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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-5308-3]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,

Proposed Rule No. 19

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

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

that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

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

releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List

(``NPL'') which is Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, constitutes this

list.

This rule proposes 12 new sites to the General Superfund Section of

the NPL. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental

Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in determining which

sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of

public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to

determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be

appropriate.

This document also proposes to withdraw an earlier proposal to list

the Broward County, 21st Manor Dump Site, on the NPL. This proposed

withdrawal is based on the results of a baseline risk assessment

prepared for the site.

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

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

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

Office; (Mail Code 5201G); 401 M Street, SW; Washington, DC 20460; 703/

603-8917. Please note this is the mailing address only. If you wish to

visit the HQ Docket to view documents, and for additional Docket

addresses and further details on their contents, see Section I of the

``Supplementary Information'' portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Keidan, Hazardous Site

Evaluation Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Mail

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

II. Contents of This Proposed Rule

III. Executive Order 12866

IV. Unfunded Mandates

V. Governors' Concurrence

I. Introduction

Background

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

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

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

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

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

stat. 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

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

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

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

respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous

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

several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March

8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

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

``criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened

releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking

remedial action. . . and, to the extent practicable taking into account

the potential urgency of such

[[Page 51391]]

action, for the purpose of taking removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions

are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study,

clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened

releases. 42 USC 9601(23). ``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent

with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal

actions. * * *'' 42 USC 9601(24).

Pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA

has promulgated a list of national priorities among the known or

threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants throughout the United States. That list, which is Appendix

B of 40 CFR Part 300, is the National Priorities List (``NPL'').

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of

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

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) also requires that the NPL be revised at

least annually. A site may undergo remedial action financed by the

Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the

``Superfund'') only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the

NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2)

placing a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be

expended.'' EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the

releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

Further, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it does not assign

liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. See

Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate

Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted above and at 48

FR 40659 (September 8, 1983).

Three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial

action are included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c). Under 40 CFR

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

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

promulgated as Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 300. On December 14, 1990 (55

FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to

CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four

pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. The HRS

serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of

uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat to human health or

the environment. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.

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

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

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

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

100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State

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

environment among known facilities in the State.

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

300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their

HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

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

that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.

EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat

to public health.

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

its remedial authority (available only at NPL sites) than to use its

removal authority to respond to the release.

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

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

May 26, 1995 (60 FR 27896).

The NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are evaluated and

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

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

Facilities Section''). Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January

29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible

for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own

jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for

preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed

on the NPL. EPA is not the lead agency at these sites, and its role at

such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites. The

Federal Facilities Section includes facilities at which EPA is not the

lead agency.

Facility (Site) Boundaries

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;

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

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

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

among the known ``releases or threatened releases.'' Thus, the purpose

of the NPL is merely to identify releases that are priorities for

further evaluation. Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined

to include any area where a hazardous substance release has ``come to

be located'' (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not

intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or

releases. Of course, HRS data upon which the NPL placement was based

will, to some extent, describe which release is at issue. That is, the

NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS

analysis (including noncontiguous releases evaluated under the NPL

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

When a site is listed, it is necessary to define the release (or

releases) encompassed within the listing. The approach generally used

is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within the

installation or plant boundaries) and define the site by reference to

that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that

area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the

``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all

contaminated areas within the area used to define the site, and any

other location to which contamination from that area has come to be

located.

While geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g.,

the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property owned by the

particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that

property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant

migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the

property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified

property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the ``site'').

The ``site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of

any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name

itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with

the entire area within the property boundary of the facility or plant.

The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at

the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help

identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the

``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the Jones company is

responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.

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

presented by a release'' will be determined by a Remedial

Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) as more information is

developed on site

[[Page 51392]]

contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)). During the RI/FS process, the

release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally

thought, as more is learned about the source and the migration of the

contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the

threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not be exactly

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

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

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

the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over

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

boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.

Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to

any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party

does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of

property, supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any

time after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible

party.

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

into the extent of the contamination expands the apparent boundaries of

the release.

Deletions/Cleanups

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

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

300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with

states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether the following

criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been

implemented and no further response action is required;

(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

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

EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list

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

communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR

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

(1) any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not

final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved;

(2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited

to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional

controls); or

(3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL.

Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.

In addition to the 83 sites that have been deleted from the NPL

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

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

considered cleaned up), an additional 221 sites are also in the NPL

CCL. Thus, as of September 1995, the CCL consists of 304 sites.

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

Superfund accomplishments. As of August 31, 1995, EPA had commenced 679

removal actions at NPL sites, and 2,108 removal actions at non-NPL

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

Public Comment Period

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

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

Headquarters and in the appropriate Regional offices. The dockets are

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

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

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

holidays. Please contact individual Regional dockets for hours.

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

Code 5201G), Crystal Gateway #1, 12th Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703/603-8917 (Please note this is

visiting address only. Mail comments to address listed in Addresses

section above.)

Jim Kyed, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HRC-CAN-

7, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, 617/573-9656

Ben Conetta, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866,

212/637-4435

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

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

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

GA 30365, 404/347-4216

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

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

Chicago, IL 60604, 312/886-6214

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

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

Carole Long, Region 7, U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS

66101, 913/551-7224

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

CO 80202-2466, 303/294-7598

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

CA 94105, 415/744-2347

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

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

With the exception of LCP Chemicals (Brunswick, Georgia), which is

being proposed based on its designation as the State's top priority,

and Aircraft Components (D & L Sales, Benton Harbor, Michigan), H & K

Sales (Belding, Michigan), and Little Valley (Little Valley, New York)

which are being proposed based on ATSDR health advisory criteria, the

Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score sheets for each

proposed site; a Documentation Record for each site describing the

information used to compute the score; information for any site

affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies;

and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. The

docket also contains the documentation supporting the State's

designation of LCP Chemicals as a top priority and the ATSDR Health

Advisories and nomination packages for the Aircraft Components, H & K

Sales and Little Valley sites.

A general discussion of the statutory requirements affecting NPL

listing, the purpose and implementation of the NPL, the economic

impacts of NPL listing, and the analysis required under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act is included as part of the Headquarters rulemaking

docket in the ``Additional Information'' document.

Each Regional docket for this rule contains all of the information

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

reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and

cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS scores for sites in

that Region. These reference documents are available only in the

Regional dockets. Interested parties may view documents, by appointment

only, in the Headquarters or the appropriate Regional docket or copies

may be requested from the

[[Page 51393]]

Headquarters or appropriate Regional docket. An informal written

request, rather than a formal request under the Freedom of Information

Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of

these documents.

EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.

During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters

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

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

docket approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.

Comments received after the comment period closes will be available in

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

received'' basis. Comments that include complex or voluminous reports,

or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point

out the specific information that EPA should consider and how it

affects individual HRS factor values. See Northside Sanitary Landfill

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

decisions after considering the relevant comments received during the

comment period.

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

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

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

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

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

EPA can guarantee that it will consider only those comments postmarked

by the close of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of not

delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration

of late comments.

In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA

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

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

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

consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific

correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and

comment will not generally be included in the docket.

II. Contents of This Proposed Rule

Table 1 identifies the 12 sites in the General Superfund Section

being proposed to the NPL in this rule. This table follows this

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

with the exception of LCP Chemicals (Brunswick, Georgia), which is

being proposed based on its designation as the State's top priority,

and Aircraft Components (D & L Sales, Benton Harbor, Michigan), H & K

Sales (Belding, Michigan), and Little Valley (Little Valley, New York)

which are being proposed based on ATSDR health advisory criteria. The

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

ease of identification, with group number identified to provide an

indication of relative ranking. To determine group number, sites on the

NPL are placed in groups of 50; for example, a site in Group 4 of this

proposal has a score that falls within the range of scores covered by

the fourth group of 50 sites on the NPL.

This action along with a final rule published in the Federal

Register issued of September 29, 1995, results in an NPL of 1,238

sites, 1,083 in the General Superfund Section and 155 in the Federal

Facilities Section. An additional 52 sites are now proposed and are

awaiting final agency action, 47 in the General Superfund Section and 5

in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now total

1,290.

Proposal, Based on Risk Assessment, To Withdraw an Earlier Proposal To

List the Broward County, 21st Manor Dump Site on the NPL

Also in this rule, EPA is proposing to withdraw its earlier

proposal to list the Broward County--21st Manor Dump site on the NPL.

The site was proposed for listing on July 29, 1991 (56 F.R. 35840). The

reason for the withdrawal of the Broward County site is the

determination that the site as currently defined does not pose a

significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,

taking of remedial measures under CERCLA is not appropriate.

This decision is supported by the baseline risk assessment

conducted in conjunction with the RI/FS for the site and represents the

beginnings of an effort to develop a new policy for sites which have

been proposed for NPL listing. Under this policy, EPA would use for

sites proposed for NPL listing one of the criteria similar to those for

deleting sites from the NPL. These criteria, described above, are found

at 40 CFR 300.425(e). One criterion is found at 40 CFR

300.425(e)(1)(iii), which states that a site may be deleted from the

NPL if ``the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,

taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.'' The proposed action

to withdraw the Broward site uses this approach for the proposed site.

The proposed withdrawal is site-specific, and represents the

beginning of an evolving effort to apply criteria similar to the

deletion criteria to sites not yet finalized to the NPL where

appropriate. With the advent of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model

(SACM) more sites have been undergoing earlier response actions. Early

action means that while in proposed status, a site might be

characterized to the extent that EPA has sufficient data to issue a No

Action Record of Decision. A risk assessment would generally be valid

for this purpose if it is performed by the Agency, or by a contractor

under the oversight and approval of EPA.

In December 1993, EPA issued the ``Baseline Risk Assessment for the

21st Manor Dump Site Broward County, Florida.'' The risk assessment was

conducted in accordance with Subpart E, Section 300.430(d) of the

National Contingency Plan (NCP) and characterized the current and

potential threat to public health and the environment posed by

chemicals at, or migrating from, the 21st Manor Dump Site in the

absence of remedial (corrective) action. The risk assessment is

available for viewing through the Superfund Docket, (703) 603-8917. For

more detailed information on EPA's evaluation of the risk assessment,

please refer to the Superfund NPL Withdrawal Notification Report for

the Broward County site contained in the Superfund Docket.

The risk assessment considered toxicity and exposure information

for each chemical of concern and potential exposure pathway. The

assessment identified three areas of potential concern: soils (surface

and subsurface), groundwater in the vicinity of the Broward site

analyzed in temporary wells sunk by the investigator and used for

sampling, and drinking water in the nearby Peele-Dixie Wellfield. This

drinking water area of concern was analyzed by examining permanent

(long-term monitoring, residential or municipal) wells and surface

water/sediment from aeration ponds near a municipal well.

The risk assessment dismissed concerns for groundwater in the

vicinity of the site based on the fact that this shallow groundwater is

not likely to be tapped for potable use and any excavation at the site

would use pumps to prevent exposure to workers at the site. Moreover,

organic chemicals of concern were only found in one or two of nine

samples analyzed. Also, it was not clear that any of the inorganic

chemicals were detected above naturally occurring background levels.

[[Page 51394]]

While not dismissing concerns for chemicals in the drinking water

caused by sources not listed as part of the site, EPA has determined

that any risks from the drinking water would not be associated with the

releases from the site. This is because none of the volatile inorganic

compounds found in the drinking water wellfield, with the exception of

carbon disulfide, were detected at the 21st Manor site, either in the

temporary wells or in subsurface soils (which could affect

groundwater). Carbon disulfide was detected at low levels or levels

below background. Also, no inorganic chemicals detected in dump site

subsurface soils were detected above naturally occurring levels.

Consequently, only soil exposure at the 21st Manor dump site was

quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment. This risk assessment

considered the maximally exposed individual for each exposure pathway

addressed, by using the maximum concentrations measured in

environmental media at the site as the exposure point concentrations,

along with reasonable maximum exposure (RME) case exposure assumptions.

Thus, the greatest single chemical risk in the cancer risk assessment--

that for benzo(a)pyrene--was based on a single surface soil measurement

of 130 parts per billion (ppb) out of sixteen samples and a single

subsurface soil measurement of 720 ppb out of 31 samples. (All other

samples found no detectable levels of the chemical.) Each of these

levels are within, or lower than, natural background measurements of

the chemical reported in various literature sources. Contributions of

all other chemicals to the cancer risk assessment were considerably

lower, even for the most exposed individual, and risk calculations are

in most cases based on one or two samples that detected any levels when

all others resulted in no detectable levels.

Even with these extremely conservative assumptions as to the levels

of toxic chemicals at the site, the risk assessment concluded that

there were no significant current risks from site releases. Only

potential exposure pathways assuming future residential land use had

excess lifetime cancer risks greater than 10-6, that is 1 in

1,000,000. The cumulative upper bound excess lifetime cancer risk to a

young child resident was estimated to be 2 x 10-6. The risk was

based on incidental ingestion and dermal contact with soil contaminated

with benzo(a)pyrene, the main chemical of concern at the level measured

in one sample, when all others were not even detected. The site posed a

similar risk to adults exposed via the same pathways.

The total hazard index values for both a young child resident and

an adult resident were less than one, indicating that adverse

noncarcinogenic effects are unlikely to occur. EPA also performed an

ecological risk assessment. The Agency concluded that the urban setting

of the site, combined with the distribution and concentration of the

chemicals of concern were not likely to result in adverse environmental

impacts.

The cancer risk numbers are at the lower end of the range of

generally acceptable exposure levels for carcinogens in the NCP. The

Agency's decision is further supported by the fact that the data

supporting these cancer risk levels are obtained from the maximum

exposure levels in circumstances where almost all other analyzed

samples found no detectable levels of the carcinogenic chemicals.

Indeed, the cancer risk for this site from exposure to soil could just

as likely be zero.

The Agency intentionally performed the risk assessment for the 21st

Manor Dump Site employing unusually conservative values (e.g., EPA used

maximum measured soil concentrations). Moreover, the only exposure

pathway that presented a risk greater than 10-6 assumed that a

residence would be built directly on the dump area, which is

unrealistic.

III. Executive Order 12866

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

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

IV. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.

104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA

generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that

may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any

one year. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, section

205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least

costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do

not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,

section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under

section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving

them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the

regulatory requirements.

Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (within the meaning of

Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector. Nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This is

because today's listing decision does not impose any enforceable duties

upon any of these governmental entities or the private sector.

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

does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action,

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

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

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

take, not directly from the act of listing itself. Therefore, today's

rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203 or

205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

V. Governor's Concurrence

On July 27, 1995, Congress enacted Public Law (P.L.) 104-19, which

made emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions for the

fiscal year ending September 30, 1995. Section 1006 of P.L. 104-19

provides that EPA may not use funds made available for fiscal year 1995

for listing or to list any additional facilities on the National

Priorities List . . . unless the Administrator receives a written

request to propose for listing or to list a facility from the

Governor of the State in which the facility is located. . . .

EPA has received letters from the appropriate governors requesting that

the Agency propose for listing on the NPL all the facilities in this

final rule. These letters are available in the docket

[[Page 51395]]

for this rulemaking. The letter from the Governor of Michigan states

that he ``does not object'' to the listing of the sites located in

Michigan. EPA believes this constitutes agreement with the Agency's

decision to propose the listing and, thus, is a sufficient indication

of the governor's concurrence in accordance with the provisions of P.L.

104-19.

National Priorities List Proposed Rule #19 General Superfund Section

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

State Site name City/county NPL Gr\1\

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

GA.................. LCP Chemicals Georgia........ Brunswick..................................... N/A

IL.................. Jennison-Wright Corporation.. Granite City.................................. 13

KS.................. Wright Ground Water Wright........................................ 5/6

Contamination.

ME.................. Eastern Surplus.............. Meddybemps.................................... 5/6

MI.................. Aircraft Components (D & L Benton Harbor................................. N/A

Sales).

MI.................. H & K Sales.................. Belding....................................... N/A

NJ.................. Franklin Burn................ Franklin Township............................. 13

NJ.................. Welsback & General Gas Mantle Camden and Gloucester City.................... 12

(Camden Radiation).

NY.................. Little Valley................ Little Valley................................. N/A

PA.................. Breslube-Penn, Inc........... Coraopolis.................................... 5/6

WV.................. Hanlin-Allied-Olin........... Moundsville................................... 5/6

WI.................. Penta Wood Products.......... Daniels....................................... 5/6

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

Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund: 12

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Air pollution control, Chemicals, Environmental Protection,

Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources,

Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,

Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.

12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR

2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: September 25, 1995.

Elliott P. Laws,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 95-24414 Filed 9-29-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P