facilities under Section 108(b) also 
was not necessary to advance that goal.
c. Litigation and D.C. Circuit Decision
    After publication of the final section 108(b) rule for hardrock 
mining facilities, Environmental groups timely filed a petition for 
review challenging the final rulemaking, asserting that: (1) EPA's 
statutory interpretation was incorrect, (2) EPA's decision was 
arbitrary and capricious, and (3) the promulgated final action was not 
a logical outgrowth of the proposal.\16\ On July 19, 2019, the D.C. 
Circuit upheld EPA's regulatory action and denied the petition for 
review.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Idaho Conservation League, et al. v. EPA, No. 18-1141 (D.C. 
Cir., filed May 16, 2018).
    \17\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to EPA's statutory interpretation of section 108(b), 
the court rejected the Petitioners' argument that EPA had 
misinterpreted ``risk'' in 108(b) as limited to financial risk. The 
court explained that, typically, a word repeated in different parts of 
a single

[[Page 77389]]

provision has the same meaning throughout that provision, but it can 
have different meanings if the relevant subject-matter or conditions 
are different. See, Weaver v. U.S. Info. Agency, 87 F.3d 1429, 1437 
(D.C. Cir. 1996). The court noted that while the prioritization clause 
of Section 108(b)(1) refers to risk to human health and the 
environment, the scope of ``risk'' is ambiguous in the general mandate 
of section 108(b)(1) and the amount clause of section 108(b)(2). In 
light of the differences among the three clauses, the court held that 
EPA reasonably interpreted ``risk'' in the latter two clauses to relate 
only to financial risks.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. at 502-504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court also disagreed with the Petitioners' argument that the 
mandatory language of section 108(b) required EPA to set financial 
responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry. While the 
court acknowledged that section 108(b) says that EPA ``shall'' set 
requirements for certain classes of facilities, the statute gives EPA 
discretion to determine which classes of facilities to regulate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 504-505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the court rejected the Petitioners' argument that EPA had 
failed to account adequately for risks to health and the environment. 
The court dispensed with this claim, having decided earlier that EPA 
had reasonably interpreted ``risk'' in the two relevant clauses of 
section 108(b) to relate only to financial risk of Fund 
expenditures.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. at 505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court also rejected Petitioners' argument that EPA ignored some 
financial risks and relied on faulty economic analysis. The court 
concluded that EPA had analyzed the appropriate financial 
considerations, and the court found no ``serious flaw'' in EPA's 
economic analysis.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. at 505-508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory Interpretation

    EPA's statutory interpretation, upheld by the D.C. Circuit as 
described above, provided the basis for the analytic approach followed 
in the hardrock mining final rule and subsequently used in the 
proposals being finalized in this document. EPA is reiterating the 
statutory interpretation presented in the CERCLA section 108(b) 
Hardrock Mining Final Rule, and does not intend to reopen this 
interpretation. The analyses relied upon in the rulemakings that are 
the subject of today's document were consistent with this statutory 
interpretation.
    CERCLA section 108(b) provides general instructions on how to 
determine what financial responsibility requirements to impose for a 
particular class of facility. Section 108(b)(1) directs EPA to develop 
regulations requiring owners and operators of facilities to establish 
evidence of financial responsibility ``consistent with the degree and 
duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, 
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances.'' Section 
108(b)(2) directs that the ``level of financial responsibility shall be 
initially established and, when necessary, adjusted to protect against 
the level of risk'' that EPA ``believes is appropriate based on the 
payment experience of the Fund, commercial insurers, courts settlements 
and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction.'' EPA interprets the 
risk to be addressed by financial responsibility under section 108(b) 
as the risk of the need for taxpayer-financed response actions. Read 
together, the statutory language on determining the degree and duration 
of risk and on setting the level of financial responsibility confers a 
significant amount of discretion on EPA.
    Section 108(b)(1) directs EPA to evaluate risk from a selected 
class of facilities, but it does not suggest that a precise calculation 
of risk is either necessary or feasible. Although the cost of response 
associated with a particular site can be ascertained only once a 
response action is required, any financial responsibility requirements 
imposed under section 108(b) would be imposed before any such response 
action was identified. The statute thus necessarily confers on EPA wide 
latitude to determine, in a section 108(b) rulemaking proceeding, what 
degree and duration of risk are presented by the identified class.
    Section 108(b)(2) directs EPA to establish the level of financial 
responsibility that EPA in its discretion believes is appropriate to 
protect against the risk. This statutory direction does not specify a 
methodology for the evaluation. Rather, this decision is committed to 
the discretion of the EPA Administrator. While the statute provides a 
list of information sources on which EPA is to base its decision--the 
payment experience of the Superfund, commercial insurers, courts 
settlements and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfaction--the 
statute does not indicate that this list of factors is exclusive, nor 
does it specify how the information from these sources is to be used, 
such as by indicating how these categories are to be weighted relative 
to one another.
    EPA believes that sections 108(b)(1) and (b)(2) are sufficiently 
interrelated that it is appropriate to evaluate the degree and duration 
of risk under subsection (b)(1) by considering the factors enumerated 
in subsection (b)(2). EPA therefore concludes that Congress intended 
the risk associated with a particular class of facilities to mean the 
risk of future Fund-financed cleanup actions in that industry. This 
reading is supported by the structure of the statute, as section 108(b) 
appears between two provisions, Sections 108(a) and 108(c), related to 
cost recovery. Section 108(a), concerning financial assurance 
requirements for certain vessels, refers specifically to cleanup costs. 
And section 108(c), concerning recovery of costs from guarantors who 
provide the financial responsibility instruments, refers specifically 
to liability for cleanup costs. EPA thus reads ``risk'' in the general 
mandate of section 108(b)(1) and in the amount clause of section 
108(b)(2) consistent with its meaning in sections 108(a) and (c); that 
is, the risk of Fund-financed cleanup. EPA adopted this interpretation 
in assessing the need for financial responsibility requirements under 
CERCLA section 108(b) for facilities in the first class of facilities 
it evaluated: the hardrock mining industry.\22\ In its opinion deciding 
the challenge to the final action for the hardrock mining industry, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that 
EPA's interpretation that the provisions of section 108(b) ``relate 
only to ensuring against financial risks associated with cleanup 
costs,'' is reasonable and entitled to deference.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 83 FR 7556, 7561-62 (Feb. 21, 2018).
    \23\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494, 504 
(D.C. Cir. July 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the additional industry classes, EPA has investigated the 
payment history of the Fund, and enforcement settlements and judgments, 
to evaluate, in the context of these CERCLA section 108(b) rulemakings, 
the risk of a Fund-financed response action at facilities that would be 
subject to CERCLA financial responsibility requirements. The statute 
also authorizes EPA to consider the existence of federal and state 
regulatory requirements, including any financial responsibility 
requirements. Section 108(b)(1) directs EPA to promulgate financial 
responsibility requirements ``in addition to those under subtitle C of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act and other Federal law.'' According to the 
1980 Senate Report on legislation that was later enacted as CERCLA, 
Congress considered it appropriate for EPA to

[[Page 77390]]

examine those additional requirements when evaluating the degree and 
duration of risk under the language that was later enacted as CERCLA 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
section 108(b):

    The bill requires also that facilities maintain evidence of 
financial responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of 
risks associated with the production, transportation, treatment, 
storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. These requirements 
are in addition to the financial responsibility requirements 
promulgated under the authority of Section 3004(6) of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act. It is not the intention of the Committee that 
operators of facilities covered by Section 3004(6) of that Act be 
subject to two financial responsibility requirements for the same 
dangers.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ S. Rept. 96-848 (2d Sess, 96th Cong.), at 92.

    While the Senate Report mentions RCRA Section 3004(6) specifically, 
it is consistent with congressional intent for EPA to consider other 
potentially duplicative federal financial responsibility requirements 
when examining the ``degree and duration of risk'' in the context of 
CERCLA Section 108(b) to determine whether and what financial 
responsibility requirements are appropriate. It is also consistent with 
congressional intent for EPA to consider state laws before imposing 
additional federal financial responsibility requirements.
    Consideration of state laws before developing financial 
responsibility regulations is consistent with CERCLA Section 114(d), 
which prevents states from imposing financial responsibility 
requirements for liability for releases of the same hazardous 
substances after a facility is regulated under Section 108 of CERCLA. 
Just as Congress intended to prevent states from imposing duplicative 
financial assurance requirements after EPA had acted to impose such 
requirements under Section 108, it is reasonable to also conclude that 
Congress did not mean for EPA to disrupt existing state programs that 
are successfully regulating industrial operations to minimize risk, 
including the risk of taxpayer liability for response actions under 
CERCLA, and that specifically include appropriate financial assurance 
requirements under state law. Reviews of both state programs and other 
federal programs help to identify whether and at what level there is 
current risk that is appropriate to address under CERCLA Section 108.
    EPA also believes that, when evaluating whether and at what level 
it is appropriate to require evidence of financial responsibility, EPA 
should examine information on facilities in the subject universes 
operating under modern conditions. In other words, EPA should assess 
the types of facilities to which any new financial responsibility 
regulations would apply. Financial responsibility requirements under 
Section 108(b) would not apply to legacy operations that are no longer 
operating. Rather, any requirements would apply to facilities that 
follow current industry practices and are subject to the modern 
regulatory framework (i.e., the regulations currently in place that 
apply to the industry). These modern conditions include federal and 
state regulatory requirements and financial responsibility requirements 
that currently apply to operating facilities. This reading of Section 
108(b) is consistent with statements in the legislative history of the 
statute. The 1980 Senate Report states that the legislative language 
that became Section 108(b) ``requires those engaged in businesses 
involving hazardous substances to maintain evidence of financial 
responsibility commensurate with the risk which they present.'' \25\ 
This approach is also consistent with the analysis that EPA undertook, 
in developing its Final Action on Financial Responsibility Requirements 
Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock 
Mining Industry.\26\ As described above in section III.B.5.c, EPA's 
approach was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ S. Rept. 96-848 (2d Sess, 96th Cong.), at 92.
    \26\ 83 FR 7556 (Feb. 21, 2018).
    \27\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This statutory interpretation is also reflected in today's final 
actions. Any financial responsibility requirements imposed under 
Section 108(b) would apply to currently operating facilities. EPA thus 
sought to examine the extent to which hazardous substance management at 
currently operating facilities, as three individual classes, continues 
to present risk. Moreover, the statutory direction to identify 
requirements consistent with identified risks guides EPA's 
interpretation that imposition of financial responsibility requirements 
under Section 108(b) would not be necessary for currently operating 
facilities that present minimal current risk of a Fund-financed 
response action. The interpretation in this proposal does not extend to 
any site-specific determinations of risk made in the context of 
individual CERCLA site responses. Those decisions will continue to be 
made in accordance with preexisting procedures.
    As the basis for EPA's proposed and final rulemakings, EPA has 
examined records of releases of hazardous substances from facilities 
operating under a modern regulatory framework and data on the actions 
taken and expenditures incurred in response to such releases. The data 
collected do not reflect historical practices, many of which would be 
illegal under current environmental laws and regulations. Instead, EPA 
has considered current federal and state regulation of hazardous 
substance production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal 
applicable to facilities in the electric power generation, transmission 
and distribution industry; the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry; and the chemical manufacturing industry.

V. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution Industry

A. Proposed Rule

    On July 29, 2019, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) on the first of the three additional industries.\28\ In that 
document, the Agency proposed to not impose financial responsibility 
requirements for the electric power generation, transmission, and 
distribution industry and described the analyses and results that were 
used to reach that decision.\29\ The Agency received 27 comments on 
this proposed rulemaking. Comments received on the proposal and the 
Agency's responses are laid out in the Response to Comments document 
found in the docket to this final rulemaking.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 84 FR 36535 (Jul. 29, 2019).
    \29\ 84 FR 36535 (July 29, 2019).
    \30\ Response to Comments Document: Financial Responsibility 
Requirement Under CERCLA 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the 
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Generation Industry, 
November, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Key Comments Received and Agency Response

    Of the 27 comments received on the July 19, 2019 NPRM, 12 were in 
support of the Agency's proposal to not impose financial responsibility 
requirements for the electric power generation, transmission, and 
distribution industry and 15 were opposed.
1. Comments in Support of the Proposal
    Seven of the comments the Agency received that supported the 
proposed rule were from companies in the electric utility industry. In 
addition, supporting comments were received from the Utility Solid 
Waste Activities Group, the Superfund Settlements Project, the American 
Coal Council, the National Mining Association, and a multi-

[[Page 77391]]

industry comment from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
    Commenters commended EPA for its consistency in the application of 
its analysis and methodology from the hardrock mining final action to 
the electric power generation, transmission and distribution industry. 
Commenters expressed that EPA had appropriately evaluated the risk of 
the industry and agreed that modern voluntary industry practices and 
existing federal and state regulations provide an effective framework 
for risk minimization. Thus, they found the conclusion that additional 
financial responsibility requirements were not warranted to be 
reasonable and encouraged the Agency to finalize the decision.
2. Comments Opposed to the Proposal
    Twelve of the comments the Agency received that were opposed to the 
proposed rule were from private citizens. The commenters were concerned 
that the electric power generation, transmission, and distribution 
industry should be held accountable for environmental damages that 
resulted from their actions. Several commenters mentioned wildfires 
that occurred in California in 2018. It should be noted that the 
Agency's decision to not impose financial responsibility requirements 
under Section 108(b) does not diminish liability under CERCLA, and the 
cost of cleanups will continue to be the responsibility of the PRPs, 
not the Fund. In addition, comments opposing the proposed rule were 
received from Earthjustice, the Human Rights Watch, and the Chickaloon 
Village Traditional Council. Earthjustice submitted comments on behalf 
of Sierra Club, Earthworks, Environmental Integrity Project, and 
Western Organization of Resource Councils.
    Many of the comments received on the electric power generation, 
transmission and distribution industry proposal were critical of the 
Agency's interpretation of the statute and the analyses EPA conducted 
to conclude that no CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility 
rules are appropriate. The statutory interpretation presented in the 
CERCLA Section 108(b) Hardrock Mining Final Rule (described in 
Statutory Interpretation section above) continues to be the view of the 
Agency, and that interpretation is not reopened here. After 
consideration of the critical comments, EPA still concludes that the 
analyses conducted and information considered were appropriate, 
consistent with CERCLA, and show that risk posed by the electric power 
generation, transmission and distribution industry does not warrant 
financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b).
    As part of its electric power generation, transmission and 
distribution industry proposal, EPA systematically evaluated CERCLA 
NPL, Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA), and removal sites and Coal 
Combustion Residuals (CCR) damage cases in the industry where cleanup 
actions and releases occurred. Specifically, EPA developed an analytic 
approach that considered cleanup cases to identify risk at currently 
operating facilities and where taxpayer funds were expended for 
response action. See discussion in the proposed rule \31\ for a 
detailed description of the analysis conducted. EPA's review of the 
Superfund NPL, SAA, and removal sites associated with the industry, and 
CCR damage cases identified as part of the 2015 CCR rule, found that, 
overwhelmingly, the industry was operating responsibly within the 
current modern regulatory framework. In fact, EPA's analysis determined 
that only two facilities in the industry had releases under the modern 
regulatory framework that required a Fund-financed response action. As 
a matter of due diligence, EPA conducted additional research into 
instances of releases or accidents at facilities in the industry cited 
in comments on the proposal. This additional research did not identify 
any new examples of the Superfund program bearing the costs of a 
cleanup. In fact, most of the issues were legacy matters from the 1970s 
and 80s, which the owner or operator of the facility addressed. EPA 
believes that the small set of federally funded cleanup cases due to 
recent contamination does not warrant the imposition of financial 
responsibility requirements on the entire electric power generation, 
transmission and distribution industry under CERCLA Section 108(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 84 FR 36535, 36543-36550 (July 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as part of its proposal, to understand the modern 
regulatory framework applicable to currently operating facilities 
within the electric power generation, transmission and distribution 
industry, EPA compiled applicable federal and state regulations.\32\ 
Specifically, EPA looked to regulations that address the types of 
releases identified in the cleanup cases. This review also considered 
industry voluntary programs that could reduce risk of releases. 
Finally, EPA also identified financial responsibility regulations that 
apply to facilities in the electric power generation, transmission and 
distribution industry,\33\ and compliance and enforcement history for 
the relevant regulations.\34\ Based on this review, and after reviewing 
the comments received, EPA maintains its preliminary conclusion that 
the network of federal and state regulations applicable to the electric 
power generation, transmission, and distribution industry creates a 
comprehensive framework that applies to prevent releases that could 
result in a need for a Fund-financed response action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Summary Report: Federal and State Environmental Regulations 
and Industry Voluntary Programs in Place to Address CERCLA Hazardous 
Substances at Facilities in the Electric Power Generation, 
Transmission and Distribution Industry, June 2019.
    \33\ Review of Existing Financial Responsibility Laws 
Potentially Applicable to Classes of Facilities in the Electric 
Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Industry, June 
2019.
    \34\ Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the 
Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution Industry, 
June 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the July 29, 2019 proposed rule, EPA had developed 
an analytic approach to determine whether the current risk under a 
modern regulatory framework within the electric power generation, 
transmission and distribution industry rose to a level that warrants 
imposition of financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA 
Section 108(b).\35\ Earthjustice commented that the term ``modern'' is 
not an objective standard, and that it ``will change any time any new 
federal or state law is adopted. In effect, under this approach, if a 
new law is adopted tomorrow, EPA can use that law as a basis for 
ignoring all relevant evidence, without regard to whether the new law 
meaningfully addresses the risk of contamination.'' \36\ While the 
Agency agrees the term modern can be subjective, it is used in this 
case to distinguish the current regulatory landscape versus the one 
that existed at the time of the passage of the CERCLA statute. 
Acknowledgment of current federal and state laws that specifically 
address risks posed by this industry is appropriate to consider in 
determining whether there is risk of future Fund expenditures. In 
particular, in the proposal, EPA identified the prevalent sources of 
risk that were identified in the cleanup cases reviewed. EPA then 
evaluated the extent to which activities that contributed to the risk 
associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or 
disposal of hazardous substances are now regulated. EPA recognized that 
substantial advances had been made in the development of manufacturing, 
pollution control, and waste

[[Page 77392]]

management practices, as well as the implementation of federal and 
state regulatory programs to both prevent and address such releases at 
facilities in the electric power generation, transmission, and 
distribution industry. This analysis is consistent with the approach 
utilized in the Final Action for Facilities in the Hardrock Mining 
Industry and upheld by the D.C. Circuit.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 84 FR 36535, 36540 (Jul. 29, 2019).
    \36\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0085-0412.
    \37\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494, (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice also raised the point that the existence of federal 
and state regulations does not ensure prevention of releases, and that 
legacy contamination exists at currently operating facilities. EPA 
notes that financial responsibility requirements under Section 108(b) 
would not apply to legacy operations that are no longer operating. 
Rather, any Section 108(b) requirements would apply to facilities that 
follow current industry practices and are subject to the modern 
regulatory framework (i.e., the regulations currently in place that 
apply to the industry). These modern conditions include federal and 
state regulatory requirements and financial responsibility requirements 
that currently apply to operating facilities. In contrast to 
Earthjustice's point, EPA's analysis found that the efficacy of current 
regulations, as well as voluntary industry practices, while difficult 
to quantify, have had a demonstrably positive effect in reducing the 
number of cleanups that require taxpayer expenditures. This was borne 
out in the analyses conducted in the proposed rule, the results of 
which indicated that there was no need for further financial 
responsibility requirements on this industry. An example of an 
important risk reducing requirement, which targets both legacy and 
future releases, is the requirement for groundwater monitoring and for 
corrective action in the 2015 Coal Combustion Residuals rule, for which 
implementation is ongoing.\38\ EPA's 2015 CCR Rule established a first-
ever comprehensive set of minimum requirements for the management and 
disposal of coal ash in landfills and surface impoundments. Among the 
key requirements included in the rule were structural integrity 
criteria for CCR surface impoundments, such as periodic hazard 
potential classification assessments, development of an Emergency 
Action Plan, periodic structural stability assessments that must 
document whether the design, construction, operation and maintenance of 
the unit meets certain stability criteria; periodic safety factor 
assessments (that must be met or closure will be required); and routine 
inspections. The rule also required the installation of groundwater 
monitoring wells and an ongoing groundwater monitoring program designed 
to detect releases of critical constituents, as well as requirements to 
clean up any releases. The combination of these requirements and others 
in the rule have substantially mitigated the risks from these 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of 
Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities, 80 FR 21302, Apr. 
17, 2015 (``2015 CCR Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2015 CCR Rule also established timelines and standards for 
closure and post-closure care. Specifically, the rule requires all CCR 
units to close in accordance with specified standards and to monitor 
and maintain the units for a period of time after closure, including 
the groundwater monitoring and corrective action programs. These 
criteria help ensure the long-term safety of closed CCR units.
    Earthjustice and Human Rights Watch opposed the Agency's reliance 
on the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities 
Final Rule to evaluate risk posed by this industry for two reasons--
first, commenters argued, because it has no proven track record, and 
secondly, the Agency has had to reconsider, on remand, portions of the 
2015 rule as a result of the decision in Utility Solid Waste Activities 
Group (USWAG) et al. v. EPA.\39\ In fact, the USWAG decision 
invalidated only a limited portion of the 2015 rule. Furthermore, the 
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) of 2016 
has enhanced the program by providing EPA additional authorities. 
Section 2301 of the WIIN Act amends Section 4005 of RCRA to provide for 
state CCR permit programs. As a consequence of the D.C. Circuit's 
decision in USWAG, unlined, including clay lined, surface impoundments 
must cease receipt of waste and initiate closure, which will further 
reduce risks to human health and the environment. To implement this 
decision, EPA recently promulgated regulations requiring that unlined 
surface impoundments and CCR units that fail the aquifer location 
restriction cease receiving waste and initiate closure by April 11, 
2021, unless a facility qualifies for one of two narrow extensions. 
Further, EPA is working on developing a permit program that will 
increase the oversight of these facilities. Finally, EPA is diligently 
working with many states to aid in the development of state CCR 
permitting programs that are at least as protective as the federal CCR 
regulations. Before the 2015 CCR Rule was promulgated, states were not 
required to adopt or implement the regulations or to develop a permit 
program. It also did not provide a mechanism for EPA to approve a state 
permit program to operate ``in lieu of'' the federal regulations. The 
WIIN Act provides EPA the authority to review and approve state CCR 
permit programs. The Act also allows EPA to develop permits for those 
units located on tribal lands and, if given specific appropriations, 
EPA will develop a permitting program for those units located in non-
participating states. In addition, EPA must review State permit 
programs at least once every 12 years and in certain specific 
situations. The WIIN Act also expands the enforcement authorities 
available to EPA. EPA may use its information gathering and enforcement 
authorities under RCRA Sections 3007 and 3008 to enforce the 2015 CCR 
Rule or permit provisions. All of these actions will further ensure 
that CCR units are properly regulated to protect human health and the 
environment. Moreover, EPA notes that the Electric Power sector has 
generated very few Superfund sites even prior to the 2015 CCR rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) et al. v. EPA, 
No. 15-1219 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 21, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice disagreed with EPA's screening out from its analyses 
sites where the response actions were funded by private parties as 
opposed to the government. Earthjustice suggested that it is contrary 
to CERCLA to focus only on financial risk. In addition, Earthjustice 
raised concerns about the magnitude and potential long duration of 
cleanups in the industry, in particular at coal ash facilities.
    As a primary matter, EPA's approach and the factors the Agency 
considered to determine whether or not financial responsibility 
requirement were appropriate for the electric power generation, 
transmission, and distribution industry is consistent with CERCLA (see 
Statutory Interpretation section above). A chief factor was the results 
of EPA's cleanup case analysis which involved a systematic examination 
of Superfund sites (NPL, removal, SAA) and CCR damage cases. EPA's 
analysis, described in detail in section VII of the proposed rule,\40\ 
showed that facilities in the sector have not historically burdened the 
Fund. First, the Agency identified very few NPL sites with pollution 
associated with the electric power generation, transmission, and 
distribution industry. Of the only five NPL sites associated with the 
Electric Power industry

[[Page 77393]]

identified, all were either the product of legacy contamination or had 
PRP leads conducting the cleanup. The Agency also reviewed 27 CCR 
damage cases and 24 Superfund removal sites associated with the 
industry and identified only two removal sites where addressing 
pollution from a modern operation required Superfund expenditures. This 
minimal historical fund burden is, in part, due to the fact that the 
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) led many of the cleanups 
identified. For example, all of the NPL sites associated with the 
industry were PRP-led as were all of the CCR damage cases for which 
cleanup lead information was available. Further supporting this finding 
is the fact that when a cleanup is required under Superfund or 
corrective action, financial assurance is typically required. Moreover, 
as discussed below, EPA conducted additional research into examples of 
releases at facilities in the electric power generation, transmission, 
and distribution industry identified by commenters. That additional 
research did not identify any new examples of the Superfund program 
bearing the costs of a cleanup. The limited number of actions within 
the sector, combined with its track record of funding cleanups weighs 
against the need for regulation under CERCLA Section 108(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 84 FR 36535, 36543 (July 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment also intended to suggest that CERCLA Section 108(b) 
financial responsibility could promote rapid cleanup in instances of 
pollution. As a primary matter, this is not necessarily the case. EPA 
believes any CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility required 
for any industry would complement existing Superfund processes by 
offering a financial backstop for CERCLA costs and damages (see the 
relevant language at 84 FR 3400 included in the hardrock mining 
proposal). The financial responsibility would not modify the existing 
Superfund enforcement authorities, including those to gather 
information, identify responsible parties, effect cleanup (especially 
through EPA's enforcement first policy), assess penalties, or provide 
for citizen suits. In instances where releases occurred that required a 
Superfund cleanup the same Superfund process would occur as does today.
    Of note is that the Superfund program protects human health and the 
environment regardless of whether or not financial responsibility is in 
place. EPA can invoke its enforcement authorities to protect human 
health and the environment. For example, EPA can issue a Unilateral 
Administrative Order or conduct a removal action to mitigate potential 
risks posed by the site conditions. If the Agency has to use fund 
resources to conduct a cleanup, EPA can take an enforcement action to 
recover its CERCLA costs and replenish government resources. It is thus 
not accurate to suggest a lack of CERCLA Section 108(b) financial 
responsibility would result in delays of cleanup and therefore an 
increased risk to human health and the environment.
    Earthjustice took issue with EPA's interpretation of the statute, 
stating that EPA's ``interpretation of the statute to focus solely on 
the risk of a taxpayer bailout of insolvent companies is contrary to 
law, because this is not the purpose of CERCLA.'' \41\ Earthjustice 
contends that EPA ignored significant risks to human health and the 
environment. The primary example offered by the commenters was risk to 
human health and drinking water sources from coal ash. EPA believes 
that the site analysis for this rulemaking effectively considered human 
health and environmental risk in multiple steps. First, EPA examined 
through the Agency's industry practices and environmental 
characterization analysis the operational practices and environmental 
profile of the electric power generation, transmission, and 
distribution industry. This analysis included an examination of the 
potentially hazardous materials used in the industry, hazardous wastes 
generated by industry processes, the units used to manage wastes at 
these sites, how on-site management of these materials can potentially 
contribute to releases, and what contaminants might be released by the 
industry that could impact human health and the environment. Next, EPA 
investigated in what ways the industry is subject to a wide range of 
modern federal and state regulatory requirements and enforcement 
oversight imposed to address this potential human health and 
environment risk. In these analyses, EPA outlined the framework of 
modern federal and state regulatory programs to which the industry is 
subject,\42\ and also examined compliance and enforcement for the 
industry,\43\ which collectively demonstrate how these components work 
to address potential risk for modern industry operations. Overall, 
EPA's full analytic approach developed for the proposed rule examined 
sites with a variety of contaminants and contaminated media. In effect, 
the analysis considered the types of human health and environmental 
risk the Superfund program was designed to address, and that would be 
addressed by any CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility. This 
analysis employed by the Agency is consistent with EPA's interpretation 
of the statutory language and was upheld by the D.C. Circuit,\44\ which 
found that EPA's focus on risk of taxpayer-funded response actions was 
reasonable. Specifically, the Court stated in its decision, ``we defer 
to the EPA's interpretation that it should set financial responsibility 
regulations based on financial risks, not risks to health and the 
environment.'' \45\ EPA's analysis based on this interpretation showed 
that there is little evidence of the facilities operating under a 
modern regulatory framework burdening the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0085-0412.
    \42\ Summary Report: Federal and State Environmental Regulations 
and Industry Voluntary Programs in Place to Address CERCLA Hazardous 
Substances at Facilities in the Electric Power Generation, 
Transmission and Distribution Sector, June 2019.
    \43\ Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the 
Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution Industry, 
June 2019.
    \44\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
    \45\ Id. at 504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional related concern of Earthjustice was that EPA's 
analysis of the economics of the industry identified risks in certain 
subsectors of the electric power generation, transmission, and 
distribution industry and thus, the commenter argues, those subsectors 
merit regulation under Section 108(b). To further assess these concerns 
related to the financial risks posed by the industry, EPA updated its 
analysis supporting the Economic Sector Profile originally conducted in 
support of the proposed rulemaking. This updated analysis finds the 
financial stability of the industry relatively unchanged from the 
original report, further suggesting that the economic conditions of the 
industry as a whole are not at undue risk.\46\ Numerous commenters also 
provided further evidence in response to information presented in the 
proposed rule regarding the positive economic standing of the electric 
power generation, transmission, and distribution industry. Commenters 
attributed the positive economic standing to attributes such as the 
industry's critical monopolistic commodity, inherent governmental 
nature and oversight, transparent corporate structures, public service 
goals, broad adherence to strict accounting standards set forth by the 
Governmental Accounting Standards

[[Page 77394]]

Board (GASB), and lower relative costs of securing capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Addendum Update to CERCLA 108(b) Economic Sector Profile: 
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Industry, 
May 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters also pointed more specifically to the market 
decline in coal-fired power generation as a source of particular 
concern. In both the original Economic Sector Profile and Updated 
Addendum, EPA acknowledges that this subsector is in a period of 
transition and on weaker standing compared to the industry overall. 
However, analyses by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) forecast 
that by 2025, the rate of coal plant retirements will stabilize, with 
steady coal-based generation thereafter over the longer term.\47\ 
Furthermore, characteristics of diversity in terms of organizational 
structure, ownership type, and energy portfolios are expected to help 
further stabilize this subsector. Thus, while the subsector may 
experience a continued decline in capacity and generation levels in the 
near term, it is forecasted to stabilize and continue to play a 
material role in electricity generation for decades, even as renewable 
generation capacity increases significantly. As such, EPA believes 
that, as with the industry as a whole, the financial stability of this 
subsector similarly negates the need for regulation under CERCLA 
Section 108(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (AEO 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also included in the comments were examples of recent accidents and 
releases at facilities in the electric power generation, transmission, 
and distribution industry, in particular facilities that manage CCRs. 
EPA appreciated the comments and undertook additional due diligence to 
examine some of these releases and accidents referenced by the 
commenter. While most accidents and releases do not lead to Superfund 
responses, Fund expenditures, or CERCLA liability claims, and the 
commenters provided no indication a Superfund response resulted from 
the incidents in question, EPA acknowledged the possibility that some 
of these releases and accidents may have required Superfund actions, 
which the Agency may have missed in the analysis conducted as part of 
the proposal. As such, EPA examined a selection of the cases referenced 
by the commenter to better understand the consequences of these 
incidents, to the extent possible.
    In the case of the electric power generation, transmission, and 
distribution industry proposal, many of the referenced releases were 
legacy issues which the 2015 CCR rule was designed to address. EPA did 
not conduct further research into these examples. Likewise, EPA did not 
conduct further research into accidents and releases referenced by 
commenters that were already accounted for in the proposed rule. Only a 
small number of facilities with releases identified by commenters may 
have represented instances of pollution occurring under a modern 
regulatory framework resulting in a taxpayer funded Superfund action 
that were not already accounted for by the EPA proposal. EPA examined 
these few facilities in greater detail. In all cases, EPA determined 
that the contamination was a legacy issue stemming from the 1970s and 
1980s. Moreover, the pollution was abated, and the owner or operator 
has or is addressing the issue in all of the cases. As such, EPA does 
not believe the incidents cited by commenters merit a change in 
direction from the original proposal. More information on the incidents 
cited by commenters and researched by EPA is provided in the docket in 
the spreadsheet titled NAICS 2211 Incident research containing the 
information gathered, information sources considered and summary 
findings.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See spreadsheet, in docket for this action, titled ``NAICS 
2211_Incident research.xlsx''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Decision To Not Impose Requirements

    Based on the analyses conducted for the July 29, 2019 proposed 
rule, described in detail in the background documents for that 
document, as well as additional analyses conducted in response to 
comments received on that document, the Agency is finalizing the 
decision that the degree and duration of risk posed by the electric 
power generation, transmission and distribution industry does not 
warrant financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 
108(b). As such, this rulemaking will not impose CERCLA Section 108(b) 
financial responsibility requirements for facilities in the electric 
power generation, transmission, and distribution industry. EPA did not 
receive evidence from any commenter that changed the Agency's 
determination from that proposed previously.
    Central to this final rulemaking decision is EPA's position that 
the analyses conducted for the proposal are consistent with the 
statutory language of CERCLA Section 108(b), described in Section IV 
above (Statutory Interpretation). EPA is further assured of this 
position following the decision by the D.C. Circuit that upheld EPA's 
interpretation of the statutory language of CERCLA Section 108(b).\49\ 
The analyses consistent with this interpretation showed that under the 
modern regulatory framework that applies to the electric power 
generation, transmission, and distribution industry, little evidence of 
burden to the Fund by facilities in this industry exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the evaluation of the electric power generation, 
transmission and distribution industry conclusively demonstrates, by 
the low occurrence of cleanup sites that significantly impact the Fund, 
low risk of a Fund-financed response action at current electric power 
generation, transmission and distribution operations. The reduction in 
risks, relative to when CERCLA was first established, attributable to 
the requirements of existing regulatory programs and voluntary 
practices combined with reduced costs to the taxpayer--demonstrated by 
EPA's cleanup case analysis, existing financial responsibility 
requirements, and enforcement actions--has reduced the need for 
federally-financed response action at facilities in the electric power 
generation, transmission and distribution industry.

VI. Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry

A. Proposed Rule

    On December 23, 2019, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) on the second of the three additional industries.\50\ In that 
document, the Agency proposed to not impose financial responsibility 
requirements for the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry 
and described the analyses and results that were used to reach that 
decision. The Agency received 10,381 comments on this proposed 
rulemaking, of which 10,216 were from a mass mail campaign and 165 
comments were unique. Comments received on the proposal and the 
Agency's responses are laid out in the Response to Comments document 
found in the docket to this final rulemaking.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 84 FR 70467 (Dec. 23, 2019).
    \51\ Response to Comments Document: Financial Responsibility 
Requirement Under CERCLA 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the 
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry, November, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Key Comments Received and Agency Response

    Of the 165 unique comments received on the December 23, 2019 NPRM, 
6 were in support of the Agency's proposal to not impose financial

[[Page 77395]]

responsibility requirements for the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry and 159 were opposed, which includes 142 
comments that were associated with the mass mail campaign and 17 other 
unique comments.
1. Comments in Support of the Proposal
    The Agency received comments from the American Coke and Coal 
Chemicals Institute, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, 
the American Petroleum Institute (API), Sun Coke Energy, the Superfund 
Settlements Project, and a multi-industry comment from the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce in support of the proposed rule.
    Commenters in support of the proposal said that petroleum 
refineries are owned by very large and stable companies with superior 
economic resources, and that modern regulations adequately mitigate 
risks posed by the industry. One commenter stated that ``of all the 
petroleum refineries that have closed since 1990, not a single facility 
has been added to the NPL that required the expenditure of public 
funds.'' Further, they added that ``legacy sites that have been 
addressed through Superfund largely operated prior to the 
implementation of the modern regulatory system and are not 
representative of today's petroleum refinery operations.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0087-0468.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, commenters on the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry proposal positively cited the July 19, 2019 
opinion from the D.C. Circuit, as support for the Agency's final action 
to not impose CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility 
requirements for facilities in the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments Opposed to the Proposal
    Of the 159 comments received that were opposed to the proposed 
rule, 158 were from private citizens, including 142 comments that were 
associated with the mass mail campaign and 16 other unique comments, 
and one was from Earthjustice. The comments from private citizens 
concerned holding petroleum and coal products manufacturers accountable 
for environmental damages as a result of their actions. Many commenters 
were under the belief that the Agency was ``rolling back'' existing 
regulations requiring industry accountability. In fact, this rulemaking 
does not revoke or reverse any existing regulations. As with the other 
industries, the Agency's decision to not impose financial 
responsibility requirements under Section 108(b) does not diminish 
liability under CERCLA, and the cost of cleanups will continue to be 
the responsibility of the PRPs, not the Fund. Earthjustice submitted 
comments on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, Center for 
Biological Diversity, Earthworks, Sierra Club, Idaho Conservation 
League, Amigos Bravos, Great Basin Resource Watch, and Public Citizen.
    Many of the comments received on the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry proposal were critical of the Agency's 
interpretation of the statute and the analyses EPA conducted to 
conclude that no CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility rules 
are necessary. The statutory interpretation presented in the CERCLA 
Section 108(b) Hardrock Mining Final Rule (described in Statutory 
Interpretation section above) continues to be the view of the Agency, 
and that interpretation is not reopened here. After consideration of 
the critical comments, EPA still concludes that the analyses conducted 
and information considered were appropriate, consistent with CERCLA, 
and show that risk posed by the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry does not warrant financial responsibility 
requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b).
    As part of its petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry 
proposal, EPA systematically evaluated CERCLA NPL, Superfund 
Alternative Approach (SAA), and removal sites in the industry where 
releases and cleanup actions occurred. Specifically, EPA developed an 
analytic approach that considered cleanup cases to identify risk at 
currently operating facilities and where taxpayer funds were expended 
for response action. See discussion in the proposed rule \54\ for a 
detailed description of the analysis conducted. EPA's review of the 
Superfund NPL, SAA, and removal sites associated with the industry 
found that, overwhelmingly, the industry was practicing responsibly 
within the current regulatory framework, with just one site indicating 
a significant impact to the Fund while operating under the modern 
regulatory framework. EPA described this site in detail in the Removals 
Site Analysis background document to the proposal.\55\ EPA believes 
that the small set of federally funded cleanup cases due to recent 
contamination does not warrant the imposition of costly financial 
responsibility requirements on the entire petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry under CERCLA Section 108(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 84 FR 70475-70482.
    \55\ Identification and Evaluation of CERCLA 108(b) Petroleum 
and Coal Products Manufacturing non-National Priorities List (NPL) 
Removal Sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as part of its proposal, to understand the modern 
regulatory framework applicable to currently operating facilities 
within the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry, EPA 
compiled applicable federal and state regulations.\56\ Specifically, 
EPA looked to regulations that address the types of releases identified 
in the cleanup cases. This review also considered industry voluntary 
programs that could reduce risk of releases. Finally, EPA also 
identified financial responsibility regulations that apply to 
facilities in the petroleum and coal products manufacturing 
industry,\57\ and compliance and enforcement history for the relevant 
regulations.\58\ Based on this review, and after reviewing the comments 
received, EPA maintains its preliminary conclusion that the network of 
federal and state regulations applicable to the petroleum and coal 
products manufacturing industry creates a comprehensive framework that 
applies to prevent releases that could result in a need for a Fund-
financed response action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Summary Report: Federal and State Environmental Regulations 
and Industry Voluntary Programs in Place to Address CERCLA Hazardous 
Substances at Petroleum Refineries and Other Petroleum and Coal 
Products Manufacturing Facilities.
    \57\ Review of Existing Financial Responsibility Laws 
Potentially Applicable to Classes of Facilities in the Petroleum and 
Coal Products Manufacturing Industry.
    \58\ Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the 
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the December 23, 2019 proposed rule, EPA had 
developed an analytic approach to determine whether the current risk 
under a modern regulatory framework within the petroleum and coal 
products manufacturing industry rose to a level that warrants 
imposition of financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA 
Section 108(b).\59\ Earthjustice commented that relying on the term 
``modern'' is EPA's ``basis for ignoring significant evidence of 
risk.'' \60\ The Agency uses the term modern in this case to 
distinguish the current regulatory landscape versus the one that 
existed at the time of the passage of the CERCLA statute. 
Acknowledgment of

[[Page 77396]]

current federal and state laws that specifically address risks posed by 
this industry is appropriate to consider in determining whether there 
is risk of future Fund expenditures. In particular, in the proposal, 
EPA identified the prevalent sources of risk that were identified in 
the cleanup cases reviewed. EPA then evaluated the extent to which 
activities that contributed to the risk associated with the production, 
transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances 
are now regulated. EPA recognized that substantial advances had been 
made in the development of manufacturing, pollution control, and waste 
management practices, as well as the implementation of federal and 
state regulatory programs to both prevent and address such releases at 
facilities in the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry. 
This analysis is consistent with the approach utilized in the Final 
Action for Facilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry and upheld by the 
D.C. Circuit.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 84 FR 36540 (Jul. 29, 2019).
    \60\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0087-0474.
    \61\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494, (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice also raised the point that the existence of federal 
and state regulations does not ensure prevention of releases, and that 
legacy contamination exists at currently operating facilities. EPA 
notes that financial responsibility requirements under Section 108(b) 
would not apply to legacy operations that are no longer operating. 
Rather, any Section 108(b) requirements would apply to facilities that 
follow current industry practices and are subject to the modern 
regulatory framework (i.e., the regulations currently in place that 
apply to the industry). These modern conditions include federal and 
state regulatory requirements and financial responsibility requirements 
that currently apply to operating facilities. In contrast to 
Earthjustice's point, EPA's analysis found that the efficacy of current 
regulations, as well as voluntary industry practices, while difficult 
to quantify, have had a demonstrably positive effect in reducing the 
number of cleanups that require taxpayer expenditures. This was borne 
out in the analyses conducted in the proposed rule, the results of 
which indicated that there was no need for further financial 
responsibility requirements on this industry.
    Earthjustice disagreed with EPA's screening out from its analyses 
sites where the response actions were funded by private parties as 
opposed to the government. Earthjustice suggested that it is contrary 
to CERCLA to focus only on financial risk. In addition, Earthjustice 
raised concerns about the magnitude and potential long duration of 
cleanups in the industry.
    As a primary matter, EPA's approach and the factors the Agency 
considered to determine whether or not financial responsibility 
requirements were appropriate for the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry is consistent with CERCLA (see Statutory 
Interpretation section above). A chief factor was the results of EPA's 
cleanup case analysis which involved a systematic examination of 
Superfund sites (NPL, removal, and SAA). EPA's analysis, described in 
detail in section VII of the proposed rule,\62\ showed that facilities 
in the sector have not historically burdened the Fund in that the 
Agency identified only one site where pollution from a modern operation 
required significant Superfund expenditures to address. None of the NPL 
sites burdened the Fund with pollution that occurred while operating 
under a modern regulatory framework. This is, in part, due to the fact 
that the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) led many of the 
cleanups identified. For example, 19 of the 34 NPL sites associated 
with the industry were PRP led. Further supporting this finding is the 
fact that when a cleanup is required under Superfund or corrective 
action or RCRA, financial assurance is typically required. Moreover, as 
discussed below, EPA conducted additional research into examples of 
releases at facilities in the petroleum and coal products manufacturing 
industry by commenters. That additional research identified only four 
new examples of the Superfund program bearing the costs of a cleanup. 
The limited number of actions within the sector, combined with its 
track record of funding cleanups weighs against the need for regulation 
under CERCLA Section 108(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 84 FR 70467, 70475 (Dec. 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment also intended to suggest that CERCLA Section 108(b) 
financial responsibility could promote rapid cleanup in instances of 
pollution. As a primary matter, this is not necessarily the case. EPA 
believes any CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility required 
for any industry would complement existing Superfund processes by 
offering a financial backstop for CERCLA costs and damages (see the 
relevant language at 84 FR 3400 included in the hardrock mining 
proposal). The financial responsibility would not modify the existing 
Superfund enforcement authorities, including those to gather 
information, identify responsible parties, effect cleanup (especially 
through EPA's enforcement first policy), assess penalties, or provide 
for citizen suits. In instances where releases occurred that required a 
Superfund cleanup, the same Superfund process would occur as does 
today.
    Of note is that the Superfund program protects human health and the 
environment regardless of whether or not financial responsibility is in 
place. EPA can invoke its enforcement authorities to protect human 
health and the environment. For example, EPA can issue a Unilateral 
Administrative Order or conduct a removal action to mitigate potential 
risks posed by the site conditions. If the Agency has to use fund 
resources to conduct a cleanup, EPA can take an enforcement action to 
recover its CERCLA costs and replenish government resources. It is thus 
not accurate to suggest a lack of CERCLA Section 108(b) financial 
responsibility would result in delays of cleanup and therefore an 
increased risk to human health and the environment.
    Earthjustice took issue with EPA's interpretation of the statute, 
stating that EPA's ``interpretation of the statute to focus solely on 
the risk of a taxpayer bailout of insolvent companies is contrary to 
law, because this is not the purpose of CERCLA.'' \63\ Earthjustice 
contends that EPA ignored significant risks to human health and the 
environment. Specifically, the comment stated the Agency ignored vast 
amounts of data that links large oil refineries to toxic pollutants 
contaminating drinking water. EPA believes that the site analysis for 
this rulemaking effectively considered human health and environmental 
risk in multiple steps. First, EPA examined through the Agency's 
industry practices and environmental characterization analysis the 
operational practices and environmental profile of the petroleum and 
coal products manufacturing industry. This analysis included an 
examination of the potentially hazardous materials used in the 
industry, hazardous wastes generated by industry processes, the units 
used to manage wastes at these sites, how on-site management of these 
materials can potentially contribute to releases, and what contaminants 
might be released by the industry that could impact human health and 
the environment. Next, EPA investigated in what ways the industry is 
subject to a wide range of modern federal and state regulatory 
requirements and enforcement oversight imposed to address this 
potential

[[Page 77397]]

human health and environment risk. In these analyses, EPA outlined the 
framework of modern federal and state regulatory programs to which the 
industry is subject,\64\ and also examined compliance and enforcement 
for the industry,\65\ which collectively demonstrate how these 
components work to address potential risk for modern industry 
operations. Overall, EPA's full analytic approach developed for the 
proposed rule examined sites with a variety of contaminants and 
contaminated media. In effect, the analysis considered the types of 
human health and environmental risk the Superfund program was designed 
to address, and that would be addressed by any CERCLA Section 108(b) 
financial responsibility. This analysis employed by the Agency is 
consistent with EPA's interpretation of the statutory language and was 
upheld by the D.C. Circuit,\66\ which found that EPA's focus on risk of 
taxpayer-funded response actions was reasonable. Specifically, the 
Court stated in its decision, ``we defer to the EPA's interpretation 
that it should set financial responsibility regulations based on 
financial risks, not risks to health and the environment.'' EPA's 
analysis based on this interpretation showed that there is little 
evidence of the facilities operating under a modern regulatory 
framework burdening the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Summary Report: Federal and State Environmental Regulations 
and Industry Voluntary Programs in Place to Address CERCLA Hazardous 
Substances at Petroleum Refineries and Other Petroleum and Coal 
Products Manufacturing Facilities.
    \65\ Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the 
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry.
    \66\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the commenters asserted that, too often, companies file for 
bankruptcy and avoid financial responsibility for cleaning up harmful 
pollution. To further assess these concerns, EPA updated its analysis 
supporting the Economic Sector Profile originally conducted in support 
of the proposed rulemaking. This update was conducted with data 
available concurrent with the close of comment period for the proposed 
rule. This updated analysis finds the financial stability of the 
industry relatively unchanged from the original report, further 
suggesting that the economic conditions of the industry as a whole are 
not at undue risk.\67\ In addition, no evidence was identified or 
provided by commenters that EPA could use to determine that companies 
in this industry were found to have avoided responsibility for cleanup 
costs that resulted in CERCLA funds being expended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Addendum Update to CERCLA 108(b) Economic Sector Profile: 
NAICS 324--Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing; May 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also included in comments from Earthjustice were examples of recent 
accidents and releases at petroleum refineries.\68\ EPA appreciated the 
comments and undertook additional due diligence to examine and analyze 
some of these releases and accidents referenced by the commenter. While 
most accidents and releases do not lead to Superfund responses, Fund 
expenditures, or CERCLA liability claims, and the commenters provided 
no indication a Superfund response resulted from the incidents in 
question, EPA acknowledged that it is possible some of these releases 
and accidents may have required Superfund actions which the Agency may 
have missed in the analysis conducted as part of the proposal. As such, 
EPA examined a selection of the cases referenced by Earthjustice to 
better understand the consequences of these incidents, to the extent 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0087-0474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of the petroleum and coal products manufacturing 
industry proposal, the selection criteria were based on whether or not 
releases to land or water were indicated, whether or not data were 
available, and whether or not the facility was already in the Agency's 
record. Many of the referenced releases were in the form of data sets 
of compiled releases. In some cases, there was insufficient information 
for EPA to identify the underlying data sources or names of specific 
facilities and thus EPA was unable to conduct further research into 
those incidents. One specific site referenced, the Oklahoma Refining 
Company site, was already included in the NPL sites reviewed as part of 
the proposal and thus was not investigated further. In that case, the 
contamination at the site was the result of legacy practices that pre-
dated RCRA and many other environmental protections. Finally, EPA did 
not conduct additional investigation into specific incidents of flaring 
identified by the commenter at refineries, as the practice is actually 
a common safety practice and highly unlikely to require a response 
action.
    In addition to the facilities selected for research using the above 
criteria, EPA was able to conduct additional research on a sample of 20 
sites provided in a data set from the California Office of Emergency 
Services referenced by the commenter. In total, EPA conducted research 
into 43 petroleum and coal products manufacturing facilities with 
releases or accidents identified by commenters that may have 
represented instances of pollution occurring under a modern regulatory 
framework resulting in a taxpayer funded Superfund action.
    Generally, the incidents EPA researched fell into three categories: 
(1) Catastrophic fires, explosions, or environmental releases that 
endangered worker and community safety and/or caused environmental 
harm; (2) Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and RCRA violations records; 
and (3) flaring and other minor refinery incidents that were reported 
to the California Office of Emergency Services. The majority of the 
information collected about those incidents as part of the 
supplementary research effort indicated that other primary responders 
and enforcing agencies (such as the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA), or state and county agencies) managed the 
situation, or that it was unclear or unlikely that environmental 
contamination had occurred as a result of the incident. In total, five 
of the incidents resulted in EPA response action and/or expenditure. 
Four of these were removal actions and one an enforcement action. Of 
these five, the information collected suggests that EPA was able to 
recover its response costs from the potentially responsible parties 
(PRPs) at one of the sites. In the remaining four, the EPA Superfund 
expenditures to date have been minimal. The sites (or incidents, 
identified by site) and the associated expenditures (listed in 
parentheses) are the Philadelphia Energy Solutions site in 
Philadelphia, PA ($85,000), the Husky Refinery in Superior, WI 
($200,000), the Chevron Refinery Fire in Richmond, CA ($16,250), and 
the Caribbean Petroleum Refining Tank Explosion and Fire in Bayamon, PR 
($178,295). Recovery of these minimal costs is possible in light of the 
viable owners and operators at the sites that plan to either redevelop 
the site or rebuild the facility. For example, at the Philadelphia 
Energy Solutions site, the current owner operator plans to permanently 
close the refinery and redevelop the property. A former owner operator 
is already conducting cleanup of pollution at the site that existed as 
of 2012 under a 2012 RCRA/CERCLA settlement that includes a financial 
assurance requirement.\69\ Additionally,

[[Page 77398]]

at two of the sites the owner or operator have agreed to conduct 
significant environmental work as part of settlements with EPA and 
other parties. Accordingly, EPA does not believe the incidents cited by 
commenters merit a change in direction from the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ In the matter of Philadelphia Energy Solutions LLC and 
Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC: Settlement 
Agreement and Covenant not to Sue. Docket number CERC/RCRA-03-2012-
0224DC (August 17. 2012). Available in docket as PDF titled ``Sunoco 
PPA Executed 8 17 12.pdf.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, these examples of releases indicated that the modern 
regulatory framework has robust response and coordination mechanisms in 
place to respond to such incidents. The major releases triggered 
responses from a variety of parties including state and federal 
environmental regulators and state and federal occupational safety 
responses that undertook appropriate actions (e.g., fines, orders). For 
example, at the 2007 Valero refinery fire in Sunray, TX, both EPA and 
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) responded to the 
incident. TCEQ conducted some initial air monitoring and sampling at 
the site. Valero conducted all other response activities: Fire 
suppression, asbestos air sampling, wet removal of asbestos debris, air 
monitoring, neutralization of acid spill, assessment of leaking propane 
line, and assessment of all units for damage. EPA and TCEQ monitored 
progress at the facility, but departed the site three days after the 
fire on account of the situation being stable. More information on the 
incidents cited by commenters and researched by EPA is provided in the 
docket in the spreadsheet titled NAICS 324 Incident research containing 
the information gathered, information sources considered and summary 
findings.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See spreadsheet, in docket for this action, titled ``NAICS 
324_Incident research.xlsx''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to completing examination of the incidents cited in 
comments, EPA is also aware of some recent incidents of releases from 
refinery facilities, for example the ExxonMobil Fire in Baton Rouge, 
LA. This example exhibits coordinated response of local and federal 
services that demonstrate the expected performance of the modern 
regulatory framework. At the ExxonMobil refinery fire, which occurred 
on Feb. 11, 2020, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 
(LDEQ) and the Baton Rouge Fire Department (BRFD) Hazmat team responded 
to the incident and conducted offsite air monitoring. EPA also 
mobilized a Superfund Technical Assessment & Response Team contractor 
to the site.\71\ ExxonMobil conducted multiple rounds of air monitoring 
of the facility, and readings were found to be below the state's 
ambient air standards.\72\ At this site, the local authorities were 
able to respond quickly and in cooperation with the company to ensure 
that risk was promptly assessed and addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ US EPA Emergency Operations Center Spot Report: Region 6, 
ExxonMobil Refinery Fire Baton Rouge, LA, NRC#1271029, February 12, 
2020.
    \72\ See ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Refinery Fire Response--February 
2020 https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/locations/United-States-operations/Baton-Rouge/021120-Baton-Rouge-Refinery-information.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this incident was not cited by commenters, and though 
releases to air as occurred in this example have not been identified as 
prevalent causes of inclusion of a site on the NPL, EPA offers that the 
prompt response that took place following this incident illustrates the 
protective function of the modern regulatory framework. Coordinated 
responses at petroleum and coal products manufacturing facilities when 
incidents do occur lessen the likelihood of these facilities becoming 
Superfund sites, which further weighs against the need for financial 
responsibility requirements for the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry under CERCLA Section 108(b). Furthermore, this 
response demonstrates that authorities already in place to respond to 
incidents provide state and local entities the tools to take actions 
that address many of the risks that might result in a Superfund site.

C. Decision To Not Impose Requirements

    Based on the analyses conducted for the December 23, 2019 proposed 
rule, described in detail in the background documents for that 
document, as well as additional analyses conducted in response to 
comments received on that document, the Agency is finalizing the 
decision that the degree and duration of risk posed by the petroleum 
and coal products manufacturing industry does not warrant financial 
responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b). As such, this 
rulemaking will not impose CERCLA Section 108(b) financial 
responsibility requirements for facilities in the petroleum and coal 
products manufacturing industry. EPA did not receive evidence from any 
commenter that changed the Agency's determination from that proposed 
previously.
    Central to this final rulemaking decision is EPA's position that 
the analyses conducted for the proposal are consistent with the 
statutory language of CERCLA Section 108(b), described in Section IV 
above (Statutory Interpretation). EPA is further assured of this 
position following the decision by the D.C. Circuit that upheld EPA's 
interpretation of the statutory language of CERCLA Section 108(b).\73\ 
The analyses consistent with this interpretation showed that under the 
modern regulatory framework that applies to the petroleum and coal 
products manufacturing industry, little evidence of burden to the Fund 
by facilities in this industry exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the evaluation of the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry conclusively demonstrates, by the low occurrence 
of cleanup sites that significantly impact the Fund, low risk of a 
Fund-financed response action at current petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing operations. The reduction in risks, relative to when 
CERCLA was first established, attributable to the requirements of 
existing federal and state regulatory programs and voluntary practices, 
combined with reduced costs to the taxpayer--demonstrated by EPA's 
cleanup case analysis, existing financial responsibility requirements, 
and enforcement actions--has reduced the need for federally-financed 
response action at facilities in the petroleum and coal products 
manufacturing industry.

VII. Chemical Manufacturing Industry

A. Proposed Rule

    On February 21, 2020, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) on the third of the three additional industries.\74\ In that 
document, the Agency proposed to not impose financial responsibility 
requirements for the chemical manufacturing industry and described the 
analyses and results that were used to reach that decision. Due to the 
COVID-19 pandemic, several commenters requested an extension to the 
comment period. EPA extended the comment period by two weeks in 
response to these requests.\75\ The Agency received 16 comments on this 
proposed rulemaking. Comments received on the proposal and the Agency's 
responses are laid out in the Response to Comments document found in 
the docket to this final rulemaking.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 85 FR 10128 (Feb. 21, 2020).
    \75\ 85 FR 21366 (Apr. 17, 2020).
    \76\ Response to Comments Document: Financial Responsibility 
Requirement Under CERCLA 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry, November, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Key Comments Received and Agency Response

    Of the 16 comments received on the February 21, 2020 NPRM, 6 were 
in support of the Agency's proposal to not impose financial 
responsibility

[[Page 77399]]

requirements for the chemical manufacturing industry and 10 were 
opposed.
1. Comments in Support of the Proposal
    Of the six comments in support of the proposed rule, three were 
from the fertilizer industry; one comment from three associations (the 
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Chemistry 
Council, and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates 
(SOCMA)); one comment from the Superfund Settlements Project; and one 
multi-industry comment from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
    Commenters supporting the proposed rule cited the extensive federal 
and state requirements that are already in place and agreed that no 
additional requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b) are warranted for 
the chemical manufacturing industry. Commenters felt the February 21, 
2020 proposal was fully consistent with EPA's final determination on 
the hardrock mining industry, which was upheld by the D.C. Circuit.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, SOCMA, along with its sister associations, submitted a 
technical report which reviewed EPA's analysis. The report's 
conclusions validate EPA's findings, and concluded that ``taxpayer-
funded cleanups at chemical manufacturing facilities are even less 
likely than EPA estimated.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0086-1036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments Opposed to the Proposal
    Six comments received were from private citizens opposed to the 
proposed rule. Most private citizen commenters opposed to the proposal 
stated a general belief that companies should be liable for their 
pollution, not taxpayers. It should be noted that the Agency's decision 
to not impose financial responsibility requirements under Section 
108(b) does not diminish liability under CERCLA, and the cost of 
cleanups will continue to be the responsibility of the PRPs, not the 
Fund. The Agency also received comments from the Confederated Tribes of 
the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of 
Odawa Indians, and Earthjustice. Earthjustice submitted comments on 
behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, Center for 
International Environmental Law, Public Citizen, Earthworks, Sierra 
Club, Idaho Conservation League, Center for Biological Diversity, Ohio 
Valley Environmental Coalition, and Great Basin Resource Watch.
    Many of the comments received on the chemical manufacturing 
industry proposal were critical of the Agency's interpretation of the 
statute and the analyses EPA conducted to conclude that no CERCLA 
Section 108(b) financial responsibility rules are necessary. The 
statutory interpretation presented in the CERCLA Section 108(b) 
Hardrock Mining Final Rule (described in Statutory Interpretation 
section above) continues to be the view of the Agency, and that 
interpretation is not reopened here. After consideration of the 
critical comments, EPA still concludes that the analyses conducted and 
information considered were appropriate, consistent with CERCLA, and 
show that risk posed by the chemical manufacturing industry does not 
warrant financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 
108(b).
    As part of the chemical manufacturing industry proposal, EPA 
systematically evaluated CERCLA NPL, Superfund Alternative Approach 
(SAA), and removal sites in the industry where releases and cleanup 
actions occurred. Specifically, EPA developed an analytic approach that 
considered cleanup cases to identify instances of releases at currently 
operating facilities where taxpayer funds were expended for response 
action. See discussion in the proposed rule \79\ for a detailed 
description of the analysis conducted. EPA's review of the Superfund 
NPL, SAA, and removal sites associated with the industry found that 34 
sites indicated a potential for a significant impact to the Fund while 
operating under the modern regulatory framework. This is a relatively 
small number of cases in comparison to the approximately 13,480 
establishments currently operating in the industry. As noted above, 
EPA's additional research into facilities referenced by a commenter in 
opposition to the proposal did not identify any additional Superfund 
sites in the industry that had burdened the Fund. EPA believes that the 
small set of federally funded cleanup cases due to recent 
contamination, in view of the size of the industry, does not warrant 
the imposition of costly financial responsibility requirements on the 
entire chemical manufacturing industry under CERCLA Section 108(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 85 FR 10128, 10135-10144 (Feb. 21, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as part of its proposal, to understand the modern 
regulatory framework applicable to currently operating facilities 
within the chemical manufacturing industry, EPA compiled applicable 
federal and state regulations.\80\ Specifically, EPA looked to 
regulations that address the types of releases identified in the 
cleanup cases. This review also considered industry voluntary programs 
that could reduce risk of releases. Finally, EPA also identified 
financial responsibility regulations that apply to facilities in the 
chemical manufacturing industry, \81\ and compliance and enforcement 
history for the relevant regulations.\82\ Regarding concerns expressed 
in the comments, EPA notes that RCRA corrective action is an example of 
a control that could apply broadly in the chemical manufacturing 
industry to facilities that operate as permitted or interim status RCRA 
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. Both current and 
former chemical manufacturing facilities are included in the universe 
of RCRA corrective action facilities. The corrective action program 
achieves risk reduction through two avenues, by providing a mechanism 
to clean up contamination as well as authority to require financial 
assurance. Pursuant to RCRA, as amended by HSWA (Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments), statutory and regulatory requirements, EPA requires 
owners and operators of facilities that treat, store or dispose of 
hazardous waste to investigate and clean up releases of hazardous waste 
and hazardous constituents from any solid waste management units, thus 
reducing the likelihood that these facilities would require cleanup 
under Superfund. RCRA permits issued to TSD facilities must include 
provisions for both corrective action and financial assurance to cover 
the costs of implementing those cleanup measures. EPA also possesses 
additional authorities to order corrective action through enforcement 
orders, which are not contingent upon a facility's permit. EPA asserts 
that these features reduce the likelihood of burden to the Fund. Based 
on this review, and after reviewing the comments received, EPA 
maintains its preliminary conclusion that the network of federal and 
state regulations applicable to the chemical manufacturing industry 
creates a comprehensive framework that applies to prevent releases that 
could result in

[[Page 77400]]

a need for a Fund-financed response action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Summary Report: Federal and State Environmental Regulations 
and Industry Voluntary Programs in Place to Address CERCLA Hazardous 
Substances at Chemical Manufacturing Facilities.
    \81\ Review of Existing Financial Responsibility Laws 
Potentially Applicable to Classes of Facilities in the Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry.
    \82\ Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the February 21, 2020 proposed rule, EPA had 
developed an analytic approach to determine whether the current risk 
under a modern regulatory framework within the chemical manufacturing 
industry rose to a level that warrants imposition of financial 
responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b).\83\ 
Earthjustice commented that relying on the term ``modern'' is EPA's 
``basis for ignoring releases that occurred at facilities before 
1980.'' \84\ The Agency uses the term modern in this case to 
distinguish the current regulatory landscape versus the one that 
existed at the time of the passage of the CERCLA statute. 
Acknowledgment of current federal and state laws that specifically 
address risks posed by this industry is appropriate to consider in 
determining whether there is risk of future Fund expenditures. In 
particular, in the proposal, EPA identified the prevalent sources of 
risk that were identified in the cleanup cases reviewed. EPA then 
evaluated the extent to which activities that contributed to the risk 
associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or 
disposal of hazardous substances are now regulated. EPA recognized that 
substantial advances had been made in the development of manufacturing, 
pollution control, and waste management practices, as well as the 
implementation of federal and state regulatory programs to both prevent 
and address such releases at facilities in the chemical manufacturing 
industry. This analysis is consistent with the approach utilized in the 
Final Action for Facilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry and upheld 
by the D.C. Circuit.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 84 FR 36540 (Jul. 29, 2019).
    \84\ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0086-1036.
    \85\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494, (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice also raised the point that the existence of federal 
and state regulations does not ensure prevention of releases, and that 
legacy contamination exists at currently operating facilities. EPA 
notes that financial responsibility requirements under Section 108(b) 
would not apply to legacy operations that are no longer operating. 
Rather, any Section 108(b) requirements would apply to facilities that 
follow current industry practices and are subject to the modern 
regulatory framework (i.e., the regulations currently in place that 
apply to the industry). These modern conditions include federal and 
state regulatory requirements and financial responsibility requirements 
that currently apply to operating facilities. In contrast to 
Earthjustice's point, EPA's analysis found that the efficacy of current 
regulations, as well as voluntary industry practices, while difficult 
to quantify, have had a demonstrably positive effect in reducing the 
number of cleanups that require taxpayer expenditures. This was borne 
out in the analyses conducted in the proposed rule, the results of 
which indicated that there was no need for further financial 
responsibility requirements on this industry.
    Earthjustice disagreed with EPA's screening out from its analyses 
sites where the response actions were funded by private parties as 
opposed to the government. Earthjustice suggested that it is contrary 
to CERCLA to focus only on financial risk. In addition, Earthjustice 
raised concerns about the magnitude and potential long duration of 
cleanups in the industry.
    As a primary matter, EPA's approach and the factors the Agency 
considered to determine whether or not financial responsibility 
requirement were appropriate for the chemical manufacturing industry is 
consistent with CERCLA (see Statutory Interpretation section above). A 
chief factor of the Agency's determination was the results of EPA's 
cleanup case analysis which involved a systematic examination of 
Superfund sites (NPL, removal, and SAA). EPA's analysis, described in 
detail in section VII of the proposed rule,\86\ showed that few 
facilities operating under modern conditions, in light of the size of 
the industry, have historically burdened the Fund. Specifically, there 
are relatively few NPL and removal sites with pollution that occurred 
under a modern regulatory framework associated with the chemical 
manufacturing industry that required significant Fund expenditures to 
address. This is, in part, due to the fact that the potentially 
responsible parties (PRPs) led approximately half of the cleanups 
identified. Further supporting this finding is the fact that when a 
cleanup is required under Superfund or corrective action or RCRA, 
financial assurance is typically required. Moreover, as discussed 
below, EPA conducted additional research into examples of releases at 
facilities in the chemical manufacturing industry identified by 
commenters. That additional research identified only one new example of 
the Superfund program bearing the costs of a cleanup associated with 
releases occurring under a modern regulatory framework. The limited 
number of actions within the sector, combined with its track record of 
funding cleanups weighs against the need for regulation under CERCLA 
Section 108(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 85 FR 10128, 10135 (Feb. 21, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This comment also intended to suggest that CERCLA Section 108(b) 
financial responsibility could promote rapid cleanup in instances of 
pollution. As a primary matter, this is not necessarily the case. EPA 
believes any CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility required 
for any industry would complement existing Superfund processes by 
offering a financial backstop for CERCLA costs and damages (see the 
relevant language at 84 FR 3400 included in the hardrock mining 
proposal). The financial responsibility would not modify the existing 
Superfund enforcement authorities, including those to gather 
information, identify responsible parties, effect cleanup (especially 
through EPA's enforcement first policy), assess penalties, or provide 
for citizen suits. In instances where releases occurred that required a 
Superfund cleanup, the same Superfund process would occur as does 
today.
    Of note is that the Superfund program protects human health and the 
environment regardless of whether or not financial responsibility is in 
place. EPA can invoke its enforcement authorities to protect human 
health and the environment. For example, EPA can issue a Unilateral 
Administrative Order or conduct a removal action to mitigate potential 
risks posed by the site conditions. If the Agency has to use fund 
resources to conduct a cleanup, EPA can take an enforcement action to 
recover its CERCLA costs and replenish government resources. It is thus 
not accurate to suggest a lack of CERCLA Section 108(b) financial 
responsibility would result in delays of cleanup and therefore an 
increased risk to human health and the environment.
    Earthjustice took issue with EPA's interpretation of the statute, 
stating that EPA's ``interpretation of the statute to focus solely on 
the risk of a taxpayer bailout of insolvent companies is contrary to 
law, because this is not the purpose of CERCLA.'' \87\ Earthjustice 
contends that EPA ignored significant risks to human health and the 
environment. Earthjustice commented on the long and well-established 
history of contamination of the Nation's soil and water due to the 
chemical manufacturing industry, and cited examples of recent cleanups. 
Nevertheless, EPA believes that the site

[[Page 77401]]

analysis for this rulemaking effectively considered human health and 
environmental risk in multiple steps. First, EPA examined through the 
Agency's industry practices and environmental characterization analysis 
the operational practices and environmental profile of the chemical 
manufacturing industry. This analysis included an examination of the 
potentially hazardous materials used in the industry, hazardous wastes 
generated by industry processes, the units used to manage wastes at 
these sites, how on-site management of these materials can potentially 
contribute to releases, and what contaminants might be released by the 
industry that could impact human health and the environment. Next, EPA 
investigated in what ways the industry is subject to a wide range of 
modern federal and state regulatory requirements and enforcement 
oversight imposed to address this potential human health and 
environment risk. In these analyses, EPA outlined the framework of 
modern federal and state regulatory programs to which the industry is 
subject \88\ and also examined compliance and enforcement for the 
industry,\89\ which collectively demonstrate how these components work 
to address potential risk for modern industry operations. Overall, 
EPA's full analytic approach developed for the proposed rule examined 
sites with a variety of contaminants and contaminated media. In effect, 
the analysis considered the types of human health and environmental 
risk the Superfund program was designed to address, and that would be 
addressed by any CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility. This 
analysis employed by the Agency is consistent with EPA's interpretation 
of the statutory language and was upheld by the D.C. Circuit,\90\ which 
found that EPA's focus on risk of taxpayer-funded response actions was 
reasonable. Specifically, the Court stated in its decision, ``we defer 
to the EPA's interpretation that it should set financial responsibility 
regulations based on financial risks, not risks to health and the 
environment.'' EPA's analysis based on this interpretation showed that 
there is little evidence of the facilities operating under a modern 
regulatory framework burdening the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Id.
    \88\ Summary Report: Federal and State Environmental Regulations 
and Industry Voluntary Programs in Place to Address CERCLA Hazardous 
Substances at Chemical Manufacturing Facilities.
    \89\ Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry.
    \90\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters asserted that, too often, companies file for bankruptcy 
and avoid financial responsibility for cleaning up harmful pollution. 
To further assess these concerns, EPA updated its analysis supporting 
the Economic Sector Profile originally conducted in support of the 
proposed rulemaking. These analyses rely on industry-wide ratio 
measures of economic stability that are widely used as standard market 
metrics for such industry by industry comparisons. This update was 
conducted with the most recent prior year's worth of data available at 
the close of comment period for the proposed rule. This updated 
analysis finds the financial stability of the industry relatively 
unchanged from the original report, further suggesting that the 
economic conditions of the industry as a whole are not at undue 
risk.\91\ Added factors such as increased transparency from the 
application of generally accepted accounting practices, and added 
levels of bankruptcy protection against defaults on environmental 
liabilities, while not a guarantee, can reduce potential risks to the 
Fund even further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Addendum Update to CERCLA 108(b) Economic Sector Profile: 
NAICS 325--Chemicals Manufacturing; May 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with Earthjustice's comment suggesting that 
enforcement activities are halted when there are disruptions caused by 
unforeseen circumstances, or that enforcement in general is a weakness 
of the modern regulatory framework structure. The commenter 
specifically referenced a global pandemic, presumably implying that the 
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has halted enforcement at the federal 
and state level. While EPA made certain adjustments that were necessary 
to maintain public safety, EPA disagrees with the commenter's implicit 
claim that enforcement has halted, or that the level of enforcement 
undercuts existing environmental protections or EPA's analysis that 
considered the existing regulations in evaluating the need for CERCLA 
Section 108(b) financial responsibility.
    In fact, EPA's enforcement program remained very active during the 
public health emergency. For example, from March 16-August 31, 2020, 
EPA opened 128 criminal enforcement cases, charged 36 defendants, 
initiated 603 civil enforcement actions, concluded 629 civil 
enforcement actions, secured $80.4 million in Superfund response 
commitments, and obtained commitments from parties to clean up 
1,032,832 cubic yards of contaminated soil and water. The COVID-19 
pandemic has not meaningfully reduced the protectiveness of existing 
environmental laws and regulations.
    Commenters also questioned the performance of the modern regulatory 
framework under the potential increased risk of release posed by 
climate change, seismic hazards and other natural disasters. While most 
accidents and releases do not lead to Superfund responses, Fund 
expenditures, or CERCLA liability claims, and the commenters provided 
no indication a Superfund response resulted from a natural disaster, 
EPA's analysis has shown that existing regulations in the modern 
regulatory framework address these concerns.
    Several environmental laws authorize regulations requiring the 
development of response plans for a variety of emergencies, including 
various natural disasters, in order to reduce the effects of a release, 
and to notify local emergency response personnel and facilitate 
cooperation. For example, under 40 CFR part 264, subpart B, facility 
standards for owner and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage 
and disposal facilities must meet location standards, including 
consideration of seismic environment, floodplains, and salt dome 
formations. Under 40 CFR part 264, subpart D, owners and operators of 
hazardous waste facilities must have a contingency plan designed to 
minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, 
explosions, or the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste 
constituents. The contingency plans establish the actions personnel 
must take in response to fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous 
waste or hazardous waste constituents. Owners and operators may fulfill 
the requirements of this subpart by amending existing emergency 
contingency plans, including Spill Prevention, Control and 
Countermeasure plans.
    In 1989, OSHA promulgated the Hazardous Waste Operations and 
Emergency Response standards (HAZWOPER). HAZWOPER addresses the health 
and safety risks to workers of unexpected releases or the threat of 
releases of hazardous substances that may accompany operational 
failures, natural disasters, or waste dumped in the environment. OSHA 
promulgated the standards to ensure the safe and effective management 
and cleanup of unexpected releases of hazardous substances. The 
regulations require employers to develop a written program for their 
employees to address hazards and provide for emergency response 
actions, including an organizational

[[Page 77402]]

structure, comprehensive work plan, training programs, and medical 
surveillance program. In 2002, OSHA expanded its emergency response 
regulations through the implementation of Emergency Action Plans 
(EAPs). The regulations require that employers prepare a written EAP to 
create practices to follow during workplace emergencies at a given 
facility.
    In addition, EPA implements the Chemical Accident Prevention 
Provisions of Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments, which 
require certain facilities to generate Risk Management Plans to 
mitigate the effects of a chemical accident and to coordinate with 
local response personnel. EPA implements regulations under EPCRA that 
impose emergency planning, reporting, and notification requirements for 
hazardous and toxic chemicals.
    EPA appreciated the comments offering examples of sites of concern 
and undertook additional due diligence to examine some of these 
releases and accidents referenced by the commenter. While most 
accidents and releases do not lead to Superfund responses, Fund 
expenditures, or CERCLA liability claims, EPA acknowledged that it is 
possible some of the releases and accidents may have required Superfund 
actions, which the Agency may have missed in the analysis conducted as 
part of the proposal. As such, EPA examined a selection of the cases 
referenced by Earthjustice to better understand the consequences of 
these incidents, to the extent possible. In the case of the chemicals 
manufacturing industry, most of the facilities referenced by the 
commenters were referenced by facility name. With the exception of two 
facilities already included in the Agency's analysis of NPL cleanup 
sites, EPA conducted additional research into all of the facilities 
referenced.
    The examination of these facilities did not identify any new 
instances of a facility in the chemicals manufacturing industry 
burdening the Superfund, and only one example of a previously 
unidentified CERCLA action. In that one case, a CERCLA enforcement 
action related to the DuPont (now Chemours) plant in Belle, WV, DuPont 
paid a penalty and agreed to corrective actions designed to reduce the 
likelihood of release going forward. Notably, many of the incidents 
were addressed by existing state or federal authorities.
    EPA also examined a couple of geographical areas where the 
commenter alleged cumulative risks from many chemical manufacturing 
facilities presents some additional and unique risk. EPA conducted 
research into the Houston Ship Channel and an 85-mile stretch along the 
banks of the Mississippi River in Louisiana, nicknamed ``Cancer 
Alley'', to identify instances of releases and responses in those areas 
associated with chemical manufacturing facilities. EPA identified 18 
facilities in those geographical areas that appeared to have releases 
or responses worthy of investigation. However, many of the facilities 
had already been considered in the cleanup case analyses done in 
support of the proposal. Additionally, many either did not require 
CERCLA involvement or were addressed and/or funded by the PRP. In 
total, EPA only identified one additional site in those two areas with 
pollution that appeared to occur under a modern regulatory framework 
and where the Fund appeared to have been burdened. This site, the Cusol 
Company, Inc. site in Houston, TX, required an EPA removal action after 
the facility was abandoned in 2005. However, the cleanup activities 
were relatively minor at the site with the removal assessment work 
conducted within three months and the cleanup itself completed within a 
month. The identification of one additional site alone does not change 
EPA's conclusion from the proposal that CERCLA Section 108(b) financial 
responsibility is not necessary for the industry. More information on 
the incidents cited by commenters and researched by EPA is provided in 
the spreadsheet titled NAICS 325 Incident research containing the 
information gathered, information sources considered and summary 
findings.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See spreadsheet, in docket for this action, titled ``NAICS 
325_Incident research.xlsx''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to completing examination of the incidents cited in 
comments, EPA is also aware of some recent incidents of releases from 
chemical manufacturing facilities, for example, the Alchemix Chemical 
Fire in College Park, GA and Poly-America Fire in Grand Prairie, TX. 
Both examples exhibit coordinated response of local and federal 
services that demonstrate the expected performance of the modern 
regulatory framework. In the Alchemix Chemical Fire that occurred on 
July 17, 2020, the Fulton County Emergency Management Director and 
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) requested EPA's 
assistance with air monitoring and response efforts. EPA mobilized an 
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) and Superfund Technical Assessment & 
Response Team (START) resources in response to the fire. The OSC 
arrived on site and worked with the fire chief, GAEPD and a 
representative of the responsible party. After the fire was 
extinguished by the local fire department and the responsible party 
hired an environmental contractor, EPA demobilized, and oversight of 
environmental clean-up was conducted by GAEPD under its state 
authorities.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ US EPA. Emergency Operations Center Spot Report: Region 4, 
Alchemix Chemical Fire, College Park, GA, NRC#1282206, July 18, 
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Poly-America Fire that occurred on August 18, 2020, was 
responded to by local fire departments as part of an Incident 
Management Team under unified command with the City of Grand Prairie 
and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In addition, 
EPA lent specialized expertise in deploying support from EPA 
Consequence Management Advisory Division and START contractors to 
assist in air monitoring in the local area. EPA resources were 
demobilized after no detections at or near screening levels were 
found.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ US EPA. Emergency Operations Center Spot Report: Region 6, 
Poly-America Fire, Grand Prairie, TX, NRC#1284921, August 19, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although these incidents were not cited by commenters, and though 
releases to air as occurred in these examples have not been identified 
as prevalent causes of inclusion of a site on the NPL, EPA offers that 
the prompt responses that took place following these incidents 
illustrate the protective function of the modern regulatory framework. 
Coordinated responses at chemical manufacturing facilities when 
incidents do occur lessen the likelihood of these facilities becoming 
Superfund sites, which further weighs against the need for financial 
responsibility requirements for the chemical manufacturing industry 
under CERCLA Section 108(b). Furthermore, these example responses 
demonstrate that authorities already in place to respond to incidents 
provide state and local entities the tools to take actions that address 
many of the risks that might result in a Superfund site.

C. Decision To Not Impose Requirements

    Based on the analyses conducted for the February 21, 2020 proposed 
rule, described in detail in the background documents for that 
document, as well as additional analyses conducted in response to 
comments received on that document, the Agency is finalizing the 
decision that the degree and duration of risk posed by the chemical 
manufacturing industry does not warrant financial responsibility 
requirements under CERCLA Section

[[Page 77403]]

108(b). As such, this rulemaking will not impose CERCLA Section 108(b) 
financial responsibility requirements for facilities in the chemical 
manufacturing industry. EPA did not receive evidence from any commenter 
that changed the Agency's determination from that proposed previously.
    Central to this final rulemaking decision is EPA's position that 
the analyses conducted for the proposal are consistent with the 
statutory language of CERCLA Section 108(b), described in Section IV 
above (Statutory Interpretation). EPA is further assured of this 
position following the decision by the D.C. Circuit that upheld EPA's 
interpretation of the statutory language of CERCLA Section 108(b).\95\ 
The analyses consistent with this interpretation showed that under the 
modern regulatory framework that applies to the chemical manufacturing 
industry, little evidence of burden to the Fund by facilities in this 
industry exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. 
Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the evaluation of the chemical manufacturing 
industry conclusively demonstrates, by the low occurrence of cleanup 
sites that significantly impact the Fund, low risk of a Fund-financed 
response action at current chemical manufacturing operations. The 
reduction in risks, relative to when CERCLA was first established, 
attributable to the requirements of existing federal and state 
regulatory programs and voluntary practices combined with reduced costs 
to the taxpayer--demonstrated by EPA's cleanup case analysis, existing 
financial responsibility requirements, and enforcement actions--has 
reduced the need for federally-financed response action at facilities 
in the chemical manufacturing industry.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    These actions are significant regulatory actions that were 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, 
because they may raise novel legal or policy issues [3(f)(4)]. Any 
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 
the docket. EPA did not prepare an economic analysis for these final 
rulemakings because no regulatory provisions are being finalized.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This final rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 
(82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this final rule does not alter 
any regulatory requirements.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    These actions do not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA, because they do not impose any regulatory requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that these actions will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. These 
actions will not impose any requirements on small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    These actions do not contain any unfunded mandates as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and do not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, because they do not impose any regulatory 
requirements.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    These actions do not have federalism implications. They will not 
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the Federal Government and the states, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
since they impose no regulatory requirements.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    These actions do not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175, because they impose no regulatory requirements. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these actions. However, 
EPA offered consultation and coordination with federally recognized 
tribes as well as with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporations 
during the rulemaking process. EPA sent notification letters to all 574 
federally recognized tribes and to the 12 Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act Regional Corporation Executive Directors for each of the 
three separate proposals. EPA also held public informational webinars 
for each of the proposed rules and tribes participated in all three 
webinars. EPA received one comment from a tribe on the Electric Power 
Generation, Transmission and Distribution industry proposal and two 
comments on the Chemical Manufacturing industry proposal. All three 
comments opposed the proposal to not impose financial responsibility 
requirements. These comments and EPA's responses are included in the 
Response to Comments documents, which are part of the dockets for these 
final actions.\96\ For more information on the consultation and 
coordination for these rules, see the consultation summaries in the 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Response to Comments Document: Financial Responsibility 
Requirement Under CERCLA 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the 
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Generation Industry, 
November, 2020.; Response to Comments Document: Financial 
Responsibility Requirement Under CERCLA 108(b) for Classes of 
Facilities in the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 
Industry, November, 2020.; Response to Comments Document: Financial 
Responsibility Requirement Under CERCLA 108(b) for Classes of 
Facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry, November, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    These actions are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they 
are not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 
and they do not establish any new environmental health or safety 
standard.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    These actions are not a ``significant energy action'' because they 
are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy, since they impose no regulatory 
requirements; in addition, these actions have not otherwise been 
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    These rulemakings do not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that these actions are not subject to Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because these actions establish 
that no federal CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility 
requirements are necessary and do not establish any new environmental 
health or safety standard. Thus, no review of these final actions under 
Executive Order 12898 is necessary.

[[Page 77404]]

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 320

    Environmental protection, Financial responsibility, Hazardous 
substances.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-26379 Filed 12-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P