National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

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 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 rule adds 6 new sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund

Section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall

be October 27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as

well as further details on what these dockets contain, see Section II,

``Availability of Information to the Public'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Keidan, State and Site

Identification Center, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (mail

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

Washington, DC, 20460, (703) 603-8852, or the Superfund Hotline, phone

(800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan

area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents

I. Background

What are CERCLA and SARA?

What is the NCP?

What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

How are sites listed on the NPL?

What happens to sites on the NPL?

How are site boundaries defined?

How are sites removed from the NPL?

Can portions of sites be deleted from the NPL as they are

cleaned up?

What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

II. Availability of Information to the Public

Can I review the documents relevant to this final rule?

What documents are available for review at the Headquarters

docket?

What documents are available for review at the Regional Dockets?

How do I access the documents?

How can I obtain a current list of NPL sites?

III. Contents of This Final Rule

Additions to the NPL

Status of NPL

What did EPA do with the public comments it received?

IV. Regulatory Issues

A. Executive Order 12866

What is Executive Order 12866?

Is this final rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?

B. Unfunded Mandates

What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?

Does UMRA apply to this final rule?

C. Effects on Small Businesses

What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply to this final rule?

Has this rule been submitted to Congress and the General

Accounting Office?

V. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule

Could the effective date of this final rule change?

What could cause the effective date of this rule to change?

I. Background

What Are CERCLA and SARA

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 releases of

hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Pub. L. No.

99-499, 100, Stat. 1613 et seq.

What Is the NCP

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

guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened

releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under

CERCLA. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent

comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

As required under Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also

includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or

threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of

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

account the potential urgency of such action for the purpose of taking

removal action.'' (``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include

a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise

address releases and threatened releases 42 U.S.C 9601(23).)

What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)

The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or

threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or

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

B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B)

of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as

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

requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. 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 a release of hazardous substances.

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

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

Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or

removal action necessarily need be taken. See Report of the Senate

Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Rep. No. 96-848, 96th

Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983).

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 generally is not the lead agency at Federal Facilities

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

than at other sites.

[[Page 50443]]

How Are Sites Listed on the NPL

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for

possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):

(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 the NCP (40 CFR part 300). 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. 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. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score

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

(2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to

be listed on the NPL, 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 (see 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)).

(3) 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 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

April 1, 1997 (62 FR 15572).

What Happens to Sites on the NPL

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). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with

permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. *

* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) 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.

How Are Site Boundaries Defined

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;

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

the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further

evaluation), for it to do so.

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 (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL

placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at

issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as

part of that HRS analysis.

When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the

relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the

area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify 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 identify the site, as

well as any other location to which that contamination has come to be

located, or from which that contamination came.

In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate

the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property

owned by a 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

installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are

typically not known at the time of listing. Also, the site name is

merely used to help identify the geographic location of the

contamination. For example, the ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not

imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination

located on the plant site.

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

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

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

developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)). During the RI/FS

process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was

originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) 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 known 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 as further research

reveals more information about the location of the contamination or

release.

How Are Sites Removed From the NPL

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 any of 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; or

(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.

[[Page 50444]]

To date, the Agency has deleted 149 sites from the NPL.

Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up

In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of

NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).

Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may

have been cleaned up and available for productive use. As of September

1997, EPA has deleted portions of 6 sites.

What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)

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

significance.

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.

In addition to the 142 sites that have been deleted from the NPL

because they have been cleaned up (7 sites have been deleted based on

deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up), an

additional 305 sites are also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of September

1997, the CCL consists of 447 sites.

II. Availability of Information to the Public

Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule

Yes, the documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the

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

Headquarters and in the appropriate Regional offices.

What Documents Are Available for Review at the Headquarters Docket

The Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score sheets for

five of the final sites that were added to the NPL based on HRS scores,

Documentation Records for those sites describing the information used

to compute the scores, pertinent information regarding statutory

requirements or EPA listing policies that affect those sites, and a

list of documents referenced in each of the Documentation Records. For

the site added to the NPL based on ATSDR Health Advisory criteria, the

Headquarters docket contains the nomination package which includes the

ATSDR Health Advisory for the site. For all sites, the Headquarters

docket also contains comments received, and the Agency's responses to

those comments. The Agency's responses are contained in the ``Support

Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule--September

1997.''

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.

What Documents Are Available for Review at the Regional Dockets

The Regional dockets contain all the information in the

Headquarters docket, plus, for sites added to the NPL based on HRS

scores, the actual reference documents containing the data principally

relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS scores for the

sites. These reference documents are available only in the Regional

dockets.

How Do I Access the Documents

You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the

appearance of this document. The hours of operation for the

Headquarters docket are from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Docket

for hours.

You may also request copies from the Headquarters or appropriate

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

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

procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents.

Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters and

Regional dockets:

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

Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA, 703/603-8917

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, 215/566-

5250

Kathy Piselli, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 100 Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta,

GA 30303, 404/562-8190

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

Pat Smith, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,

CO 80202-2466, 303/312-6082

Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, 415/744-2343

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

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

How Can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites

You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the internet at

WWW.EPA.GOV/SUPERFUND and look under site information category or by

contacting the Superfund Docket (see contact information above).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

Additions to the NPL

This final rule adds 6 sites to the NPL, all to the General

Superfund Section. The following table presents the sites in this rule

arranged alphabetically by State and identifies their rank by group

number. Group numbers are determined by arranging the NPL by rank and

dividing it into groups of 50 sites. For example, a site in Group 4 has

an HRS score that falls within the range of scores covered by the

fourth group of 50 sites on the NPL.

Table 1.--National Priorities List Final Rule, General Superfund Section

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

State Site name City/county Group

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

CA............... Del Amo................. Los Angeles....... 22

MD............... Central Chemical........ Hagerstown........ 5/6

[[Page 50445]]

MD............... Ordnance Products, Inc.. Cecil County...... 21

NJ............... Grand Street Mercury.... Hoboken........... NA

TX............... Sprague Road Ground Odessa............ 10

Water Plume.

WA............... Oeser Co................ Bellingham........ 1

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

Number of Sites Added to the General Superfund Section: 6

Status of NPL

With the new sites added in today's rule, the NPL now contains

1,204 sites, 1,053 in the General Superfund Section and 151 in the

Federal Facilities Section. With a proposed NPL rule published

elsewhere in today's Federal Register,there are now 52 sites proposed

and awaiting final agency action, 46 in the General Superfund Section

and 6 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now

total 1,256.

What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received

EPA reviewed all comments received on sites included in this rule.

Based on comments received on the proposed sites, as well as

investigation by EPA and the States (generally in response to comment),

EPA recalculated the HRS scores for individual sites where appropriate.

EPA's response to site-specific public comments and explanations of any

score changes made as a result of such comments are addressed in the

``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final

Rule--September 1997.''

IV. Regulatory Issues

A. Executive Order 12866

What Is Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires certain regulatory assessments for any

``economically significant regulatory action,'' defined as one which

would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or

more, or have other substantial impacts.

Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review

No, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Unfunded Mandates

What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or by 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 opportunity to participate in the

development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them

on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule

No, 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 response 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.

C. Effect on Small Businesses

What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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.

Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act Apply to This Final Rule

While this rule revises 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 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 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.

[[Page 50446]]

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 rule will not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Therefore, this regulation does not require a regulatory

flexibility analysis.

Has This Rule Been Submitted to Congress and the General Accounting

Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the

General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's

Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule

Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change

Provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or section 305

of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation.

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a), before a rule can take effect the federal

agency promulgating the rule must submit a report to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General. This report must contain a

copy of the rule, a concise general statement relating to the rule

(including whether it is a major rule), a copy of the cost-benefit

analysis of the rule (if any), the agency's actions relevant to

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (affecting small

businesses) and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (describing

unfunded federal requirements imposed on state and local governments

and the private sector), and any other relevant information or

requirements under any other Act and any relevant Executive Orders.

Section 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in the effective

date of major rules after this report is submitted. Section 5 U.S.C.

801(a)(4) provides that all other rules shall take effect after

submission to Congress, as otherwise provided by law.

EPA has submitted a report under the APA for this rule. The rule

will take effect, as provided by law, within 30 days of publication of

this document, since it is not a major rule. Section 5 U.S.C. 804(2)

defines a major rule as any rule that the Administrator of the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or is likely to

result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a

major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or

significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based

enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and

export markets. NPL listing is not a major rule because, as explained

above, the listing, itself, imposes no monetary costs on any person. It

establishes no enforceable duties, does not establish that EPA

necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it require any

action by any 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.

What Could Cause the Effective Date of This Rule to Change

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall not take effect, or continue

in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint

resolution of disapproval, described under section 5 U.S.C. 802.

Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA

section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations

promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S.

Ct. 2764 (1983) and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v.

EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the

legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this

regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of

Representatives.

If action by Congress under the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act calls the effective date of this regulation

into question, EPA will publish a notice of clarification in the

Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, 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.

Dated: September 12, 1997.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response.

40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

follows:

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

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

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

2. In appendix B to part 300, table 1 is amended by adding the

following sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

Table 1.--General Superfund Section

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

State Site name City/county Notes (a)

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

* * * *

* * *

CA.............. Del Amo................ Los Angeles......

* * * *

* * *

MD.............. Central Chemical....... Hagerstown.......

* * * *

* * *

MD.............. Ordnance Products, Inc. Cecil County.....

[[Page 50447]]

* * * *

* * *

NJ.............. Grand Street Mercury... Hoboken.......... A

* * * *

* * *

TX.............. Sprague Road Ground Odessa...........

Water Plume.

* * * *

* * *

WA.............. Oeser Co............... Bellingham.......

* * * *

* * *

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

(a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be 28.50).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97-25095 Filed 9-24-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P