Thursday
January 22, 1987
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 300
Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan;
the National Priorities List; Proposed
Rule
-------
-------
2492
Federal Register , Vol. 52. No. 14 / Thursday, January 22. 1987 / Proposed Rulea
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY . -
40 CFR Part 300
[SW-FRL-3144-6]
Amendment to National OH and
Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan; the National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") is proposing the sixth
update to the National Priorities List
("NPL"). This update contains 64 sites.
The NPL is Appendix B to the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan ("NCP"), which EPA
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") and Executive
Order 12316. CERCLA requires that the
NPL be revised at least annually.
Today's notice proposes the sixth major
revision to the NPL.
These sites are being proposed
because they meet the eligibility
requirements of the NPL. EPA has
included on the NPL releases and
threatened releases of designated
hazardous substances, as well as
"pollutants or contaminants" which may
present an imminent and substantial
danger to the public health or welfare.
'his notice provides the public with an
opportunity to comment on placing these
sites on the NPL.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before March 23,1987.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed
to Russel H. Wyer, Director. Hazardous
Site Control Division (Attn: NPL Staff).
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (WH-548E). Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Addresses for
the Headquarters and Regional dockets
are provided below. For further details
on what these dockets contain, see the
Public Comment Section, Section IV. of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
portion of this preamble.
Denise Sines. Headquarters. U.S. EPA
CERCLA Docket Office. Waterside
Mall Subbasement, 401 M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20460, 202/382-3048
Peg Nelson, Region 1. U.S. EPA Library.
Room E121, John F. Kennedy Federal
Bldg., Boston, MA 02203, 617/223-5791
Carole Petersen, Region 2. U.S. EPA, Site
Investigation & Compliance Branch, 28
Federal Plaza, 7th Floor, Room 737,
New York. NY 10278, 212/264-8877
Diane McCreary. Region 3, U.S. EPA
Library, 5th Floor, 841 Chestnut Bldg.,
9th & Chestnut Streets. Philadelphia,
PA 19107. 215/597-0580
Gayle Alston, Region 4. U.S. EPA
Library. Room G-6, 345 Courtland
Street NE., Atlanta GA 30365, 404/
347^216
Jeanne Griffin, Region 5, U.S. EPA. 230
South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL
60604. 312/886-3007
Barry Nash, Region 6, U.S. EPA,
InterFirst II Bldg.. 1201 Elm Street.
Dallas, TX 75270, 214/767-4075
Connie McKenzie. Region 7, U.S. EPA
Library, 728 Minnesota Avenue,
Kansas City, KS 66101. 913/236-2828
Dolores Eddy, Region 8, U.S. EPA
Library, 999 18th Street, Suite 1300.
Denver, CO 80202-2413, 303/293-1444
Jean Circiello, Region 9, U.S. EPA
Library, 6th Floor, 215 Fremont Street.
San Francisco, CA 94105, 415/974-
8076
Joan Shafer. Region 10, U.S. EPA. llth
Floor, 1200 6th Avenue. Mail Stop 525.
Seattle, WA 98101, 206/442-4903
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ann P. Sarno. Hazardous Site Control
Division, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (WH-548E),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW.. Washington, DC 20460,
Phone (800) 424-9346 (or 382-3000 in the
Washington, DC. metropolitan area).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I Introduction
II Purpose of the NPL
HI NPL Update Process
IV Public Comment Period
V Eligibility
VI Content* of the Proposed Sixth NPL
Update
VII Regulatory Impact Analysis
VIII Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysii
I. Introduction
In 1980. Congress enacted the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act. 42 U.S.C. section 9601. et seg.
("CERCLA" or "the Act") in response to
the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites. To implement CERCLA,
EPA promulgated the revised National
Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan. 40 CFR Part 300, on
July 18,1983 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to
section 105 of CERCLA and Executive
Order 12316 (48 FR 42237, August 20,
1981). The National Contingency Plan
("NCP"), further revised by EPA on
September 16,1985 (50 FR 37624) and
November 20.1985 (50 FR 47912), sets
forth the guidelines and procedures
needed to respond to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants
under CERCLA.
Section 105(8)(A) of CERCLA requires
that the NCP include criteria for
determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases for the purpose of
taking remedial or removal action.
Removal action involves cleanup or
other actions that are taken in response
to emergency conditions or on a short-
term or temporary basis (CERCLA
section 101(23)). Remedial action tends
to be long-term in nature and involves
response actions which are consistent
with a permanent remedy for a release
(CERCLA section 101(24)). These criteria
are included in Appendix A of the NCP.
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site
Ranking System: A User's Manual (the
"Hazard Ranking System" or "HRS") (47
FR 31219, July 18,1982).
Section 105(8)(B) of CERCLA requires
that the statutory criteria described in
the HRS be used to prepare a list of
national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases
throughout the United States. The list
which is Appendix B of the NCP. is the
National Priorities List ("NPL").
Today, in this notice, EPA is
proposing to add 64 sites to the NPL,
bringing the number of proposed sites to
248.' The final NPL contains 703 sites.
EPA is proposing to include on the NPL
sites at which there are or have been
releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, or of "pollutants
or contaminants." The discussion below
may refer to "releases or threatened
releases" simply as "releases."
"facilities," or "sites".
tt Purpose of the NPL
The primary purpose of the NPL is
stated in 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)):
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 liit does not in inself 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.
1 Th« total number of propond sitei reflect! the
removal of Stiver Creek Tailing* site from proposed
status, u required by the Superfund Amendment*
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (section 118(p)|.
effective October 17. 1988.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 14 / Thursday. January 22. 1987 / Proposed Rules
The primary purpose of the NPL.
therefore, is to serve as an informational
tool for use by EPA in identifying sites
that appear to present a significant risk
to public health or the environment. The
initial 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 the public health and
environmental risks associated with the
site, and to determine what CERCLA-
financed remedial action(s). if any, may
be Appropriate. Inclusion of a site on the
NPL does not establish that EPA
necessarily will undertake remedial
actions. Moreover, listing does not
require any action of any private party.
nor does it determine the liability of any
party for the cost of cleanup at the site.
In addition, a site need not be on the
NPL to be the subject of CERCLA-
financed removal actions, remedial
investigations/feasibility studies, or
actions brought pursuant to sections 106
or 107(a)(4)(B) of CERCLA.
In addition, although the HRS scores
used to place sites on the NPL may be
helpful to the Agency in determining
priorities for cleanup and other response
activities. EPA does not rely on the
scores as the sole means of determining
such priorities. The information
collected to develop HRS scores is not
sufficient in itself to determine the
appropriate remedy for.a particular site.
EPA relies on further, more detailed
studies to determine what response, if
any. is appropriate. These studies will
take into account the extent and
magnitude of the contaminants in the
environment, the risk to affected
populations, the cost to correct problems
at the site, and the response actions that
have been taken by potentially
responsible parties or others. Decision!
on the type and extent of action to be
taken at these sites are made in
accordance with the criteria contained
in Subpart F of the NCR After
conducting these additional studies,
EPA may conclude that it la not
desirable to conduct response action at
some sites on the NPL because of more
pressing needs at other sites, or because
an enforcement action may instigate or
force private-party cleanup. Given the
limited resources available in the
Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund established under CERCLA. 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 response action.
III. NPL Update Process
There are three mechanisms for
placing sites on the NPL. The principal
mechanism is the application of the
HRS. The HRS serves as a screening
device to evaluate the relative potential
of uncontrolled hazardous substances to
cause human health or safety problems,
or ecological or environmental damage.
The HRS takes into account "pathways"
to human or environmental exposure in
terms of numerical scores. Those sites
that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS,.
and which are otherwise eligible, are
proposed for listing.
The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), enacted on
October 17.1988. directs EPA to revise
the HRS. The Agency will continue to
use the existing HRS until the revised
HRS becomes effective. Sites proposed
for, or included on, the NPL prior to the
effective date of the revised HRS will
not be reevaluated.
In addition, States may designate a
single site as the State top priority. In
rare instances, EPA may utilize the
listing provision promulgated as
§ 300.86(b)(4) of the NCP (50 FR 37624,
September 18.1985).
Section 300.66(b)(4) of the NCP allows
certain sites with HRS scores below
28.50 to be eligible for the NPL. These
sites may qualify for the NPL if all of the
following occur:
• The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease, Registry of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services hat issued a
health advisory which recommend*
dissociation of individual! from the release.
• EPA determines that the release poses a
significant threat to public health.
• EPA anticipates mat it will be more cost-
effective to u«e its remedial authority than to
use its removal authority to respond to the
releaie.
States have the primary responsibility
for identifying sites, computing HRS
scores, and submitting candidate sites to
the EPA Regional Offices. EPA Regional
Offices conduct a quality control review
of the States' candidate sites, and may
assist in investigating, monitoring, and
scoring sites. Regional Offices may
consider candidate sites in addition to
those submitted by States. EPA
Headquarters conducts further quality
assurance audits to ensure accuracy and
consistency among the various EPA and
State offices participating in the scoring.
The Agency then proposes the new sites
that meet the criteria for listing and
solicits public comments on the
proposal. Based on these comments and
further EPA review, the Agency
determines final scores and promulgates
those sites that still qualify for listing.
An original NPL of 408 sites was
promulgated on September 8,1983 (48
FR 40658). The NPL has since been
expanded (see 49 FR 19480. May 8.1984-
49 FR 37070. September 21.1984: 50 FR
6320. February 14.1985; 50 FR 37630.
September 16,1985: and 51 FR 21054,
June 10.1986). On March 7,1986 (51 FR
7935), EPA published a notice to delete
eight sites from the NPL As of June 10.
1986, the number of final NPL sites was
703. Another 184 sites from previous
updates remain proposed for the NPL
(see 49 FR 40320. October 15.1984: 50 FR
14115, April 10.1985: 50 FR 37950.
September 18,1985: and 51 FR 21099,
June 10.1986). With the 64 sites in
proposed Update #8, 248 sites are now
proposed for the NPL
IV. Public Comment Period
This Federal Register notice proposing
sites for NPL Update #8 opens the
formal 60-day comment period.
Comments may be mailed to Russel H.
Wyer, Director. Hazardous Site Control
Division (Attn: NPL staff). Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response
(WH-548E). Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, SW., Washington.
DC 20460.
The "AOOMEMtS" portion of this
notice contains information on where to
obtain documents relating to the scoring
of these proposed sites. Documents
providing EPA's justification for
proposing these sites are available to
the public in both the Headquarters
public docket and in the appropriate
Regional Office's public docket.
The Headquarters public docket for
NPL Update #8 contains: HRS score
sheets for each proposed site; a
Documentation Record for each site
describing the technical rationale for the
HRS scores: and a list of reference
documents. The Headquarters public
docket is located in EPA Headquarters.
Waterside Mall Subbasement. 401 M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20460, and
is available for viewing by appointment
only from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. Monday
through Friday excluding holidays.
Requests for copies of the HRS
documents may be directed to the EPA
Headquarters docket office.
The Regional public dockets contain
HRS score sheets. Documentation
Records, and a list of reference
documents for each site in that Region.
These Regional dockets also contain
documents referenced in the
Documentation Record which contain
the data EPA relied upon in calculating
or evaluating the HRS scores. The
reference documents are available only
in the Regional public dockets. These
reference documents may be viewed in
-------
2494
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 14 / Thursday. January 32. 1987 / Proposed Rules
the appropriate Regional Office, and
requests for copies of them may be
directed to the appropriate Regional
Superfund Branch Office. Documents
with some relevance to the scoring of
each site, but which were not used as
references, are also available only in the
appropriate EPA Regional office, and
may be viewed and copied by
arrangement with that office. An
informal written request, rather than a
formal request, should be the ordinary
procedure for obtaining copies of any of
these documents.
EPA considers all comments received
during this formal comment period.
Comments received are placed into the
Headquarters docket and, during the
comment period, are available to the
public only in the Headquarters docket.
A complete set of comments pertaining
to sites in a particular EPA Region will
be available for viewing in the Regional
Office docket approximately one week
following the close of the formal
comment period. Comments received
after the close of the comment period
will be available in the Headquarters
docket and in the appropriate Regional
Office docket on an "as received" basis.
An informal written request, rather than
a formal request, should be the ordinary
procedure for obtaining copies of these
comments. After considering the
relevant comments received during the
comment period, EPA will add to the
NPL all proposed sites that meet EPA's
criteria for listing. In past NPL
rulemakings. EPA has considered
comments received after the close of the
comment period. However, with the
increased frequency of NPL
rulemakings, EPA may no longer be able
to consider late comments.
V. Eligibility
CERCLA restricts EPA's authority to
respond to certain categories of releases
and expressly excludes some
substances from the definition of
release. In addition, as a matter of
policy, EPA may choose not to use
CERCLA to respond to certain types of
releases because other authorities can
be used to achieve cleanup of these
releases. Preambles to previous NPL
rulemakings have discussed examples of
these policies. (See. e.g.. 48 FR 40658
(September 8.1983); 49 FR 37070
(September 21.1984); 49 FR 40320
(October 15,1984); and 51 FR 21056 (June
10,1986).) Sites proposed for the NPL in
this update meet these past eligibility
policies. The policies regarding Federal
facilities and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites are
relevant to this update and are
discussed below.
Federal Facility Releases
CERCLA as amended by section
120(a) of SARA, requires that Federal
facilities be subject to,: and comply with,
the Act in the same mariner as any non-
governmentalfentity. In addition, listing
Federal facilities is consistent with the
NPL's purpose of providing information
to the public with respect to sites that
present potential hazards. CERCLA
section lll(e)(3), however, prohibits use
of the Trust Fund for remedial actions at
Federally-owned facilities.
For Update #6, the Agency is
proposing one Federal facility (listed in
Table 2) and requests comments on the
scoring of this site. As of today, EPA has
proposed 48 Federal facilities for the
NPL.
Releases from Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites
On June 10,1988 (51 FR 21057), EPA
announced components of a final policy
for placing sites on the NPL that are
subject to the corrective action
requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA. At
the same time, the Agency requested
comment on several proposed
components of the RCRA/NPL policy (51
FR 21109). Under the final policy, sites
not subject to RCRA Subtitle C
corrective action requirements will
remain eligible for the NPL Examples of
NPL-eligible sites include:
• Facilities that ceased treating, storing, or
disposing of hazardous wastes prior to
November 19,1980 (the effective date of
Phase I of the Subtitle C regulation*).
• Sites at which only materials exempted
from the statutory or regulatory definition of
solid waste or hazardous waste are managed.
• Hazardous waste generators or
transporters not required to have Interim
Status or a final RCRA permit
Sites with releases that can be
addressed under the RCRA Subtitle C
corrective action authorities generally
will not be placed on the NPL. However,
RCRA sites may be listed if they meet
all of the other criteria for listing (e.g.,
an HRS score of 28.50 or greater), and if
they fall within one of the following
categories:
(1) Facilities owned by persons who
are bankrupt.
(2) Facilities that have lost
authorization to operate, and for which
there are additional indications that the
owner or operator will be unwilling to
undertake corrective action.
(3) Sites, analyzed on a case-by-case
basis, whose owners or operators have
shown an unwillingness to undertake
corrective action.
EPA is reviewing comments submitted
in response to the proposed components
of the RCRA policy and is in the process
of developing a complete final RCRA
policy. However, based on the
application of the final components of
the RCRA/NPL policy announced on
June 10.1986 (51 FR 21057), EPA is
proposing four RCRA sites for the NPL.
Three of these sites are bankrupt:
• Parsons Casket Hardware Co..
Belvidere, Illinois
• Allied Plating, Inc., Portland.
Oregon
• Palmetto Recycling, Inc., Columbia.
South Carolina
EPA has determined that a fourth
RCRA facility is eligible for the NPL
because it has lost its RCRA
authorization to operate and appears
unwilling to undertake corrective action.
This site is:
• Chem-Solv, Inc., Cheswold,
Delaware
Chem-Solv lost authorization to
operate in August 1985 when the State
of Delaware denied its RCRA storage
permit. In 1984 and 1985 the State issued
two orders requiring Chem-Solv to begin
remedial action at the site in order to
address imminent hazards. Chem-Solv
has refused to comply with these orders:
the company has stated that it is
financially unable to perfopn remedial
action.
Documents supporting the decisions
for these RCRA-related sites are
contained in the appropriate Regional
dockets and are available for public
review.
VI. Contents of the Proposed Sixth NPL
Update
All sites in today's proposed addition
to the NPL received HRS scores of 28.50
or above.
Following this preamble is a list of the
64 sites proposed for addition to the NPL
(Table 1 and 2). Each entry on the list
contains the name of the facility, the
State and city or county in which it is
located, and the corresponding EPA
Region. Each proposed site is placed by
score in a group corresponding to groups
of 50 sites presented within the final
NPL. For example, sites in Group 8 of
the proposed update have scores that
fall within the range of scores covered
by the eighth group of 50 sites on the
final NPL Each entry is accompanied by
one or more notations reflecting the
status of response and cleanup activities
at the site at the time this list was
prepared. Because this information may
change periodically, these notations
may become outdated.
Five response categories are used to
designate the type of response
underway. One or more categories may
apply to each site. The categories are:
Federal and/or State response (R),
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 14 / Thursday. January 22. 1987 / Proposed Rules
2495
Federal enforcement (F). State
enforcement (S). Voluntary or -
negotiated response (V), and Category
to be determined (D).
EPA also indicates the status of
significant Fund-financed or private-
party cleanup activities underway or
completed at proposed and final NPL
sites. There are three cleanup status
codes: only one code is necessary to
designate the status of cleanup activities
at each site since the codes are mutually
exclusive. The codes are:
Implementation activities are underway
for one or more operable units (I),
Implementation activities are completed
for one or more (but not all) operable
units, but additional site cleanup actions
are necessary (O), and Implementation
activities are completed for all operable
units (C).
These categories and codes are
explained in detail in earlier
rulemakings. the most recent on June 10,
1988 (51FR 21075).
VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
The costs of cleanup actions that may
be taken at sites are not directly
attributable to listing on the NPL, as
explained below. Therefore, the Agency
has determined that this rulemaking is
not a "major" regulation under
Executive Order 12291. EPA has
conducted a preliminary analysis of the
economic implications of today's
proposal to add new sites. EPA believes
that the kinds of economic effects
associated with this revision are
generally similar to those identified in
the regulatory impact analysis (RIA)
prepared in 1982 for the revisions to. the
NCP pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA
(47 FR 31180, July 18,1982) and the
economic analysis prepared when the
amendments to the NCP were proposed'
(50 FR 5882, February 12.1985). The
Agency believes the anticipated
economic effects related to proposing
the addition of these sites to the NPL
can be characterized in terms of the
conclusions of the earlier RIA and the
most recent economic analysis.
Costs
EPA has determined that this
proposed rulemaking is not a "major"
regulation under Executive Order 12291
because inclusion of a site on the NPL
does not itself impose any costs. It does
not establish that EPA will necessarily
undertake remedial action, nor does it
require any action by a private party or
determine it* 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 all
sites included in a proposed rulemaking.
This action was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for review.
The major events that generally
follow the proposed listing of a site on
the NPL are a search for 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.
Costs associated with responsible
party searches are initially borne by
EPA. Responsible parties may bear
some or all the costs of the RI/FS,
design and construction, and O&M, or
the costs may be shared by EPA and the
States.
The State cost share for cleanup
activities has been amended by section
104 of SARA. For privately-owned 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. Similarly, at
publicly-owned but not publicly-
operated sites, the cost share for
remedial action is 90%:10%. At publicly-
operated sites, however, the State cost
share is at least 50% of all response
costs. This includes the RI/FS. remedial
design and construction, and O&M.
With regard to O&M for cleanup
activities other than ground water or
surface water, EPA will share, for up to
1 year, in th'e co»t of that portion of
O&M that is necessary to assure that a
remedy is operational and functional.
After that time, the State assumes full
responsibility for O&M. SARA provides
that EPA will share in the operational
cost associated with ground water/
surface water restoration for up to 10
years.
In previous NPL rulemakings, the
Agency has provided estimates of the
costs associated with these activities
(RI/FS, remedial design, remedial
action, and O&M) on an average per-site
and total cost basis. At this time,
however, there is insufficient
information to determine what these
costs will be as a result of the new
requirements under SARA. Until such
information is available, the Agency will
provide cost estimates based on
CERCLA prior to enactment of SARA:
these estimates are presented below.
EPA is unable to predict what portions
of the total costs will be borne by
responsible parties, since the
distribution of costs depends on the
extent of voluntary and negotiated
response and the success of any cost-
recovery actions.
Cost category
Average
total cost
per site'
, $875.000
Remedial design 850,000
Remedial action | z 8,600,000
Net present value o* O&M 3 ,' a 3,77o!ooo
11986 U.S. Dollars.
"Includes State cost-share.
3 Assumes cost of O&M over 30 years
S400.000 for the first year and 10% discount
rate.
SOURCE: "Extent of the Hazardous Release
Problem and Future Funding Needs-CERCLA
section 301{a)(1)(c) Study", December 1984
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse, U.S. EPA.
Costs to States associated with
today's proposed amendment arise from
the required State cost-share of: (!) 10%
of remedial action and 10% of first-year
O&M costs at privately-owned sites and
sites which are publicly-owned but not
publicly-operated; and (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. States will assume the
cost for O&M after the first year. Using
the assumptions developed in the 1982
RIA for the NCP, EPA has assumed that
90% of the 63 non-Federal sites proposed
to be added to the NPL in this
amendment will be privately-owned and
10% will be State- or locally-operated.
Therefore, using the budget projections
presented above, the cost to States of
undertaking Federal remedial actions at
all 63 non-Federal sites would be
approximately $294 million, of which
approximately $205 million is
attributable to the State O&M cost. As a
result of the changes to State cost share
under SARA, however, the Agency
believes that State O&M costs may
actually decrease. When new cost
information is available, it will be
presented in future rulemakings.
Listing a hazardous waste site on the
final NPL does not itself cause firms
responsible for the site to bear costs.
Nonetheless, a listing may induce firms
to clean up the site 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
-------
2496
which firms or industry sectors will bear
specific portions of response costs, but
the Agency considers: the volume" and
nature of the wastes at the site, the
parties' ability to pay, and other factors
when deciding whether and how to
proceed against potentially responsible
parties.
Economy-wide effects of this
proposed amendment are aggregations
of effects on firms and State and local
governments. Although effects could be
felt by some individual firms and States.
the total impact of this revision on
output, prices, and employment is
expected to be negligible at the national
level, as was the case in the 1982 RIA.
Benefits
The Benefits associated with today's
proposed amendment to list additional
sites 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, this proposed expansion of the
NPL could accelerate privately-financed,
voluntary cleanup efforts to avoid
potential adverse publicity, private
lawsuits, and/or Federal or State
enforcement actions.
As a result of additional NPL
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 particular
SltGS.
Associated with the costs or remedial
actions are significant potential benefits
and cost offsets. The distributional costs
to firms of financing NPL remedies have
corresponding "benefits" in that funds
expended for a response generate
employment, directly or indirectly
(through purchased materials).
VIII. 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 governmental
jurisdictions, and nonprofit
organizations.
While proposed modifications to the
NPL are considered revisions to the
NCP, they are not typical regulatory
changes since the revisions do not
automatically impose costs. Proposing
sites for the NPL does not in itself
require any action by any private 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.
it is hard to predict impacts on any
group. A site's proposed inclusion on the
NPL could increase the likelihood that
adverse impacts to responsible parties
u ™ m of cIeanuP costs) will occur,
but EPA cannot identify the potentially
affected businesses at this time nor
estimate the number of small businesses
that might be affected.
The Agency does expect that certain
industries and firms within industries
that have caused a proportionately high
percentage of waste site problems could
be significantly affected by CERCLA
actions. However. EPA does not expect
tne impacts from the proposed listing of
these sites to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses.
In any case, economic impacts would
only occur through enforcement and
cost-recovery actions, which are taken
at EPA's discretion on a site-by-site
basis. EPA considers many factors when
determining what enforcement actions
to take, including the firm's contribution
to the problem and the firm's ability to
pay. The impacts from cost recovery on
small governments and nonprofit
organizations would be determined on a
similar case-by-case basis.
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.
Dated: January IS, 1987.
Jack W. McGraw,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
PART 300—{AMENDED] ~
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
300 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 300
continues to read as follows:
2. It is proposed to add the following
site* by Group, to Appendix B of Part
300:
Note.—ta proposed rules, the number in the
left column corresponds to the Group number
in Appendix B.
SHJJHO cooc *MO-M-«
-------
National Priorities List,
•= Proposed Update 6 Sites (by Group)
NPL
I
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
January
St Site Name
UT Wasatch Chemical Co. (Lot 6)
IL Parsons Casket Hardware Co.
PA Salford Quarry
VA Saunders Supply Co.
CA S.CA Edison (Visalia Poleyard)
DE E.I. Du Pont (Newport Plant Lf)
NC Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
NY Jones Sanitation
PA Hellertown Manufacturing Co.
VA Greenwood Chemical Co.
MD Woodlawn County Landfill
NC Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Stor
VA C & R Battery Co . . Inc .
CA Watkins -Johnson Co. (Stewart Div)
CT Nutaeg Valley Road
PA River Road Lf (Waste Mngntnt, Inc)
UI Spickler Landfill
DE Dover Gas Light Co.
MI Barrels, Inc.
PA Avco Lycoaing (Williaasport Div)
PA Coaaodore Semiconductor Group
PA Novak Sanitary Landfill
OR Allied Plating, Inc.
SC Golden Strip Septic Tank Service
TN Arlington Blending & Packaging
VA H & H Inc. . Bum Pit
DE Che«-Solv, Inc.
DE Pigeon Point Landfill
SC Sangaw>/Twelve-Mile/Hartwell PCB
1937
City/County
Salt Lake City
Belvidero
Salford Township
Chuckatuck
Visalia
Newport
Aberdeen
Hyde Park
Hellertown
Newtown
Woodlawn
Cordova
Chesterfield County
Scotts Valley
Wolcott
Hermitage
Spencer
Dover
Lansing
WillUosport
Lower Providence Twp
South Whitehall Twp
Portland
Slmpsonville
Arlington
Farrington
Cheswold
New Castlo
Pickens
Response
Category2
V R F S
D
D
D
V R
D
D
D
R
R
S
0
D
R
V S
D .
D
D
R
D
R
V F
Cleanup
0
I
I
I
I
I
0
o
1: Site« are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50
on the final NPL
2: V - Voluntary or negotiated response
F - Federal enforcement-
D - Category to be determined
R - Federal and State response
S - State enforeenent
3: I - Inple»entation activity underway, one or nore operable units
0 - On« or More operable unita coapleted; others nay be underway
C - lapleaentation activity coapleted for all operable units
-------
1
2498^ Federal Register / Vol. 52.
*" NPL
G^ St Site Name
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
GA Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill
IN Mccarty's Bald Knob Landfill
LA Ducchcown Treatment Plant
PA Aladdin Plating
PA American Electronics Laboratories
PA Araecek, Inc. (Huncer Spring Div)
PA Gencle Cleaners/Granite Knitting
PA J.W. Rex/Allied Paint/Keystone
PA Spra-Fin, Inc.
PA William Dick Lagoons
MO Kern- Pest Laboratories
NJ Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
NJ Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
VA Dixie Caverns County Landfill
KS Obee Road
NC Carolina Transformer Co.
NY Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
WI Tomah Fairgrounds
GA Mathis Bros Lf (S Marble Top Rd)
IL Stauffer Chen (Chic Heights Pint)
MI Ford Motor Co. (Sludge Lagoon)
OK Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
PA Paoli Rail Yards
VA Rentokil, Inc. (VA Wood Pres Div)
WI Tomah Armory
AR Jacksonville Municipal Landfill
AR Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
MI Metal Working Shop
MN Ritari Post & Pole
MO Wheeling Disposal Service Co. Lf
NJ Horstmann's Duap
PA Transicoil, Inc.
SC Palmetto Recycling, Inc.
TN Mallory Capacitor Co.
•-s
No. 14 / Thursday. January 22. 1987 / Proposed Rules
City/County
Cedartqwn
Mt. Vernon
Ascension Parish
Scott Township
Montgomeryvi He
Hatfield
Souderton
Lansdale
North Wales
West Cain Township
Cape Girardeau
Beverly
Saddle Brook Tvp
Salem
Hutchinson
Fayetteville
Islip
Tomah
Kensington
Chicago Heights
Ypsilanti
Oklahoma City
Paoli
Richmond
Tomah
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Lake Ann
Sebeka
Amazonia
East Hanover
Worcester •
Columbia
Waynesboro
Response Cleanup
Category2 Status-
D
D
D
D
D
D
D"
D
R F o
D
D
D
D
D
R F 0
VA
r
D 1-
D
D
D"
.
D
D
S 0
D
Number of Sites Proposed for Listing: 63
NPL
Gr. St Site Name
National Priorities List,
Federal Proposed Update 6 Sites (by Croup)
January 1987
City/County
Response Cleanup
Category2 Status-
12 MN Twin Citie. Air Fore. (SAR Lndfl) Minneapolis
Number of Federal Sites Proposed for Listing: 1
««"»—««• * group, of 50
2: V - Voluntary or negotiated response
F - Federal enforcement
0 - Category to be determined
R - Federal and State response
S - State enforceaent
31 O I ££lTnt"i0n •c"vicy «nd.n*y. on. or .ore operable unit.
C ~ Sle'L£I!1OP*"b,U,Unlt* c«P1««d: «h«. My be unde
C - Implementation activity completed for all operable units
IFK Doc. 87-1353 Filed 1-21-87; 8:45 am)
-UMO cooe ts*wo-c
-------
------- |