National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

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

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires

that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known

releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List

(``NPL'') constitutes this list.

The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') proposes to add new

sites to the NPL. This 17th proposed revision to the NPL includes 6

sites in the General Superfund Section and 4 in the Federal Facilities

Section. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily

to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation

to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental

risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed

remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This action does not

affect the 1,232 sites currently listed on the NPL (1,082 in the

General Superfund Section and 150 in the Federal Facilities Section).

However, it does increase the number of proposed sites to 64 (54 in the

General Superfund Section and 10 in the Federal Facilities Section).

Final and proposed sites now total 1,296.

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

ADDRESSES: Mail original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or

tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket

Office; (Mail Code 5201); Waterside Mall; 401 M Street, SW; Washington,

DC 20460; 202/260-3046. For additional Docket addresses and further

details on their contents, see Section I of the ``Supplementary

Information'' portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Keidan, Hazardous Site

Evaluation Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Mail

Code 5204G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC, 20460, or the Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424-9346

or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction.

II. Purpose and Implementation of the NPL.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule.

IV. Executive Order 12866.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis.

I. Introduction

Background

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or

``the Act'') in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste

sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public Law No. 99-499,

100 Stat. 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, the Environmental

Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') promulgated the revised

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(``NCP''), 40 CFR Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to

CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20,

1981). The NCP sets forth the guidelines and procedures needed to

respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants. EPA has revised the NCP on

several occasions, most recently on July 14, 1994 (59 FR 35852).

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA requires that the NCP include

``criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened

releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking

remedial action.'' As defined in CERCLA section 101(24), remedial

action tends to be long-term in nature and involves response actions

that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release.

Mechanisms for determining priorities for possible remedial actions

financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred

to as the ``Superfund'') and financed by other persons are included in

the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c) (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990). Under 40 CFR

300.425(c)(1), a site may be included on the NPL if it scores

sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (``HRS''), which is

Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 300. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA

promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section

105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: ground

water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. The HRS serves as a

screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled

hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants to pose a threat to

human health or the environment. Those sites that score 28.50 or

greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.

Under a second mechanism for adding sites to the NPL, each State

may designate a single site as its top priority, regardless of the HRS

score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2),

requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the

100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State

representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the

environment among known facilities in the State.

The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed whether or not they

score above 28.50, if all of the following conditions are met:

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory

that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.

EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat

to public health.

EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use

its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to

the release.

Based on these criteria, and pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of

CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA promulgates a list of national

priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States.

That list, which is Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300, is the National

Priorities List (``NPL''). CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL

as a list of ``releases'' and as a list of the highest priority

``facilities.'' The discussion below may refer to the ``releases or

threatened releases'' that are included on the NPL interchangeably as

``releases,'' ``facilities,'' or ``sites.'' CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B)

also requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. A site may

undergo CERCLA-financed remedial action only after it is placed on the

NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1).

EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983

(48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on

May 31, 1994 (59 FR 27989).

The NPL includes two sections, one of sites being evaluated and

cleaned up by EPA (the ``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites

being addressed by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities

Section''). Under Executive Order 12580 and CERCLA section 120, each

Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at

facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although

EPA is responsible for preparing an HRS score and determining if the

facility is placed on the NPL. EPA is not the lead agency at these

sites, and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive than at

other sites. The Federal Facilities Section includes those facilities

at which EPA is not the lead agency.

Deletions/Cleanups

EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is

appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(e) (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990). To date, the Agency has deleted

59 sites from the General Superfund Section of the NPL.

EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list

(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better

communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR

12142, March 2, 1993). Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) any

necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final

cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has

determined that the response action should be limited to measures that

do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the

site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. Inclusion of a site on the

CCL has no legal significance.

In addition to the 58 sites that have been deleted from the NPL

because they have been cleaned up (the Waste Research and Reclamation

site was deleted based on deferral to another program and is not

considered cleaned up), an additional 180 sites are also in the NPL

CCL, all but one from the General Superfund Section. Thus, as of August

12, 1994, the CCL consists of 244 sites.

Cleanups at sites on the NPL do not reflect the total picture of

Superfund accomplishments. As of May 30, 1994, EPA had conducted 627

removal actions at NPL sites, and 2,139 removal actions at non-NPL

sites. Information on removals is available from the Superfund hotline.

Pursuant to the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c), this document proposes to

add 10 sites to the NPL. The General Superfund Section includes 1,082

sites, and the Federal Facilities Section includes 150 sites, for a

total of 1,232 sites on the NPL. Final and proposed sites now total

1,296.

Public Comment Period

The documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring

of sites in this rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA

Headquarters and in the appropriate Regional offices. The dockets are

available for viewing, by appointment only, after the appearance of

this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from

9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal

holidays. Please contact individual Regional dockets for hours.

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail

Code 5201), Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, 202/

260-3046

Ellen Culhane, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HES-

CAN 6, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, 617/573-

5729

Walter Schoepf, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY

10278, 212/264-0221

Diane McCreary, Region 3, U.S. EPA Library, 3rd Floor, 841 Chestnut

Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19107, 215/597-7904

Kathy Piselli, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta,

GA 30365, 404/347-4216

Cathy Freeman, Region 5, U.S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management

Division 7-J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, IL 60604, 312/886-6214

Bart Canellas, Region 6, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6H-MA,

Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-6740

Steven Wyman, Region 7, U.S. EPA Library, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas

City, KS 66101, 913/551-7241

Greg Oberley, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,

CO 80202-2466, 303/294-7598

Rachel Loftin, Region 9, U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

CA 94105, 415/744-2347

David Bennett, Region 10, U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail

Stop HW-114, Seattle, WA 98101, 206/553-2103

The Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score sheets for

each proposed site; a Documentation Record for each site describing the

information used to compute the score; pertinent information for any

site affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing

policies; and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation

Record. Each Regional docket for this rule contains all of the

information in the Headquarters docket for sites in that Region, plus

the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied

upon and cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS scores for

sites in that Region. These reference documents are available only in

the Regional dockets. Interested parties may view documents, by

appointment only, in the Headquarters or the appropriate Regional

docket or copies may be requested from the Headquarters or appropriate

Regional docket. An informal written request, rather than a formal

request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary

procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents.

EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.

During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters

docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A

complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional

docket approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.

Comments received after the comment period closes will be available in

the Headquarters docket and in the Regional docket on an ``as

received'' basis.

Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials

prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the

specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects

individual HRS factor values. See Northside Sanitary Landfill v.

Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988). EPA will make final listing

decisions after considering the relevant comments received during the

comment period.

In past rules, EPA has attempted to respond to late comments, or

when that was not practicable, to read all late comments and address

those that brought to the Agency's attention a fundamental error in the

scoring of a site. (See, most recently, 57 FR 4824 (February 7, 1992)).

Although EPA intends to pursue the same policy with sites in this rule,

EPA can guarantee that it will consider only those comments postmarked

by the close of the formal comment period. EPA cannot delay a final

listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments.

In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA

concerning sites which were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If

those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their

earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for

consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific

correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and

comment will not generally be included in the docket.

II. Purpose and Implementation of the NPL

Purpose

The legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on

Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d

Sess. 60 (1980)) states the primary purpose of the NPL:

The priority lists serve primarily informational purposes,

identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites

or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions.

Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself

reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it

does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it

assign liability to any person. Subsequent government action in the

form of remedial actions or enforcement actions will be necessary in

order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all

appropriate procedural safeguards.

The purpose of the NPL, therefore, is primarily to serve as an

informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the

NPL is intended to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further

investigation to assess the nature and extent of the public health and

environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what

CERCLA remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also

serves to notify the public of sites that EPA believes warrant further

investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially

responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as

notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed

remedial action.

Implementation

After initial discovery of a site at which a release or threatened

release may exist, EPA begins a series of increasingly complex

evaluations. The first step, the Preliminary Assessment (``PA''), is a

low-cost review of existing information to determine if the site poses

a threat to public health or the environment. If the site presents a

serious imminent threat, EPA may take immediate removal action. If the

PA shows that the site presents a threat but not an imminent threat,

EPA will generally perform a more extensive study called the Site

Inspection (``SI''). The SI involves collecting additional information

to better understand the extent of the problem at the site, screen out

sites that will not qualify for the NPL, and obtain data necessary to

calculate an HRS score for sites which warrant placement on the NPL and

further study. EPA may perform removal actions at any time during the

process. To date EPA has completed 36,497 PAs and 17,469 SIs.

The NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1) (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990) limits

expenditure of the Trust Fund for remedial actions to sites on the NPL.

However, EPA may take enforcement actions under CERCLA or other

applicable statutes against responsible parties regardless of whether

the site is on the NPL, although, as a practical matter, the focus of

EPA's CERCLA enforcement actions has been and will continue to be on

NPL sites. Similarly, in the case of CERCLA removal actions, EPA has

the authority to act at any site, whether listed or not, that meets the

criteria of the NCP at 40 CFR 300.415(b)(2) (55 FR 8842, March 8,

1990). EPA's policy is to pursue cleanup of NPL sites using all the

appropriate response and/or enforcement actions available to the

Agency, including authorities other than CERCLA. The Agency will decide

on a site-by-site basis whether to take enforcement or other action

under CERCLA or other authorities prior to undertaking response action,

proceed directly with Trust Fund-financed response actions and seek to

recover response costs after cleanup, or do both. To the extent

feasible, once sites are on the NPL, EPA will determine high-priority

candidates for CERCLA-financed response action and/or enforcement

action through both State and Federal initiatives. EPA will take into

account which approach is more likely to accomplish cleanup of the site

most expeditiously while using CERCLA's limited resources as

efficiently as possible.

Although the ranking of sites by HRS scores is considered, it does

not, by itself, determine the sequence in which EPA funds remedial

response actions, since the information collected to develop HRS scores

is not sufficient to determine either the extent of contamination or

the appropriate response for a particular site (40 CFR 300.425(b)(2),

55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990). Additionally, resource constraints may

preclude EPA from evaluating all HRS pathways; only those presenting

significant risk or sufficient to make a site eligible for the NPL may

be evaluated. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not

necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing

sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require

stopping work at sites where it was already underway.

More detailed studies of a site are undertaken in the Remedial

Investigation/Feasibility Study (``RI/FS'') that typically follows

listing. The purpose of the RI/FS is to assess site conditions and

evaluate alternatives to the extent necessary to select a remedy (40

CFR 300.430(a)(2) (55 FR 8846, March 8, 1990)). It takes into account

the amount of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants released

into the environment, the risk to affected populations and environment,

the cost to remediate contamination at the site, and the response

actions that have been taken by potentially responsible parties or

others. Decisions on the type and extent of response action to be taken

at these sites are made in accordance with 40 CFR 300.415 (55 FR 8842,

March 8, 1990) and 40 CFR 300.430 (55 FR 8846, March 8, 1990). After

conducting these additional studies, EPA may conclude that initiating a

CERCLA remedial action using the Trust Fund at some sites on the NPL is

not appropriate because of more pressing needs at other sites, or

because a private party cleanup is already underway pursuant to an

enforcement action. Given the limited resources available in the Trust

Fund, the Agency must carefully balance the relative needs for response

at the numerous sites it has studied. It is also possible that EPA will

conclude after further analysis that the site does not warrant remedial

action.

RI/FS at Proposed Sites

An RI/FS may be performed at sites proposed in the Federal Register

for placement on the NPL (or even sites that have not been proposed for

placement on the NPL) pursuant to the Agency's removal authority under

CERCLA, as outlined in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.415. Although an RI/FS

generally is conducted at a site after it has been placed on the NPL,

in a number of circumstances the Agency elects to conduct an RI/FS at a

site proposed for placement on the NPL in preparation for a possible

Trust Fund-financed remedial action, such as when the Agency believes

that a delay may create unnecessary risks to public health or the

environment. In addition, the Agency may conduct an RI/FS to assist in

determining whether to conduct a removal or enforcement action at a

site.

Facility (Site) Boundaries

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;

it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of

the NPL (as the mere identification of releases), for it to do so.

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list national priorities

among the known ``releases or threatened releases'' of hazardous

substances. Thus, the purpose of the NPL is merely to identify releases

of hazardous substances that are priorities for further evaluation.

Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any area

where a hazardous substance release has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA

section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define

or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,

HRS data upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent,

describe which release is at issue. That is, the NPL site would include

all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis (including

noncontiguous releases evaluated under the NPL aggregation policy,

described at 48 FR 40663 (September 8, 1983)).

EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the threat

presented by a release'' will be determined by an RI/FS as more

information is developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.68(d)).

During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or

smaller than was originally known, as more is learned about the source

and the migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses

on an evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release

need not be defined, and in any event are independent of the NPL

listing. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full

extent of where the contamination ``has come to be located'' before all

necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed,

the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over

time. Thus, in most cases, it will be impossible to describe the

boundaries of a release with certainty.

For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended if further research

into the extent of the contamination expands the apparent boundaries of

the release. Further, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it

does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific

property. See Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public

Works, Senate Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted

at 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983). If a party contests liability for

releases on discrete parcels of property, it may do so if and when the

Agency brings an action against that party to recover costs or to

compel a response action at that property.

At the same time, however, the RI/FS or the Record of Decision

(which defines the remedy selected, 40 CFR 300.430(f)) may offer a

useful indication to the public of the areas of contamination at which

the Agency is considering taking a response action, based on

information known at that time. For example, EPA may evaluate (and

list) a release over a 400-acre area, but the Record of Decision may

select a remedy over 100 acres only. This information may be useful to

a landowner seeking to sell the other 300 acres, but it would result in

no formal change in the fact that a release is included on the NPL. The

landowner (and the public) also should note in such a case that if

further study (or the remedial construction itself) reveals that the

contamination is located on or has spread to other areas, the Agency

may address those areas as well.

This view of the NPL as an initial identification of a release that

is not subject to constant re-evaluation is consistent with the

Agency's policy of not rescoring NPL sites:

EPA recognizes that the NPL process cannot be perfect, and it is

possible that errors exist or that new data will alter previous

assumptions. Once the initial scoring effort is complete, however,

the focus of EPA activity must be on investigating sites in detail

and determining the appropriate response. New data or errors can be

considered in that process . . . [T]he NPL serves as a guide to EPA

and does not determine liability or the need for response. (49 FR

37081 (September 21, 1984)).

See also City of Stoughton, Wisc. v. U.S. EPA, 858 F. 2d 747, 751

(D.C. Cir. 1988):

Certainly EPA could have permitted further comment or conducted

further testing [on proposed NPL sites]. Either course would have

consumed further assets of the Agency and would have delayed a

determination of the risk priority associated with the site. Yet * *

* ``the NPL is simply a rough list of priorities, assembled quickly

and inexpensively to comply with Congress' mandate for the Agency to

take action straightaway.'' Eagle-Picher [Industries v. EPA] II, 759

F. 2d [921,] at 932 [(D.C. Cir. 1985)].

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

Table 1 identifies the 6 NPL sites in the General Superfund Section

and Table 2 identifies the 4 NPL sites in the Federal Facilities

Section being proposed in this rule. Both tables follow this preamble.

All sites are proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites

in Table 1 and Table 2 are listed alphabetically by State, for ease of

identification, with group number identified to provide an indication

of relative ranking.

To determine group number, sites on the NPL are placed in groups of

50; for example, a site in Group 4 of this proposal has a score that

falls within the range of scores covered by the fourth group of 50

sites on the NPL.

Statutory Requirements

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list priority sites

``among'' the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and section 105(a)(8)(A)

directs EPA to consider certain enumerated and ``other appropriate''

factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, EPA has the

discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases.

Where other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible

remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, EPA has

chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though

CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later

determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being

properly responded to, the Agency may place them on the NPL.

The listing policies and statutory requirements of relevance to

this proposed rule cover sites subject to the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (``RCRA'') (42 U.S.C. 6901-6991i) and Federal facility

sites. This policy and requirements are explained below and have been

explained in greater detail previously through rulemaking (56 FR 5598,

February 11, 1991).

Releases From Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites

EPA's policy is that facilities are eligible for NPL listing if

they have lost authorization to operate and for which there are

additional indications that the owner or operator will be unwilling to

undertake corrective action. Authorization to operate may be lost when

the interim status of the facility is terminated as a result of a

permit denial under RCRA section 3005(c) (54 FR 41004).

Consistent with EPA's NPL/RCRA policy, EPA is proposing to add one

site to the General Superfund Section of the NPL, the Aqua-Tech

Environmental Inc. (Groce Laboratories) site in Spartanburg County,

South Carolina, that operated a RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal

Facility (TSDF) under interim status. This facility lost its

authorization to operate when its RCRA TSDF Part B application was

denied. Material has been placed in the public docket documenting this.

Releases From Federal Facility Sites

On March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10520), the Agency announced a policy for

placing Federal facility sites on the NPL if they meet the eligibility

criteria (e.g., an HRS score of 28.50 or greater), even if the Federal

facility also is subject to the corrective action authorities of RCRA

Subtitle C. In that way, those sites could be cleaned up under CERCLA,

if appropriate.

This rule proposes to add four sites to the Federal Facilities

Section of the NPL.

Economic Impacts

The costs of cleanup actions that may be taken at any site are not

directly attributable to placement on the NPL. EPA has conducted a

preliminary analysis of economic implications of today's proposal to

the NPL. EPA believes that the kinds of economic effects associated

with this proposal generally are similar to those effects identified in

the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) prepared in 1982 for the revisions

to the NCP pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA and the economic analysis

prepared when amendments to the NCP were proposed (50 FR 5882, February

12, 1985). The Agency believes the anticipated economic effects related

to proposing and adding sites to the NPL can be characterized in terms

of the conclusions of the earlier RIA and the most recent economic

analysis.

Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. It

does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action,

nor does it require any action by a private party or determine its

liability for site response costs. Costs that arise out of site

responses result from site-by-site decisions about what actions to

take, not directly from the act of listing itself. Nonetheless, it is

useful to consider the costs associated with responding to the sites

included in this rulemaking.

The major events that typically follow the proposed listing of a

site on the NPL are a search for potentially responsible parties and a

remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine if

remedial actions will be undertaken at a site.

Design and construction of the selected remedial alternative follow

completion of the RI/FS, and operation and maintenance (O&M) activities

may continue after construction has been completed.

EPA initially bears costs associated with responsible party

searches. Responsible parties may bear some or all the costs of the RI/

FS, remedial design and construction, and O&M, or EPA and the States

may share costs.

The State cost share for site cleanup activities has been amended

by SARA. For privately-owned sites, as well as at publicly-owned but

not publicly-operated sites, EPA will pay for 100% of the costs of the

RI/FS and remedial planning, and 90% of the costs associated with

remedial action. The State will be responsible for 10% of the remedial

action. For publicly-operated sites, the State cost share is at least

50% of all response costs at the site, including the RI/FS and remedial

design and construction of the remedial action selected. After the

remedy is built, costs fall into two categories:

--For restoration of ground water and surface water, EPA will share in

startup costs according to the criteria in the previous paragraph for

10 years or until a sufficient level of protectiveness is achieved

before the end of 10 years.

--For other cleanups, EPA will share for up to 1 year the cost of that

portion of response needed to assure that a remedy is operational and

functional. After that, the State assumes full responsibilities for

O&M.

In previous NPL rulemakings, the Agency estimated the costs

associated with these activities (RI/FS, remedial design, remedial

action, and O&M) on an average per site and total cost basis. EPA will

continue with this approach, using the most recent cost estimates

available; the estimates are presented below. However, there is wide

variation in costs for individual sites, depending on the amount, type,

and extent of contamination. Additionally, EPA is unable to predict

what portions of the total costs responsible parties will bear, since

the distribution of costs depends on the extent of voluntary and

negotiated response and the success of any cost-recovery actions.

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

Average

Cost category total cost

per site1

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

RI/FS..................................................... 1,350,000

Remedial Design........................................... 1,260,000

Remedial Action........................................... \3\21,960,00

0

New present value of O&M\2\............................... 3,770,000

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

ASource: Office of Program Management, Office of Emergency and Remedial

Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.

\1\1993 U.S. Dollars

\2\Assumes cost of O&M over 30 years, $400,000 for the first year and

10% discount rate.

\3\Includes State cost-share.

Costs to the States associated with today's proposed rule are

incurred when the sites are finalized and arise from the required State

cost-share of: (1) 10% of remedial actions and 10% of first-year O&M

costs at privately-owned sites and sites that are publicly-owned but

not publicly-operated; (2) at least 50% of the remedial planning (RI/FS

and remedial design), remedial action, and first-year O&M costs at

publicly-operated sites; and (3) States will assume the cost for O&M

after EPA's period of participation. Using the budget projections

presented above, the cost to the States of undertaking Federal remedial

planning and actions, but excluding O&M costs, would be approximately

$21 million. State O&M costs cannot be accurately determined because

EPA, as noted above, will pay O&M costs for up to 10 years for

restoration of ground water and surface water, and it is not known if

the site will require this treatment and for how long. Assuming EPA

involvement for 10 years is needed, State O&M costs would be

approximately $16 million.

Placing a site on the proposed or final NPL does not itself cause

firms responsible for the site to bear costs. Nonetheless, a listing

may induce firms to clean up the sites voluntarily, or it may act as a

potential trigger for subsequent enforcement or cost-recovery actions.

Such actions may impose costs on firms, but the decisions to take such

actions are discretionary and made on a case-by-case basis.

Consequently, precise estimates of these effects cannot be made. EPA

does not believe that every site will be cleaned up by a responsible

party. EPA cannot project at this time which firms or industry sectors

will bear specific portions of the response costs, but the Agency

considers: the volume and nature of the waste at the sites; the

strength of the evidence linking the wastes at the site to the parties;

the parties' ability to pay; and other factors when deciding whether

and how to proceed against the parties.

Economy-wide effects of an amendment to the NPL are aggregations of

efforts on firms and State and local governments. Although effects

could be felt by some individual firms and States, the total impact of

this amendment on output, prices, and employment is expected to be

negligible at the national level, as was the case in the 1982 RIA.

Benefits

The real benefits associated with today's amendment are increased

health and environmental protection as a result of increased public

awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the potential for more

Federally-financed remedial actions, expansion of the NPL could

accelerate privately-financed, voluntary cleanup efforts. Listing sites

as national priority targets also may give States increased support for

funding responses at particular sites.

As a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower

human exposure to high-risk chemicals, and higher-quality surface

water, ground water, soil, and air. These benefits are expected to be

significant, although difficult to estimate in advance of completing

the RI/FS at these sites.

IV. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires EPA to review the

impacts of this action on small entities, or certify that the action

will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small

entities. By small entities, the Act refers to small businesses, small

government jurisdictions, and nonprofit organizations.

While this rule proposes to revise the NPL, an NPL revision is not

a typical regulatory change since it does not automatically impose

costs. As stated above, adding sites to the NPL does not in itself

require any action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of

any party for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable

groups are affected as a whole. As a consequence, impacts on any group

are hard to predict. A site's inclusion on the NPL could increase the

likelihood of adverse impacts on responsible parties (in the form of

cleanup costs), but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially

affected businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that

might also be affected.

The Agency does expect that placing the sites in this proposed rule

on the NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms

within industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage

of waste site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of

these sites to have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small businesses.

In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement

and cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site-

by-site basis. EPA considers many factors when determining enforcement

actions, including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but

also its ability to pay. The impacts (from cost recovery) on small

governments and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a

similar case-by-case basis.

For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. Therefore, this proposed regulation does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule #17, General Superfund Section

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

NPL

State Site name City/county Gr\1\

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

FL Escambia Wood--Pensacola......... Escambia Co......... 5

LA Agriculture Street Landfill...... New Orleans......... 5

MS Texas Eastern Kosciusko Attala Co........... 5

Compressor Station.

MT Burlington Northern Livingston Livingston.......... 5

Shop Complex.

OR Reynolds Metals.................. Troutdale........... 1

SC Aqua-Tech Environmental Inc. Spartanburg Co...... 5

(Groce Laboratories).

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

Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 6.

\1\Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the

final NPL.

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule #17, Federal Facilities Section

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

NPL

State Site name City/county Gr\1\

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

NC Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Havelock............ 1

Station.

PA Willow Grove Naval Air & Air Willow Grove........ 5

Reserve Station.

SC Parris Island Marine Corps Beaufort............ 5

Recruit Depot.

TN Arnold Engineering Development Coffee Co. & 5

Center (USAF). Franklin Co..

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

Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facilities Section: 4.

\1\Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the

final NPL.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous materials,

Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Waste treatment

and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9605; 42 U.S.C. 9620; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2);

E.O. 11735, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793; E.O. 12580, 3 CFR, 1987

Comp., p. 193.

Dated: August 16, 1994.

Elliott P. Laws,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 94-20549 Filed 8-22-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P