SUPERFUND
DIRECTORY OF REGULATION
(1981-1984)
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
SUPERFUND REGULATIONS
INDEX BY TITLE
TITLE
DATE
1981
1982
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Contingency Plan: The National Priorities List"
"Hazardous Substances: National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan"
12/30/82,
03/12/82
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan" 07/16/82.
1983
"Amendments to National Oil and Hazardous
Substance Contingency Plan; National Priorities List1
09/08/83
"Notification Requirements; Reportable
Quantity Adjustments"
05/25/83
"Proposed National Priorities List, Appendix B of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan" 03/04/83
1984
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List" 05/08/84i
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Contingency Plan; National Priorities List" 09/21/84
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Contingency Plan; National Priorities List" 10/15/84
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan; Final Plan" 07/18/84
-------
SUPERFUND REGULATIONS
STATUS OF RULE
DATE
1981
TITLE
1982
03/12/82
07/16/82
12/30/82
1983
03/04/83
05/25/83
09/08/83
1984
05/08/84
07/18/84
09/21/84
10/15/84
Proposed "Hazardous Substances: National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan"
Final "National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan"
Proposed "Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan:
The National Priorities List"
Proposed "Proposed National Priorities List,
Appendix B of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan"
Proposed "Notification Requirements; Reportable
Quantity Adjustments"
Final "Amendments to National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List"
Final "Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List"
Final "National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan; Final Plan"
Final "Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List"
Proposed "Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List"
-------
1982
-------
Friday
March 12, 1982
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Hazardous Substances; National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan; Proposed Rule
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFH Part 300
LSWH-FRL 1908-4)
Hazardous Substances; National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Section IDS of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
rAct of 1980 (CERCLA) requires revision
trf the National Contingency Plan
originally published pursuant to section
L311 of the Federal Water Pollution
iCcntrol Act. In compliance with section
105, this proposed revision modifies the
Plan to include the new responsibilities
and authorities for responding to
releases into the environment of
hazardous substances and other
pollutants and contaminanta. This
revision is intended to reflect and
effectuate the responsibilities and
powers created by CERCLA.
'RATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before Apnl 12.1982.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed
•to William N. Hedeman. Jr.. Director.'
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (WH-548). Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW
Washington. D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sylvia Lowrance. Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (WH-548),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW.. Washington. D.C 20460,
Phone (202) 382-2235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. INTRODUCTION
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, Pub. L 98-510 ("CERCLA"
or "the Act"), enacted on December 11.
U80,, establishes broad Federal
auUforiry to respond to releases or
threats of releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants
from Vessels and facilities. The
ent may take response action
r circumstances prescribed by the
s whenever mere is a release or a
isjantial threat of a release of a
DUB substance, or there is a
-.--.j or a substantial threat of a
release of other pollutants or
contaminants which may present an
fifi&inent and substantial danger to
pub'lic'health or welfare (section 104].
Depending on the nature of the release
or threat of release, the government may
undertake short-term cleanup actions,
long-term actions consistent with
permanent remedy, or both.
The Act's authorization for
government response is conditioned by
section 104(a)(l), which states in
pertinent part:
* ' * the President is authorized to act
consistent with the national contingency
plan, to remove or arrange for the removal of.
and provide for remedial action relating to
auch hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant at any time (including its
removal from any contaminated natural
resource), or take any other response
measure consistent with the national
contingency plan which the President deems
necessary to protect the public health or
welfare or the environment, unless the
President determines that such removal and
remedial action will be done properly by the
owner or operator of the vessel or facility
from which the release or threat of release
emanates, or by any other responsible party.
Section 105 of the Act requires that
modifications be made to the National
Contingency Plan originally mandated
by section 311(c](2) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA). 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2J. This
Plan originally was prepared by the
Council on Environmental Quality
[CEQJ and is located at 40 CFR Part
1510. Executive Order 12318.46 FR
42237, delegates the responsibility to
amend the National Contingency Plan to
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Aa a consequence, Part 1510 is proposed
to b« moved from 40 CFR Chapter V to
40 CFR Chapter I and redesignated Part
300. The CEQ Plan, which remains in
effect until superseded by the revisions
required by CERCLA. was last revised
on March 19.1980 (45 FR 17832). Specific
requirements under the CWA are
detailed in Subpart A of this proposal.
along with the new requirements for the
Plan specified by CERCLA.
Section 105 states that the revisions
shall Include a section to be known as
the "national hazardous substance
response plan." EPA has included in the
revision a new Jjubpart p entitled
"Hazardous Substance Response." This
section includes new material
applicable to actions taken pursuant to
CERCLA. Subparts A-O. G and H.
however, also cantata material that
generally is applicable to responses
under CERCLA. as well as the CWA.
While the new Subpart F contains most •
materials required to be in the section
entitled "national hazardous substance
response plan." EPA believes that
response actions pursuant to CERCLA
must be taken consistent with the entim
NCP and has, therefore, not designated
any single section as the national
hazardous substance response plan.
CERCLA requires the addition of
elements to the Plan which may be
construed as regulatory in nature and
provides for their adoption after
opportunity for public comment. EPA
has not included in the Plan material
which is best described as "ministerial"
by nature, and which is not required by
statute or Executive Order. These
ministerial portions will, in part, be
included as guidance in a general
CERCLA operating manual of which this
Plan will be one part
The development of the proposed
revised Plan was guided by an analysis
of the statutory and Executive Order
requirements for the Plan. Inclusion of
material beyond that required by statute
or Executive Order was limited to
material: (1) Not available in existing
publications and (2) necessary to an
understanding of the Plan's philosophy.
purpose and/or operations. In all cases.
care waa used to ensure that the Plan
accurately reflects actual Agency
practices.
As presented In the proposed revision.
the National Contingency Plan contains
the basic policies to direct the Federal
response to releases or threatened
releases of oil and hazardous
substances. It is a document which is
designed to make Federal action
reasonably predictable by both the
regulated community and the general
public which the statutes are intended lo
protect In the explanation of the
individual Subparts which follow, the
more extensive or apparent changes to
the current Plan are noted.
Major Revisions to the Existing NCP
A. Annexes
The nine annexes in the current Plan
have been eliminated in this proposal.
Material from the existing annexes has
been included in the body of the
proposed revised Plan as appropriate.
Annex I of the existing Plan details
the entities to which the Plan would be
distributed. The same entities will
receive the proposed Plan but the
distribution list is not made part of the
Plan*
Annex D of the existing Plan provides
a very detailed outline of the formats for
Regional and local contingency plans.
The proposed revision provides in .
Subpart D basic requirements for those
plans including a provision that those
plans shall follow the format of (he
national Plan as closely as possible.
Annex ID of the existing Plan provides
a listing of the addresses and telephone
numberrof regional and local EPA and
Coast Guard offices and a map of the
standard EPA Federal regions. Given the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Friday, March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
10973
wide availability of current information
in this regard, Annex III is eliminated in
the proposed revision.
Annex IV lists Federal statutes and
international agreements relative to
control of pollution by oil and hazardous
substances. This information has been
eliminated from the proposed revision
as being unnecessary as a part of the
Plan.
Annex V provides a listing of
communications services available in
the National Response Center. This
detailed listing has been eliminated as
being of little practical value, available
elsewhere, and subject to change.
Information on contacting the NRG is
included in Subpart C
Annex VI details sample collection
procedures to be followed by the On-
Scene Coordinator. EPA believes this
information should more appropriately
be included in the general operating
manual that it is preparing to
supplement the Plan. Annex VI has
therefore been eliminated from the Plan
and will be reestablished In this
supplemental guidance.
Annex Vn of the current Plan
provides a detailed listing of reference
documents to be maintained in the
National Response Center and in each
Regional Response Center. Because the
list of appropriate publications will
change as new publications appear, this
list has been eliminated in the proposed
revision and the contents of the
reference libraries has been left to the
National Response Team to specify on a
continuing basis.
Annex vm contains definitions of
terms used In the Plan. In the proposed
revision, necessary definitions have
been moved to Subpart A.
Annex IX is "reserved for future use"
and therefore has been eliminated In the
proposed revision.
Annex X which addresses the
statutory requirement for a schedule of
chemicals and other additives to remow
oil and hazardous substances dischargee.
has been rewritten and Is addressed or
Subpart H of the revised Plan*
B. Subparts
Subparta A through O of the proposed
revision deal with tin SBOM general
subject matter a» the eunepondlng
subparts of the existing Plan. Subpart R>
now titled "Operational Response,
Phases" is refitted "Operational
Response Phases for Oil Removal" while
a new Subpart F. "Hazardous Substance
Response" has been developed to reflect:
the new authorities of CERCLA. Under
the proposed revision, some element* off
the current Subpart F an incorporated
into Subpart C. Two new Subparts, C
and H, are included in the proposed
revision. A detailed discussion of the
new subparts is included below. The
following details changes made to
material in the existing Plan:
t. Subpart A. Subpart A details the
salatutory and Executive Order base on
which the Plan rests. This section also
sets out with appropriate statutory
citations those items which the Plan is
required to address and provides an
explanation of abbreviations and terms
used throughout the Plan. Definitions
have been taken from the appropriate
statute without modification wherever
possible and their source cited. Other
definitions are constructs of the Plan
used to refer to concepts more fully
defined in the Plan. Principal among
these are:
Coastal Zone which is used to
distinguish the areas of United States
Coast Guard responsibility under the
Plan from that of EPA. This distinction
in no way expands or limits overall
Federal jurisdiction.
Fund or Trust Fund is used as a short*
hand reference to the CERCLA
Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund.
Inland Zone also serves to delineate
lead agency responsibility. It includes
the environment inland of the coastal
zone excluding the Great Lakes and
specified ports and harbors of inland
riven as specifically identified in
Federal regional contingency plans.
Lead Agency is used to refer to the
agency that appoints the On-Scene
Coordinator.
Oil Pollution Ana* Is used as a short-
hand reference to that Fund created, by
section 311fk) of the dean Water Act
Da-Scene Coordinator is used to refer
to the Federal official designated to
coordinate and direct a Federal
response 'in^Tr MM Plan, The
designation of th* On-Scena
Coordinator, his duties, responsibilities,
and authority on spelled out in the Plan.
Trvataa is used to refer to the Federal
agencies that shall act as trustees for
natural resources pursuant to section
111 of CERCLA. The role of a trustee is
explained in Subpart G.
United Stale* and State ore given
their customary definition.
Volunteer is given a specific """'"g
in the context of the Plan. As used in the,
Plan volunteer means an Individual
accepted to perform, services by an,
agency with authority to accept"
volunteer services.
Subpart A as proposed in this revision
also reflects the. fallowing changes, in die-
existing Plan;
—Redrafting of the Purpou and-
Oo/ac&Ves section to reflect the purpose.
and objectives of the CERCLA. (8 5KX1
of the existing Plan).
—Redrafting of the Authority section
to reflect the passage of CERCLA and
transfer of the listing of Plan contents
from this section to the Scope sectioq
where it is more appropraite.
—Elimination from the Scope section
of a recitation of limited geographic
jurisdiction of the Plan which was
rendered obsolete by CERCLA.
Two items ((9) and (10)] of the scope
section were removed from the listing in
the proposed revised Plan because they
are not required by statute or Executive
Order. First the Plan continues to
include provision for a Scientific
Support Coordinator, but has deleted
specific procedures for coordinating'
scientific support of cleanup operations.
assessment of damage after a spill, and
research efforts as not required or a .
necessary element of the Plan. Second,
EPA has left to the National Response
Team the opportunity to develop a
system of referral and appeal for theti
Regional Response Teams and On-
Scene Coordinators to the National
Response Team.
The section of the existing Plan on
abbreviations was amended in the'
proposed Plan in the following respects:
—The reference to the Department of
Health. Education and Welfare (DHEW)
was replaced by a reference to the
Department of Health and Human,
Services (HHS) reflecting the changed
Federal organization.
—The following new abbreviations
wen added to reflect new language
introduced as a result of CERCLA,
additions to the Plan:
NIOSH—National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health'-
OSHA—Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
NSF—National Strike Force
PIAT—Public Information Assist Tettm
2. Subpart B. Subpart B assigns • j
Federal responsibilities under the Plan
to-various Federal Agencies and
Departments and also outlines State and
local, and non-government participation
in actions taken under the Plan, as,..,'
required by section 311(c)(2)(AJ ofjCWA
and sections 106(4], 105(6). and jffSal of
CERCLA.
Principal Federal assic
responsibility wen made In I
Executive Orders (11735 and «,
those delegations an incorporat
the Plan. In addition. Federal ar
which may from time to time ey
upon to provide assistance in'ai
taken under the Plan an identtf
State and local participation'i
activities ore provided through l^^
Response Teams and contracta.or^
cooperative agreements. Finally'
-------
10974
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
guidelines are provided for participation
of non-government entities in plan
activities.
This subpart amends § 1510.22 Duties
of Federal Agencies and 91310.23 Non-
Federal Participation, of the existing
Plan. The major change is the
incorporation of Executive Order
delegations in the Plan and a shortening
of the description of individual agency
activities.
3. Subpart C. This Subpart explains
the administrative organization of the
response program, delineates the
authorities and responsibilities of
participants and meets the requirements
of sections 311(c)(2)(B] and 311(c)(2)(E]
of CWA. as well as section 105(5) of
CERCLA. The proposal does not change
the basic organizational scheme of the
Plan, but it discusses organizational
components in the context of the
principal categories of activities in
which they engage: Planning and
Coordination (5 300.32). Response
Operations (i 300.33). and
Communications (} 300.35).
The role, responsibilities and
authorities of the On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC) under CERCLA will vary
somewhat from that under section 311 of
the Clean Water Act Under section 311
the OSC's responsibilities and
authorities have been very broad. The
NRT and EPA believe that the OSCs
duties should remain the same In the
current Plan during emergency actions.
Broad powers are critical in emergencies
since time is of the essence, and
immediate response by other officials or
organizations often is impracticable.
The new authorities in CERCLA.
however, contemplate response in
situations other than classic
emergencies such as response at
hazardous waste sites with chronic low
level releases. More time for planning,
greater coordination with other
government officials, larger Fund
expenditures and a greater range of
expertise may be required In managing
these problems. Such nonemergency
.response includes planned removal and
remedial actions, which an discussed in
Subpart F of the proposed revised Plan.
The revised description of the role of the
(DSC in Subpart C reflects not only the
traditional responsibilities of the OSC.
but also the changes In OSC
responsibilities required by the new
CERCLA authorities.
. Subpart C also describes the
circumstances under which each of the
two major Fund-fmanced response
agencies. EPA and the USCC, ia
responsible for designating the OSC for
response action. For any particular
release, the Agency making this
designation is characterized throughout
the proposal as the "lead agency". The
Plan specifies that the USCG shall
provide OSCs for Federally managed
responses involving oil discharges and
immediate removal of hazardous
substance releases into the coastal zone,
and that EPA shall provide OSCs for
Federally managed responses involving
oil discharges and immediate removal of
hazardous substance releases into or
threatening the inland zone. Unless
otherwise provided. EPA shall designate
the OSC for all Federally managed
planned removal and remedial actions
regardless of location.
4. Subpart D. Section 311(j)(l)(B) of
the CWA requires that regulations be
issued, consistent with the NCP. which
establish criteria for the development
and implementation of local and
regional oil and hazardous substance
removal contingency plans. Subpart D
sets forth the required contents of
Federal local and Federal regional
contingency plans. Annex Q of the
existing NCP has been substantially
incorporated in this Subpart by requiring
that all Federal local and Federal
regional contingency plans will follow
the format of the NCP. The discussion of
response and support equipment from
Subpart 0 of the existing Plan is now
included In Subpart C.
5. Subpart £ Subpart E addresses the
operational phases for responding to
discharges of oil Into the waters of the
United States. Phase I. i 300.51. provides
a system of surveillance and notice
designed to insure the earliest possible
notice of discharges to the appropriate
State and Federal agencies as required
by section 311(c)(2)(D) of the CWA.
Sections 300.52 through 300.57 set
forth procedures and techniques to be
employed in identifying, containing.
dispersing and removing oil as required
by section 311(c)(2)(F) of the CWA.
including procedures for documentation
of cost recovery and required content
for pollution reports. Section 300.58
entitled "Funding" has been added to
the existing plan to identify controls on
section 311(k) Oil Pollution Fund
expenditures. Subsection 300.58(n)
describes the system required by section
311(c)(2)(H] of the CWA whereby the
Stales can act to remove a discharge
and be reimbursed from the Fund
established under section 311(k) of the
CWA for reasonable costs.
The USCG. which has primary
responsibility for responding to
discharges of oil In the coastal area was
directly Involved in the revision of
Subpart E and recpmmended only minor
changes to the current Plan. Thus.
Subpart Ei as published today, remains
substantially similar to Subpart E of the
existing Plan.
IIL Major Additions to the NCP
A. Subpart F
Subpart F establishes procedures ana
standards for responding to releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants through the development
of seven operational phases. Like
Subpart E. it is organized by operational
response phases. Phase I. entitled
Discovery and Notification, sets forth
the means by which a release may be
discovered and reported to the National
Response Center (NRC). Phase (I.
S 300.83. provides for a preliminary
assessment of a release. The assessment
may be undertaken by the lead agency
for the purpose of gathering pertinent
information as listed and for an
evaluation of the magnitude of the
hazard.
Phases 01, IV. V and VI address the
requirement of 105(3) of CERCLA thai
the Plan include methods and criteria for
determining the appropriate extent of
removal remedy and other measures
authorized by the Act Section 101(23) of
CERCLA defines removal as those
response actions that should, to the
extent possible, be taken relatively
quickly after discovery to protect or
prevent actual or potential injury to
public health, welfare or the
environment Removal actions are
limited to a Fund obligation of SI milh,
or six months duration unless a finding
ia made that: (1} Continued response
actions are immediately required to
prevent limit or mitigate an emergency.
(2) there is an immediate risk to public
health or welfare or the environment
and (3) response will not otherwise be
provided OR a timely basis (section
104(c)).
The Plan divides the statutory concept
of removal into two categories
"Immediate" removal (Phase III] and
"planned" removal (Phase V). The
purpose of the division is to clearly
delineate those circumstances when
removal actions may be taken, thereby
preventing the unchecked use of Trust
Fund monies for ail possible removal
actions which could result in depletion
of the Fund and an inability to fund
remedial actions. It alsc serves to
establish the appropriate extent of
response in that immediate removal
actions are terminated when the criteria
for taking such action no longer are met.
1. Immediate Removal. Phase III.
{ 300.04, of the Plan provides that
immediate removal actions may be
taken when the OSC determines that
prompt response may prevent
immediate and significant harm or
endangerment to human life, health or
the environment. Immediate removal
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Friday.' March 12, 1982 / Proposed Rules
10973
would, therefore, be appropriate to avert
or mitigate Fires or explosions: human.
animal or food-chain exposure to
dcutely toxic substances: contamination
of a drinking water supply; or other
similarly acute situations. The pattern of
response outlined for this type of release
is similar to the pattern of response used
in the current Plan, Subpart E, for oil
and hazardous substance removal.
Immediate removal actions will be
terminated after six months or Si million
is expended, unless Findings required by
section 104(c)(l] of the statute are made.
Immediate removal will be terminated
at any time prior to reaching these
limitations when it is determined that
the criteria in j 300.M(a|(l) are no
longer present
2. Planned Removal. Section 30O68 of
Subpart F allows a planned removal at a
release that is listed as a priority or at
an unranked release to abate a threat
that may result in a need to take
immediate removal. Planned removals
are appropriate when an expedited, but
not necessarily immediate, response
should be taken.
Planned removal is intended to
conserve Fund monies by allowing
timely response to releases which, if
addressed expeditioualy. will result in
substantial cost savings while
effectively minimizing and mitigating
increases in damage or exposure that
otherwise would occur if response were
delayed. No planned removal may be
taken, however, unless it will result in a
self contained unit the Slate agrees (o
share in al least 10 percent of the project
expenses, and. in Ihe case of an
unranked site, the State assures the
release will be submitted as a priority in
the next revision of the National
Priorities List. A self-contained
component la one that (1) is a discrete
activity which can be completed within
the relevant time and funding
constraints: (2) should not require future
expenses on operation and
maintenance: and (3] effectively
contributes to lessening damages or
exposure or increases in damages or
exposure. Funding of such a component.
does not commit the Fund to taking any
further action. Planned removal may not
exceed the six months or Si million
limitation of section 104[c)(l) of
CERCLA unless findings required by
section 104(c)(l] of CERCLA are made.
The six months or SI million limitation
does not include expenses incurred
under section 104(b) of CERCLA.
3. Remedial Response, (a)
Establishment of National Priorities.
Releases that may be considered for
remedial actions must be identified on
the National Priority List. Section
300.65(d) sets forth the criteria and
methodology contained in a Hazard
Ranking System that the States and EPA
will use to determine priorities for
response among releases of hazardous
substances. These proposed en ten a
have been used to establish an interim
priority list of 115 releases or threatened
releases which will be used to make
initial funding decisions. EPA will use
this interim ranking and any public
comments received on the proposed
revisions to the NCP (o reexamine the
Hazard Ranking System, and make any
necessary modifications. The final
criteria will be used to assign priority
ranking to at least 400 of the highest
priority releases. These will be
published as the National Priority List
This list will be used to allocate funds
for remedial and planned removal
activities.
(i) Hazard Ranking System. The
criteria and methodology to be used in
ranking releases are referenced in
J 300.85(d) as the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS). The MRS is designed to
provide an estimate of the relative
severity of hazardous substance
releases by considering: (1) The relative
potential of substances to cause
hazardous situations, (2) the likelihood
and rate at which the substances may
affect human and environmental
receptors, and (3) the severity and
magnitude of the potential effects.
The HRS identifies five major
pathways of exposure to determine Ihe
relative hazard of each release or
potential release. The five pathways of
exposure are: (1) Ground water. (2)
surface water. (3) air. (4) direct contact
and (S) fire and explosion. The first
three pathways define the types of
chronic harm which may be associated
with releases to be addressed by
remedial actions while the latter two
define types of situations which
normally are addressed by removal
actions.
The probability of exposure to
releases through each pathway is
related to such factors as the geology of
the location of the release, the kinds of
engineering controls practiced at the
facility, and the physical characteristics
of the hazardous substances.
The degree of harm or endangerment
assuming exposure through ona or more
of the pathways, is considered to be a
function of a number of factors.
including the population exposed, the
dangerous properties' of the hazardous
substances, and the value of the
resources affected by the release.
In combining the two factors.
probability and magnitude, the following
equation is used to represent risks:
R=(P)(M)
where R = Risk
P= Probability (of adverse eveni)
M = Magnitude (of adverse event)
This approach is used in the HRS with
modifications to reflect the uncertainties
often present during investigations at
hazardous substance releases. These
uncertainties are a result of Ihe inability
of investigators to accurately quantify
the probability (except where pollution
is observed) or the magnitude of a threat
without completing lengthy and
expensive studies. Therefore, while the
HRS can be used to discriminate
relative risk among various facilities, it
does not present absolute risks.
In order to calculate the hazard
ranking score for a given release, one
must assign a numerical value, for most
factors on a scale of 0 to 3. for each
pathway characteristic. Where releases
have been observed, one assigns scores
for observed pollution levels rather than
estimating factors related to the
probability of a release. For example, if
ground water pollution has been verified
through sampling and analysis, the
probability of occurrence is known to be
100 percent and one assigns the'highesl
score possible for those factors related
to the probability of ground water
pollution. These values are added or
multiplied as appropriate to calculate a
score for each pathway. The scores for
the ground water, surface water, and air
pathways an then aggregated to obtain
the total score using the following
formula:
The overall rating value =
where:
Ri = the rating value for ground water
R.= the rating value for surface water
Ri= the racing value for air
The other two pathways, fire and
explosion and direct contact, are
evaluated using the model, but the
scores an not incorporated into the
overall rating value. Rather, these scores
are used to assess the need for possible
removal actions at the facility. Section
300.69 references "A Model for
Determining Priorities Among,"
Hazardous Substance Releases:1 which
provides detailed information'bn the
Hazard Ranking System. It carrbe
obtained from the Hazardous Site
Control Division fWH-54a-E).D.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. D.C. 20480.
la developing the HRS, EPA Reviewed
several other models which have been
developed for rating the relative hazard
to public health and the environment
posed by hazardous substance releases.
-------
10976 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
Among those models considered were:
(1) The LeGrand model. (2) the Surface
Impoundment Assessment (SIA) model.
(3) EPA's Solid and Hazardous Waste
Research Program Predictive Method
(SPM). and (4) the Rating Methodology
model developed by EPA to set
priorities for investigation of hazardous
waste sites. Each of these alternative
models were determined to have
weaknesses which rendered them
inadequate for the purposes of the
present program.
The LeGrand model evaluates the
potential for ground water (primary
wells) contamination by waste disposal
sources. The final rating reflects the
potential hazard of the wastes, the
likelihood of the wastes reaching ground
water, and the vulnerability of the
ground water to contamination.
However, the LeGrand model.
appropriate only for ground water
pollution, is not applicable because it
does not address the spectrum of
environmental routes, damage
mechanisms, or target organisms that
are covered under CERCLA.
The SIA model expands the scope of
the LeGrand model to evaluate the
potential threat of contamination to
ground water itself, rather than the
potential threat of contamination of
wells. However, the model does not take
into account hazards posed by other
potential routes or damage mechanisms
and. therefore, EPA rejected this model
SPM involves the application of
multivariate analysis to evaluate the
relative importance of various rating
factors in predicting ground water
effects and classifies releases into three
categories representing high, medium
and low potential for ground water
contamination. EPA believes
multivariate analysis may be useful In
refining weights given to pathways of
exposure when complete data are
available. This method, however, is not
directly applicable to ranking of releases
over many pathways of exposure, nor
for classifying the releases into more
than just a few categories.
• The Rating Methodology Model was
developed to assess landfill*, surface
impoundments and other types of land-
based storage and disposal facilities for
Hfie purpose of allocating resources for -
site investigations. To accomplish that
objective, a model was designed to
require only readily available
•information, instead of making use of
the results of field observations. After
approximately one year of use in rating
releases. EPA has decided that results
' baaed on this model are too imprecise to
warrant its use in setting priorities.
Consequently. EPA initiated an effort
to develop a system for setting priorities.
The result of this effort is the MRS
descnbed in § 300.65(d) of this Plan. Like
the Rating Methodology Model, each
pathway is evaluated independently of
the others. Also, where appropriate,
factors are multiplicative rather than
additive. This approach minimizes the
likelihood that factors irrelevant to the
risk at a given facility will significantly
contribute to the hazard ranking score.
During the development of the MRS,
issues were raised concerning: (1) The
weighting factors given to the
information considered by the system.
(2) the apparent use of conservative
assumptions when observed data are
unavailable; and (3) the consideration of
risks as being additive.
Concerning the weighting factors used
in the MRS. EPA has verified the HRS,
using empirical data to modify, where
necessary, the weights and the selection
of variables.
Concerning the apparent equal
weights given to all pathways, the HRS
does allow the maximum possible
scores, representing worst case
incidents, to be equal for all pathways.
We do not believe we can discriminate
the very serious hazard which would be
presented to the public and environment
in the worst case situation in one
pathway from the hazard presenting the
worst case in any other pathway.
However, the HRS is structured so that
high scores will be assigned to some
pathways more frequently than to
others, approximately the frequency
distributions of problems in the various
pathways.
With regard to the issue that the HRS
apparently uses estimates or
conservative assumptions when
observed data are unavailable, the HRS
makes no provision for estimates or
conservative assumptions. The HRS is
to be applied only where adequate data
exist It is possible that the comments
referenced address the characteristics of
the HRS where the user does not
necessarily need to have observationr
demonstrating that a release has already
occurred. Rather, it is possible to
substitute factors which relate to the
probability of the occurrence of a
release. The Agency selected, this
approach, consistent with CERCLA
section 105(8](A)..to allow the
evaluation of threatened releases. In
most cases, all other factors being equal.
scores obtained using the capability of
the HRS to predict that a release might
occur will be lower than those obtained
if a release has been observed. Only
where all predictive factors are scored
at the maximum, indicative of an
extremely high probability of a release.
would the scores of predicted and
observed releases be similar.
Some reviewers stated that the HRS
assumed that nsks associated with the
various pathways are additive. Those
reviewers disagreed with the additive
approach in combining the scores of the
vanous pathways. The Agency agrees.
and has not used an additive approach
to combine pathway scores. The Agency
has selected a formula for aggregating
the pathway scores which has the
following characteristics: (1) Ground
water, surface water and air pathway
scores are taken into account; (2)
secondary pathway scores contribute
significantly to the total only if they
approach the maximum possible score;
(3) if all pathway scores are low, the
total score is low; and (4) even if only
one pathway is rated with a high score.
the total score will be sufficiently high
so that the facility will be included
among the highest priorities. This is
accomplished by taking the square root
of the sum of the squares of the score for
the three major pathways to arrive at a
total score. The other pathways (fire or
explosion and direct contact] are also
scored, and those scores are taken into
account for planning removal actions.
(ii) State Priority Submissions,
Section 300.85(d)(3)(B) provides that
each State shall use the HRS to evaluate
the threat posed by releases in the State.
and to assign priorities to such releases
for response activities. Each State is to
develop a list of candidate releases
which includes: (1] A summary of data
pertinent to establishing the seriousness
of the threat of the bight priority
releases: (2) the availability of a
financially viable, liable party and the
status of any planned enforcement and/
or response actions: (3) the next
response phase needed and its
estimated cost; and (4) an indication of
the State's ability to make the
assurances required by section 104(c)(3)
of CERCLA. EPA will, from time to time.
provide States with additional guidance
on procedures for formulating and
submitting candidates for the National
Priority List
(iii) National Priorities. The State
candidates for the National Priority List
will be submitted to the EPA Regional
Offices for review to ensure uniform
application of ma Hazard Ranking
System. EPA may. in consultation with
the State and appropriate Federal
agencies, add additional priority
releases to the list submitted by the
State. The State Priority Lists will be
consolidated by EPA Headquarters into
a National Priority List consisting of an
estimated 400 highest priority releases.
To the extent practicable, each State
will have at least one site ranked among
the 100 highest priority releases. The
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday, March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
10977
National Priority List will then be
published with releases categorized into
priority groups.
The Agency believes that several
purposes will be served by deferring
publication of the National Priorities List
dt this time. First, priorities would be
based on a larger and better pool of
information, including that received
pursuant to the hazardous waste site
reports required under section 103(c) of
the Act. Second, pnonties would be
based on the critena in the final MRS
adopted after notice and comment.
Finally, if State Priority submissions are
timely. EPA will have the benefit of
additional valuable State input before
publishing the National Priorities List. In
the interim. EPA will continue to
respond to those releases which it
believes are most urgent.
(b) Remedial Actions. Phase VI
Remedial Actions may be taken where
response generally will require long-
term and more costly action to prevent.
contain, or cleanup releases. These
actions are subject to the requirements
for State participation pursuant to
section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA. Before any
remedial action is taken, States must
dssue that they will conduct all future
maintenance for the expected life of
such action and agree to pay 10 percent
of the cost of the remedial action (or at
least SO percent of all response costs if
the facility was owned by the State or
political subdivision thereof at the time
the hazardous substance was disposed
of) including all future maintenance
(section 104(c)(3)J.
Phase VI addresses the methods and
criteria for determining the appropriate
extent of response for remedial actions.
The remedial scheme presented in Phase
VI focuses on the decision making
process used during a remedial
investigation and feasibility study to
determine the most cost-effective-
remedy which will effectively minimize
and mitigate the danger posed by the
release and provide adequate protection
of public health, welfare, or the
environment. The process consists of the
following steps:
(i) Determine whether the release is
ranked. Remedial response will be taken
only at releases on the National Priority
List. If a release is not ranked, no
remedial action will be taken by the
Fund.
(it) Review and update of data to
determine whether threat to public
health, welfare, or the environment still
exists. This step entails a review of
existing data and an update of that data.
if necessary, to determine whether a
threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment still exists. This step
primarily serves the purpose of assuring
that conditions at releases have not
changed such that the release no longer
requires a response.
(in) Scoping. This step requires careful
assessment of the type of problem
presented by the release and an initial
determination of the type or types of
remedial action that may be
appropriate. In order to facilitate
flexible decision-making and to provide
a critical management tool for
conserving Fund monies, the Plan
provides for three types of remedial
actions. Each is tailored to a particular
type of problem. These actions may be
taken alone or in combination,
depending on the conditions at the
particular release.
(A) Initial Remedial Measures—
Section 300.67(e| allows such measures
when EPA determines it is feasible and
necessary to limit exposure or threat of
exposure to K significant health or
environmental hazard. These measures
are intended to be limited in scope.
require a minimum of planning and to be
accomplished within a short period of
time. These actions generally will run on
a "fast track" and be accomplished
separately from the remainder of the
remedial action. Section 300.67(e) details
criteria for taking such actions.
(B) Source Control Remedial Action—
Section 300.87(f)(l) establishes critena
for determining whether source control
actions may be necessary. Such actions
would include those taken at or near the
area where the hazardous substance
was originally located in order to
control the migration of such substances
into the environment These actions may
include control of hazardous substances
at or near the*location of the release or
transport of the substances off-site.
The creation of this category of
remedial action reflects the belief that
where the hazardous substance thai was
the cause of the original release is
inadequately controlled, the first
objective of a response should be to
achieve a level of control that will
prevent, minimim and mitigate any
significant threat of harm from migration
of the source material.
(C) Off-site remedial actions—Section
300.67(0(2) contains criteria for
determining whether action is needed to
minimize and mitigate the migration of
substances and. the effects of this
migration. These actions only ara
appropriate when EPA determine* that
source control actions are inadequate to
effectively mim'min> and mitigate the
threat posed by the release.
The distinction drawn between off-
site and source control actions is
designed Lo iT-nn>fnod
-------
10978
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday, March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
makes it imperative that flexibility be
preserved throughout the remedial
planning process. The remedial response
scheme established in § 300.67 provides
the lead agency with this important
flexibility.
The need for this flexibility is
demonstrated by EPA's prior
experiences. Prior to the passage of
CERCLA. the Agency's primary vehicles
for releases from addressing releases
from hazardous waste management
facilities, other than the somewhat
limited authority and funds of section
311 of the Clean Water Act. was
enforcement action pursuant to various
statutory emergency power provisions.
The Federal Government has filed over
60 judicial enforcement actions as of
October 1981 pursuant to these
emergency power provisions, primarily
under section 7003 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
In these enforcement actions, the
Agency has. on a case-by-case basis.
made a combined scientific and legal
judgment as to the appropriate extent of
remedy, based on the extent of hazard,
existing Federal and State standards
and criteria, available technologies and
their relative costs, the financial
capabilities of prospective defendants.
the culpability of prospective
defendants and relevant court
precedents.
This has resulted in settlements and
initial court decisions calling for
remedial activity in individual
circumstances ranging from complete
elimination or cleanup of contaminant*
to nondetectable levels to installation of
containment and/or treatment
alternatives in addition to or in lieu of
rehabilialian of the contaminated
environment. EPA's experience from
theae enforcement actions has
demonstrated that the appropriate
extent of remedy will probably differ
depending on the individual release.
Based on this experience, tha Agency
has decided that a flexible standard for
determining the appropriate extent of
remedy is the best standard at thif time.
As the Agency gains greater knowledge
regarding cleaning up releases of
• hazardous substances, more specific
standards may be appropriate.
In developing this section. EPA
considered a variety of options:
One option was to require cleanup to
levels that met Federal and State -
standards or water quality criteria. The
Agency has decided that such a rigid
requirement would impose the use of
potentially inappropriate level* of
cleanup that would not allow
consideration of individual
circumstances at each release. Any
appropriate standard or criteria will be
considered in determining the cleanup
level of a particular release, along with
other technological and environmental
factors. Additionally. CERCLA itself
imposes a balancing test on the
selection of remedies—that response at
any particular release be weighed
against need for response at other
releases.
EPA also considered the suggestion to
require a formal cost-benefit analysis for
each remedial action. EPA believes that
its selection of the appropriate extent of
remedy will adequately consider the
costs and benefits of the different
remedial alternatives at each release. A
requirement to conduct a formal cost-
benefit analysis would inevitably be
dependent on the data used in such an
analysis and merely result in rigid
calculations that would foreclose any
flexibility in the ultimate decision-
making. Such an analysis would not
further the Agency's goal of selecting the
most appropriate remedy for each
release.
(c) Other Response Considerations, (i)
Section 300.88, Documentation and Cost
Recovery, provides that all actions
taken under the Plan are documented.
collected, and maintained to form the
basis of cost recovery.
(ii) Section 300.89 tilts those methods
of remedying releases that should be
considered when taking response action.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive
but to give an indication of the types of
remedies that the NRT considers to be
appropriate and demonstrated methods.
This list will be modified and/or
expanded from time to time aa new
technologies are developed.
(iii) Section 300.70 discusses special
considerations such aa worker health
and safety, and allocation of funds from
tha Disaster Relief Act for certain
emergency response activities. Section
300.70(b) dtacusses the eligibility of non-
Federal costs of implementing the Plan
for payment from the Fond. EPA will not
pay for any non-Federal response unless
the response and associated coats have
been preauthonzed
B. Subpart C. This subpart designates
the heads of Federal agencies to act as
trustees for natural resources and
assign* responsibilities' to the agencies
aa trustees. The designation is in accord
with section Ul(h)(l) of CERCLA and
section 311(f)(5) of CWA and Executive-
Order 1231ft.
C. Subpart H. In response to th» .
statutory mandate that the Plan Include
a schedule identifying disperaanto and
how and where they may be used the
current Plan created a complex and
expensive system for registering
dispersants. The statute envisioned
development of a schedule identifying
dispersants. describing the parameters
of proper usage and case-by-case
decisions on the use of other
dispersants. The current system has
resulted in no schedule of approved
dispersants and virtually no approval of
dispersants on a case-by-case basis. The
revised Plan seeks to simplify case-by-
case approvals until there is sufficient
information to promulgate a schedule of
dispersants.
m. Regulatory Impact Analysis
An analysis of the economic impacts
of the revisions to the NCP was
conducted to determine whether they
qualified as a major rule under
Executive Order 12291. The results of
the analysis, based on the approaches
examined in developing the current
proposed form of the Plan, indicate that
the revisions to the Plan constitute a
major rule, because they are likely to
result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more. The
analysis is available for inspection at
Room C-200. fWH-548-D), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street. SW.. Washington. O.C. 20460.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Aa required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980. the Agency has
reviewed the impact of the revised N'
on small entities. EPA certifies that th
NCP will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
V. Enforcement Actions
Consistent with the Plan. EPA will
continue to pursue enforcement actions
as an alternative or complement to
Fund-financed response activities. It is
EPA policy that the same factors used to
determine the appropriate extent of
remedy for Fund-financed cleanup be
considered to evaluate the adequacy of
or determine the level of cleanup to be
sought through enforcement efforts.
Section 300.67(c) explicitly reflects this
policy by providing that the criteria in
S 300.97 (e\ through (j] will be used to
determine the appropriate extent of
remedy for private party cleanup.
VI. Period for Public Comment
The Agency is providing 30 days for
public comment pursuant to an order of
the United State* District Court (or the
District of Columbia In the case of
Environmental Defense Fund, el al. v.
Corauch, et a). [Nos. 61-2083 and 81-
2209. February 12.1982). The Agenc-
Intend* to request the Court to arae
order and atlow more than 30 days i.
public comment The Agency will
publish a notice hi the Federal Register
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. Mo. 49 / Friday, March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules 10979
if the Court amends its order and allows
more than 30 days for public comment
Dated: March 3.1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator,
Part 1510, Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be
redesignated as Part 300. Title 40 and
revised to read as follows:
PAflT 300-NATIONAL OIL AND
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN
Subpart A—Introduction
See.
300.1 Purpose and objectives.
300.2 Authority.
300.3 Scope.
300.4 Application.
300.5 Abbreviations.
300.9 Definition,
Subpart B—RMpomlblllty
300.21 Outlet of President delegated to
Federal agencies.
300.22 Coordination among and by Federal
agencies.
300 23 Other assistance by Federal
agencies.
300.24 State and local participation.
300.23 Non-government participation.
SubpartC—Organization
300.31 Organizational concepts.
300.32 Planning and coordination.
300.33 Response operations.
300.34 Multi-regional responses.
300.35 Communications.
300.38 Response equipment.
Subpart D—Plm
300.41 Regional and local plan*.
300.42 Regional contingency plans.
300.49 Local contingency plans.
Subpart E—Operational Reeponae) Phase*
(or Oil Removal
300.51 Phase I—Discovery and notification.
300.32 Phasa D—Preliminary assessment
and initiation of action.
300.53 Phase ID—Containment
countermeasures, cleanup end disposal
300.54 Phase /V—Documentation and east
recovery.
300.33 General pa ttem of raaponaa.
300.56 Pollution reports.
300.57 Special considerations.
300.58 Funding.
Subpart F—Hazardous SMbetanc*
Resporae)
300.B1 General
300.82 Phase I—Discovery or notification.
300.B3 Phasa n—Preliminary assessment.
300.84 Phase ffl—Immediate removal
300.08 Phase IV—Evaluation and
determination of appropriate response—
planned removal and remedial action.
300.66 Phase V—Planned removal.
300 87 Phase VI—Remedial action.
300.0J Phase VII Documentation and cost
recovery.
300.80 Methods of remedying releases.
300.70 Special considerations.
Subpart OS—Destination and
Responsibilities at Federal Trustees ol
Natural Resources
300 n Designation of trustees.
300 72 Responsibilities of trustees.
Subpart H—Use ol Olsperaanta and Other
Chemicals
300.81 General.
Authority: Sec 105. Pub. L 96-510, 94 Slat.
2764. 42 U.S.C 9905 and sec. 311(c](2|. Pub. L
92-500. as amended: 86 Slat 865,33 U.S.C
1321(c)(2); Executive Order 12316. 46 FR 42237
(August 20.1981): Executive Order 11735, 38
FR 21243 [August 1973).
Subpart A—Introduction
§300.1 Purpose and objective*.
The purpose of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (Plan) ia to effectuate
the response powers and responsibilities)
created by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) and the authorities
established by section 311 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), as amended.
§300.2 Authority.
The Plan ia required by section 105 of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9605. and by section
311(4(2} of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
as amended. 33 U.5.C. 1321(c)(2). In
Executive Order 12318 (46 FR 42237) the
President delegated to the
Environmental Protection Agency the
authority and responsibility to prepare,
publish, revise, and amend the Plan tn
coordination with the National
Response Team and Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
5300J
(a) The scope of the Plan ia 'specified
by the statutes requiring; their
promulgation. The Qean Watei Act
requires that the Plan "shall provide for
efficient, coordinated, and effective
action to minimiM damage" from oil and
hazardous substance discharges, and
provides further that the Plan shall
include:
(1) Assignment ef duties and
responsibilities among Federal agencies
in coordination with State and local
agencies (33 UJ&JC. 1321(c)(2XA]).
(2) Availability of response equipment
and supplies (33 U.S.C. 1321(cX2)(B)J.
(3) Establishment of a strike force to
cany out the Plan and establishment at
major porta of emergency teak farces
and prevention and removal plans (33-
U.S.Cl321(cH2MC)L
(4) A system for surveillance and
notice of discharge* (33 U.S.C
(6) Procedures and techniques for
identifying, containing, dispersing, and
cleaning up oil and hazardous
substances (33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2)(F)).
(7) A schedule developed in
cooperation with States identifying
dispersanis. if any. that may be used in
carrying out the Plan (33 U.S.C
(5) Establishment of a national cantor
to ensure coordinated response (33.
U.S.C.
(8) A system whereby the States can
act to remove a discharge and tie
reimbursed from the Fund established
under section 311(k) (33 U.S.C.
1321(c](2)(H)J.
(b) Section 105 of CERCLA requires
that the NCP "shall establish procedures
and standards for responding to releases
of hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants." This requirement for
establishing response procedures and
standards is accompanied by ten
enumerated provisions thai the revised
NCP "shall include." En summary, the
ten provisions require:
(1) Method* for discovering and
investigating facilities where hazardous
substances may be disposed of or
otherwise come to be located or stored
(42 U.S.C. 9605(1)].
(2] Methods for evaluating, including
analysis of relative costs, and
remedying releases that pose a
substantial danger to public health or
the environment (42 U.S.C. 9605(2)).
(3) Methods and criteria for
determining (he appropriate extent of
response (42 U.S.C 9605(3)).
(4) Rules and responsibilities for
Federal State and local governments
and nongovernmental entities (42 U.S.C.
9603(4)).
(5) Availability of response equipment
and supplies (42 U.S.C. 9605(5)).
(6) Assignment of responsibility for
reporting releases on Federally owned
or controlled properties (42 U.S.C
9605(6)).
(7) Means of assuring that remedial
actions an coat-effective (42 U.S.C.
9605(7)).
(8) Criteria for determining priorities
among releases. Criteria and priorities
shall be based upon EPA's judgment of
relative risk or danger to public health
or welfare or the environment (42 U.S.C.
9805(8J(a)J.
(B) Listing of priorities among releases
(42U.S.C9805(8)(b)).
(10) Specifying ralea for private
organization* (42 UJS.C 9005(9)).
(c) In addition to die enumerated
provision* summarized above, section
105 also references requirements in
sections 311(c)(2] (F) and (C) and
3ll(jHU of the CWA for which
comparable "procedures, techniques,
materials, equipment, and methods for
identifying, removing, or remedying
-------
10980
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
releases of hazardous substances" are
to be included in the revised Plan.
Therefore, additional requirements for
identifying, removing or remedying
releases include:
(1) Procedures for identifying.
containing, dispersing, and removing
hazardous substances.
(2) A schedule for dispersants of
hazardous substances and how and
where they may be used.
(3) Methods for removal of hazardous
substances.
(4) Criteria for development and
implementation of Federal regional and
Federal local contingency plans for
responding to releases of hazardous
substances.
(S) Procedures and equipment to
contain releases of hazardous
substances.
(d) In implementing this Plan.
consideration should be given to the
Joint U.S./Canadian Contingency Plan
(including the annexes pertaining to the
Great Lakes, and the Eastern and
Western Coastal Areas); the joint U.S./
Mexican Contingency Plan and
international assistance plans and
agreements, security regulations, and
responsibilities based on international
agreements. Federal statutes and
Executive orders. Actions taken
pursuant to this Plan shall conform to
the provisions of international joint
contingency Plans, where they are
applicable. This Plan shall be utilized to
coordinate U.S. involvement in pollution
incidents occurring in waters not under
the management jurisdiction of the
United States. The Department of Slate
should be consulted prior to taking any
action which may affect its activities.
Nothing in any of the foregoing treaties
or plans shall limit the application of
any provision of this Plan.
§ 300.4 Application.
The Plan is applicable to response
taken pursuant to the authorities under
CERCLA and section 311 of the CWA.
§ 300.5 Abbreviation*.
(a) Department and Agency Title
Abbreviations:
DOC—Department of Commerce
DOD—Department of Defense
DOE—Department of Energy
DOI—Department of the Interior
DOJ—Department of Justice
DDL—Department of Labor
DOT—Department of Transportation
DOS—Department of State
EPA—Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA—Federal Emergency
Management Agency
HHS— Department of Health and
Human Services
N1OSH—National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
NOAA—National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
OSHA—Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
USCC—U.S. Coast Guard
USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS—U.S. Geological Survey
(b) Operational Title Abbreviations:
ERT—Environmental Response Team
NRG—National Response Center
NRT—National Response Team
NSF—National Strike Force
OSC—On-Scene Coordinator
PAAT—Public Affairs Assist Team
PLAT—Public Information Assist Team
RRC— Regional Response Center
RRT—Regional Response Team
SSC—Scientific Support Coordinator
9300.6; Definition*.
Te-ns not defined in this section have
the meaning given by CERCLA or the
CWA.
Claim, as defined by section 101(4) of
CERCLA. means a demand in writing for
a sum certain.
Claimant, as defined by section 101(5}
of CERCLA. means any person who
presents a claim for compensation under
CERCLA.
Coastal zone, as defined for the
purpose of this Plan, means all U.S.
waters subject to the tide. U.S. waters of
the Great Lakes, specified ports and
harbors on the inland rivers, waters of
the contiguous zone, other water* of the
high seas subject to this Plan, and the
land substrata, ground waters, and
ambient air proximal to those waters.
The term coastal zone delineates an
area of Federal responsibility for
response action. Precise boundaries are
determined by EPA/USCG agreements .
and identified in Federal regional
contingency plans.
Contiguous zone means the zone of
the high seas, established by the United
States under Article 24 of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and
Contiguous Zone, which is contiguous to
the territorial sea and which extends 9
miles seaward from the outer limit of the
territorial sea.
Discharge, ai defined by section
311(a](2) of CWA. includes, but is not
limited to, any spilling, leaking.
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or
dumping of oil. For purposes of this Plan,
discharge shall also mean substantial
threat of discharge.
Drinking water supply, as defined by
section 101(7) of CERCLA. means any
raw or finished water source that is or
may be used by a public water system
(as defined in the Safe Drinking Water
Act) or as drinking water by one or more
individuals.
Environment, as defined by section
101(8] of CERCLA. means (a) the
navigable waters of the United States.
the waters of the contiguous zone, and
the ocean waters of which the natural
resources are under the exclusive
management authority of the U.S. under
the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1970, and (b) any
other surface water, ground water.
drinking water supply, land surface and
subsurface strata, or ambient air within
the United States or under the
jurisdiction of the United Slates.
Facility, as defined by section 101(9)
of CERCLA. means (a) any building.
structure, installation, equipment, pipe
or pipeline (including any pipe into a
sewer or publicly owned treatment
works), well. pit. pond, lagoon.
impoundment ditch, landfill, storage
container, motor vehicle, rolling stock.
or aircraft, or (b) any site or area where
a hazardous substance has been
deposited, stored, disposed of. placed, or
otherwise come to be located; but does
not include any consumer product in
consumer use or any vessel.
Federally permitted release, as
defined by section 101(10) of CERCLA.
means (a) discharges in compliance with
a permit under section 402 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (b)
, discharges resulting from circumstance.
identified and reviewed and made part
of the public record with respect to a
permit issued or modified under section
402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and subject to a condition
of such permit (c) continuous or
anticipated intermittent discharges from
a point source, identified in a permit or
permit application under section 402 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
which are caused by events occurring
within the scope of relevant operating or
treatment systems, (d) discharges in
compliance with a legally enforceable
permit under section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. (e) releases
in compliance with a legally enforceable
final permit issued pursuant to section
3005 (a) through (d] of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act from a hazardous waste
treatment storage, or disposal facility
when such permit specifically identifies
the hazardous substances and makes
such substances subject to a standard of
practice, control procedure or bioassay
limitation or condition, or other control
on the hazardous substances in such
releases, (f) any release in compliance
with a legally enforceable permit issuer*
under section 102 or section 103 of the
Marine Protection. Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972. (g) any
injection of fluids authorized under
Federal underground injection control
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
10981
programs (and not disapproved by the
Administrator of EPA) pursuant to part
C of the Sdfe Drinking Water Act. (h)
any emission into the air subject to a
permit or control regulation under
section ill. section 112. title 1. part C.
title t part D. or State implementation
plans submitted tn accordance with
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (and not
disapproved by the Administrator of
EPA), including any schedule or waiver
granted promulgated, or approved
under these sections, (i) any injection of
fluids or other materials authorized
under applicable State law (!) for the
purpose of stimulating or treating wells
for the production of crude oil. natural
gas. or water, (2) for the purpose of
secondary, tertiary, or other enhanced
recovery of crude oil or natural gas, or
(3) which are brought to the surface in
conjunction with the production of crude
oil or natural gas and which are
reinjected. (j) (he introduction of any
pollutant into a publicly owned
treatment works when such pollutant is
specified In and in compliance with
applicable pretreatment standards of
section 307 (b) or (c) of the CWA and
enforceable requirements in a
pretreatment program submitted by a
Slate or municipality for Federal
approval under section 402 of such Act.
and (k) any release of source, special
nuclear, or byproduct material, as those
terms are defined in the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, in compliance with a legally
enforceable license, permit, regulation.
or order issue pursuant to the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954.
Fund or Trust Fund means the
Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund established by section 221 of
CERCLA.
Ground water, as defined by section
101(12) of CERCLA. means water in a
saturated zone or stratum beneath the
surface of land or water.
Hazardous substance, as defined by
section 101(14) of CERCLA. means (a)
any substance designated pursuant to
section 311[b](2)(A) of the CWA. (b) any
element, compound, mixture, solution, or
substance designated punuant to
section 102 of CERCLA. (c) any
hazardous waste having the
characteristics identified under or listed
pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (but not including
any waste the regulation of which under
the Solid Waste Disposal Act has been
suspended by Act of Congress), (d) any
toxic pollutant listed under section
307(a) of the CWA. (e) any hazardous
air pollutant listed under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act. and (fj any
imminently hazardous chemical
substance or mixture with respect to
which the Administrator has taken
action pursuant to section 7 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act. The terms do
not include petroleum, including crude
oil or any fraction thereof which is not
otherwise specifically listed or
designated as a hazardous substance
under paragraphs (a] through (f) of this
paragraph, and the term does not
include-na rural gas. natural gas liquids.
liquified najural gas or synthetic gas
usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural
gas and such synthetic gas).
Inland zone means the environment
inland of the coastal zone excluding the
Great Lakes and specified ports and
harbors of inland rivers. The term inland
zone delineates the area of Federal
responsibility for response action.
Precise boundaries are determined by
EPA/USCG agreement and identified in
Federal regional contingency plans,
Lead agency means the agency that
provides the On-Scene Coordinator.
Natural resources, as defined by
section 101(16) of CERCLA. means land.
fish, wildlife, biota, air. water, ground
water, drinking water supplies, and
other such resources belonging to.
managed by, held in trust by.
appertaining to. or otherwise controlled
by the United States (including the
resources of fishery conservation zones
established by the Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1978), any State
or local government or any foreign
government.
Offshore facility, as defined by
section 101(17) of CERCLA and section
311(a)(ll) of the CWA. means any
facility of any kind located in. on, or
under any of the navigable waters of the
U.S. and any facility of any kind which
ia subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
and is located in. on. or under any other
waters, other than a vessel or a public
vessel
OiL as defined by section 311(a)(l) of
CWA. means oil of any kind or in any
form, including, but not limited to.
petroleum, fuel oil. sludge, oil refuses,
and oil mixed with wastes other than
dredged spoil.
Oil pollution fund means the fund
established by lection 311 (k) of the
CWA.
Onshore facility (a) as defined by
section 101{18) of CERCLA means any
facility (including but not limited to,
motor vehicles and rolling stock) of any
kind located in. on. or under any land or
non-navigable waters within the United
States; and (b) a> defined by section
311 [a)(10) of CWA means any facility
(including but nol limited to, motor
vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind
located in. on, or under any land within
the United Slates other than submerged
land.
On-Scene Coordinator means the
Federal official predesignated by the
EPA or the USCG to coordinate and
direct Federal responses under this Plan.
Plan means the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan published under
section 311(c) of the CWA and revised
pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA.
Pollutant or contaminant, as defined
by section 104(a)(2) of CERCLA. shall
include, but not be limited to. any
element, substance, compound, or
mixture, including disease causing
agents, which, after release into the
environment and upon exposure.
ingestion. inhalation, or assimilation
into any organism, either directly from
the environment or indirectly by
ingestion through food chains, will or
may reasonably be anticipated to cause
death, disease, behavioral
abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation.
physiological malfunctions (including
malfunctions in reproduction) or
physical deformation in such organisms
or their offspring. The term does not
include petroleum, including crude ail
and any fraction thereof which is not
otherwise specifically listed or
designated as a hazardous substance
under sections 101(14) (A) through (F] of
CERCLA. nor does it include natural
gas, liquified natural gas, or synthetic
gas of pipeline quality (or mixtures of
natural gas and synthetic gas).
Release, as defined by section 101(22)
of CERCLA. means any spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
discharging, injecting, escaping.
leaching, dumping, or disposing into the
environment, but excludes: (a) Any
release which results in exposure to
persons solely within a workplace, with
respect to a claim which such persons
may assert against the employer of such
persons, [b) emissions from the engine
exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock.
aircraft vessel, or pipeline pumping
station engine, (c) release of source, by-
product or special nuclear material from
a nudeai incident, as those terms are
defined in the Atomic Energy Act of
1954. if such release is subject to
requirements with respect to financial
protection established by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission under section
170 of such act or. for the purposes of
section 104 of CERCLA or any other
response action, any release of source.
by-product or special nuclear material
from any processing site designated
under section 102(a)(l) or 302(a) of the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978. and (d) the normal
application of fertilizer. For the purposes
-------
10982
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday, March 12. 1962 / Proposed Rules
of this Plan, release also means
substantial threat of release
Remove or removal, as deGned by
section 311(a)(8J of CWA refers to
removal of oil or hazardous substances
from the water and shorelines or the
taking of necessary actions to minimize
or mitigate damage to the public health
or welfare. As defined by section 101(23)
of CERCLA. means the cleanup or
removal of released hazardous
substances from the environment such
actions as may be necessary in the
event of the threat of release of
hazardous substances into the
environment, such actions as may be
necessary to monitor, assess, and
evaluate the release or threat of release
of hazardous substances, the disposal of
removed matenal, or the taking of such
other actions as may be necessary to
prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to
the public health or welfare or the
environment, which may otherwise
result from such release or threat of
release. The term includes, in addition.
without being limited to. security fencing
or other measures to limit access.
provision of alternative water supplies,
temporary evacuation and housing of
threatened individuals not otherwise
provided for. action taken under section
104[b) of CERCLA. and any emergency
assistance which may be provided
under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974.
Rented? or remedial action, as
defined by section 101(24) of CERCLA.
means those actions consistent with
permanent remedy taken instead of, or
in addition to removal action in the
event of a release or threatened release
of a hazardous substance into the
environment to prevent or minimize the
release of hazardous substances so that
they do not migrate to cause substantial
danger to present or future public health
or welfare or the environment. The term
includes, but is not limited to. such
actions at the location of the release ae
storage, confinement perimeter
protection usmg dike*, trenches, or
ditches, clay cover, neutralization.
cleanup of released hazardous
substances or contaminated materials,
recycling or reuse, diversion,
destruction, segregation of reactive
wastes, dredging or excavation*, repair
or replacement of leaking container!.
collection of leachate and runoff, onsita
treatment or incineration, provision of
alternative water supplies, and any-
monitoring reasonably required to
assure that such actions protect the
public health and welfare and the
environment The term includes the
costs of permanent relocation of
residents and businesses and
community facilities where the President
determines that, alone or in combination
with other measures, such relocation is
more cost-effective than and
environmentally preferable to the
transportation, storage, treatment
destruction, or secure disposition offsite
of such hazardous substances or may
otherwise be necessary to protect the
public health or welfare. The term does
not include offsite transport of
hazardous substances, or the storage.
treatment, destruction, or secure
disposition offsite of such hazardous
substances or contaminated materials
unless the President determines that
such actions: [a] Are more cost-effective
than other remedial actions, (b) will
create new capacity to manage, in
compliance with subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act. hazardous
substances in addition to those located
at the affected facility, or (c) are
necessary to protect public health or
welfare or the environment from a
present or potential nsk which may be
created by further exposure to the
continued presence of such substances
or materials.
Respond or response, as defined by
section 101(25} of CERCLA, means
remove, removal, remedy, or remedial
action, as appropriate.
Size classes of discharges refers to
the following size classes of discharges
which are provided as guidance to the
OSC and serve as the criteria for the
actions delineated in Subpart E. They
are not meant to imply associated
degrees of hazard to public health or
welfare, nor are they a measure of
environmental damage. Any pollution
that poses a substantial threat to the
public health or welfare or results in
critical public concern shall be classified
as a major pollution incident regardless
of the following quantitative measures:
(a) Minor discharge means a
discharge to the inland zone of less than
1.000 gallons of od or a discharge to the
coastal zone of less than 10.000 gallons
of oil.
(b) Medium discharge means a
discharge of 1.000 to 10,000 gallons of od
to the inland zone or a discharge of
10.000 to 100.000 gallons of od to the
coastal zone.
(c) Major discharge meana a
discharge of more than 10,000 gallons of
oil to the inland zone or more than
100.000 gallons of oil to the coastal zone.
Trustee means any Federal natural
resources management agency
designated In Subpart G of thie plan.
and any Slate agency which may
prosecute claims for damages under
section 107(f) of CERCLA.
United States and State includes the
several States of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Guam.
American Somoa. the United States
Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Marianas and any other
territory or possession over which the
U.S. has jurisdiction.
Volunteer means any individual
recruited, trained and accepted to
perform services by a Federal agency
which has authority to accept volunteer
services (example: See 16 U.S.C.
7421(c)). A volunteer is subject to the
provisions of the authorizing statute.
Subpart 8—Responsibility
} 300.21 Duties of President delegated to
Federal agencies.
(a) In Executive Order 11735 and
Executive Order 12310 the President
delegated certain functions and
responsibilities vested in him by the
CWA and CERCLA. respectively.
Responsibilities so delegated shall be
responsibilities' of Federal agencies
under this Plan unless:
(1] Responsibility is redelegated
pursuant to section 8(f] of Executive
Order 12316. or
(2) Executive Order 11735 or
Executive Order 12316 is amended or
revoked
$300.22 Coordmsbon among and by
Federal agencies.
(a) Federal agencies should
coordinate their planning and response
activities through the mechanisms
described in Subpart C of this plan and
other meana as may be appropriate.
(b) Federal agencies should
coordinate planning and response
actions with affected Slate and local
governments and private entities to the
extent circumstances may permit.
(c) Federal agencies with facilities or
other resources which may be useful in
a Federal response situation should
make those facilities or resources
available consistent with agency
capabilities.
fd) When die head of the lead agency
determines:
(1) That there is an imminent and
substantial threat to die public health or
welfare or the environment because of a
discharge of oil from any offshore or
onshore facility, or
(2) That there may be an imminent
and substantial endangerment to the
public health or welfare or die
environment because of a release or
threatened release of a hazardous
substance, pollutant or contammar
from a facility; he may request the
Attorney General to secure the relict
necessary to abate the threat. The NRT
may recommend that EPA or the USCC
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday, March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rulea
10983
exercise this authority. The action
described here is in addition to any
actions taken by a State or local
government for the same purpose.
(e| In accordance with section 311[d)
of CWA. whenever a marine disaster in
or upon the navigable waters of the
United Slates has created a substantial
threat of a pollution hazard to the public
health or welfare, because of a
discharge or an imminent discharge
from a vessel of large quantities of oil or
hazardous substances designated
pursuant to section 311(b)(2)[A) of
CWA. the United States may:
(l) Coordinate and direct all public
and private efforts to abate the threat;
(2) Summarily remove and, if "
necessary, destroy the vessel by
whatever means are available without
regard to any provisions of law
governing the employment of personnel
or the expenditure of appropriated
funds. The authority for these actions .
has been delegated under Executive
Order 11735 to the Administrator of EPA
and the Secretary of the Department in
which the Coast Guard Js operating,
respectively, for the waters for which
each designates the OSC under this
Plan.
(f) Response actions to remove
discharges originating from the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act operations
shall be in accordance with the Angus!
1971 Memorandum of Understanding
between DOI and DOT concerning
respective responsibilities under this
Plan.
(g) Where appropriate, discharges of
radioactive materials shall be handled
pursuant to the Interagency Radiological
Assistance Plan.
3300-23 Other asaietanc* by Federal
agenclea.
(a) Each of the participating Federal
agencies has duties established by
statute. Executive order, or Presidential
directive which may be relevant to
Federal response action following or ia
prevention of a discharge of oil or a
release of a hazardous substance.
pollutant or contaminant These dude*
may also be relevant to the
rehabilitation, restoration, and
replacement of damaged or loat natural
resources. Federal regional contingency
plans should call upon agenciee to cany
out these duties in a coordinated
manner.
(b) The following Federal agenciee
may be called upon by an OSC during
the planning or implementation of a
response to provide assistance in their
respective areas of expertise, consistent
with their capabilities:
(1) Department of Agriculture.
(2) Department of Commerce.
(3) Department of Defense.
(4) Department of Energy.
(5) Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
(6) Department of Health and Human
Services.
(7) Department of the Interior.
(B) Department of Justice.
(9) Department of Labor.
(10) Department of State.
(11) Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
(12) The Small Business
Administration.
(13] Department of Transportation.
(14) Environmental Protection Agency.
(c) In addition to their general
responsibilities under paragraph (a) of
this section, participating agencies
should:
(1) Make necessary information
available to the NRT. RRTs. and OSCs.
(2) Inform the NRT and RRTs
(consistent with national security
considerations) of changes in the
availability ofTesources that would
affect the opera dona of the plan,
(d) All Federal agencies are
responsible for reporting the existence
of facilities which may be located on
Federally owned or controlled
properties and any releases of
hazardous substances Gram facilities
which are under their jurisdiction or
control in accordances with procedures
outlined in Subpaits E and F.
J300J4 State and beat participation.
(a) Each State governor ia requested
to assign an office or agency to
represent the State on the appropriate
RRT. Local governments are invited to
participate in RRT activities as may be
provided by State law or arranged by
the Slate's representative. The State's
representative may participate fully in
all facets of RRT activities and is
encouraged to designate the element of
the State government that will direct
State supervised response operations.
(b) State and local government
agencies are encouraged to include
contingency planning for response,
consistent with this Plan and Regional
Contingency Plans, in all emergency and
disaster planning.
(c) States are encouraged to use State
authorities to compel potentially
responsible parties to undertake
response action*, or to themselves)
undertake response actions which are
not eligible for Federal funding.
(d) States may enter, into contracts of
cooperative agreement* pursuant to
section 104 (c)(3J and (d) of CERCLA, to
undertake actions authorized! "fl^flP
section 1510.63 of this Plan. Prior to
taking any remedial action pursuant to
sections 104 (c)(3) and (d) of CERCLA.
States shall enter into a cooperative
agreement which meets the minimum
requirements under sections 104 (c)(3)
and (d) of the Act, and other
requirements deemed necessary by
appropriate Federal agencies.
(e) Slates are responsible for applying
priority cnteria in accordance with
Subpart F and submitting State priorities
for establishment of response priorities
in accordance with Subpart F and
applicable State guidlines.
(f) Where a State has assumed
responsibility for response actions
pursuant to Subpart F of this plan, the
State is responsible for designating an
individual to fulfill such responsibilities
as the executing agency deems
necessary.
§ 300.25 Hen-Government participation.
(a} Industry groups, academic
organizations, and others are
encouraged to commit resources for
response operations. Specific
commitments should be listed in Federal
regional, and Federal local contingency
plena.
(b] It is particularly important to use
the valuable technical and scientific
information generated by the non-
government local community along with
those from Federal and State
governments to assist the OSC in
devising cleanup strategies where
effective standard techniques are
unavailable, to assist in the performance
of damage assessments, and to ensure
that pertinent research will be
undertaken to meet national needs.
(c] Federal local contingency plans.
should establish procedures to allow for
well-organized, worthwhile, and safe
use of volunteers. Local plans should
provide for the direction of volunteers
by the OSC. or by other Federal. State or
local officials knowledgeable la
contingency operations and capable of
providing leadership. If, in the judgment
of the OSC or an appropnate
participating agency, dangerous
conditions exist volunteers shall be
restricted from on-icene operations.
(d) If any person other than the
Federal Government or a State or
person operating under contract or
cooperative agreement with the United
States, takes removal or remedial action
and intends to seek reimbursement from
the Fund, such actions to be in
conformity with this Plan far purposes of
section lll(b) of CERCLA may only be
undertaken:
(1) After prior written notice to the
Administrator of EPA of intention to
undertake a removal (notice must be
given at least thirty (30) days pnor to
initiation, of removal, unless
-------
10984 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
circumstances require shorter notice to
protect public health and welfare or the
environment], and
(2) After prior consent and approval
by the assigned OSC of plans.
procedures, and costs to be incurred
pursuant to CERCLA section lll(a).
including recommendations for the
protection of cleanup crews.
(e) A person that does not intend to
seek reimbursement from the Fund for
removal or remedial costs does not need
to obtain preauthonzation pursuant to
§ ISlO.ZS(d) (1) and (2) to act consistent
with this Flan.
(f) Fund compensation to claimants
for response costs shall be subject to the
provisions of CERCLA section IM(c). or
CWA section 311(i) and must be
consistent with all other provisions and
requirements of the Plan and the
CERCLA.
Subpart C—Organization
§ 300.31 Organizational concept*.
Three fundamental kinds of activity
are performed pursuant to the Plan:
Planning and coordination,
communications, and operations at the
scene of a discharge, release, or threat
of release. The organizational elements
created to perform these activities are
discussed below in the context of their
roles in these activities.
$ 300.32 Planning and coordination.
(a) National planning and
coordination is accomplished through
(he National Response Team (NRT).
(1) The NRT consists of
representatives from the participating
agencies. Each participating agency
shall designate a member to the team
and sufficient alternates to ensure
representation, as agency resources
permit.
(2) Except for periods of activation
because of a response action, the
representative of EPA shall be the
chairman and the representative of
USCC shall be vpa chairman of the
NRT. The vice chairman shall maintain
records of NRT activities along with
national, regional, and local plans for
response actions. When the NRT is
activated for response action, the
chairman shall be the representative of
the lead agency.
(3) While the NRT desires to achieve a
consensus on all matters brought before-
it, certain matters may prove
unresolvable by this means. In such
cases, each cabinet department or
agency serving as a participating agency
"on the NRT may be accorded one vole in
NRT proceedings.
(4) The NRT may establish such
bylaws and committees as it deems
appropriate to further the purposes for
which it is established.
[5] When the NRT is not activated for
a response action, it shall serve as a
standing committee to evaluate methods
of responding to discharges or releases,
to recommend needed changes in the
response organization, and to
recommend revisions to this Plan.
(8) The NRT may consider and make
recommendations to appropriate
agencies on the training, equipping and
protection of response teams and
necessary research, development
demonstration, and evaluation to
improve response capabilities as the
need arises.
(7) Direct planning and preparedness
responsibilities of the NRT include:
(i) Maintaining readiness to respond
to a nationally significant discharge of
oil or release of a hazardous substance
or pollutant or contaminant.
(li) monitoring incoming reports from
all RRTs and responding when
necessary.
(iii) Reviewing regional responses to
oil discharges and hazardous substance
releases, including an evaluation of
equipment readiness and coordination
among responsible public agencies and
private organizations.
(iv) Developing procedures to ensure
the coordination of Federal State, and
local governments and private response
to oil discharges and hazardous
substance releases.
(b) The RRT serves as the regional
body for planning and preparedness
actions before a response action is
taken and for coordination and advice
during such action. The RRT consists of
regional representatives of the
participating agencies, and
representatives of State and local
governments, as appropriate.
(1) Except when the RRT is activated
for a removal incident, the
representatives of EPA and USCG shall
act as co-chairmen.
(2) Each participating agency should
designate one member and at least one
alternate member to the RRT.
Participating State and local
governments may also designate one
member and at least one alternate
member to the Team. All agencies may
also provide additional representatives
as observers to meetings of the RRT.
(3) RRT members should designate
representatives from their agendes to
work with OSCa in developing local
contingency plans, providing for the use
of agency resources, and in responding
to discharges and releases (sea f 300.43).
(4) Federal regional and Federal local
plans should adequately provide the
OSC with assistance from the Federal
agencies commensurate with agencies'
resources, capabilities, and
responsibilities within the region. During
a response action the members of the
RRT should seek to make available the
resources of their agencies to (he OSC
as specified in the Federal regional and
Federal local contingency plans.
(5) Affected States are encouraged to
participate actively in all RRT activities
(see § 300.23(a)), to designate
representatives to work with the RRT
and OSCs in developing Federal
regional and Federal local plans, to plan
for and make available State resources.
and to serve as the contact point for
coordination of response with local
government agencies whether or not
represented on the RRT.
(B) The RRT serves as a standing
committee to recommend changes in the
regional response organization as
needed, to revise the regional plan as
needed, and to evaluate the
preparedness of the agencies and the
effectiveness of local plans for the
Federal response to discharges and
releases. The RRT should:
(i) Make continuing review of regional
and local responses to discharges or
releases, considering available legal
remedies, equipment readiness and
coordination among responsible public
agencies and private organizations.
(ii) Based on observations of respon
operations, recommend revisions of the
National Contigency Plan to (he NRT.
(iii] Consider and recommend
necessary changes based on continuing
review of response actions in the region.
(iv) Review OSC actions to help
ensure that Federal regional and Federal
local contingency plans are developed
satisfactorily.
(v) Be prepared to respond to major
discharges or releases outside its region.
(vi) Meet at least semiannually to
review response actions carried out
during the preceding penod. and
consider changes in Federal regional
and Federal local contingency plans.
(vii) Provide letter reports on their
activities to the NRT twice a year, no
later than January 31 and July 31 At a
minimum reports should summarize
recent activities, organizational changes.
operational concerns, and efforts to
improve State and local coordination.
(c) The OSC Is responsible for
developing any Federal local
contingency plans for the Federal
response in the area of the OSC's
responsibility. This may be
accomplished in cooperation with t1"1
RRT and designated State and lo<
representatives (see I 300.43].
Boundaries for Federal regional
contingency plans shall follow those of
the Standard Regions for Federal
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
10985
Administration. Boundaries for Federal
local contingency plans shall coincide
with those agreed upon between EPA.
DOD and the USCG to determine OSC
areas of responsibility and should be
clearly indicated in the regional
contingency plan.
(d) Scientific support for the
development of regional and local plans
is organized by appropriate agencies to
provide special expertise and
assistance. Generally, the Scientific
Support Coordinator (SSC) for plans
encompassing the coastal area will be
provided by NOAA and those for the
inland area will be provided by EPA or
DOI. This delineation of responsibility
may be modified within a region by
agreement between DOC DOI. and EPA
representatives to the RRT. SSCs may
be obtained from other agencies if
determined to be appropnate by the
RRT.
§ 300.33. Response operation*.
(a] EPA and USCG shall designate
OSCs for all areas in each region.
subject to Executive Order 12316. The
USCG will furnish or provide OSCs for
oil discharges and for the immediate
removal of hazardous substances.
pollutants, or contaminants into or
threatening the coastal zone except that
the USCG will not provide
predesignated OSCs for discharges and
release* from hazardous waste
management facilities or in similarly
chronic Incidents. EPA shall furnish or
provide OSCs for oil discharges and
hazardous substances releases into or
threatening the inland zone and. unless
otherwise agreed, for all planned
removals and remedial actions.
(b) The OSC directs Federal Fund-
financed response efforts and
coordinates all other Federal efforts at
the scene of a discharge or release. A» '
part of the planning and preparation for
response to pollution incidents, the
OSCs shall be predesignated by the
regional or district head of the lead
agency.
(1) The first official from aa agency
with responsibility under this plan to
amve at the scene of the discharge or
release should coordinate activities
under this plan until UM OSC arrives.
(2) The OSC shall to the extent
practicable under the circumstance*-
collect pertinent facts about the
discharge or release, such as its source
and cause: the existence of potentially
responsible parties; the nature, amount,
and location of discharged or released
materials: the probable direction and
time of travel of discharged or released
materials: the pathways to human
exposure, potential impact on human
health, welfare and safety; the potential
impact on natural resources and
property which may be affected;
priorities for protecting human health.
welfare and the environment; and
appropnate cost documentation.
(3) The OSC will direct response
opera tons (see Subparts E and F for
descriptive details). The OSCs effort
shall be coordinated with other
appropriate Federal. State, local, and
private response agencies.
(4) The OSC will consult regularly'
with the RRT in carrying out this Plan
and will keep the RRT informed of"
activities under the Plan.
(5) The OSC shall advise the
appropriate State agency (as agreed
upon with each State) as promptly as
possible of discharges and'releases.
(8) The OSC shall evaluate incoming
information and immediately advise
FEMA of potential major disaster
situations.
(7) In those instances where a
possible public health emergency exists.
the OSC should notify the HHS
representative to the RRT.
(8) All Federal agencies are required
by Exe'cutive Orders 11735 and 12048 to
develop emergency plans and
procedures for dealing with oil
discharges and releases of hazardous
substances (designated under section
311(b)(2) of the CWA) from vessels and
facilities under their jurisdiction. All
Federal agencies, therefore, are
responsible for designating die offices
that can coordinate such incidents in
accordance, with *^* Plan •««!
applicable Federal regulations and
guidelines. It in the opinion of the OSC.
the responsible Federal agency does not
act promptly or take appropriate action
to respond to a discharge or release ^
caused by a facility or vessefs under its
jurisdiction, the appropnate OSC
(depending on the area where the
discharge or release occurs) may
conduct appropriate response activities.
With respect to incidents on Department
of Defense (DOD] facilities, the OSC
shall be furnished by the DOD.
(9) In the event of a major disaster or
emergency, under the Disaster Relief
Act of 1974 (Pub. L 93-288). the OSC
will coordinate any response activities
with the Federal Coordinating Officer
designated- by the President
(10) The OSC is responsible for
addressing worker safety concerns at •
response iKv\/ti
(cj The National Strike Fotc*(NSF)
consists of the Strike Teams established
by the USCG on the€ast West and Gulf
coasts and mcludM emergency task
forces to provide assistance to the OSC.
(1) The Strike Teams can provide
communication support, advice, and
assistance for oil and hazardous
substances removal. These teams also
have knowledge of ship salvage, damage
control, and diving. Additionally, they
are equipped with specialized
containment and removal equipment.
and have rapid transportation available.
When possible, the Strike Teams will
train the emergency task forces and
assist in the development of regional
and local contingency plans.
(2) The Strike Teams provide
assistance to the OSCs on request.
Requests for a team may be made
directly to the Commanding Officer of
the appropriate team, the USCG member
of the RRT. the appropriate USCG Area
Commander, or Commandant of the
USCG through the NRG.
(3) Emergency task forces consist of
personnel trained to evaluate, monitor.
and supervise pollution responses.
Additionally, they have limited "first
aid" response capability to deploy
equipment prior to the arrival of a
cleanup contractor.
(d) The ERT is established by EPA in
accordance with its disaster and
emergency responsibilities. The ERT
includes expertise in biology, chemistry.
hydrology, geology and engineering. It
can provide access to special
contamination equipment for chemical
releases and advice to the OSC in
hazard evaluation: risk assessment:
multimedia sampling and analysis
program: on-site safety, including
development and implementation plans:
cleanup techniques and priorities; water
supply contamination and protection:
application of dlspersants; damage
assessment and restoration of natural
resources: degree of cleanup required:
and disposal of contaminated matenal.
(1) The ERT also provides both
introductory and intermediate level
training courses to prepare response
personnel.
(2) OSC or RRT requests for ERT
support should be made to the EPA
representative on the RRT, the EPA
Headquarters. Director. Hazardous
Response Support Division, or the
appropriate EPA regional emergency
coordinator.
(e) When requested by the OSC the
SSC shall serve as a member of the
OSCs staff and assist the OSC in
fulfilling responsibilities regarding
damage assessment. The extent and
nature of SSCinvolvement in the
operational node »Hall be determined
by the OSC. The SSC may.
(1) Coordinate response from the
scientific community to OSC requests
for **^»mmt» md to requests from the
OSC or trustees of the affected natural
resources, as appropriate, for
-------
10986
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday, March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
performance of damage assessment
investigation.
[2] Serve as the principal liaison for
scientific advice from the scientific
community to the OSC. The SSC shall
ensure that differing scientific views
within the scientific community are
communicated to the OSC in a timely
manner.
(3) The SSC will assist in responding
to requests for assistance from State and
Federal agencies regarding scientific
studies, damage assessments, and
natural resource restoration. Details on
provision of access to scientific support
shall be included in regional
contingency plans.
(f][l) The RAT may be activated by
the Chairman as an emergency response
team when a discharge or release:
(i) Exceeds the response capability
available to the OSC in the place where
it occurs:
(ii) Transects regional boundaries; or
(iii) May pose a substantial threat to
the public health or welfare or to
regionally significant amounts of
property. Regional contingency plans
shall specify detailed criteria for
activation of RRTs.
(2) When the RRT is activated for an
immediate removal action, the chairman
shall be the representative of the lead
agency. When the RRT is activated for a
planned removal or remedial action, the
chairman shall be the representative of
EPA.
(3) The RRT is activated in the event
of a major discharge or a major release.
The RRT may be activated during any
other pollution emergency by a request
from any RRT representative to the
chairman of the Team. Request for Team
activation shall later be confirmed in
writing. Each representative, or an
appropriate alternate, should be notified
immediately when the RRT is activated.
(4) During prolonged removal or
remedial action, the RRT may not need
to be activated or may need to ba
activated only in a limited sense during
such actions, or have available only
those members of the RRT who are
directly affected by or can provide
direct response assistance. When
activated for a discharge or release,
agency representatives should meet at
the call of the chairman and may:
(i) Monitor and evaluate report* Gram
the OSC. The RRT may advise the OSC
on the duration and extent of Federal
response and may recommend to the
OSC specific actions to respond to the
discharge or release.
(11] Request other Federal State or
local governments, or private agencies
to provide resources under their existing
authorities to respond to a discharge or
release or to monitor response
operations.
[in) Help the OSC prepare information
releases for the public and for
communication with the NRT.
[iv] If the circumstances warrant,
advise the regional or district head of
the agency providing the OSC that a
different OSC should be designated.
(v) Submit Pollution Reports
[POLREPS) to the NRC as significant
developments occur.
(5) When the RRT is activated.
affected States may participate in all
RRT deliberations. State or local
government representatives
participating in the RRT have the same
status as any Federal member of the
RRT.
(6J The RRT can be deactivated by
agreement between the EPA and USCC
team members. The time of deec'avation
should be included in the POLREPS.
(g) The NRT may be activated as a
emergency response team when an oil
discharge or hazardous substance
release:
(1) Exceeds the response capability of
the region in which it occurs;
(2) Transects regional boundaries; o%
(3) Involves significant population
hazards or national policy issues.
substantial amounts of property, or
substantial threats to natural resources.
Also, when requested by any team
representatives, the NRT may act as an
emergency response team.
(h) When activated for a response
action, the NRT shall meet at the call of
the chairman and may:
(1) Monitor and evaluate reports from
the OSC The NRT may recommend to
the OSC through the RRT or otherwise.
actions-to combat the discharge or
release.
(2] Request other Federal State and
local governments, or private agencies
to provide resources under their existing
authorities to combat a discharge or
release or to monitor response
operations.
(3] Coordinate the supply of
equipment, personnel, or technical
advice to the affected region from other
regions or districts.
9300.34 Uulfr<«gfa
ttonsfrwponwM.
(a) if a discharge or release or a
substantial threat of a discharge or
release moves from the area covered by
one Federal local or Federal regional
contingency plan into another area, the
authority for pollution control actions -
should likewise shift If a discharge or
release or substantial threat of
discharge or release affects areas
covered by two or more regional plans,
the response mechanism of both plans
may be activated. In this case, pollution
control actions of all regions concerned
shall be fully coordinated as detailed in
the regional plans.
(b) There should be only one OSC at
any time dunn$ the course of a response
operation. Should a discharge or release
affect two or more areas, the EPA,
USCC and DOO, as appropriate, should
give prime consideration to the area
vulnerable to the greatest damage The
RRT shall designate the OSC if EPA and
USCC members are unable to agree an a
designation. The NRT shall designate
the OSC if members of one RRT or oE
two adjacent RRTs are unable to agree
on the designation.
(cj Where the USCC has provided the
OSC for emergency response to a
release from a waste site located in the
coastal zone, the responsibility for
response action following the immediate
removal action shall shift to EPA. in
accordance with EPA/USCC
agreements.
j 300.35 Communications.
(a) The NRC Is the national
communications center for activities
related to response actions. It is located
at USCC Headquarters in Washington.
D.C. The NRC receives and relays
notices of discharges or releases to the
appropriate OSC disseminates OSC and
RRT reports to the NRT when
appropriate, and provides facilities for
the NRT to use in coordinating a
national response action when required.
(b] The Commandant. USCC. will
provide the necessary communications.
plotting facilities, and equipment.
(c) Notice of an oil discharge or a
release of a hazardous substance or
pollutant or contaminant should be
made immediately in accordance with
33 CFR Part 153. Subpart B. Means of
satisfying this requirement includes
notification of the NRC Duty Officer. HQ
USCG. Washington. D.C.. telephone
(800) 424-8802 (or current local
telephone number], or notification to the
predesignated OSC All notices of
discharges or releases received at the
NRC should be relayed immediately by
telephone to the OSC and State.
Id) Pollution Reports (POLREPS)
Should be submitted by the RRT to the
NRC as significant developments occur
during response actions.
(e) Each regional plan wilt specify the
location for the RRC. The RRC provides
facilities and personnel for
communications, information storage.
and other requirements for coordinating
response.
(f) The USCC Public information
Assist Team [FIAT] and the EPA Put,...
Affairs Assist Team (PAAT), may help
OSCa and regional or distnct offices
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
10987
meet the demands for public information
ind participation during major
i-esponses.
f 300.36 Response equipment
The Spill Cleanup Inventory (SKIM)
system ts available to help OSCs and
RRTs gain rapid information as to the
location of response and support
equipment. This inventory 13 accessible
through the National Response Center
(NRG) and USCC's OSCs. The inventory
includes private and commercial
equipment, as well as government
resources. The RRTs and OSCs shall
ensure that data in the system are
current and accurate. The USCG is
responsible for maintaining and
updating the system with RRT and OSC
input.
Subpart D—Plans
1300.41 Regional and local plan*.
(a) In addition to the National
Contingency Plan (NCPJ, a Federal
regional plan shall be developed for
each standard Federal region and a.
Federal local plan shall be developed for
each area in which an On-Scene
Coordinator (OSC] deems it necessary.
In areas in which the USCG designates
the OSC. such plans shall be developed
in all cases.
(b] These plans will be available for
inspection al EPA Regional Offices or
USCG District Offices. Addresses and
telephone numbers for these offices may
be found in the United States
Government Manual (issued annually)
or in local telephone directories.
§ 300.42 Regional contingency plans.
(a) The RRTs, working with i1-.- States,
should develop Federal regional plana
for each standard Federal region. The
purpose of these plans is coordination of
a timely, effective response by vanaui
Federal agencies and other
organizations to discharges of oil and
releases of hazardous substances and
releases of pollutants or contaminants in
order to protect public health or welfare
and the environment Regional
contingency plans should include
information on all useful facilities and
resources in the region, from
government, commercial, academic and
other sources. To the greatest extent
possible, regional plans will follow the
format of the National Contigency Plan.
(b) Regional Scientific Support
Coordinators (SSCsJ shall organize and
coordinate the contributions of
scientists of each region to the response
activities of the OSC and RRT to the
greatest extent possible. SSCs. with
advice from RRT members, shall also
develop the parts of the regional plan
that relate to scientific support.
(c) Regional plans shall contain lines
of demarcation between Ihe inland and
coastal zones, as mutually agreed upon
by USCG and EPA.
§ 300.43 Local contingency plana.
(a] Each OSC shall maintain a Federal
local plan for response in his or her area
of responsibility, where practicable. In
areas in which the USCG provides the
OSC such plans shall be developed in
all cases. The plan should provide for a
well-coordinated response that ia
integrated and compatible with the
pollution response, fire, emergency and
disaster plans of local. State and other
non-Federal entities. The plan should
identify the probable locations of
discharges or releases, the resources to
respond to multi-media incidents, where
such resources can be obtained, waste
disposal methods and facilities
consistent with local and State plan*
developed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. 8901 et aeq.), and a local structure
for responding to discharge or releases.
To the extent possible, Federal local
plans will follow the format of the NCP.
(b) While the OSC is responsible for
developing Federal local plans, a
successful planning effort will depend
upon the full cooperation of all the
agencies' representatives and includes
the development of local capabilities to
respond to discharges or releases.
Particular attention must be given,
during the planning process, to
developing a multi-agency local
response team for coordinating on-scene
effortarThe RRT should ensure proper
liaison between the OSC and local
representatives of RRT member*.
Subpart E—Operational—flMpons*
Phaaaa for Oil Removal
§300.51 Phase t-Ofecovwy and
notification.
(a) A discharge of oil Bay be
discovered through:
(1) A report submitted by the
responsible party in accordance with
statutory requirements:
(2) Deliberate search by patrols; and
(3) Random or incidental observation
by government agencies or the public.
(b) Reports of discharges should be
made to the NRC or the nearest USCG
or EPA office. All reports shall be
promptly relayed lo the NRC if not
previously reported. Federal regional
and Federal local plans (bell provide for
prompt reporting to the NRC RRC
appropriate Slate agency (as agreed
upon with the Stale], and the affected
land manager or owner.
(c] Upon receipt of a notification of
discharge the NRC shall promptly notify
the OSC through the appropriate RRC.
The OSC shall proceed with the
following phases as outlined in Federal
regional, and Federal local plans.
§ 300.52 Phase It-Preliminary
assessment and Initiation of action.
(a] The agency providing the OSC for
a particular area is responsible for
initiating an immediate preliminary
assessment
(b) The preliminary assessment shall
be conducted using available
information, supplemented where
necessary and possible by an on-scene
inspection. The OSC shall undertake
actions to:
(1) Evaluate the magnitude and
severity of the discharge or threat to
public health and welfare and the
environment
(2) Assess the feasibility of removal;
and
(3) Determine the existence of
potential responsible parties.
(c) Oil pollution Fund-financed
response shall not be initiated when:
(1) There is no discharge or threat of
discharge: or
(2) A responsible person, or any other
person (except a State), is providing
appropriate response.
(d) The OSC In consultation with
appropriate legal authorities shall make
a reasonable effort to have the
responsible party voluntarily and
promptly perform removal actions. The
OSC shall ensure adequate surveillance
over whatever actions are initiated. If
effective actions an not being taken to
eliminate the threat, or if removal is not
being properly done, the OSC will so
advise the responsible party. If the
responsible party does not take proper
removal actions, or is unknown, or is
otherwise unavailable, the OSC shall.
pursuant lo section 311(c](l) of the
CWA, determine whether authority for a
Federal response exists, and. if so, take
appropriate response actions. Where
practicable, continuing efforts should be
made to encourage response by
responsible parties.
(e) The OSC shall ensure that the
trustees of affected natural resources
are notified, in order that the trustees
may initiate appropriate actions, when
natural resources have been or are
likely to be damaged (see Subpart G).
g30tL53 Plus* IB—Containment,
countermeaaurea, deenup, and disposal
(a) Defensive actions should begin as
soon as possible to prevent, minimize, or
mitigate damage to the public health or
welfare or the environment. Actions
-------
10988
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Friday, March 12, 1982 / Proposed Rules
may include: Analyzing water samples
to determine the source and spread of
the pollutant: controlling the source of
discharge: measuring and sampling:
damage control or salvage operations:
placement of physical barriers to deter
the spread of pollution or to protect
endangered species: control of the water
discharged from upstream
impoundment; and the use of chemicals
and other materials in accordance with
Subpart H. to restrain the spread of the
pollutant and mitigate its effects.
(b) Appropriate actions should be
taken to recover the pollutant or
mitigate its effects. Of the numerous
chemical and physical methods that
may be used, the chosen methods
should be the most consistent with
protecting the public health and welfare
and the environment.
(c) Pollutants and contaminated
materials recovered in cleanup
operations shall be disposed of in
accordance with Federal regional and
Federal local contingency plans.
9300.54 PhaM IV-Oocunwntatlon and
Cost Recovery.
(a) Documentation shall be collected
and maintained to support all actions
taken under the CWA and to form the
basis for cost recovery. In general.
documentation should be sufficient to
prove the source and circumstances of
the incident, the responsible party or
parties, and impacts and potential
impacts to the public health and welfare
and the environment When appropriate,
documentation should also be collected
for scientific understanding of the
environment and for the research and
development of improved response
methods and technology. Damages to
private citizens (including loss of
earnings) are not addressed by this Plan.
Evidentiary and cost documentation
procedures and requirements are
specified in the USCG directive CG-495
and 33 CFR Part 153.
[b) The OSC shall ensure die
necessary collection and safeguarding of
information, samples, and report*.
Samples and information must be
gathered expeditiously during the
response to ensure an accurate record of
the impacts incurred. Documentation
materials shall be made available to the
trustees of affected natural resources
where practicable.
(c) Information and reports obtained
by the OSC shall be transmitted to the
RRC which will forward copies to the
NRC. RRT members, and others as
appropriate.
§ 300.55 General pattern of response.
(a) When the OSC receives a report of
a discharge, actions normally should be
taken in the following sequence:
(1] Immediately notify the RRC and
NRC when the reported incident is an
actual or potential major incident.
(2) Investigate the report to determine
pertinent information such as the threat
posed to public health or welfare, or the
environment, the type and quantity of
polluting material, and the source of the
discharge.
(3) Notify RRT members. Scientific
Support Coordinator, and the trustees of
affected natural resources, in
accordance with the applicable regional
plan.
(4) Determine whether the
"responsible party" is properly carrying
out removal. Removal is being done
properly when:
(i) The cleanup is Fully sufficient to
minimize or mitigate damage to the
public welfare (removal efforts are
"improper" to the extent that Federal
efforts are necessary to prevent further
damage).
(ii) The removal efforts are in
accordance with applicable regulations
and guidelines, including this Plan.
(5) Officially classify the size of the
incident and determine the course of
action to be followed.
(6) Determine whether a State or
political subdivision has the capability
to carry out response actions and a
contract or cooperative agreement has
been established with the appropriate
fund administrator for this purpose.
(b) The preliminary inquiry will
probably show that the situation falls
into one of five classes. These classes
and the appropriate response to each
are outlined below:
(1) If the investigation shows that no
discharge exists, the case shall be
considered a false alarm and should be
closed.
(2) If the investigation shows a minor
discharge with the responsible party
taking appropriate removal action,
contact should be established with the
party. The removal action should be
monitored to ensure continued proper
action.
(3) If the investigation shows a minor
discharge with improper removal action
being taken, the following measure*
shall be taken:
(i) An immediate effort should be
made to atop further pollution.
(ii) The responsible party shall be so
advised of what action will be
considered appropriate.
(iii) If the responsible party doea not
properly respond, he shall be notified of
his potential liability for Federal
response performed under the Act. This
liability includes all costs of removal
and may include the costs of assessing
and restoring damaged natural
resources and other actual or necessary
costs of a Federal response.
(iv) The OSC shall notify appropriate
State and local officials, keep the RRT
advised and initiate Phase III operations
as conditions warrant.
(v) Information shall be collected for
possible recovery of response costs in
accordance with § 300.54.
(4) When the investigation shows that
an actual or potential medium pollution
incident exists, the OSC shall follow the
same general procedures as for a minor
discharge. If appropriate, the OSC shall
recommend activation of the Regional
Response Team.
(5) When the investigation shows an
actual or potential major pollution
incident, the OSC shall follow the same
procedures as for minor and medium
discharges and. in addition, shall
immediately notify the RRC and NRC.
§300.58 Pollution reports.
(a) Within 60 days after the
conclusion of a major pollution incident
and when requested by the RRT, the
OSC shall submit to the RRT a complete
report on the response operation and the
actions taken. The OSC shall at the
same time send a copy of the report to
the NRT. The RRT shall review the
OSC's report and prepare an
endorsement to the NRT for review. This
shall be accomplished within 30 days
after the report has been received.
(b) The OSC's report shall accurately
record the situation as it developed, the
actions taken, the resources committed
and the problems encountered. The
OSC's recommendations ere a source
for new procedures and policy.
(c) The format for the OSC's report
will be as follows:
(l] Summary of Events—A
chronological narrative of all events,
including:
(i) The cause of the incident:
(ii) The initial situation:
(iii) Efforts to obtain response by
response by responsible parties:
(iv] The organization of the response;
and
(v] The resources committed.
(vi) The location (water body. State.
city, latitude and longitude) of the oil
spill: whether the discharge was in
connection with activities regulated
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (OCSLA), the Traaa-Alaska Pipe!)
Authority Act or Deepweter Port Act
whether it might have nr actually did
affect natural resources under the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
10989
exclusive management authority of the
United States.
(vu) Comments on Federal or Slate
efforts to replace or restore damaged
natural resources and damage
assessment activities.
(vinl Details of any threat abatement
actions taken under sections 311(c) or
(d) of Ihe CWA.
(2) Effectiveness of Removal
Actions—A candid and thorough
analysis of the effectiveness of removal
actions taken by:
(i) The responsible party;
(u] State and local forces:
(in) Federal agencies and special
forces; and
(iv) (if applicable} contractors, private
groups and volunteers.
(3) Problems Encountered—A list of
problems affecting response with
particular attention to problems of
intergovernmental coordination.
(4) Recommendations—OSC
recommendations, including at a
minimum:
(i) Means to prevent a recurrence of
the incident:
(n) Improvement of response actions;
(in) Any recommended changes in the
National Contingency Plan or Federal
regional plan.
5300.57 Special consideration*
[a] Safety of Personnel—The OSC
should be aware of threats lo human
health and safety and shall ensure thai
persons entering the response area use
proper pecautions. procedures, and
equipment and that they posses proper
training. Federal local plans shall
identify sources of information on
anticipated hazards, precautions, and
requirements to protect personnel during
response operations. Names and phone
numbers of people with relevant
information shall be included.
Responsibility for the safety of all
Federal employees rests with the heads
of their agencies. Accordingly, each
Federal employee on the scene must be
apprised of and conform with OSHA
regulations and other* deemed
necessary by the OSC All private
contractors who are working on-sile
must be fully informed of applicable
provisons of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act and standards deemed
necessary by the OSC. and be required
to conform with them.
(bj Waterfowl Conservation—The
DOI representative and the State liaison
to the RRT shall arrange for the
coordination of professional and
volunteer groups permitted and trained
to participate in waterfowl dispersal.
collection, cleaning, rehabilitation and
recovery activities. Federal regional and
Federal local plans will, to the extent
practicable, identify organizations or
institutions that are permitted to
participate in such activities and
operate such facilities. Waterfowl
conservation activities will normally be
included in Phase III response actions
§ 300.53 of this subpart).
5300.58 Funding.
(a) If the person responsible for the
discharge does not act promptly or take
proper removal actions, or if the person
responsible for the discharge is
unknown. Federal discharge removal
actions may begin under section
3H(c)(l) of the CWA. The discharger, if
known, is liable for the costs of Federal
removal in accordance with section
311(f) of the CWA and other Federal
law.
(b) Actions undertaken by the
participating agencies in response to
pollution shall be carried out under
existing programs and authorities when
available. This Plan intends that Federal
agencies will make resources available,
expend funds, or participate in response
to oil discharges under their existing
authority. Authority to expend resources
will be in accordance with agencies'
basic statutes and. if required, through
interagency agreements. Specific inter-
agency reimbursement agreements may
be signed when necessary to ensure that
the Federal resources will be available
for a timely response to a discharge of
oil. The ultimate decison as lo the
appropriateness of expending funds
rests with the agency that is held
accountable for such expenditures.
(c) The oil pollution fund,
administered by Commandant USCG.
has been established pursuant to section
311(k) of the CWA. Regulations
governing the administration and use of
the fund are contained in 33 CFR Port
153. The OSC shall exercise sufficient
control over removal operations to be
able to certify that reimbursement from
the fund is appropriate.
(d) Response actions, other than
removal, such as scientific
investigations not in support of removal
actions or law enforcement shall be
provided by the agency with legal
responsibility for those specific actions.
(e) The funding of a response to a
discharge from a Federally operated or
supervised facility or vessel is the
responsibility of the operating or
supervising agency.
(f) The following agencies have funds
available for certain discharge removal
actions:
(1) The EPA may provide funds to
begin timely discharge removal actions
when the OSC is an EPA representative,
(2] The USCG pollution control efforts
are funded under "operating expense*"
These funds are used in accordance
with agency directives.
(3) The Department of Defense has
two specific sources of funds which may
be applicable to an oil discharge under
appropriate circumstances. (This does
not consider military resources which
might be made available under specific
conditions.)
(i) Funds required for removal of a
suriken vessel or similar obstruction of
navigation are available to the Corps of
Engineers through Civil Functions
Appropriations, Operations and
Maintenance, General.
(ii) The U.S. Navy has funds available
on a reimbursable basis to conduct
salvage operations.
(4} Certain emergency response
activities of State and local governments
under this Plan may qualify for
reimbursement as a "major disaster" or
an "emergency-" The President may
allocate funds fiom the Disaster Relief
Act (Pub. L 93-288. as amended).
managed by FEMA. FEMA may make
financial assistance available to State
and local governments and certain
private, non-profit organizations for
debris removal, emergency protective
measures, and repairs and restoration of
public facilities. The Director of FEMA
may also direct and reimburse Federal
agencies to perform disaster-related
work for State and local governments
which do not have the capability to
respond on their own. (See 44 CFR Part
205.)
(5) Pursuant to section 311(c](2)(H] of
the CWA. the State or States affected by
a discharge of oil. may act where
necessary to remove such discharge and
may, pursuant to 33 CFR Part 153. be
reimbursed from the pollution revolving
fund for the reasonable costs incurred in
such a removal
(i] Removal by a State is necessary
within the meaning of section
311(c)(2)(H) of the Act when the OSC
determines that the owner or operator of
the vessel, onshore facility, or offshore
facility from which the discharge occurs
cannot effect removal properly and that:
(A) State action is required to
minimize or mitigate significant damage
to the public health or welfare which
Federal action cannot minimize or
mitigate, or
(B) Removal or partial removal can be
dona by the Slate al a cost which is less
than or not significantly greater than the
cost which would be Incurred by the
Federal departments or agencies.
(ii) Slate removal actions must be in
compliance with the Plan in order to
qualify for reimbursement.
(iii) State removal actions are
considered to be Phase III actions, under
-------
10990
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
the same definitions applicable to
Federal agencies.
(iv) Actions taken by local
government in support of Federal
discharge removal operations are
considered to be actions of the State for
purpose of this section. Federal regional
and Federal local plans shall show what
funds and resources are available from
participating agencies under various
conditions and cost arrangements.
Interagency agreements may be
necessary to specify when
reimbursement is required.
Subpart F—Hazardous Substance
Response
§300.61 General.
(a) This subpart establishes methods
and criteria for determining the
appropriate extent of response
authorized by CERCLA when any
hazardous substance is released or there
is a substantial threat of such a release
into the environment, or there is a
release or substantial threat of a release
into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant which may present an
imminent and substantial danger to the
public health, welfare, or the
environment.
(b) Section 104(a)(l] of CERCLA
authorizes removal or remedial action
unless it is determined that such
removal and remedial action will be
done properly by the owner or operator
of the vessel or facility from which the
release or threat of release emanates, or
by any other responsible party.
(c) In determining the need for and in
planning or undertaking Fund-financed
action, response personnel should, to the
extent practicable, consider the
following:
(1) Encourage State participation in
response actions.
(2) Conserve Fund monies by
encouraging private party cleanup.
(3) Keep the local community
informed.
(4) Rely on established technology
when feasible and cost-effective.
(5) Encourage the participation and
sharing of technology by industry and
other experts.
§ 300.62 Phase I—Discovery or
notification.
(a) A release may be discovered
through:
(1) Notification in accordance with
sections 103(a). (b) or (c) of CERCLA:
(2) Investigation by government
authorities conducted in accordance
with section 104(e) of CERCLA or other
statutory authority;
(3) Notification of a release by a
Federal or State permit holder when
required by its permit:
(4) Inventory efforts or random or
incidental observation by government
agencies or the public:
(5) Other sources.
(b) If not reported previously, a
release should be promptly reported to
the NRC. The NRC shall convey the
notification expeditiously to appropriate
government agencies, and in the case of
notices received pursuant to section
103(a) the NRC shall notify the Governor
of any affected State and the
appropriate State agency as agreed upon
by the State.
(c) Upon receipt of a notification of a
release, the NRC shall promptly notify
the appropriate OSC.
§300.63 PhaM II—Preliminary
assessment
(a) A preliminary assessment of a
release identified for possible CERCLA
response should be undertaken by the
lead agency. If the reported release
potentially requires immediate removal,
the preliminary assessment should be
done as promptly as possible. Other
releases shall be assessed as oon as
practicable considering priorities. The
lead agency should base its assessment
on readily available information. This
assessment may include:
(1) Evaluation of the magnitude of the
hazard:
(2) Identification of the source and
nature of the release:
(3) Determination of the existence of a
non-Federal party or parties ready,
willing, and able to undertake a proper
response: and
(4) Evaluation of factors necessary to
make the determination of whether
immediate removal is necessary.
(b) A preliminary assessment of
releases- from hazardous waste
management facilities may include data
such as site management practices.
information from generators,
photographs, analysis of historical
photographs, literature searches, and
personal interviews conducted as
appropriate. In addition, a perimeter
(off-site) inspection may be necessary to
determine the potential for a release.
Finally, if more information is needed.
and if sophisticated safety equipment is
not needed, a site visit may be
performed.
(c) A preliminary assessment should
be terminated when the OSC
determines:
(1) There is no release:
(2) The source is neither a vessel nor a
facility:
(3) The release involves neither a
hazardous substance, nor a pollutant or
contaminant that may pose an imminent
and substantial danger to public health
or welfare;
(4) The amount released does not
warrant Federal response;
(5) A party responsible for the release.
or any other person, is providing
appropriate response, and on-scene
monitoring by the government is not
recommended or approved by the lead
agency; or
(6) The assessment is completed.
§ 300.64 Phase III—Immediate removal.
(a) In determining the appropriate
extent of action to be taken at a given
release the lead agency shall first
review the preliminary assessment to
determine if immediate removal action
is appropriate. Immediate removal
action shall be deemed appropriate in
those cases in which the lead agency
Determines that the initiation of
immediate removal action will prevent
or mi'tigate immediate and significant
risk of harm to human life or health or to
the environment from such situations as:
(1] Human, animal, or food chain
exposure to accutely toxic substances.
(2) Contamination of a drinking water
supply;
(3) Fire and/or explosion; or
(4) Similarly acute situations.
(b) If the lead agency determines tha'
immediate removal is appropriate.
defensive actions should begin as soon
as possible to prevent or mitigate danger
to the public health, welfare, or the
environment. Actions may include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Collecting and analyzing samples
to determine the source and dispersion
of the hazardous substance and
documenting those samples for possible
evidentiary use.
(2) Providing alternative water
supplies.
(3) Installing security fencing or other
measures to limit access.
(4) Controlling the source of release.
(5) Measuring and sampling.
(6) Moving hazardous substances off-
site for storage, destruction, treatment.
or disposal provided that the substances
are moved to a facility that is in
compliance with subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act. as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
(7) Placing physical barriers to deter
the spread of the release.
(8) Controlling the water discharge
from an upstream impoundment.
(9) Temporarily evacuating threaten'
individuals not otherwise provided foi
(10) Using chemicals and other
materials in accordance with Subpart H
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Friday, March 12. 19B2 / Proposed Rules
to restrain the spread of the pollutant
and to mitigate its effects.
(11) Executing damage control or
salvage operations.
(c) Immediate removal actions are
complete when, in the opinion of the
lead agency, the criteria in subsection
[a] of 1300.64 are no longer met and any
contaminated waste malenah have
been treated or disposed of properly.
[d] If the lead agency determines that
the release still may require planned
removal or remedial action, the lead
agency or a State may initiate, either
simultaneously or sequentially, Phase IV
or V. as appropriate.
$300.65 Hiase IV—Evaluation and
determination of appropriate response)—
planned removal and remedial action.
(a) The purpose of this phase is to
determine the appropriate action when
the preliminary assessment indicates
that planned removal or remedial action
may be necessary or when the OSC
requests and the lead agency concurs
that planned removal or remedial action
should follow an immediate removal
action.
(b) Pursuant to sections 104(b) and (e)
of CERCLA. the responsible official may
undertake investigations, monitoring.
surveys, testing and other information
gathering as appropriate. These efforts
shall be undertaken jointly by the
Federal or State officials responsible for
providing Fund-financed response and
those responsible for enforcing legal
requirements. These coordination
procedures shall be specified as
appropriate in any contractor
cooperative agreement with States.
(c) As soon as practicable, an
inspection will be undertaken to assess
the nature and extent of the release and
its priority for Fund-financed response.
A major objective of an inspection is to
determine if there is any immediate
danger to persons living or working near
the facility. In general, the collection of
samples should be minimized during
inspection activities: however.
situations in which there is an apparent
risk to the public should be Heated as
exceptions to thai practice. Examples of
apparent risk include use of nearby
wells for drinking water, citizen
complaints of unusual taste or odor in
drinking water, or chemical odors or
unusual health problems in the vicinity
of the release. Under those
circumstances, a sampling protocol
should be developed for the inspection
to allow for the earliest possible
detection of any human exposure to
hazardous substances. The site
inspection may also address:
(!) Determining the need for
immediate removal or other emergency
measures;
(2) Assessing amounts, types, and
locations of hazardous substances
stored:
(3) Assessing potential for substances
to migrate from areas where they were
originally located:
(4) Determining or documenting
immediate threats to the public or
environment.
(d) Methods for Listing Priorities-
States that wish to have their priority
lists considered for inclusion in the
National Priority List must use the
Hazard Ranking System to establish
State priorities for adequately
investigated, known, or potential
releases and must furnish EPA with the
scores. Detailed methods and criteria for
ranking hazardous substance releases
are included in "A Model for
Determining Priorities Among
Hazardous Substance Releases." The
publication contains detailed direction
for assigning value to ranking factors.
worksheets, and the rationale behind
the model The model is available upon
request from the Hazardous Site Control
Division (WH-548-E), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW., Washington. D.C 20460.
[e) Slate Priority Submissions—States
that wish to have their priority
candidates considered for inclusion in
the National Priority List must furnish a
list of these releases to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office. The list will
include a listing of the most serious
releases located in the State in order of
priority and a summary of all data
pertinent to establishing the seriousness
of threat among high priority facilities.
In addition, the list will indicate, for
each release ranked: Whether a
responsible parry exists; whether the
State intends to lake enforcement action
against the responsible party, the next
response phase to be undertaken: an
estimate of the coat of that phase; and
an estimate of the total cost of the
response. As part of the list, the State
will indicate in a letter of intent either
its ability to make the assurances
required by section I04(c|(3) of the Act
or its intention to make those
assurances at the appropriate time.
Briefly, the State will:
(1) Assure the future maintenance of
the response actions provided:
(2) Assure the availability of a
hazardous waste disposal facility m
compliance with Subtitle C of the Solid '
Waste Disposal Act for any necessary
off-site disposal of hazardous waste;
and
(3) Assure payment or pay 10 percent'
of the costs of the remedial action (or at
least 50 percent, if the facility was
owned at the time of release by the
State or by a political subdivision). The
letter of intent should also contain the
Stale's schedule for entering into a
cooperative agreement or contract with
EPA /or responses at any or all releases
in the priority plan. Finally, the State
may, at its discretion, designate in its
priority plan the highest raofced :elea«
which the State believes requires
federally funded remedial action and
which should be included on the
national priority list of one hundred.
(f) National Priority Last—(1)
Consolidation of State and Regional
Lists—The EPA Regional Offices will
review State hazard rankings lo ensure
uniform application of the hazard
ranking system and will add. in
consultation with the States, any
additional priority releases known to
EPA. The State priorities -vil! be
reviewed and consolidated by EPA
Headquarters into a National Priority
List.
(2) Grouping of Releases—Similar
scores cannot accurately differentiate
risks at their associated releases. Thus,
in order to avoid misleading the public
that real differences in risk exist, similar
scores nay be grouped. Releases within
any group will be listed alphabetically.
The EPA may treat all releases listed
within a group as Identical in risk when
considering response activities.
(3) The EPA will submit the
recommended National Priority List to
the NRT for review and comment.
9 300.66 Pttea* V—Planned removal
(a) With the lead agency's approval.
1 planned removal may be undertaken
when a release Ei listed aa a national
pnrority pursuant to the Hazard
Ranking System or at an unranked
release when there are conditions that
may result in a release requiring
immediate removal.
(b) Planned removals may be taken
only if the lead agency determines that:
(1) There will be a substantial cost-
savings by proceeding with the planned
removal in lieu of remedial action;
|2) A limited action is needed to
minimize and mitigate damages and
exposure that otherwise would occur
(3) The Slate provides adequate
assurance that it will provide al least 10
percent of project expenses and that the
release will be tubmltlad aa a priority
by the State for Inclusion in the next
revision of toe National Priority List;
and
(41 The action WiU minimize and
mitigate damage* without relying on
future response actions.
-------
10992
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Friday, March 12. 1962 / Proposed Rules
(c) A planned removal should
emphasize actions which are consistent
with any subsequent remedial activities
that may be necessary to further
mitigate or eliminate the release of
substances in question.
(d) Responsible officials may
undertake or request (consistent with
delegations in Executive Order 12316)
any actions authorized under section
104(b) of CERCLA when taking a
planned removal action.
(e) Pollution reports (POLREPS] for
planned removal releases of hazardous
substances shall be submitted in
accordance with requirements
established for discharges of oil under
§ 300.56.
(f) Planned removal shall be
terminated after SI.000,000 has been
obligated for the action or six months
has elasped from the date of initial
response to a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances unless
it is determined that:
(1} Continued response actions are
immediately required to prevent, limit.
or mitigate an emergency.
(2] There is an immediate risk to
public health or welfare or the
environment, and
(3) Such assistance will not otherwise
be provided on a timely basis.
§ 300.67 PhaM IV—Remedial action.
(a] Remedial actions are those
reponses to releases on the National
Priority List that require longer-term and
possibly more expensive efforts to
prevent or mitigate the migration of a
release of hazardous substances.
(b) Pursuant to section 104(c}(3) of
CERLCA. before any Fund-financed
remedial action may be taken, the
affected State(s) must enter into a
contract or cooperative agreement with
the Federal Government. EPA also shall
consult with the affected State or States
in determining an appropriate remedial
action.
(c) As an alternative or in addition to
Fund-financed remedial action, the lead
agency may seek, through voluntary
agreement or administrative or judicial
process, to have those persons
responsible for the release clean up in a
manner that effectively mitigates and
minimizes damage to and provides
adequate protection of public health.
welfare, and the environment The lead
agency shall evaluate the adequacy of
cleanup proposals submitted by
responsible parties or determine the
level of cleanup to be sought through
enforcement efforts, by consideration of
the factors discussed in paragraphs (e]
through (j) below. The lead agency will
not. however, apply the cost balancing
considerations discussed in (k) of this
section to determine the appropriate
extent of responsible party cleanup.
(d) A remedial investigation should be
undertaken by the lead agency (or
responsible party if the responsible
party will be developing a cleanup
proposal) to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the
release. This includes sampling and
monitoring, as necessary, and includes
the gathering of sufficient information to
determine the necessity for and
proposed scope of remedial action.
(e) In some instances, initial remedial
measures can and should begin before
final selection of an appropnate
remedial action if such measures are
determined to be feasible and necessary
to limit exposure or threat of exposure
to a significant health or environmental
hazard and if such measures are cost-
effective. Compliance with § 300.67(b) is
a prerequisite to taking initial remedial
measures. The following factors should
be used in determining whether initial
remedial measures are appropriate:
(1} Actual or potential direct contact
with hazardous substances by nearby
population. (Measures might include
fences and other security precautions.)
(2] Absence of an effective drainage
control system (with an emphasis on
run-on control). (Measures might include
drainage ditches.)
(3) Severely contaminated drinking
water at the tap. (Measures might
include the temporary provision of an
alternative water supply.)
(4} Hazardous substances in drums.
barrels, tanks, or odier bulk storage
containers, above surface. (Measures
might include transport of drums off-
site.)
(5) Highly contaminated soils largely
at or near surface, posing a senaua
threat to public health. (Measures might
include temporary capping or removal of
highly contaminated soils from drainage
areas.)
(6) Substantial threat of fire or
explosion or of serious public health
hazard. [Measures might include
security or drum removal.)
(7) Weather conditions that may
cause substances to migrate posing
senous health hazards. (Measures might
include stabilization of benns. dikes or
impoundments.)
(f] Identification of Appropnate Type
of Remedy. Baaed on information
gathered during the remedial
investigation, the lead agency shall
determine the nature of the threat to
public health, welfare, or the
environment and assess whether the
threat can be mitigated and minimized
by controlling the source of the
contamination at or near the area where
the hazardous substances were
originally located (source control
remedial actions) or whether additional
actions will be necessary because the
hazardous substances have migrated
from the area of their original location
(off-site remedial actions).
(1) Source control remedial actions
may be appropriate if a substantial
concentration of hazardous substances
remain at or near the area where they
were originally located and inadequate
barriers exist to retard migration of
substances into the environment. Source
control remedial actions are not
appropriate if all substances have
migrated from the area where originally
located or if the lead aency determines
that the substances are adequately
contained. Source control remedial
actions may include alternatives to
contain the hazardous substances where
they ore located or eliminate potential
contamination by transporting the
hazardous substances to a new location.
The following criteria should be
assessed in determining whether and
what type of source control remedial
actions should be considered:
(i) The extent to which substances
pose a danger to public health, welfare.
or the environment. Factors which
should be considered in assessing this
danger include:
(A) Population at risk:
(B) Amount and form of the substa
present;
(C] Hazardous properties of the
substances:
[D] Hdydrogeological factors (e g. soil
permeability depth to saturated zone.
hydrologic gradients, proximity to a
drinking water aquifer]; and
(E) Climate (rainfall, etc.).
(iij The extent to which substances
have migrated or are contained by either
natural or man-made barriers.
(iii} The experiences and approaches
used in similar situations by State and
Federal agencies and private parties.
(iv) Environmental effects and welfare
concerns.
(2) In some situations it may be
appropriate to take action (referred to as
off-site remedial actions) to minimize
and mitigate the migration of hazardous
substances and the effects of such
migration. These actions may be taken
when the lead agency determines that
source control remedial actions may not
effectively mitigate and minimize the
threat and there is a significant threat to
public health, welfare, or the
environment. These situations typically
will result from contamination th
migrated beyond the area when
hazardous substances were ongi
located. Off-site measures may include
provision of permanent alternative
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 49 / Friday, March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
10993
water supplies, management of a
drinking water aquifer plume or
treatment of drinking water aquifers.
The following criteria should be used in
determining whether and what type of
off-site remedial actions should be
considered:
(i) Contribution of (he contamination
to an air. land or water pollution
problem.
[ii| The extent to which the
substances have migrated or are
expected to migrate from the area of
their original location and whether
continued migration may pose a danger
to public health, welfare or environment.
(lii) The extent to which natural or
man-made barriers currently contain the
hazardous substances and the adequacy
of the barriers.
(ivj The factors listed in paragraph
(v) The experiences and approaches
used in similar situdlions by Stale and
Federal agencies and by private parties.
[vij Environmental effects and welfare
concerns.
(g) Development of Alternatives. A
limited number of alternatives should be
developed for either source control or
off-site remedial actions (or bath)
depending upon the type of response
that has been identified under
paragraph (f) as being appropriate."
Where appropriate, one alternative
should be a no-action alternative. No
action alternatives are appropriate, for
example, when action may cause a
greater environmental or health danger
than no action or when there is no
appropriate engineering solution. These
alternatives should be developed baaed
upon the assessment conducted under
paragraph [f) and reflect the types of
source control or off-site remedial
actions determined to be appropriate
under paragraph (f)-
(h) Initial Screening of Alternatives.
The alternatives developed under
paragraph (g) will be subjected to an
initial screening to narrow the list of
potential remedial actions or further
detailed analysis. Three broad en ten a
should be used in the Initial screening of
alternative*;
(1) Cost. For each alternative, the cost
of installing or implementing the
remedial action must be considered.
including operation and maintenance
costs. An alternative that far exceeds
[e.g. by an order of magnitude) the costs
of other alternatives evaluated should
usually be excluded from further
consideration.
(2) Effects of the Alternative. The
effects of each alternative should be
evaluated in two ways: (i) Whether the~
alternative itaelf or its implementation
has any adverse enviromental effects:
dnd (ii) for source control remedial
actions, whether the alternative is likely
to achieve adequate control of source
material, or for off-site remedial actions,
whether the alternative is likely to
effectively mitigate and minimize the
threat of harm to public health, welfare
or the environment. If an alternative has
significant adverse environmental
effects, il should be excluded from
further consideration. Only those
alternatives that effectively contnbute
to protection of public health, welfare.
or the environment should be
considered further.
(3) Acceptable Engineering Practices.
Alternatives must be feasible for the
location and conditions of the release.
applicable to the problem, and represent
a reliable means of addressing the
problem.
(i) Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.
(1) A more detailed evaluation will be
conducted of the limited number of
alternatives that remain after (he initial
screening in (h|.
(2) The detailed analysis of each
alternative should include:
(i) Refinement and specification of
alternatives in detail, with emphasis on
use of established technology:
(ii) Detailed cost estimation, including
distribution of costs over time:
(lit) Evaluation in terms of engineering
implementation,or constructability. and
(iv) An analysis of any adverse
environmental impacts, methods for
mitigating these impacts, and costs of
mitigation.
(3) In performing the detailed analysis
of alternatives, it may be necessary to
gather additional data in order to
complete the analysis.
(j) The appropriate extent of remedy
shall be determined by the lead agency's
selection of the remedial alternative
which the agency determines is cost-
effective (i.e. the lowest coat alternative
that is technologically feasible and
reliable] and which effectively mitigates
and minimizes damage to and provides
adequate protection of public health.
welfare, or the environment
(k) Section 104(c](4) of CERCLA
requires that the need for protection of
public health, welfare and the
environment, be balanced against the
amount of money available in the Fund
to respond to releases under
consideration and the need to respond
to other releases. Accordingly, in
determining the appropriate extent of
remedy for Fund-financed response the
lead agency also must consider the need
to respond to other releases with Fund
monies.
} 300.68 Phas« VII—Ooeurrwntatlon and
cost recovery.
(a) During all phases, documentation
shall be collected and maintained to
support all actions tdken under this
plan, and to form the basis for cost
recovery. In general, documentation
should be sufficient to provide the
source and circumstances of the
condition, the identity of responsible
parties, accurate accounting of Federal
costs incurred, and impacts and
potential impacts to the public health.
welfare, and environment.
(b) The information and reports
obtained by the lead agency should be
transmitted to the RRC. Copies can then
be forwarded to the NRT. members of
the RRT, and others as appropriate.
§ 300.69 Method* ol remedying releases.
(a) The following section lists
methods for remedying releases trwi
may be considered by the lead agency in
taking response action. This list of
methods should not be considered
inclusive of all possible methods of
remedying releases.
(b) Engineering Methods for On-site
Actions.
(1] Control and containment actions.
(i) Air emissions control—The control
of volatile gaseous compounds should
address both lateral movement and
atmospheric emissions. Before gas
migration controls can be properly
installed, field measurements to
determine gas concentrations, pressures.
and soil permeabilities should be used
to establish optimum design for control.
In addition, the types of hazardous
substances present, the depth to which
they extend (he nature of the gas and
(he subsurface geology of the release
area should, if possible, be determined.
Typical emission control techniques
include the following;
(A) Pipe vents;
(B) Trench vents:
JC] Gas barriers;
(D) Gas collection systems.
(ii) Surface water controls—These ate
remedial techniques designed to reduce
waste infiltration and to control runoff
at release areas. They also serve to
reduce erosion and to stabilize the
surface nf covered sites. These types of
control technologies are usually
implemented in conjunction with other
types of controls such as the elimination
of ground water infiltration and/or
waste stabilization, etc. Technologies
applicable to surface water control
include the following:
(A) Surface seals:
(B) Surface water diversion and
collection systems:
(J) Dikes and berms;
-------
10994
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
[2] Ditches, diversions, waterways:
(3) Chutes and downpipes:
[4] Levees;
(5) Seepage basins and ditches:
(6) Sedimentation basins and ponds:
(7) Terraces and benches:
(C) Grading;
(D) Revegetation.
(lit) Ground water controls—Ground
water pollution is a particularly serious
problem because once an aquifer has
been contaminated, the resource cannot
usually be cleaned without the
expenditure of great time, effort and
resources. Techniques that can be
applied to the problem with varying
degrees of success are as follows:
(A] Impermeable barriers:
(!) Slurry walls;
(2) Grout curtains;
(3] Sheet pilings:
(B) Permeable treatment beds:
(C) Ground water pumping:
(1) Water table adjustment:
(2) Plume containment.
(D) Leachate control—Leachate
control systems are applicable to control
of surface seeps and seepage of leachate
to ground water. Leachate collection
systems consist of a series of drains
which intercept the leachate and
channel it to a sump, wetwall, treatment
system, or appropriate surface discharge
point. Technologies applicable to
leachate control include the following:
(1) Subsurface drains:
[2] Drainage ditches;
(3) Liners.
(iv) Contaminated water and sewer
lines—Sanitary sewers and municipal
water mains located down gradient from
hazardous waste disposal sites may
become contaminated by infiltration of
leachate or polluted ground water
through cracks, ruptures, or poorly
sealed joints in piping. Technologies
applicable to the control of such
contamination to water and sewer lines
include-
(A] Grouting;
(B) Pipe rehning and sleeving;
(2) Treatment Technologies.
(i) Gaseous emissions treatment—
Gases from waste disposal sites
frequently contain malodorous and toxic
substances, and thus require treatment
before release to the atmosphere. There
are two basic types of ga* treatment
systems:
(A) Adsorption by vapor phase
carbon:
(B) Thermal oxidation.
(ii) Direct waste treatment methods—
In most cases, these techniques can be
considered long-term permanent
solutions. Many of these direct
treatment methods are not fully
developed and the applications and
process reliability are not well
demonstrated. Use of these techniques
for waste treatment may require
considerable pilot plant work.
Technologies applicable to the direct
treatment of wastes are:
(A) Biological methods;
[1] Treatment via modified
conventional wastewater treatment
techniques;
[2] Anaerobic, aerated and facultative
lagoons;
(J) Rotating biological disks:
(B) Chemical methods;
I!) Chlorination;
[2] Precipatation, flocculation.
sedimentation:
(J) Neutralization:
(4) Equalization;
(C) Physical methods:
[1] Air stripping;
(2} Carbon adsorption:
(3) Ion exchange:
(4) Reverse osmosis:
(5) Permeable bed treatment:
(8) Wet air oxidation;
(7) Incineration.
(in) Contaminated soils and
sediments—In some cases where it can
be shown to be cost-effective.
contaminated sediments and soils will
be treated on the site. Technologies
available include:
(A) Incineration;
(B) Wet air oxidation:
(C) Solidification;
(DJ Encapsulation:
(E) In situ treatment;
(1] Solution mining, (soil washing or
soil flushing);
{2} Neutralization / detoxification;
(J) Microbiological degradation;
(c) Off-site Transport for Storage.
Treatment Destruction or Secure
Disposition.
(1) General—Offsite transport or
storage, treatment, destruction, or
secure disposition offsite may be
provided in cases where EPA
determines that such actions:
(i) Are more cost-effective than other
forms of remedial action.
(ii) Will create new capacity to
manage. In compliance with Subtitle C
of the Solid Wast» Disposal Act.
hazardous substances in addition to
those located at the affected facility, or
(iii) Are necessary to protect public
health, welfare, or the environment from
a present or potential risk which may be
created by further exposure to the
continued presence of such substances
or materials.
(2) Contaminated sods and sediments
may be removed from the site.
Technologies used to remove
contaminated sediments on soils:'
(i) Excavation;
in) Hydraulic dredging;
(in) Mechanical dredging.
(d) Provision of Alternate Water
Supplies. Alternative water supplies can
be provided in several ways:
(1) Provision of individual treatment
units:
(2) Provision of water distribution
system:
(3] Provisions of new wells in a new
location or deeper wells;
(4] Provision of cisterns;
(5] Provision of bottled water
(6} Provision of upgraded treatment
for existing distribution systems.
(e) Relocation—Permanent relocation
of residents, businesses, and community
facilities may be provided where it is
determined that human health is in
danger and that, alone or in combination
with other measures, relocation would
be cost effective and environmentally
preferable to other remedial response.
§300.70 Specie! considerations.
(a) Worker health and safety. (1) Lead
agency personnel should bje aware of
hazards due to release of hazardous
material to human health and safety and
exercise great caution in allowing
civilian or government personnel into an
affected area until the nature of the
discharge or release has been
ascertained. In accord with section
301(f) of CERCLA. which requires a
study of provisions for the protection of
the health and safety of employees
involved in response actions, the OSC
shall provide EPA. DOT (USCG). OSHA.
and NIOSH with an assessment of the
effectiveness of measures taken to
protect the health and welfare of
workers at any removal or remedial
operation. This assessment will be
provided in accord with applicable
•Agency directive and should include
recommendations for protective actions
to be taken at subsequent removal or
remedial operations. These
recommendations will be considered by
EPA. USCG. OSHA. and NIOSH in
drafting modifications to this Plan. In
the interim. OSCs shall use the Interim
Standard Operating Safety Procedures
issued by EPA as guidance.
(2) Local contingency plans may
identify sources of information on
anticipated hazards, precautions, and
requirements to protect personnel during
removal and remedial operations.
Names and phone numbers of people
with relevant information should be
included.
(b) Non-Federal costs. (1) Non-Federal
costs of implementing this Plan are
eligible for payment from the Fund to
the extant such costs are incurred
related to releases for which response
acnon has been specifically approved in
advance by EPA. In most cases, coals
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 49 / Friday. March 12. 1982 / Proposed Rules
10995
will be preauthonzed pursuant to a
cooperative agreement or contract.
(2) The following types of non-Federal
response costs may be eligible as direct
response costs except as excluded by
paragraph (b)(-i| of this section and any
related guidance when they are incurred
under, pursuant to this subpart. a
cooperative agreement or contract.
(i) Technical review and management
of a subagreement for response
activities by the State OSC or project
officer.
(if) Salary and wages of State
employees directly involved with the
response activities and the portion of
the time their first level supervisor
devotes to on-site management of their
work on the project.
(iii) Cost of materials and supplies
necessary for carrying out response
actions.
(iv) Cost of equipment used in the
response action less its residual value.
(v) Any necessary travel of the OSC.
project officer or other State employees
working directly on response actions
associated with carrying out a response
action.
(3) Eligible indirect non-Federal
governmental costs are subject to the
requirements of OMB Circular A-87.
(4) Ineligible non-Federal costs
include, but are not limited to:
(i) State and local costs of complying
with section lM(c)(3) of CERCLA: and
(it) Ail costs of other preparations for
response leading to ranking of a release
and pnor to a decision to take
enforcement action.
(c) Certain emergency response
activities of State and local governments
under this Plan may qualify for
reimbursement as a "major disaster" or
an "emergency." The President may
allocate funds from the Disaster Relief
Act (PL 93-2S& as amended), managed
by FEMA. FEMA may nuke financial
assistance available to Slate and local
governments and certain private, non-
profit organizations for debris removal.
emergency protective measures, and
repairs and restoration of public
facilities. The Director of FEMA may
also direct and reimburse Federal
agencies to perform disaster-related
work for Slate and local governments
which do not have the capability to
respond on their own. (See 44 CFR Part
205.)
Subpart G—Designation and
Responsibilities of Federal Trustees of
Natural Resources
§ 300.71 Designation of trustee.
When natural resources are lost or
damaged as a result of a discharge of oil
or release of a hazardous substance or
pollutant or containment, the following
Federal officials are designated to act as
trustees of those natural resources
specified below:
(a)(l) Natural Resource Loss. Damage
to resource of any kind located on. over
or under land subject to the
management of a Federal land managing
agency, other than land in or under
United States waters that are navigable
by deep draft vessels, including waters
of the continguous zone and parts of the
high seas to which the National
Contingency Plan is applicable and
other waters subject to tidal Influence.
(2) Trustee. The head of (he Federal
land managing agency, or the head of
any other single entity designated by it
to act as trustee for a specific resource.
(b)(l) Natural Resource Loss. Damage
to resources of any kind lying in or
under United Slates waters that are
navigable by deep draft vessels.
including waters of the contiguous zone
and parts of the high seas to which the
National Contingency Plan ia applicable
and other waters subject to tidal
influence, and upland areas serving as
habitat for marine mammals and other
species subject to the protective
jurisdiction of NOAA.
(2) Trustee. The Secretary of
Commerce or the head of any other
single Federal entity designated by it to
act as trustee for a specific resource.
Where migratory birds, marine
mammals, or endangered or threatened
species or their habitats subject to the
protective jurisdiction of the Secretary
of the Intenor are lost or damaged, the
Secretary of Commerce shall obtain the
concurrence of the Secretary of the
Department of the Interior with respect
to assessments, claims and restoration
plans pertaining to such resources.
(c)(1) Natural Resource Loss.
Damages to resources located on lands
held by the United Slates in trust for an
Indian tribe or individual Indians within
the boundaries of an Indian Reservation
lands and held by the United States in
trust for an Indian tribe or individual
Indians outside of the boundary of an
Indian reservation.
(2] Trustee. The Secretary of the
Department of the Interior, or the head
of any other single Federal entity
designated by it to act as trustee for
specific resources.
9 300.72 RMponslbilnlM of trustee*.
The Federal trustees for natural
resources shall be responsible for
assessing damages to the resources.
seeking recovery for the losses from the
person responsible or from the Fund.
and devising and carrying out
restoration, rehabilitation and
replacement plans pursuant to CERCLA.
Subpart H—Use of Olspersants and
Other Chemicals
8300.81 General
(a) Section 31l(c)(2)(C) of the Clean
Water Act requires that EPA prepare a
schedule of dispersants and other
chemicals, if any. that may be used in
carrying out the plan.
(b) EPA has determined that its
expenenca with dispersants and other
chemicals in oil spills is not yet
sufficient to support preparation of a
schedule to permit routine usage.
(c) EPA will continue to authorize use
of dispersants and other chemicals on a
case-by-case basis and may. after
additional field expenence. choose to
propose a schedule which would permit
routine usage. Case-by-case approvals
will be made by the Administrator or
her designee.
1(H Doe. U-4JI3 Rtod J-ll-8£ ftM >m|
MLLMOCOM Ua»-J»-M
-------
Friday
July 16, 1982
Part V
Environmental
Protection Agency
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan
-------
3UM
Federal Jtagtator / VoL 47, No. 137 / FHday, July 18,1988 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[SWH-fflL 3163-4]
National OH and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and Executive
Order 12316, the Environmental
Protection Agency is promulgating
revisions to the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) for oil and hazardous
substances. The revised NCP effectuates
the new responsibilities and powers
created by CERCLA. CERCLA provides
that actions taken in response to
releases of hazardous substances shall,
to the greatest extent possible, be in
accordance with the revised NCP.
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act
provides that actions taken to remove
oil discharges shall to the greatest
extent possible, be in accordance with
the NCP. The revised NCP, promulgated
today, shall be applicable to response
actions taken pursuant to CERCLA and
section 311 of the Clean Water Act
DATES: The promulgation date for the
revised National Contingency Plan shall
be July 16.1082. Under section 305 of
CERCLA. this revised Plan cannot take
effect until Congress has had at least
sixty "calendar days of continuous
session" from the date of promulgation
In which to review the Plan. Since the
actual length of this review period may
be affected by Congressional action, it is
not possible at this time to specify a
date on which this revised Plan will
become effective. Therefore. EPA will
publish a notice In the Federal Register
at the end of the review period
announcing the effective date of this
revised Plan.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for the
revised National Contingency Plan la
located in Room S-398, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 4O1M
Street S.W.. Washington. D.C. 20400,
and Is available for viewing from 5hOO
ajn. to 4:00 pjn., Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays.
POM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sylvia Lowrance, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (WH-548). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street. S.W.. Washington. D.C 20460.
Phone (202) 302-2203.
SUPPUKENTARY INFORMATION:
I Introduction
Pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, Pub. L 96-510 ("CERCLA"
or "the Act") and Executive Order
12316. the Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA" or "the Agency"), on
March 12,1982. proposed revisions to
the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (47
FR10972). The supplementary
information section of the March 12
proposal discussed in detail the
statutory basis of the NCP and the
nature and purpose of the proposed
revisions. (See 47 FR 10972 through
10978.) The Agency allowed the public
forty-five days to submit comments on
the proposed revisions. The Agency
received 146 comments totalling over
1,000 pages in length on the proposed
revisions.
Today, the Agency is promulgating
revisions to the NCP. In preparing the
revisions to the Plaa the Agency has
carefully considered all of the public
comments submitted on the proposed
revisions. The Agency has made many
modifications to the proposed revisions
in response to the public comments.
In developing the proposed revisions
to the Plan, the Agency's primary
concerns were to ensure that the revised
Plan met the statutory requirements of
CERCLA and section 311 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), and that It
established an effective response
program. The Agency reviewed the
public comments and incorporated
suggested changes where appropriate.
All significant comments and the
Agency's response to those comments
an discussed below. EPA believes that
the revised Plan Includes all of the
expanded CERCLA response authorities
and adequately meets each of the
statutory requirements of CERCLA and
section 311 of the CWA. In meeting
these requirements. EPA has also sought
to ensure that the Plan does not contain
unnecessarily rigid or cumbersome
provisions, or provisions that an
beyond the statutory mandate. EPA did
not believe it was necessary to expand
upon the national response organization
and procedures established by Subparts
A through D. nor upon the procedures
for responding to oil discharges in the
existing Plan. Experience has shown the
national response organization and the
oil discharge procedures to be efficient
and effective methods for responding to
environmental emergencies. It would be
counter-productive to abandon
established and workable procedures.
Therefore, EPA has left the response
structure of the existing Plan generally
intact so that the proven national and
regional response structure may be used
for the expanded hazardous substance
response authorities of CERCLA.
Section D of this preamble explains
how the revised NCP meets the
statutory requirements of section 105 of
CERCLA and related provisions of
section 311 of the CWA. The preamble
to the proposed revisions discussed the
revisions in relation to each of the
subparts of the Plan and not with
respect to how each statutory
requirement was satisfied (47 FR 10972
through 10978). To ensure that it is clear
how the revised Plan addresses each of
the statutory requirements, Section II
discusses in detail those provisions of
the Plan that implement each of the
statutory requirements.
Sections HI. IV. V, and VI of this
preamble address the major issues
raised in the public comments. The
sections summarize the significant
comments submitted on each of these
issues and the Agency's response to
these comments. Section VII addresses
additional comments that related to
specific provisions in Subparts A
through H of the Plan. Section VIII
addresses any remaining general
comments.
II. Statutory Requirements for the NCP
The following is a section-by-section
analysis of each component required by
section 105 of the CERCLA and related
provisions of section 311 of the CWA.
and a description of how the Plan meets
each requirement
1. Section 105(1)—Methods for
discovering and investigating facilities
at which hazardous substances have
been disposed of or otherwise come to
be located.
(a) Discovery. Section 300.63 of the
Plan lists five methods by which a
release or facility can be discovered.
The major tools for discovery are those
provided by Congress in CERCLA.
Section 103(a) of CERCLA requires
persons in charge of facilities or vessels
to notify the National Response Center
(NRC] as soon as they have knowledge
of releases Into the environment of
hazardous substances in amounts equal
to or greater than importable quantities
determined pursuant to section 102 of
CERCLA. Section 103(c) of CERCLA
requires persons to notify EPA of the
existence of certain hazardous waste
treatment storage, and disposal
facilities. EPA published guidance with
respect to this requirement on April 15,
1981 (46 FR 22144). In addition, section
104(e) of CERCLA provides
investigatory authority which may lead
to discovery of a release by an
investigating official Section 30O63
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday, July 18, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
31181
further provides for discovery of
releases through Inventory efforts (e.g.
section 3012 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)] and reports required by
Federal or State permits. The Plan lists
existing requirements for reporting
releases and authorities for discovering
releases, and complements these
methods by referencing other sources of
discovery, including random Inventories
and incidental observations.
EPA believes that the methods
discussed above are adequate to
discover most releases. The Agency's
experience has shown these methods to
be effective. When implementing the
section 103(c) notification requirements,
EPA received 11.000 reports of facilities
where hazardous wastes are or had
been potentially treated, stored or
disposed. Moreover, since enactment of
CERCLA. persons have been required to
immediately report to the National
Response Center (NRC) hazardous
substance releases that exceed
importable quantities. The reports which
are required by these sections cover
most releases for which EPA and the
United States Coast Guard (USCG) are
delegated response authority under
section 104 of CERCLA.
(b) Investigation. For Investigating
releases, the Plan sets forth a three-step
process: (1) Initial Investigation to
determine the nature of the release
(9 300.64); (2] screening to determine
whether the release warrants immediate
response or further investigation
(S 300.84(a) and (c) and 300.05); and (3)
further investigation for non-emergency
releases which may warrant Federal
action (55 300.66.300.87(d) and (e). and
300.68(e) through (i)).
Section 300.64 of the Plan details the
Initial steps to be undertaken in
Investigating a reported release through
a preliminary assessment The
assessment can be adapted to address
the specific nature of a particular
release. For example, a release that
could cause immediate and significant
harm to human health, welfare or the
environment should be assessed much
more rapidly than a release in which the
risk of harm is less acute and
immediate. Flexibility In the initial
investigation process is provided for In
{ 300.64(a)(l] through (4) which sets
forth a methodology for an initial
evaluation of the release based on
readily available data. In the case of
hazardous waste management facilities.
8 300.64(b) provide* for the gathering of
additional data when more time la
available. The distinctions between
5300.64(a) and (b) recognize that in
responding to most CERCLA releases.
additional-information may be
necessary beyond that required to
respond in classic spill situations under
section 311 of the CWA. Thus, in order
to implement CERCLA effectively, EPA
has added the additional components of
S 300.64(b). EPA considered and decided
against adding greater detail to the
requirements in this section because the
scope of the assessment is most
appropriately determined by the
conditions of the release.
After the preliminary assessment the
Plan provides for either terminating
investigation activities under the
conditions detailed in 5 300.64(c), taking
an immediate removal pursuant to
S 300.65 or continuing investigatory
activities of non-emergency releases as
discussed in § 300.66. The Plan allows
for the three methods by which
investigatory activities may be
continued: through use of investigatory
authorities provided in section 104(b) of
CERCLA: through use of entry and
investigatory authorities allowed under
section 104(e) of CERCLA (see
§ 300.66(c](l)); and through inspection of
the release as detailed in 1300.66(c)(2).
The investigatory methodology
described above and included in the
Plan provide* EPA with sufficient
discretion to undertake the necessary
investigatory activities as determined by
the nature of the release in a manner
consistent with the statute. In
developing the investigatory
methodology, the Agency relied upon
experience gained under the section 311
program for investigating releases,
which has proven to be very effective.
The authorities are designed to provide
response personnel with a detailed
framework for investigation of releases,
while still providing them with enough
flexibility to tailor assessments to
particular release conditions.
2. Section 105(2}—Methods for
evaluating, including analyses of
relative costs, and remedying any
releases from facilities which pose
substantial danger to the public health
or the environment.
(a) Evaluation. The investigation
activities explained above are the first
step contained in the Plan for evaluating
a release. Once investigatory activities
are completed, the Plan establishes an
evaluation scheme based on the type of
release under consideration. The basic
premise supporting the evaluation
scheme is that the less imminent the
threat the greater the time available for
the evaluation process.
For releases requiring immediate
removal (i.e.. emergency response),
S 300.65 of the Plan provides for the
Initiation of response action without
delay based upon the determination
during the preliminary assessment that
an emergency situation requires
immediate response action (see
Si 300.64(a) and 300.65(a)). For releases
that may require planned removal (i.e.,
short-term but not emergency response),
{ 300.67 provides for evaluation of the
release by the State requesting the
removal. The evaluation must include
the information required by }300.67(b) of
the Plan. The evaluation of candidates
for planned removal continues as EPA
applies the factors in 5 300.67 to
determine whether the release should, iu
fact be funded as a planned removal.
The most extensive evaluations are
those required for releases which
potentially require remedial action (i.e.,
long-term response) and thus are
candidates for inclusion on the National
Priorities List After the inspection has
been completed (see 5 300.66(b) and (c)),
releases may be ranked pursuant to the
Hazard Ranking System. This ranking
system provides for a more detailed
evaluation of the particular threats
presented by the release and determines
placement on the National Priorities
List (The Hazard Ranking System is
contained in Appendix A and is
explained in section V(A) below).
Evaluation activities continue even after
the release is included on the National
Priorities List Because of the complexity
of releases that may require long-term
remedial response, and the need to
assure that remedies will adequately
mitigate the threat from individual
releases, | 300.68(f) through (i) provides
for both investigation and study prior to
undertaking a remedial response. Both
of these steps include a final evaluation
of the release and potential remedies
based on factors enumerated in
§ 300.66(g) through (j).
EPA believes that the methods for
evaluating releases discussed above and
included in (he Plan provide the most
effective evaluation approach for
dealing with widely varying threats
posed by releases. Where the threat Is
immediate, evaluation actions are
limited in order that rapid response can
be taken. As the threats become less
immediate, the Plan allows more
extensive evaluation.
(b) Methods for evaluating relative
costs. In the area of coat evaluation.
EPA again bases the level of evaluation
on the immediacy of the threat. First for
immediate removals, cost evaluation is
limited to the statutory threshold of six
months or Si million unless an
emergency continues (see 5 300.65(d]).
Thus, once the Agency determines that
an Immediate removal is necessary, the
Plan vests in the lead agency the
-------
31182 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday. July 16, 1982 / Rulea and Regulations
authority to take whatever action the
lead agency deems necessary to abate
the emergency. In an emergency, it is not
passible to require detailed cost
evaluation because of the critical need
to act aa rapidly as possible.
In the case of a planned removal the
Plan provides for additional cost
evaluation requirements. Section
300.67(a)(l) includes cost-savings as one
of the criteria for taking a planned
removal. Moreover, the nature of the
response itself provides for cost-savings
by allowing preventative actions.
Finally, like immediate removal,
8 300.B7(e) imposes the statutory limits
of six months of $1 million on the action.
Thus, the Plan maintains stringent
limitations on the costs of planned
removal actions which must be included
in the planning of the project
The remedial response category
provides for extensive cost evaluation.
From the time the proposed extent of a
remedial action is determined pursuant
to S300.68(e). the costs of the remedial
alternatives are considered. First after
alternatives are initially developed as
provided in 9 300.08(g), the Plan requires
analysis of the cost of each alternative
relative to the other alternatives under
consideration (see S300.6B(h)). On the
basis of this analysis of comparative
costs and other factors, the Plan calls for
an assessment of the various
alternatives in order to eliminate those
that are more expensive but that do not
provide significantly greater health or
environmental protection. For the
remaining alternatives, the Plan then
requires ({300.66(1)) that costs be
examined to detail for each individual
alternative. This entail* extensive
evaluation of the costs of each remedial
alternative to facilitate comparison of
feasible alternatives. This analysis Is
used to make the final Judgment on the
appropriate remedial alternative based
on coals and the other factors required
by § 300.080).
(c) Methods for remedying releases.
Section 300.70 contains a lengthy.
although not exhaustive, list of methods
for remedying releases. This list
provides Information on those methods
of remedying releases which an
considered appropriate and
demonstrated methods. In addition. EPA
has developed a technical handbook
which can ba utilized along with this
section of the NCP to provide more
technical information on the
drcnnutances and types of releases in
which these methods may ba
successfully employed. The manual la
entitled "Handbook for Remedial Action
at Waste Disposal Sites" and is
available from Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and
Development Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Solid and
Hazardous Waste Research Division,
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268.
3. Section 105(3}—Methods and
criteria far determining the appropriate
extent of removal remedy, and other
measures authorized by CERCLA.
Sections 300.65(c) and 300.07(d)
establish the procedures by which the
appropnate extent of removal is
determined. For this limited response
category. EPA has determined that the
appropnate extent of action is the
abatement of the threat that required the
initiation of a removal action. Therefore.
in the case of immediate removal, EPA
has limited the extent of removal to
abatement of the immediate and
significant risk (see 9 300.65 (a) and (c)).
Likewise in the case of planned
removals, the Plan limits the extent of
the action to abatement of the problem
posed by the presence of factors listed
in } 300.67(c).
EPA believes that this type of a priori
procedure for limiting removal actions Is
necessary because removal response la
starutonly a more limited action than
remedial response. Removal actions are
intended to eliminate the threat which
precipitated the action. These responses
may not fully abate the threat caused by
a release. However, without such
limitations, an inordinate share of the
Fund might be spent on completing
removal actions at releases which pose
a less significant threat than other
releases which have been placed on the
National Priorities List Moreover, if
removal actions were not limited in
scope, projects might continue until
reaching the statutory limitation of six
months or Si million, without having
achieved any tangible or specified
clean-up objectives.
Section 300.68 of the Plan establishes
methods and criteria for determining the
appropriate extent of remedy. Remedial
response Involves long-term actions to
mitigate threats primarily from
hazardous waste management facilities.
This section of Subpart F Is one of the
most extensive sections of the Plan. The
Agency has far less experience with
remedial actions than with removal
actions. Under the removal program in
section 311 of the CWA. EPA gained a
great deal of experience In undertaking
short-term clean-up actions, primarily in
response to spills of oil However,
CERCLA created remedial action as a
new type of response. In order to assure
that response personnel haw adequate,
guidance to follow when investigating.
planning, and Implementing remedial
response. EPA has provided a detailed
systematic procedure for determining
the appropriate extent of remedy in
Subpart F. The procedure is structured
in a step-by-step format which requires
a series of analyses and judgments
based upon criteria enumerated in the
Plan. The methodology set forth in
8 300.88 includes:
(1) An initial scoping of the project
based on criteria in 8 300.6B(e) to
determine the type or types of remedial
action that may be necessary. (Remedial
response is categorized as initial, source
control, or off-site remedial action.)
(2] A remedial investigation to
determine the precise nature and extent
of the problem and to assure that the
remedial evaluation was-accurate (see
} 300.86(0).
(3) Development of alternatives baaed
on the type or types of remedial action
necessary (see } 300.68(gj).
(4) An initial screening of the
alternatives based on economic,
engineering and environmental criteria
specifically enumerated in \ 300.88(h)(l).
(2), and (3). This step requires a
decision, based on the criteria, to
eliminate certain alternatives because:
[a] The alternative requires an
expenditure of money far in excess of
other alternatives (without providing
substantially greater public health or
environmental benefit) (1 300.68(h)(1));
(b) the alternative has significant
adverse environmental Impacts or fails
to effectively contribute to the
protection of public health, welfare or
the environment (8 300.68(h)(2)]; and (c]
the alternative is not feasible from an
engineering perspective (} 300.68(h)(3)).
(5) Detailed analysis of remaining
alternatives based on components
specifically referenced in 9 300.66(i)(2).
(6) The lead agency's determination of
the appropriate extent of remedy, based
upon its selection of the alternative
which meets the standard of S 300.67(J)
(I.e., "the lowest cost alternative which
effectively mitigates and minimizes
damage to and provides adequate
protection of public health, welfare and
the environment").
EPA believes that this process
provides a sound basis for determining
the appropriate extent of remedy,
particularly given the limited experience
in remedying hazardous substance
releases. This process allows for the
selection of the appropriate remedies
developed through careful study and
Inquiry without requiring a rigid
selection process which would preclude
the flexibility needed to Incorporate our
expanding knowledge and experience In
developing remedies. Significant Issues
concerning the Agency's selection of the
-------
Federal Register / VoL 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulation 31183
appropriate extent of response axe
discussed In Section in of this preamble.
4. Section 105(4}—Appropriate roles
and responsibilities for the Federal.
State, and local governments and for
interstate and non-governmental
entities in effectuating the Plan.
EPA has developed an entire subpart
and numerous other provisions of the
Plan to assure efficient and effective
coordination of all participants in
response to oil discharges and
hazardous substance releases. These
provisions of the Plan are largely based
on extensive experience gained under
the section 311 response program.
The following sections of the Plan
address Federal agency involvement
(1) Section 300.21—specifies
responsibilities delegated to each
Federal agency under Executive Orders
11733 and 12316.
(2] Section 300.22—encourages all
Federal agencies to coordinate activities
through the National Response Team
(NRT) and Regional Response Team
(RRT) structure and with affected
private and public entities and to make
facilities and resources available for
response actions.
(3) Section 300.23—identifies those
Federal agencies which are members of
the NRT and which may be called upon
by response personnel for assistance:
encourages use of regional contingency
plans to specify roles relevant to the
subject area; requests that Federal
agencies appoint members to participate
in the national response structure; and
specifically enumerates the new
responsibilities for hazardous substance
response among EPA, USCG. the
Department of Health and Human
Services fHHS). the Department of
Defense (DOD). and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).
Stale and local roles and
responsibilities are specified in i 30&24,
which requests that each Slate
participate in RRTs: gives States
authority to fully participate (and vote)
on the RRT; encourages local
governments lo participate In RRT
activities: encourages States to use
enforcement authorities: and encourages
States to take the lead on CERCLA
responses by entering Into agreements
with the Federal government In
addition, a new ) 300.62 has been added
which addresses the State role in taking
remedial response and the States'
responsibilities when doing so. A more
thorough discussion of the State role is
contained in Section IV of this
preamble.
Roles of private entities are specified
In } 300.25, which encourages and
stresses the critical importance of
private commitments for assisting in
response, and requests that private
entities assume specific responsibilities
in the appropriate regional or local
contingency plans. This section also
contains information on the safe and
effective use of volunteers in response
actions.
Subpart C further specifies the roles
that each of these groups can play in the
national response structure—Federal
agencies through their participation in
the NRT (S 300.32(a)]: and Federal
agencies. States, and localities through
their participation in the RRT
(S 300.32Cb)J. Within this national
framework. Subpart C further discusses
the role of the on-scene coordinator
(OSC) in coordinating with States, the
private sector and other Federal entities.
For example. } 300.33(b) requires the
OSC to notify States and Federal
agencies when they are affected or
when their expertise is requested in a
response action. While the Plan contains
the critical framework for national roles
and responsibilities, regional and local
plans are designed to specify how these
roles and responsibilities will be carried
out in light of particular regional and
local capabilities and needs.
S. Section 105(5)—Provision for
identification, procurement,
maintenance, and storage of response
equipment and supplies^ _
The requirements of CERCLA section
105(5) are satisfied in several sections of
the Plan, briefly summarized here. The
NRT evaluates equipment readiness and
coordination, and makes
recommendations as to the appropriate
equipping and protection of response
teams (} 300.32(a)). The NRT also
coordinates the supply of equipment and
personnel to the affected region in the
event of a response action (S 300.34(h|).
The RRTs consider equipment readiness
and similar issues in their continuing
reviews of regional and local responses
({ 300.32(b)(6J). The role of the RRTs in
requesting and coordinating assistance
and provision of resources from Federal,
State, and local government agencies
and from private parties In the event of
a release (§ 300.34(f]] bean directly on
the requirements of CERCLA section
105(5). Section 300.34 of the Plan also
provides for the use of the National
Stnke Force and Strike Teams which
make available specialized containment
and removal equipment emergency task
forces managed by USCC OSCs who
have the capability to deploy equipment
and the Emergency Response Team
(ERT) of the EPA which can provide
access to specialized decontamination
equipment. The Plan also devotes a
separate section. { 300.37—Response
Equipment, to the Spu'l Clean-up
Inventory system which is available for
obtaining rapid information on the
location of response and support
equipment
In addition to these provisions In the
Plan which Insure access to response
equipment and supplies. Subpart D
emphasizes the Importance of the
development of Federal regional plans
for each standard Federal region, and of
Federal local plans wherever
practicable. Included in these plans
should be information on all useful
facilities and resources available from
all sources that can be employed in the
event of a release (S } 300.42(a) and
300.43(a]). The Plan doea not discuss in
great detail the precise division of
responsibility assigned to all levels of
government because the amount and
type of resources available will vary
among regions, as will the need for
particular types of resources. In
addition. It is possible mat different
levels of government will take more
active roles In planning and carrying out
response activities. Accordingly, the
Plan provides that responsibilities In the
Identification, procurement
maintenance, or storage of equipment
and supplies shall be assigned at this
level through the development of
Federal regional and Federal local
plans.
6. Section 105(8}—A method for and
assignment of responsibility for
reporting the existence of such facilities
which may be located on federally
owned or controlled properties and any
relaaaes of hazardous substances from
such facilities.
Section 30O23(d) sets forth
responsibilities of all Federal agencies
for reporting the releases of hazardous
substances and discharges of oil from
facilities or vessels which are under
their Jurisdiction or control. The
reporting procedures in { 300.23(d) are
in accordance with CERCLA section 103
and Subparts E and F of the Plan.
Specifically, in Subpart E. S 300.51(b).
reports of discharges are directed to the
NRC or the nearest USCG or EPA office.
[f not previously reported lo the
responsible OSC all reports are
required to be relayed promptly to the
NRC. Subpart F. | 300.63(b). reiterates
the statutory requirement of CERCLA
section 103(a) for immediate notification
of the NRC by the person In charge of a
vessel or facility as soon as he has
knowledge of a release from the vessel
or facility of a hazardous substance in
an amount equal to or greater than the
importable quantity, established
pursuant to section 102 of CERCLA. Any
releases that have not been previously
reported should also be promptly
-------
31184 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16, 1982 /Rules and Regulations
reported to the NRG Thus, the Plan both
assigns responsibility to the Federal
agencies involved and provides the
method by which such reporting is to be
accomplished.
7. Section 105(7}—Means of assuring
that the remedial action measures are
coat-effective over the period of
potential exposure to hazardous
substances of contaminated materials.
EPA has devoted a great deal of
attention to developing a process that
will insure the cost-effectiveness of
remedial action measures. There are
several aspects of this process which
should be noted. First the Plan limits
the extent of evaluation and
investigation activities if the release
does not present complex technical
problems or requires rapid response.
Section 300.68(d) and (e) focuses
Investigation activities and development
of alternatives on the problems
presenting the greatest need. Second.
the Plan emphasizes the systematic
development of remedial alternatives
(including, where appropriate, the
alternative of taking no action) which
forms the basis for examining cost-
effectiveness. Third, the initial screening
of remedial action alternatives to
eliminate those with extremely high
costs that do not offer significantly
greater protection further safeguards the
process against unnecessary
expenditures. Fourth, the remaining
viable alternatives must be evaluated in
terms of their costs, the level of
protection that they provide, their
reliability in providing that level of
protection, and the ability to implement
the remedy after considering technical,
environmental, legal and administrative
constraints (9 300.88(i)}.
EPA notes that, in both the initial
screening and the detailed analysis of
alternatives, the costs of alternatives
must be compared over time and must
include operation and maintenance
coats (ft 300.6gfh)[l) and {i)(2)(u)J. This
ensures that the statutory requirement
for consideration of the duration of costs
is satisfied. Finally. EPA has included In
i 300.88(1) an explicit statement that the
extent of remedy to be selected for each
site will be the cost-effective remedial
alternative. Thus. EPA has both
established the procedures for arriving
at a cost-effective remedial action and
provided a decision rule for selection of
cost-effective remedies in order to fulfill
the statutory requirement
& Section 10S(8)—Criteria for
determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases and. based upon
this criteria, a list of national priorities.
EPA has included aa Appendix A to
the Plan a Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) which, together with the
administrative system established hi
§ 300.86, constitutes the criteria and
methods EPA ia using to establish
national priorities for remedial action.
The Agency presented a detailed
discussion of the development and
components of the HRS in the preamble
to the proposed revisions (see 47 FR
10975 through 10978). Additionally, a
discussion of the significant public
comments on the HRS and the National
Priorities List and EPA's response to
those comments is presented in Section
V of this preamble. EPA is deferring
publication of the National Priorities List
at this time. It will be included aa
Appendix B to this Plan. Accordingly,
this Appendix is reserved
A Section lOS(8}-Spedfied roles for
private organizations and entities in
preparation for response and in
responding to releases of hazardous
substances, including identification of
appropriate qualifications and capacity
thereof.
Section 300.25 specifies the roles of
volunteers, industry groups, and
academic organizations in response
actions. This section stresses the
important role of these groups in
providing scientific and technical
information needed in devising clean-up
strategies as well aa the assistance role
of volunteers in response. As discussed
in subsection 4 above, coordination of
these entities is achieved through the
national and regional response
structure. It is critical that private
entities be coordinated closely with
governmental entities to assure efficient
response actions. Therefore, the Plan
calls for specific commitments of
resources by private entities in } 3OOJS,
and for detailing these specific
commitments in regional and local
plans. EPA believes these plans are the
appropriate mechanisms to list those
private resources that are nearby.
applicable to local conditions, and
readily available.
10. Section 105 also requires that the
Plan specify procedures, techniques,
materials, equipment and methods to be
employed in identifying, removing, or
remedying releases of hazardous
substances comparable to those
required under section 311(c)(2) (?) and
(G)and(j](l)ofCWA.
Section 311(c](2)(C) of the CWA
requires that the Plan include a schedule
specifying dkpenants or other
chemicals, if any, that may be used in *
removing oil or hazardous substances
from water. Subpart H of the Plan
establishes procedures for authorizing
the use of dispersants and other
chemicals for removing oil dischargee or
releases of hazardous substances.
Subpart H vesta authority in the OSC to
authorize use of any dispenant or other
chemical to move an oil discharge If
such dispersant or chemical Is on EPA's
Acceptance List developed under Annex
X of the existing Plan. Use of
dispersants and chemicals not on EPA's
list may be authorized by the
Administrator or her designee. Section
VU(H] of this preamble contains a
further discussion of this Issue.
The remaining provisions of sections
311(cJl2)(F) and (j)(l) of the CWA
require development of procedures that
have comparable provisions in section
105 of CERCLA and have been
discussed above. With regard to
comparable provisions for the removing
and remedying of hazardous substance
releases. 8 300.70—Methods of
Remedying Releases, details the types of
techniques that may be considered in
remedial actions. Furthermore, both
§ 300.85—Immediate Removal, and
{ 300^7—Planned Removal, contain
Information on, the types of techniques
and measures which may be used for
removal action for hazardous substance
releases.
ni- Comments on Determining the
Appropriate Extent of Response
The Agency received many comments
on the Plan's provisions in Subpart F
relating to the determination of the
appropriate extent of response. Most of
the comments focused on the provisions
for determining the appropriate extent of
remedy. While some commenters
supported the process established in
1300.88 for selecting a remedy, many
commenters criticized the Plan for not
explicitly requiring consideration of
State and Federal health and
environmental standards in
development of remedies. Similar
comments stated that the Plan should
include specific levels of clean-up that
must be attained with any remedy.
EPA developed the methodology for
determining the appropriate extent of
remedy based on the recognition that
experience in developing remedies for
hazardous waste sites'is limited.
Moreover, each hazardous waste site
has unique characteristics which merit
individual attention. Often the unique
characteristics of sites will represent
factors that have never been dealt with
before. These considerations led EPA to
develop a methodology which would
provide structured and reasoned
decision-making while still allowing the
flexibility to deal with unique and
unforeseen characteristics. EPA believes
the system included la f 300.68 of the
NCP accomplishes these goals.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137, Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rulea and Regulations
31185
A. Environmental Standards
The system does not explicitly require
thai environmental standards be used in
determining the appropriate-extent of
remedy. However. 9 300.88 does specify
"environmental effects-and welfare
concerns" as one of the criteria to be
considered in determining the
appropriate extent of remedy. In some
cases* this would allow EPA to consider
applicable standards in selecting the
appropriate remedy. It must be noted,
however, that circumstances will
frequently arise in which there are no
clearly applicable standards. For
Instance, acceptable levels of hazardous
substances in soil are not established.
and there are no generally accepted
levels for many other hazardous
substances in other media. Even where
there are standards for a particular
substance, they may not be applicable
to the conditions-surrounding the
release. Therefore, if me Plan included a
rigid requirement that standards be met
It woulcCobscura the real issue-in many
cases of how to adequately protect
public, health.
EPA cannot develop: new standards
for ttwhundreda of substances it will be
oonffeonted with'iirrespoiis«< actions. Mot
only is th* requisite legal-authority
lacldng io CERCLAt but such sr task
would also be enormous, costly and
time-consuming; and would unduly
hamper the oloan-up of releases, which
is GERCLA's primary mandate.
Therefore. EPA has- developed a system
for decision-making which has-as its
primary feature a reasoned process that
contains a series of checks throughout to
ensure mat the decision-making process
produces an effective remedy. The
methodology emphasizes, coal-effective,
environmentally sound remedies which
are feasible and reliable from an
engineering standpoint
3. Cast Effectiveness
Several commenten argued that th*
prooasfl for selecting a remedy placed
too much emphasis on coat
Although cost does play an important
nole ta selection of remedies. It does not
take precedence over protection of
public health, welfare and the
environment First the initial scoping of
a prefect provided for in £ 300.68(e) does
not involve any consideration of coal
other than requesting Fund financing for
the work. The primary consideration at
this stage is defining the nature of the
problem requiring remedy. As.
alternatives for remedying the release
are developed under } 300.88(g). again
the primary emphasis is on die
techniques available to dean up, not on
cost.
Cost considerations art first
addressed when alternatives are
initially screened in } 300.88(h). This
cost analysis is required by section
105(2) of CERCLA. EPA has modified
S 300.68(h)(1} to-dadfy that alternative*
cannot be rejectedton-me basis of cost
alone, sine*, any olean-up alternative
would be more costly in simple dollar
terms than a no action alternative.
Alternatives may be rejected for cost
reasons at this stage, but only if they do
not provide substantial!)! greater public
health or environmentaJ.lin0rit.Tht8
section requires that in order for
alternatives to be given further
consideration may must be technically
and environmentally sound and must
effectively contribute to protection of
public health, welfare and tha
environment Foe the alternatives that
remain after tha initial scBeening. a
detailed analysis i» required of their
coat engineering feasibility, and
environmental,,welfare and public
health effectiveness.
Some of the commenten' concern as
to the extent of the Plan's emphasis on
environmental and public health
protection could be the result of an
inadvertent omission in the- Federal
ReglBtaT of oaa of the. factors, requidng
analysis-in. 1300.86(1), Section
300:88(l](2}(iv), requires comparative
assessment of alternatives in terms of
their effectiveness IB minimizing and
mitigating the- health or environmental
problem. This assessment is essential.
along with consideration of cost and
engineering reliability, in making the
decision required by 9 300.BSU). The
final decision on me appropriate
alternative is based on cost*-
effectiveness: it selects the lowest cost
alternative which effectively mitigates
and minimizes damage to and provides
adequate protection of public health,
welfare and the environment
(J 300.aa(j)). EPA notes that this series
of analyses and check points explicitly
requires remedies that provide the
requisite protection of public health
while still meeting statutory
requirements for analysis of costs and
cost-effectiveness. Cost alone may not
control these decisions.
rv. Comments on tha Role of States in
Implementing t^if plan.
Several comments™ stated that the
Plan generally failed to adequately
identify the roles of Stale and local
governments. Other more specific
comments on the role of States included:
(1) That Stales should be allowed to
designate OSCs and participate fully in
the national response structure: (2) that
the Plan should allow greater State
participation in decision-making
regarding the need for and extent of
CERCLA-funded response; (3) that the
Plan should specify procedures for
entering Into contracts or cooperative
agreement* and (^'disagreement with
the requirement that State* share in
response, ooata other than-those coats
specified in section I04(c)(4) of
CERCLA.
EPA agrees with commenters that the
Slates should play a large role in. the
Suparfund prog^m. Subpart B of the
Plan provides extensive detail as to
States' participation in response actions
(see discussion in Section 0{*) above).
To the extent States are willing and
capable, the Plan allows Slates to
participate fully in the national response
structure. In addition to tha specific
provisions cited in section 11(4) of this
preamble, tha Plan also encoucages
State involvement and delineates State
roles in the following provisions.
(1) Section 300.2S(b>—encourages use
of technical and scientific information
generated by States.
(2) Section 300.25(c}—encourages
State officials to coordinate volunteers
pursuant to local'plans,
(3) Section 300.32(a)(7](lvJ—allows
NRT to develop procedures to improve
coordination with States.
ft) Section 300.32(br-indudes States
on RRTs.
(5) Section 300.32(b]{2)r-allows>Slate
membership in RRT and allows
additional State representatives as
observers.
(6) Section 300.32(b)(3}—encourages
States to participate actively, in RRT
activities and designate individuals to
assist in development of Federal
regional and Federal local plans, and to
serve as tha contact point for
coordinating response with local
governments.
(7) Section 300.32fb)(8)(vii)—requires
RRT to include In reports tb NRT efforts
taken to improve Slate and local
coordination.
(B) Section 300.33(b)(3>—requires the
OSC to coordinate response efforts with
appropriate State agencies.
(9) Section 300.33(b)(5>—requires OSC
to notify States of possible discharges or
releases.
(10) Section 300.34{dJ(3)—requires the
SSC to assist OSC in responding.to State
requests for assistance.
(11) Section 30044(0(6)—givas-the
States participating in the RRT the same
status as any Federal member of the
RRT.
(12) Section 300.3«(c)—requires *e
NRC to advise States of notices of
discharges or releases.
-------
31186 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
(13) Section 300.42(a)—requires RRTa
to work with States in developing
regional plans.
(14) Section 300.43—specifies that
local plans should provide for
coordination with the State.
(15) Section 300.55(a)(S)—provides for
OSC to determine whether State has
capability and an agreement in place to
undertake oil discharge response, in lieu
of Federal lead response being taken.
(16) Section 300.57(b>—requires the
State representative to the RRT and DOI
to arrange for use of volunteers for
waterfowl affected by oil discharges.
(17) Section 300.58(f)(4)—allows
States to be reimbursed for oil removal
pursuant to 33 CFR Part 153.
(18) Section 300.81(c)—encourages
State participation in response actions.
(19) Section 300.83(b)—requires the
NRG to notify the State when notices of
releases are received pursuant to
section 103(a) of CERCLA.
(20) Section 300.88(c)(l)—requires
State officials responsible for providing
Fund-financed response to coordinate
with those responsible for enforcement
activities.
(21) Section 300.66(d}—establishes a
system by which Stales can submit
candidates for the Nation Priorites List
(22) Section 300.81(b>—requires OSC
to consult with affected States before
authorizing use of dispersants of other
chemicals.
In addition to these numerous
provisions, to respond to commenter's
concerns, EPA has added a new S 300.82
which specifically outlines the manner
in which States may enter into contracts
and cooperative agreements for
response actions pursuant to CERCLA.
EPA believes that State participation
and cooperation are crucial to
undertaking response actions. Therefore,
under this section. States are
encouraged to undertake response
actions. The extent of activities that a
State will be authorized to undertake will
be specified in the cooperative
agreement or contract. EPA cannot
specify in the Plan all authorities which
a State will exercise because the
specific content of each agreement or
contract will be determined by the
nature of the response action to be
taken, the extent of Slate capabilities.
and the extent to which the State wishes
to have responsibility for the response.
Section 300.62(d) sets forth commitments
which the State must provide prior to
remedial design activity. Section 300.82
also authorizes contracts or cooperative
agreements for undertaking removal
action.
EPA agrees with commenters that
States should be able to designate OSCs
and act as full partners in the response
structure. Providing that statutory and
administrative requirements are met by
States, the Plan permits and, in fact
encourage States to take the lead on
response actions pursuant to a contract
or cooperative agreement. In order to
clarify that an OSC may be a State
official whose scope of authority is
specified in the cooperative agreement
EPA has modified the definition of "On-
Scene Coordinator" in § 300.8.
Moreover, to clarify that a "lead
agency" may be a State acting pursuant
to the terms of a contract or cooperative
agreement EPA has modified the
definition of lead agency in i 300.6 as
well. These modifications are discussed
at greater length in section VII(A) of this
preamble.
Finally, many of the comments
questioned provisions included in the
Guidance for Entering into Cooperative
Agreements. EPA notes that this
guidance was published the day before
the NCP was proposed. The guidance is
not a part of this Plan, and thus a
discussion of the provisions in that
guidance is not appropriate to a
discussion of the provisions of this Plan.
However, one issue which was raised in
this context also affects the Plan. The
issue is whether the statute allows EPA
to require cost-sharing by States when it
is not explicitly set forth in the statute.
In the Plan, this issue la relevant to
section S 300.67(b)(4] which requires
States to share costs of planned
removals.
CERCLA section 104(c) requires that
no remedial actions be provided
pursuant to section 104 of CERCLA
unless the State in which the release
occurs first enters Into a contract or
cooperative agreement providing
assurances that (1) The State will assure
all future maintenance of the removal
and remedial action: (2) the State will
assure availability of an acceptable
hazardous waste disposal facility, if
necessary, and (3) that the State will
pay either 10 per cent of the cost of the
remedial action (including all future
maintenance) or, in the case of a facility
that was owned at the time of disposal
of hazardous substances therein by the
State or political subdivision thereof, at
leasi 50 per cent of any sums expended
in response to a release at such a
facility. The statute is silent with respect
to State cost-sharing for removal actions
at privately-owned sites. EPA will
require that States requesting Fund-
financed removals enter into an
approplate cooperative agreement or
contract EPA's general grant regulations
provide that grantees and those
receiving Federal assistance through a
cooperative agreement must share
project costs except as otherwise
provide by law (see 40 CFR 30.720(a)).
Where, as here, the statute is silent as to
cost-sharing on certain response actions.
EPA can require the States carrying out
such actions to contribute at least 5 per
cent of the cost of the action. Pursuant
lo its grant regulations, EPA has decided
to require that States pay 10 per cent of
planned removal costs at privately-
owned sites. The same requirement
shall apply to planned removals
provided pursuant to a State/EPA
contract. The type of legal instrument
(i.e., cooperative agreement or contract)
used in authorizing the planned removal
should not affect the State's share of the
cost and. therefore, both arrangements
will require a 10 per cent State cost
share.
V. Comments on the Hazard Ranking
System and the National Priorities List
The preamble to the proposed
revisions included a detailed discussion
of the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
and the National Priorities List (NPL) (47
FR10975 through 10977). The Agency
received extensive comments on the
HRS and NPL Many of the comments
supported the basic structure of the HRS
and EPA's proposed development of the
NPL Others made suggestions for
general and specific modifications. The
Agency has adopted many of the
suggested comments and they are
discussed below. The HRS is included
as Appendix A to the revised Plan, hi
the preamble to the proposed revisions,
the Agency explained why it was
deferring publication of the NPL (47 FR
10977). Now that the HRS la finalized.
the Agency has requested that the
States submit their priority rankings
applying the HRS. After the Agency
receives the State submissions. It will
develop the NPL and propose that list
for public comment When promulgated,
the NPL will be Appendix B to the
revised Plan.
The Agency has Included a very
lengthy and. at times, quite technical
discussion in response to the comments
on the HRS and NPL The Agency
believes that this extensive discussion is
necessary in order to respond to all of
the significant public comments which
often addressed very technical aspects
of the HRS. Many of the comments
questioned the data requirements of the
HRS with a frequent criticism being that
the HRS failed to accurately distinguish
between the degree of hazard presented
at different releases; the result being
that the HRS might give high scores to
releases that otherwise should not be
included on the NPL
The role and importance of the HRS
and NPL must be kept in perspective.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1962 / Rules and Regulations 31167
the NPU which will Include at least 400
releases, is merely the first step in
considering a release for Fund-financed
remedial response. If a release is
included on the NFL but a later remedial
investigation discloses the hazard to be
less significant than originally thought to
be, a decision may be made not to
provide Fund-financed remedial
response. Similarly, the NPL will be
reviewed periodically and a release can
be added if more extensive data
indicate a more significant hazard at the
release.
A. Hazard Ranking System
1. Overview of the Hazard Ranking
System. As discussed in the preamble to
the proposed revisions (47 FR10975), the
HRS is designed to estimate the
potential hazard presented by releases
or threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants and
contaminants. Application of the HRS to
data from an observed or potential
release will enable the Agency to
calculate a "score" or estimate of the
risk from such release. The HRS score
for each release will be used in
determining the placement of the release
on the NPL
The calculation of the HRS score for a
release analyzes the five potential
"pathways" of exposure of the human
population or a sensitive environment.
Each release or potential release is
analyzed for exposure from (1} ground
water. (2) surface water, (3) air, (4)
direct contact and (5) fire and
explosion. A score will be developed for
each of the first three "pathways."
Pathways (4) and (S) are used to identify
emergency situations that require
removal action and, therefore, are not
considered in calculating the HRS score.
For each "pathway," the HRS
analyzes three categories of "factors"
that are designed to encompass most
aspects of the likelihood of exposure to
a hazardous substance through a release
and the magnitude or degree of harm
from such exposure. The three
categories of "factors" analyzed for
each of the three "pathways" reflect: (1)
The existence or likelihood of a release,
(2) the characteristics of the hazardous
substances that have been or may be
released, and (3) the population or
sensitive environment that Is
threatened. In the HRS, the first
category of factors includes three
subsets of factors, one for an "observed"
release and, as an alternative when no
release has been observed, two for
assessing the likelihood of a release.
designated as "route" and
"containment" factors. For purposes of
discussion, they will all be considered
as part of the first of the three categories
of factors. Each of the three categories
may have a number of separate
"factors" (hat will each receive a
numerical value according to a set scale
for each factor. For example, under
category (2], factors that would be
analyzed and given numerical values
would Include the toxicity, persistence,
and quantity of the hazardous
substance.
After numerical values are assigned to
each factor, the HRS uses mathematical
formulas, chosen to reflect the relative
importance and interrelationships of the
various factors to calculate a final score.
Those formulas combine the numerical
values of all "factors" in a category,
then combine the three categories within
each "pathway," and finally, combine
the three pathway scores to yield a final
score for the release or potential release.
Therefore, the HRS score represents, for
each release or potential release, an
analysis of the probability and
magnitude of harm to the human
population or sensitive environment
from exposure to hazardous substances
as a result of contamination of ground
water, surface water, or air.
2. Response to Comments.
Commenters generally supported the
HRS in its structure of "pathways" and
"factor" categories, and the
mathematical calculations for
approximating the relative potential
hazard. Thus, the HRS as promulgated
today remains fundamentally the same
as the proposed HRS. However,
commenten did raise significant Issues
and suggest changes that are addressed
below. General comments and
responses are contained in subsection
(a). Specific comments on the three
"factor" categories are arranged
according to each category and are
addressed in subsection (bj.
(a] Response to General Comments.
(I) Coat and Availability of Information.
Several commenten maintained that the
data required by the HRS to score
releases can be very expensive and will
alow the remedial action process for
many releases. Other commenten
argued that some of the data required
would not be available. Other
commenten suggested that more facton
should be considered or that existing
facton should be considered in a higher
level of detail
As these conflicting comments
indicate, the amount of information to
be collected must be balanced against
the cost and time required to obtain that
Information. EPA anticipates that
several thousand releases may
eventually be evaluated for inclusion on
the NFL. The number and type of facton
in the HRS must be consistent with the
costs of data collection, the large
number of releases, and the resources
available for implementing the program.
The Agency's experience with the
Interim Priorities List indicates that the
HRS data requirements, after some
adjustments, are adequate without being
unduly burdensome or costly.
EPA agrees that some of the data
required by the proposed HRS may not
be readily available. In developing the
HRS, the Agency has excluded a number
of facton, such as "bioaccumulation,"
because sufficient information Is not
currently available. The Agency
believes that adequate information
exists or can be obtained for each of the
remaining factors in the three "factor"
categories In the HRS.
Some commenten suggested that such
non-technical factor* as political
concerns, community and socio-
economic interests, and previous
response actions should be included in
the HRS.
The Agency has not Included such
non-technical considerations in the
HRS. Section 105(8)(A) of CERCLA
requires the establishment of priorities
in light of the relative potential hazard
to public health, welfare and the
environment, and the HRS is designed to
estimate this relative hazard, rather than
assess the above subjective facton.
However, the Agency may consider
community interests and socio-economic
facton in determining the appropriate
remedial action for releases once they
are Included on the NPL.
The Agency does not believe that
previous response actions should be
taken Into account In scoring a release.
The HRS makes clear that releases are
scored on the basis of conditions that
existed prior to any response actions.
Allowing partial response to affect the
score would be a disincentive for public
agencies to undertake any clean-up
action because Federal funding for full-
scale clean-up might not be available. In
addition. If responsible parties have
undertaken partial or temporary clean-
up actions prior to scoring, releases
might be excluded from the NPL without
sufficient consideration of the need for
further action or permanent remedy.
A number of commenten maintained
that the HRS promotes the listing of
releases with known quantified data, to
the detriment of releases where analysis
has not been performed.
As discussed above, EPA has tried to
minimize the information required for
the HRS, >o that releases which have
not been extensively Investigated are
not eliminated from the system.
However, the HRS does include
minimum data requirements. The
-------
31188 Federal Register / VoL 47. No. 137, Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
alternative would be to score releases
on the basis of inadequate information.
or to wait until extensive information
has been generated for every release. It
would be difficult to develop a system
that provides a meaningful comparison
between releases where information has
been collected and releases where little
is known. The requirement of section
105(8)(A) of CERCLA to list national
priorities will not be met if EPA waits
until extensive information has been
generated for all releases. Releases for
which the minimum data required for
HRS scoring do not exjst can also be
addressed in revisions of the NPL, after
adequate information has been collected
for these releases.
Some commenters expressed concern
that some of the scientific literature
referenced in the HRS had not been
subject to rigorous peer review.
The scientific literature referenced in
the HRS was taken from scientific
literature available for public review
and scrutiny. In addition, the rating
factors have been, reviewed by the
States, the EPA regional offices and the
general public as part of the rulemaking.
In developing the HRS, the Agency
evaluated additional scientific literature
and selected that literature that it
believed to be the most appropriate and
scientifically sound.
(2) Pathways. One commenter
suggested that the HRS should be
designed so that releases with scores for
a particular "pathway" (\£., ground
water, surface water, or air) that exceed
a designated threshold are
automatically given higher placement on
the NPL. or are subject to further
analysis.
The Agency believes that the HRS is
adequately designed to accommodate
situations where a release has a high
potential for contamination through a
single pathway. The scoring formula of
the HRS ensures that if only one
pathway is rated with a high score, the
HRS score could still be sufficiently high
that the release could be included
among the highest priorities. Using a
designated threshold, as suggested by
this comment, would also accomplish
this objective. However. EPA does not
believe this is necessary and the
existing process for aggregating all
factors to obtain the score for a relase
more accurately reflects the situation at
a particular release.
One commenter objected because the
HRS gives equal consideration to the air,
surface water, and ground water
pathways, arguing that ground water
contamination has broader Implications,
is more costly and difficult to clean up.
and lasts much longer.
Under the revised HRS, the highest
possible score, representing worst case
incidents, is the same for each pathway.
The Agency does not believe that it can
discriminate between the very serious
hazard resulting from contamination oC
ground water or any other pathway.
(3) Other comments. Several
commenters pointed out that the HRS is
not adequate to serve as the basis for
making management decisions
concerning Fund expenditures for
remedial action.
The HRS is designed to rank releases
on the basis of hazards presented by
each release. However, the HRS is not
the sole tool for making Fund
management decisions. Oecistons
concerning Fund expenditures for
particular projects are also based on
further technical information derived
from remedial investigations and cost
estimates based on feasibility studies
and state assurances (see section
300.67). All of this information must be
compiled before a decision can be made
that a release on the NPL warrants i
Fund-financed remedial action.
A number of conunenters objected
because the HRS was not published in
the Federal Register. Some argued that
the HRS was therefore unavailable for
public review and comment
Section 300.85(d) of the proposed NCP
specifically referenced the HRS as the
basis br the detailed methods and
criteria for ranking hazardous substance
releases. The Agency included an
address where tha HRS could be
obtained upon request and solicited
comment on the HRS. Tha substantial
comment submitted on the HRS refutes
any argument that it was unavailable for
public review and comment
Some conunenten objected to what
they termed premature publicity on
releases when the releases ore being
analyzed and compared for inclusion on
the NPL.
The Agency agrees that premature
publicity should be avoided when
possible. The process of ranking and1
selecting releases necessarily involves
some degree of publicity because the
State* are encouraged to involve the
public in their selection pieces*.
Publicity 14 Bloat to some extent*.
unavoidable. becauM tha NPL will be
proposed in tha Federal Ret>ter nrlu to
final promulgation.
Some <*ftpt"ianfaf>^ were concerned
that the HBS fuM be manipulated to
place certain releases in* a higher
priority position than justified.
The Agency has Instituted > training
program for EPA regional offices and
States designed to ensure proper
application of tha HRS. and. developed a
quality assurance program to review the
scoring of releases prior to preparing the
NPL These measures, together with the
intent to propose the NPL for comment.
are intended to minimi ia any
inconsistencies in scoring or attempts to
manipulate the HRS.
(b) Response to Comments on the
Three "Factor" Categories. [\] Category
1: Observed Releases or Likelihood of
Threatened Releases. Several
commenters asserted that the approach
to assigning single scores to "observed"
releases is inappropriate because the
frequency and quantity of releases are
not considered. Commenters argued that
a one-time or minor release would be
treated as equivalent to a frequent
chronic source of release.
The score for an observed release
indicates that the likelihood of a release
is 100%. The fact that some substances
have been released is a good indication
that substances at the site can escape
and increases the likelihood of a more
substantial subsequent release. Data on
frequency and quantity of an actual
observed release, and data necessary to
determine that a release is a minor
occurrence rather than a frequent
problem, would require standardized
long-term monitoring to establish
representative concentrations. This
would add inordinately to the cost and
time needed to score releases. The
extent of the release is more
appropriately considered during
subsequent investigations.
Several commenten stated that
releases should not be treated as
observed releases if they are within
regulatory limits. For example, air
emission rates should be compared to
emission rates permitted for operating
facilities.
The Agency believes that permitted
releases of pollutants are not analogous
to uncontrolled releases of hazardous
substances. First the actual pattern of
nonpennitted releases generally win not
be regular or predictable and the
observed release used for scoring may
be followed by more substantial
releases. Continuous or frequent
monitoring would be necessary to
establish the king-term level of release.
Second, emission or effluent limits, do
not necessarily represent level* which.
cause no harm to the public health, or
the environment Theae limitations an
frequently established on tha basis of
economic impacts or achievability.
Therefore, releases are treated as
observed releaeas whenever hnTarriniift
substances. polIalanU or ccataminanta
have escaped from a facility.
One comisenter luagested that the
existence of a release ehould be
measured in tha aquifer of concern.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 31189
EPA agrees with this comment and
has clarified the directions in section 3.5
of the revised MRS, concerning 'Targets
for the Ground Water Migration Route."
The same "aquifer of concern" must be
used for all rating factors, so that if a
release is observed in any specific
aquifer, this aquifer must be used to
identify "target" populations as well.
Several commenters argued that
qualitative evidence of release, auch as
objectionable taste in water, should not
be equated with quantitative evidence
of release, such as measured presence of
substances.
The HRS now requires more
conclusive evidence to demonstrate the
existence of an observed release.
Generally, only analytical
measurements are acceptable as
evidence of an observed release.
Qualitative evidence of releases justifies
a score for an observed release only if
there is conclusive evidence to confirm
that a release has occurred at the
facility.
Several commenters suggested that
the HRS should give greater
consideration to the mobility of
hazardous substances. A few
commenters specifically suggested that
the lack of mobility of heavy metals in
soil should be taken into account in
estimating the likelihood of release.
The HRS considers mobility by
assessing the physical state (i.e.,
whether liquid, gas or solid) of the
hazardous substance and assigning the
highest value for liquid substances and
the lowest value for solid substances.
This factor is now considered under the
HRS's designation of "route" factor,
designed to estimate the likelihood of a
release. The Agency does not believe
that it is feasible to include other factors
reflecting mobility In the HRS. The level
of scientific understanding of the
transport and fate of hazardous
substances In the environment is not
adequately developed to justify
estimates of the likelihood of a release
without an expensive and extensive
data collection effort For example, to
determine the mobility of metals at a
particular facility, extensive data
collection and analyses of the soils and
leachate are necessary. EPA believes
that these analyses would add
inordinately to the cost and lime
required to collect data, without
significantly improving the ability of the
HRS to predict the likelihood of release.
Other factors which might affect
mobility, such as solubility and
volatility, have been deleted from the
HRS because of insufficient Information.
and because the information that is
available applies only to pure
compounds not normally found at
hazardous waste releases.
A few commenters objected to
designating as "liquid" the physical
state of liquids in wastewater treatment
ponds regulated by NPDES permits or
byRCRA.
The Agency has determined that spills
and one-time or continuous accidental
releases of untreated or partially treated
substances from these facilities may be
addressed under CERCLA. Higher
values are assigned to liquids because
they are more likely to migrate from the
facility. If releases from such facilities
are scored, there is no reason not to
treat liquid hazardous substances as
"liquids." If the substance is well
controlled because the facility is well
operated, the release will receive a low
numerical value for the "containment"
factors.
Some commenters objected because
the HRS does not include geochemicat
removal mechanisms, such as sorption
and coprecipitation. that remove metals
and radiochemical pollutants from
migrating ground water.
EPA believes that the data base
regarding these mechanisms is not
sufficiently broad to warrant inclusion
in the HRS. If it is shown that these
mechanisms will prevent migration of
substances at a facility, this fact will be
taken into account in determining the
need for response action at a particular
release.
Some commenters argued that the
HRS should provide for scoring the
potential for a release to the air.
The HRS has not been changed in this
respect. There must be an observed
release, rather than a potential release.
in the air pathway. Definitive
characteristics could not be established
for air migration because existing data
bases were inadequate. Air releases
must currently exist, must be measured.
and must not be caused by disturbances
from investigations.
One commenter suggested that gases
not be considered under the ground
water pathway.
EPA disagrees because many gases
are soluble in water and therefore may
migrate to ground water with leachate
from a facility.
Finally, the HRS now provides that, in
determining net precipitation to identify
the potential for leachate generation at a
facility, seasonal rather than annual
data may be used when available. In
some regions of the country, seasonally
heavy rainfall may increase the
likelihood of leachate generation, even if
net precipitation is low when measured
on an annual basis.
(2) Category & "Waste"
Characteristics. Most of the comments
on the waste characteristics category of
the HRS concerned two issues: toxicity
and persistence, and quantity of
hazardous substances. (The HRS uses
the term "hazardous waste" and "waste
characteristics." These terms encompass
all hazardous substances that are
covered by CERCLA section 101(14) and
allow for including those substances
meeting the definition of pollutant or
contaminant in section 104{a)(2).)
(i) Toxicity and Persistence. Some
commenters argued that the range of
numerical values (generally zero to
three) that can be assigned to a factor is
too narrow to realistically rate relative
toxicity because of the differences
among the many substances.
In developing the HRS. EPA reviewed
many rating schemes and determined
that rating schemes using high, medium
and low ratings function in a
satisfactory manner for the purposes of
the HRS. Releases will be scored on a
large number of factors and distinctions
among releases will emerge after
consideration of all factors.
A number of commenlers disagreed
with the use of the Sax rating system for
chronic effects. They suggested that the
HRS rate only acute toxicity because of
the lack of recognized authority on
chronic toxicity effects. In addition.
some commenters suggested that values
derived from acute toxicity tests should
be applied to identify and classify
toxicity values for the HRS.
The Agency believes that the HRS
appropriately considers chronic effects.
Most exposures to hazardous
substances via air and water exis.t at
low levels and extend over a long
period. In addition, most projected
health effects are chronic. These effects
may contribute significantly to the
potential hazard of releases to public
health and the environment. An in-depth
search was made of the scientific
literature and state-developed systems
to find alternative methods of
incorporating acute and chronic toxic
effects in the HRS. No system has been
identified as a suitable alternative to the
rating system developed by Sax.
Alternative scoring methods suggested
by commenters have been carefully
studied and ruled out for reasons
including inapplicability, complexity,
and expense of application. Exclusive
reliance on acute toxicity testing is not
appropriate because a system is needed
for both acute and chronic values.
Some commenters maintained that the
score for the factor evaluating the
degree of hazard of substances at a
release should not be based on a
-------
31190
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
substance that is present only in
miniscule quantities.
The HRS provides that the score for
the factor evaluating the degree of
hazard of substances at a release, rated
by toxicity and persistence, is based on
the most hazardous substance at the
release. The HRS has been revised so
that if information Is available on the
amount of the substance present, the
hazardous substance used to evaluate
the degree of hazard must be present at
levels at least equal to the reportabie
quantities established under section 102
of CERCLA.
Some commenters objected to the fact
that the HRS determines degree of
hazard by scoring the most hazardous
substance that is not adequately
contained. Thus, a facility with waste
containing only a small proportion of an
extremely hazardous substance could
score the same for degree of hazard as a
facility with waste containing a very
high proportion of that substance.
The Agency does not believe that it is
possible to require a detailed analysis of
the relative proportion of different types
of hazardous substances at a facility
without Inordinate expense and delay.
Representing the hazards at facilities on
the basis of the most hazardous single
compound present will generally
provide an adequate evaluation of the
relative hazards.
A number of commenters argued that
concentration of hazardous substances
should be considered in rating toxicity.
so that the toxicity of a substance is
measured at the point where impacts on
human health or the environment
actually occur.
The Agency's position is that
concentration data on long- or short-
term levels are frequently unavailable,
controversial and costly to obtain.
Experience in sampling aad monitoring
programs has shown that actual
measurements at different locations of a
release may vary considerably. The
determination of a representative
concentration would require repetitive
or continuous monitoring over a long
period of time, using the same protocols
at all releases to generate comparable
data. In addition, the points of human
contact vary for each release or
potential release. The HRS does assign
lower values to target populations (hat
are further from the release; however.
EPA does not believe that tt is necessary
to expend a large portion of the Fund to
collect data simply to determine
precisely the relative potential risk of a
release on a national scale.
Several commenters proposed that a
bioaccumulaUon factor should be added
to reflect the fact that some chemicals
are stored and accumulated in body
tissue.
EPA has investigated the use of
bioaccumulation and found that there is
no measure of bioaccumulation
potential with readily available data
that would enable EPA to inlcude this
factor in the HRS.
Finally, the HRS now combines
toxicity and persistence in a matrix, and
the scale has been changed so that their
combined value equals zero when
toxicity equals zero, regardless of
persistence. The change was made for
simplicity and to facilitate application of
the HRS.
(ii) Hazardous Substance Quantity. A
number of commenters argued that
hazardous substance or "waste"
quantity should be part of the
assessment of the nature of the
substance and that treating quantity as
a separate category serves to bias the
HRS so that large quantities of low
hazard substances score high.
The Agency agrees with this
comment. Accordingly, quantity has
been changed into an additive factor
under "Waste Characteristics," thus
reducing its significance to the overall
score. In addition, the HRS instructions
have been clarified to specifically
exclude contaminated soil and water
from determinations of hazardous
substance quantity.
A number of commenters stated that
the HRS is designed to address those
releases which have 2.000 or more
drums of hazardous substances.
The Agency has changed the HRS so
that it no longer requires any minimum
quantity of hazardous substances.
unless the substances are not present in
reportabie quantities.
Some commenters maintained that the
quantity of substances used to rate the
waste quantity factor should be
calculatd by multiplying the
concentration of hazardous substances
by the total quantity of hazardous and
nonhazardous substances at the facility.
Some suggested that, if the
concentration of hazardous and
nonhazardous substances at a facility is
known, then the waste quantity factor
should be determined by only the
quantity of hazardous substances at the
facility.
The Agency believes any method to
Identify actual quantities of hazardous
substances at a facility must take into
account the fact that nearly all
substances contain some portion of non-
hazardous materials. The Agency has
considered several alternative methods
and has been unable to develop an
internally consistent approach for
comparing pure hazardous substance
quantity at facilities where definitive
information is available with hazardous
substance quantity at facilities where
such information is not available.
Therefore, the HRS remains unchanged
and waste quantity ia calculated
according lo the total amount of
substances at a facility.
(3) Category 3: "Target" Population
and Sensitive Environment That Is
Threatened. The "target" category
consists of factors for estimating the
magnitude of the threat to affected
populations or sensitive environments'
potentially exposed to the release.
Comments generally addressed three
areas: exposure from contaminated
ground water, use of water resources.
and the sensitive environmental factor.
(1) Exposure from Contaminated
Ground Water. The method for
determining the population potentially
exposed to ground water contamination
is to estimate the number of people
living within a three-mile radius. Some
commenters maintained that the actual
population that is potentially exposed
should be identified where information
exists to show that these estimates do
not reflect the actual exposed
population. They also argued that the
HRS should allow consideration of
hydrogeologic information on ground
water flow direction and natural in-
place geologic barriers between shallow
and deep aquifers.
The population within a three-mile
radius of the facility is still considered
the potentially exposed population
under the revised HRS. Determining the
extent of population actually exposed or
threatened by using ground water flow
information is generally not practicable.
In many instances the information is not.
available, and in others the flow
direction varies. Even where there is
extensive knowledge of geohydrology,
interpretation It nearly always subject
to dispute. Requiring a precise measure
of the affected population would add
inordinately to the time and expense of
applying the HRS. Provisions for limiting
the area of concern based on flow are
not included in the HRS, because of the
lack of reliable data on direction of flow
and because the direction of flow
frequently varies. The HRS does require
that the same aquifer used to identify a
release must be used in determining the
potentially exposed population. In
addition, geohydrological data on
known aquifer interruptions may be
used to show that potential targets
which are located within three miles do
not draw from the affected aquifer.
Some commenters objected on the
basis that the three-mile radius is
excessive In comparison to the area
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 31191
designated By EPA under the
underground injection progam.
The area of review in the Safe
Drinking Water Act's Underground
Injection Control (UIC) program.
however, refers to that area within
which existing wells, because of
increased formation pressure caused by
injection activity, might allow the
movement of fluids between formations.
It does not refer to any estimate of how
far contaminants may travel. The three-
mile radius used in the HRS is based on
EPA's experience that in most cases
currently under investigation.
contaminants can migrant to at least
this distance. It should be noted that no
commenters disagreed with the selection
of three miles for technical or scientific
reasons.
Some commenters asserted that, when
determining the nearest well, it is not
appropriate to assume that houses or
buildings near a facility have wells that
draw from the aquifer of concern.
The Agency agrees and has changed
the text under "Populations Served by
Croundwater" (Appendix A. section 3.5)
to require more definitive evidence of
ground water use. People within three
miles who do not use water from the
aquifer of concern are not to be counted.
A number of commenters suggested
that the FIRS should consider the
dilution of contaminants by the
environmental media since it is the
concentration at the probable point of
exposure that is of concern.
The HRS has been deigned to
consider environmental dilution of
released hazardous substances by
lowering the score of populations
potentially exposed as their distance
from the hazardous substance increases.
A sophisticated analysis of attenuation
would require information that is not
readily available for most of the
releases that should be considered for
the NFL.
Finally, the HRS now combines the
distance to the nearest well and the
population served by ground water into
a matrix to provide greater
discrimination of score*. The combined
value equals zero when either the
population served equals zero or the
distance to the nearest well is greater
then three miles (see Appendix A.
section 3.5).
(ii) Use of Water Resources. Some
commenters maintained that, when
considering an aquifer of concern, the
HRS should distinguish between
aquifers in use. not used, or unusable
Section 3.5 of the HRS addressing
"Targets for Ground Water Use" has
been changed, so that points are not
assigned for aquifers that are unusable
for reasons such as extreme salinity or
extremely low yield.
Some commenters felt that the HRS
should contain a provision for
considering industrial use of ground or
surface water winch may affect the
extent of exposure.
The Agency agrees and has elevated
the value for water used for commercial
food processing. Though less hazardous
than direct consumption of drinking
water, this use warrants a higher value
than provided in the previous version of
the HRS.
A number of commenters suggested
that the HRS ratings should consider
future use of resources.
The Agency considered ways of
addressing future uses, but was unable
to develop or identify a mechanism to
objectively measure future use. The
Agency concluded that attempting to
assign numerical values to future uses
would be too speculative
Several commenters asserted that
food chain exposure to hazardous
substances should be considered in the
HRS.
While the food chain is not treated as
a separate pathway of exposure, food
chain contamination is specifically
addressed in rating factors for water
use. land use. and the target population
exposed to potentially contaminated
water through irrigation.
(iii) Sensitise Environment Factor
The Distance to a Sensitive
Environment. Category 3 includes a
factor for assigning a numerical value
based on the distance from a hazardous
substance release to a sensitive
environment, such as wetlands or the
critical habitats of endangered species.
Some commenters maintained that the
factor assessing the distance from a
release to a critical habitat of an
endangered species should assess the
distance to the "range" of an
endangered species, not just the critical
habitat. Other commenters suggested
that national wildlife refuges should be
>tdded to the environmental factor in
addition to cnt'cal habitats.
The Agency believes that the concept
of "range" for endangered species is
much too broad to be used in the HRS.
The majority of potential exposures of
endangered species within their range
would be temporary in nature and
would likely have little effect on their
safety. The Agency has modified the
environmental factor to include national
wildlife refuges as a sensitive
environment.
Several commenters proposed that the
environmental factor representing the
distance to a wetland should be refined
to differentiate between wetlands along
streams at high flow conditions and
streams at stagnant flow conditions.
The Agency has not made this change
because of the difficulties in predicting
the transport and fate of hazardous
substances and estimating the potential
damage based on stream flow rates.
Some commenters argued that flood
plains should not be equated with
critical habitats in the sensitive
environment factor.
EPA agrees because flood plains may
accommodate a wide range of activities
instead of. or in addition to. serving as
critical habitats. The reference to flood
plains has been deleted from the
sensitive environment factor.
A number of commenters objected to
the fact that the HRS assigns the highest
score for the factor "distance to a
sensitive environment" when a facility
is within H mile of federal reserved
lands, regardless of how well the facility
is constructed. The commenters
suggested that this provision reduces the
availability of such areas for new
facility siting.
The HRS is not used to rank
prospective sites for future hazardous
waste disposal facilities. Any facility
located in such an area that is well
constructed and maintained will rank
very low due to other factors In the HRS.
Some commenters suggested that a
sensitive environment factor should be
added to the list of potential targets of
ground water contamination. The HRS
only includes the sensitive environment
as a factor for the surface water and air
pathways.
When contaminated ground water is
released or flows into surface water, it
is considered under the surface water
pathway. The Agency is unaware of any
serious impacts on sensitive
environments due exclusively to ground
water pollution. As a result, it is not
necessary to add a separate rating
factor under the ground water pathway,
since sensitive environments are
addressed under the surface water
pathway.
Finally, a general comment made by
several commenteis was thdl (here are
inconsistencies in the methods used to
assign numerical values to the different
factors.
The Agency believes that the
conditions represented by rating factors
in the HRS are not equally important m
the evaluation of a hazardous situation.
Accordingly, the rating factor scales are
intentionally different and multipliers
have been chosen based on professional
judgment and experience concerning the
relative importance of each factor. The
selection of scales and multipliers has
been confirmed by the consistency of
-------
31192 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday. July 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
scores with ihe perceived hazard at
releases.
ft National Priorities List
The most significant comments on Ihe
provisions governing Ihe NPL (§ 300.66
(d) and (e)) requested: |1) Clarification
of criteria used far including releases on
the NPL (2) explanation of the relation
of Ihe NPL to remedial actions: (3)
inclusion of procedures lor adding and
deleting releases from Ihe i\PL (4)
deletion of the requirement for Stale
assurances a( the lime (he releases are
submitted to EPA. and (5) clarification
of provisions for adding Stale top
priority releases lo the NPL. The
following sections discuss these
comments and explain the Agency's
changes in response (o these comments.
I. Criteria for Including Releases on
the NPL. Some conunenters indicated
that it is no) clear whether Ihe Plan
provided thai inclusion [ranking] of a
release or "site" on the NPL would be
based on the purely "mathematical"
factors included in the HRS. or whether
other factors will also be considered.
The HRS was developed pursuant (o
section 105(8)(A] of CERCLA. This
section provides for development of
criteria and priorities based on relative
risk or danger to public health or
welfare or the environment, taking into
account the following considerations: (1)
The population at nsk, (2) the hazard
potential of hazardous substances at
such facilities. (3) the potential for
contamination of drinking water
supplies. (4) the potential for direct
human contact. (5) the potential for
destruction of sensitive ecosystems. (B)
State preparedness lo assure Slate coats
and responsibilities, and (7) other
appropriate factors. The HRS was
designed to take into account only (hose
aspects of the above considerations
(generally, considerations (1) through
(5)) that reflect the nsk of harm existing
at releases and that can be quantified
for inclusion in a mathematical model
Once an HRS score has been assigned.
the additional factors referenced in
section 105(8)(A) will be considered in
selecting releases fur the NPL. and in
selecting releases from the NPL for
Fund-financed remedial actions. This
process is set forth in Subpart F of the
NCP.
Other commenters argued that
releases which may present the
sufficient degree of risk to be placed on
the NPL should nonetheless be excluded
if CERCLA does not authorize Fund-
financed response. One example is the
provision in section lll(e](3) precluding
use of Fund money for remedial action
with respect to "federally owned
facilities."
The Agency has decided that where
available data indicates that active
Federal facilities are Ihe source of a
release (either inside or outside the
facility), these facilities will not be
included on the NPL
2. Role of the HRS in Selecting
Releases from the NPL for Remedial
Action. Many commenters maintained
that the HRS does not provide sufficient
detail to distinguish among releases for
the purpose of deciding when to lake
remedial action, and therefore all
releases on the NPL should be equally
eligible for remedial action. Several
others stated that, all other factors being
equal, releases with a high HRS score
should be given a higher priority for
remedial action.
The NPL identifies releases that are
eligible for remedial action and the
relative risk as calculated by the HRS.
The actual selection of sites for remedial
action depends not only on relative risk
but also on the availability of cost-
sharing and other Slate assurances, the
existence and status of responsible
parties, the status of enforcement
actions, and other considerations
included in Subpart F of the Plan. In
addition, remedial investigations or
feasibility studies might produce more
precise information that affects the
urgency of remedial action. The Agency
will therefore not necessarily respond (o
releases in order of their HRS scores.
3. Adding and Deleting Releases from
the NPL Several commenters suggested
that the Plan should explicitly provide
that the NPL wiO be updated at least
annually as required by CERCLA
section 105(8)(B]. Other commenlers
suggested that the Plan should explain
the process by which a release can be
removed from or added to the NPL after
the initial publication of the NPL
Specific grounds suggested by
commenters for delating releases from
the List included: (1) The existence of a
Federal agreement for clean-up by
private parties; (2) a more sophisticated
assessment of nsk; and (3) voluntary
remedial actions that may reduce the
release's NPL ranking.
EPA haa added to the NCP a provision
(J 300.66(e)(7)], stating that EPA will
revise the NPL at least annually. The
criteria for adding releases to the NPL
are the same criteria for including
releases on the initial List. Additions
will be made consistent with the process
in i 300.06(e) for developing the initial
List. The Agency has not included
criteria for deleting releases from the
List At this time. EPA did not believe
that it had tbe necessary experience to
establish a procedure in the Plan for
removing releases from the List In
guidance issued on June 28.1982, EPA
indicated conditions when it might
remove releases from the NPL If. after
EPA and the States acquire experience
in working with the NPL it becomes
necessary to establish such a procedure
in the Plan. EPA will propose the
necessary modifications.
4. State Assurances. Section 300.65|e)
of the proposed revisions lo the NCP
rpquired Slates, when submitting
releases for inclusion in Ihe NPL to
indicate in a letter of intent either their
ability to make the assurances for cost-
sharing, future maintenance, and
disposal site availability as required by
section 104(c](3) of CERCLA. or their
intention to make those assurances al
the appropriate time. Many Sidles
objected to the requirement (o make
assurances at this early stage in the
process. They argued that Slates are in
no position to make these assurances
when submitting releases for inclusion
on the NPL because the appropriate
extent of remedy, the types and amounts
of wastes that require off-site disposal
and the amounts of money needed to
fulfill these assurances are uncertain.
Slates also argued that they should not
be required to provide assurances at a
stage when EPA has not committed to
providing funds for remedial action on a
site.
EPA has reconsidered this
requirement in light of the public
comments and has decided to eliminate
the requirement for assurances when
releases are submitted for inclusion on
ihe NPL There will be sufficient time
before remedial actions are initiated for
the Slates to provide the necessary
assurances.
5. State Priority Submissions. Several
coromenters suggested that EPA should
clarify the provision for States to
identify their top priority release. One
conunenter requested that EPA
explicitly acknowledge that the Stale's
top priority release need not be tbe top
ranked under the HRS.
Section 300.M(d)(3) provides that each
Slate racy designate a release as the
State's highest priority release by
certifying that the release presents the
greatest danger to public health, welfare
and the environment among known
releases in the State. The State's highest
priority release does not have to be the
Slate's highest ranked release under the
HRS.
One commenter indicated that
releases should be included on the NPL
at the initiative of Slates, and that EPA
should include releases only after
consultation and general agreement with
the States.
The great majority of the releases
considered for inclusion on the NPL will
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137, Friday. July 16. 1962 / Rules and Regulations 31193
be at the Initiative of the States. EPA
has the authority, however, to add
releases where necessary to assure that
the NFL reflects, to the extent possible,
the releases presenting the greatest risk
or danger to public health, welfare and
the environment. Section 300.6C(e)(l)
provides that Slates' priorities will be
reviewed and consolidated by EPA into
the NPL. and tht»t EPA may add. in
consultation with the Stales, any
additional priority releases known to
EPA.
VI. Comments Regarding Planned
Removal
In the preamble to the proposed
revisions. EPA explained its reasons For
delineating two categories of removal
actions—"immediate" and "planned"
(47 PR 10975). This delineation was
intended to specify those circumstances
when the Agency believed it would be
appropriate for the Fund to finance a
removal action. The delineation neither
authorized response actions beyond the
statutory definitions of removal, nor
improperly restricted the types of
removal actions authorized by the Act.
Many commenters felt that the
proposed description of planned
removals was confusing and not
adequately explained. Other
commenters expressed concern that the
criteria for taking a planned removal
were too broad or undefined and did not
adequately differentiate planned
removal from immediate removal or
remedial action. In order to more clearly
delineate those situations in which
planned removals may be taken and the
purposes for which this category of
response is intended EPA has modified
8 300.67.
Section 300.87(a](l) allows for
planned removals when the conditions
for terminating an immediate removal
exist yet a substantial cost savings can
be realized by completing the action and
not demobilizing equipment and
resources. EPA believes that such
response flexibility is needed to ensure
the effective use of Fund money and to
achieve the greatest amount of
protection of public health and the
environment with the funds available.
This category will be used to respond to
releases at which a small amount of
work is necessary to complete clean-up
at a release, thus avoiding the high costs
of demobilizing equipment only to
mobilize again for a continued response.
In addition, { 300.87{a)(2) allows action
at a release that is not on the National
Priorities List and that does not meet the
criteria for an immediate removal, yet
poses a risk to public health or the
environment that requires action before
the release could be added to the
National Priorities List for remedial
action.
Some commenters questioned whether
planned removals were needed at all, or
whether the statutory categones of
removal and remedial action could
suffice.
Immediate removals are intended for
response to situations of immediate and
significant harm to human life or henllh
or the cnviionmcnt; these are emergency
situations tshli.h lequire rapid
immediate rcopor.sc. Other situations
also exist which require an expedited
response, but not an immediate one. In
these situations, more deliberation can
be given to planning the response
action. The statutory category removal
action covers both of these situations.
By making this distinction between
immediate and expedited response, the
Plan provides for better management of
Ihs Fund.
Section 300.67(b) requires thai any
request for a planned removal be made
by the State governor or his or her
designee. This request must include-
relevant information about the release
and assurances for cost-sharing. Many
commenters questioned EPA'3 proposal
to require State cost-sharing for planned
removal actions. Commenters felt thai
Slates would not have sufficient funds
to meet these requirements; that such a
requirement would delay response
action unnecessarily: and that CERCLA
did not authorize requiring State cost-
shanng for removal actions.
EPA has chosen to require cost-
sharing for planned removals, in
exercise of fla discretion under the
statute and EPA grant regulations
(discussed in Section IV above], for a
number of reasons. First, such cost-
sharing provides evidence that the State
is committed to removal action at the
site in question, and has made the
determination that action is needed to
prevent a significant risk lo public
health or the environment. Second, the
statute provides for and encourages an
active State role in selecting the releases
that require response and in shaxing the
costs of response. This requirement
contributes to effectuating the State role
under CERCLA. The N'CP section on
planned removals provides for both
aspects of this role. Planned removals
will only be undertaken if the State
governor or his designee requests such
action. Therefore, the Plan now gives (he
States a high degree of flexibility in
selecting their own sites for receiving
Federal money. The request for planned
removal, however, must be
accompanied by a plan for the removal
action and by assurance that the State
will help in the funding of the action.
Finally, although situations appropriate
for planned removals require expedited
action. EPA bclietes that there will be
sufficient time before taking a planned
removal to arrange for cost-sharing with
the affected Slate without causing dpi ay
in response.
Several commenters noted thai it
would be contradictory to require a
State to submit a planned removal site
for the National Priorities List, since
there would be no point in listing a
release es a pnonty after it hod been
cleaned up.
EPA has consequently eliminated this
requirement. Other commenters noted
that the provisions of $ 300.66 of the
proposal were inconsistent at several
points: for example, in requiring a
planned removal action to minimize and
mitigate damages without relying on
future rpsponse actions, while also
emphasizing actions which are
consistent with any subsequent
remedial activitips. EPA has therefore
eliminated these provisions. EPA has
also eliminated from this section the
requirement that pollution reports be
submitted, since the requirement that
OSCs submit these reports ia already
included in Subpart C.
To fulfill the mandate of CERCLA
section 105(3), EPA has added
considerable detail to the section on
planned removals pertaining lo the
appropriate extent of planned removal
action. The Plan now delineates the
types of situations in which planned
removal action may be appropriate
(5 30067(a]J. (lie catena for taking
planned removal uciion (i 300.87 (a) and
(c)), ur.d the criteria for terminating a
planned removal action (5 300.B7(d)).
The PUn reiterates the statutory
limitation in CERCLA on the time period
and dollar expenditure allowed for
removal action except under certain
specified conditions.
VII. Comments and Modifications
Relating to Individual Subparts
This section responds to additional
comments (not discussed above) and
explains other changes made to each
subpart of the Plan as a result of
comments.
.4. Subpart A
Several commenters noted that $ 300.3
of Subpart A merely repeated the
statutory requirements for the NCP's
content Other commen'ers suggested
that, instead of this repetition, the Plan
should clearly delineate its coverage.
EPA agrees and has replaced the list
of statutory requirements in the Plan
with a new $ 300.3(a) which specifies
the scope of Federal response
-------
31194 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
authorities under Section 311 of the
CWA and under CERCLA. la addition.
EPA has added a new paragraph (b) to
this section which summarizes the scope
of the Plan's provisions. This summary
more accurately reflects the coverage of
the Plan.
Many commenlers suggested
modifications to the definitions in
§ 300.8. In most cases, the suggested
modifications pertained to definitions
that were taken directly from the Clean
Water Act or CERCLA. and
modification was deemed unnecessary.
Several commenlers noted that it was
unclear that the definition of "size class
of discharges" in { 300.6 referred only to
discharges of oil. EPA has modified the
definition by changing the undefined
term "pollution" to "oil discharges" and
stating explicitly thai it means
discharges of oil only. It ia noted that the
term "discharge." as used in the Plan.
applies only to oil.
Other commenters suggested that the
Plan establish size classes for releases
of hazardous substances. Most of the
commenters were concerned that
reporting requirements under CERCLA
were too stringent and could lead to
reporting of insignificant releases.
EPA does not believe it is appropriate
to establish in the Plan general size
classes for releases of hazardous
substances, _since the quantity of a
hazardous substance is not always
indicative of its toxiclty. Small
quantities of one hazardous substance
may be more toxic and present a more
significant threat to human health than
greater quantities of other hazardous
substances. CERCLA establishes
reporting requirements for releases of
hazardous substances and authorizes
EPA to establish specific reportable
quantities for releases of all hazardous
substances. Until such time as EPA
develops regulations revising reportable
quantities, section 102(b) of CERCLA
assigns a reportable quantity of one
pound to substances defined as
hazardous by section 101(14) of
CERCLA, with the exception of those
substances for which reportable
quantities have been established
pursuant to section 311(b}(4) of the
Clean Water Act. For the above stated
reasons, the Agency believes that it is
neither appropriate nor necessary to
establish size classes of releases for
hazardous substances in the Plan.
Definition of teportable quantities Is not
a requirement of section 105 of CERCLA.
Rather, the Agency has Initiated
separate proceedings to address this
matter as required by section 102 of
CERCLA.
A few commenters noted that the
definition of "coastal zone" contained in
the Plan differs from thai under the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
and questioned whether it should be
consistent. The definition included in
the Plan specifies that it is to be used
only "for the purpose of this Plan." This
term is used in the Plan for the sole
purpose of distinguishing between EPA
and USCG furisdictional areas for
response activities. Accordingly, it need
not be consistent with the CZMA
definition.
One significant modification to
Subpart A is in response to comments
that specific decision-making
responsibilities in the Plan should be
clarified. Commenters noted that the use
.of the terms "lead agency" and "on-
scene coordinator" (OSC) referred only
to Federal officials, to the exclusion of
State officials, and that the term "lead
agency" was unclear. EPA has modified
the definitions of "lead agency" and
"OSC" to provide that both may include
a State agency or official acting
pursuant to the terms and authorities
granted through a contract or
cooperative agreement with the Federal
government. This modification
acknowledges the important role States
may exercise in response actions. The
term "lead agency" refers to the Federal
or State official that provides the OSC.
"Lead agency" is used because several
agencies are granted the authorities that
will be exercised by the "lead agency"
under the Plan. These authorities often
extend beyond the authority of an OSC
To further delineate the
responsibilities of OSCs, the final
revised Plan includes a provision for
designation of a "responsible official" to
exercise OSC authority in certain
situations. The new term "responsible
official" refers to those individuals
responsible (or undertaking planned
removals or remedial actions under
CERCLA. The definition includes State
officials if the State is granted this
authority pursuant to a contract or
cooperative agreement EPA added this
term to clarify that, in the case of
planned removal or remedial actions.
the official In charge may not always be
called an OSC. In such long-term
actions, the official In charge could be
an OSC bat is more likely to be another
official of me Federal or State
government Accordingly, this official Is
defined as a "responsible official" and is
given the authorities and responsibilities
assigned to OSCs.
Finally, commenters suggested that it
was inappropriate to require that
volunteers be recruited and trained by
the response authority. This provision ia
simply Intended to require that
volunteers be competent for the actions,
for which they are being utilized. EPA
has clarified this provision by deleting
the words "recruited" and "trained"
from the definition of volunteer in
§ 300.8 and has clarified i 300.2S(c]
pertaining to volunteers. This
modification is discussed below.
B. Subpart B
Subpart B delineates the
responsibilities and roles that all levels
of government and private entities may
play in response activities. Several
commenters suggested that } 300.21
detail the delegations given to the
various Federal agencies in Executive
Orders 12316 and 11735. In addition.
several commenters suggested that
Subpart B should include an outline of
the specific responsibilities and
capabilities of Federal agencies under
the Plan. A few commenters suggested
that additional material on the roles of
HHS and FEMA would be appropriate,
since they have new response authority
under CERCLA.
EPA does not believe it is necessary
to include details from Executive Orders
12316 and 11735. Both are referenced in
i 300.21 and are readily available (o the
public. Details from Executive Order
11735 Were not repeated in the existing
Plan, and experience indicates that
there was no misunderstanding resulting
from their absence in the Plan. EPA
notes that where delegations are
germane to the Plan, they are stated in
the appropriate context as in the
division of responsibilities between EPA
and USCG in response actions noted Ia
\ 300.33(a|.
In addition. EPA finds it unnecessary
lo specifically list all the responsibilities
and capabilities each agency has to
bring to bear in a response action.
Responsibilities and capabilities are
subject to constant change by statutory
modifications and reorganizations and,
because of resource constraints.
capabilities will vary. EPA believes the
Plan appropriately delineates the
responsibilities that each agency should
fulfill in the context of the national
response structure and the potential
capabilities of each agency. EPA agrees.
however, that the roles of FEMA, HHS
and OOD deserve special mention in the
Plan. Unlike the section 311 program, in
which response authority was vested
only in the USCG and EPA, Executive
Order 12316 grants certain response
authorities to FEMA. HHS and DOD.
EPA has added an explanation of the
divirkm of responsibilities between
EPA. USCG, FEMA. HHS and DOD in a
new \ 300.23(e).
Section 300.22 of Subpart B requires
that where appropriate, discharges of
radioactive materials will be handled
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 31195
pursuant to the appropriate Federal
radiological plan. EPA recognizes that
many such incidents may not be covered
by authorities under CERCLA or the
CWA. The precise extent of response
authority under CERCLA has not been
determined. Accordingly, any clean-up
activity under CERCLA of radioactive
releases will be determined on a case-
by-case basis. Federal authorities for
responding to radiological incidents fall
within the purview of several agencies.
To assure that the Federal government
adequately coordinates these
authorities, there are several existing
mechanisms and others under
development For radioactive releases
from commercial nuclear power plants.
Federal emergency response is
coordinated by FEMA and the NRC
through the National Radiological
Emergency Preparedness/Response Plan
for Commercial Nuclear Power Plant
Accidents (Master Plan). 45 FR 84910.
For radioactive releases not associated
with commercial nuclear power plants.
the Federal radiological assessment and
monitoring Is coordinated by DOE under
the Interagency Radiological Assistance
Plan (IRAP). FEMA is preparing a
comprehensive Federal plan that will
encompass all types of radiological
incidents that may require a Federal
response. It will include incidents or
accidents at commercial nuclear power
plants. The tentative title for the new
Federal plan is the Federal Radiological
Emergency Response Plan (FRERP). The
IRAP has been revised and updated by
DOE and will soon be republished as
the Federal Radiological Monitoring and
Assessment Plan (FRMAP). The FRMAP
will be incorporated into the FRERP to
establish the latter as one single Federal
response plan for any type of significant
radiological emergency.
Several commenten suggested that
{ 300.22 (a) through (c). relating to
coordination of Federal agency
activities, should Include the mandatory
"shall" rather than "should."
EPA disagrees and notes again that
Federal agency responsibilities will vary
due to statutory and budgetary
constraints beyond the control of EPA
as author of the Plan. EPA cannot
Impose obligations upon these agencies
which they may not be able to fulfill.
The Plan must be flexible enough to
accommodate these changing
conditions. Agency budgets and
missions are modified annually.
Moreover, Interagency Agreements.
Memoranda of Understanding, and
guidance documents are the appropriate
mechanisms for detailed descriptions of
tasks each agency will perform.
Several commenters stated that the
thresholds contained in 5 300.22(d) did
not include a "substantial" threat of
release as required by statute.
Section 300.22(d)(2) refers to
enforcement authority under section
106(a] of CERCLA, rather than response
authority under section 104(a) of
CERCLA. Section 106(a) of CERCLA
.does not require a "substantial" threat
as does section 104. Due to this
difference, no change is necessary.
One corrunenter objected to the fact
that § 300.22(d)(2) allowed the NRT to
recommend that EPA or USCG exercise
its enforcement authorities, since the
NRT is not delegated such author ty.
EPA agrees and has deleted this
provision.
A few commenters questioned the
wording of { 300.22(e) stating that il
gives a great deal of authority to the
government to coordinate private
behavior and that terms such as
"pollution" and "large" quantity of oil
were not defined This provision is
taken directly from section 311(b](2)(A)
of the Clean Water Act. In this section.
Congress did not define the referenced
terms. In situations requiring the
exercise of this authority, decisions
must necessarily be subjective since
they are based on the unique
circumstances surrounding each
situation.
Many commenters stated that it was
unclear which agencies were
"participating" agencies under 5 300.23
(a] and (c). EPA has clarified this by
deleting the term "participating"
agencies in 5 300.23 and noting instead
that the agencies are the "Federal"
agencies listed in paragraph (b) of the
same section. The agencies listed in
paragraph (b) are the current members
of the National Response Team. EPA
has deleted HUD and SBA from this list
since they are not current members.
One commemer suggested it was
preferable to put the requirement that
Federal agencies provide representation
to the NRT and RRT and assist in
formulating regional and local plans in
section 300.23(c), in order to include
agency responsibilities to the NRT and
RRTa in one place. EPA agrees and has
added this requirement in 4 300.23(c)(3),
To avoid duplication in the Plan. EPA
has deleted the second sentence of
5 300.24 (d). (e) and (fl and instead
added a cross-reference to the new
} 300.62 (discussed in section IV above)
which more comprehensively outlines
the State role under CERCLA.
Some commenters requested State
participation in the Regional Response
Team be greater and that it be
mandatory. Other commenters
questioned whether State participation
in RRT activities was a reimburseable
cost.
Section 300.24 does allow States full
membership on the RRT. This
membership is not mandatory, however.
since States should have the discretion
to participate or not participate given
State needs and resources. The issue of
which costs are eligible is not one that
the Plan resolves. Rather, the extent to
which costs will be reimbursed shall be
specified in individual cooperative
agreements with States. Another
commenter noted that ] 5 300.24(a) and
300.32(b)(2) were contradictory in that
3 300.32 allows local governments to
fully participate in RRT activities while
S 300.24(a) makes local participation
contingent upon approval of the State
representative. EPA agrees that these
sections are Inconsistent and has
modified { 300.32(b)(2) to provide that
only States have the same status as
Federal members (i.e. voting members),
leaving local participation subject to the
provisions of S 300.24(a).
Other commenters stated that the
provisions of { 300.24(c) potentially
created duplicative State programs and
unnecessarily encouraged Slates to take
response and enforcement actions. EPA
disagrees. This section merely
recognizes that many States have active
response and enforcement programs
which are in no way pre-empted by
CERCLA. Where such programs exist
EPA encourages their uae. This section
recognizes that such programs and the
Federal program are important
complements to one another. One
commenter stated that the Plan should
not Indicate a preference for Stale f
enforcement action over Federal action.
EPA agrees and notes that { 300.24(c)
encourages State enforcement but does
not indicate a preference over Federal
enforcement action.
Other commenters objected to the use
of the term "potentially" in referring to
responsible parties in \ 300.24(c) and
elsewhere in the Plan.
EPA used this term in response to
comments on earlier drafts of the Plan
which raised objections to calling all
involved parties responsible until
enough evidence was gathered for the
Agency to determine that they are
responsible. Since this is often a time-.
consuming process, EPA has used the
term "potentially" responsible.
A few commenten questioned
whether the Plan adequately specified
those actions that would be eligible for
Federal funding.
Subpart F establishes criteria upon
which decisions as to eligibility for
Federal funding will be based. The
-------
31196
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday, July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
eligibility of particular actions will be
decided on a case-by-case basis using
these factors. The Plan cannot ensure
funding approval for specific actions
since current demands for response and
expected future demands exceed
available funds.
Many commenters were confused as
to the provisions in 9 300.25 (d) through
(f). Several questioned when the Fund
will be used to pay for private party
clean-up, and whether the section
prohibits the taking of remedial action
by any person who does not have prior
approval. Moreover, conunenters stated
that 9 300.25(e) of the proposal implied
that anyone who does not intend to seek
Fund reimbursement needs no prior
approval. Others questioned whether
there should be any prior approval
requirements.
In response to these concerns, EPA
has substantially modified § 300.25 (d)
through (f). Paragraphs (e) and (f) of the
proposal have been eliminated and
paragraph (d) has been rewritten to
require that persons who intend to
undertake response actions, and seek
reimbursement from the Fund, must
obtain-preauthorization in order for the
response action to be considered
consistent with the Plan for purposes of
section lll(a)(2) of CERCLA. This
provision does not apply to the Federal
government or to a State or other person
acting pursuant to a contract or
cooperative agreement.
Section lll(a)(2) of CERCLA allows
payment of claims for response costs
incurred by "any other person" as a
result of carrying out the NCP. provided
that such costs are approved under the
Plan and certified by the responsible
Federal official. Section 300.25(d)
provides the mechanism for approval of
such costs under the NCP. This
mechanism is through notice to the
Administrator or her designee and
submission of an application for prior
approval (preauthonzation) of the
action.
This preauthonzation process allows
EPA to better manage Fund money, and
helps ensure that private response is
conducted in an environmentally sound
manner. Further, the preauthorization
process gives persons who wish to
submit response claims a method to
assure themselves that their costs will
meet the approval component of section
m(a)(2). EPA is developing procedures
for processing such claims pursuant to
section 112 of CERCLA.
The provision requiring that private
response actions be preauthonzed is
included in the Plan to ensure that Fund
money is spent in a cost-effective and
environmentally sound manner,
regardless of the party taking the action.
In the case of those operating pursuant
to a contract or cooperative agreement
EPA can assure consistency with the
NCP through the agreement In the case
of the Federal government taking Fund-
financed action, consistency with the
Plan is assured through internal agency
approval procedures. Section 300.2S(d)
imposes a similar advance approval
requirement on those wishing to bring a
claim against the Fund for response
costs in accordance with section
lll(a)2). Section 300.25(d) does not
apply to private parties who undertake
response actions, but do not intend to
seek reimbursement from the Fund.
C. Subpart C
Subpart C establishes the national
and regional response structure and
explains the role of government and
private entities in the response
structure.
Several commenters requested further
detail in 9 300.32(a) on the
responsibilities and authorities of the
NRT. EPA believes this section
adequately details the role of the NRT
as the national organization for
coordinating Federal response to major
pollution incidents and developing >
recommended actions for national
response policies. Roles and
responsibilities of the NRT during
response actions are detailed in 5 300.34
(f) and (g). One commenter noted that
while the Plan allows the NRT to make
recommendations on training, equipping,
and protecting response teams and
coordination of governmental and
private entities, section 105 requires that
such provisions be specified in the Plan.
EPA notes that the Plan does specify
these components throughout Subparts
B and C. The provision regarding the •
NRT is Intended to allow the body to
recommend improvements or
modifications in these areas, based on
its collective expertise.
Some commenters objected to
deletion of material from the existing,
Plan relating to by-laws of the NRT. EPA
eliminated these provisions because
they were considered "ministerial" and
neither necessary nor appropriate in the
Plan. Section 300.32(a) allows the NRT
to adopt such by-laws as it deems
necessary to its operations. Other
commenters suggested making provision
in the Plan that NRT meetings be open
to the public. Again, such a provision is
not appropriate in this Plan, since some
meetings may be public and others may
require executive session. It is more
efficient for the NRT to provide for these
decisions in its own procedures.
Several commenters asked how
membership on the NRT is determined
and suggested that the Plan provide for
State membership on the RRT. EPA has
clarified the membership process by
adding a sentence to 9 300.32(a)(l)
which provides that agencies may
request membership on the NRT by
forwarding such requests to the
chairman. States are not permitted to be
members of the NRT: participation is
limited to members with a national
presence. The RRT is the appropriate
coordinative body for States. The NRT
likewise restricts Federal agency
members to those with a national
presence. For example, the Tennessee
Valley Authority is a Federal entity that
is very active in response activities. It is
a member only of the RRT. however.
because Its activities are limited to a
single geographic area.
Several commenters pointed out that
the provisions of 9 300.32(a)(7)(i) were
confusing since they implied that the
NRT responds only to nationally
significant releases. EPA has clarified
this section by providing that the NRT
maintains national readiness to respond
to incidents which are beyond regional
capability. This provision clarifies that
the NRT role is complementary to that
of the RRT.
Other commenters maintained that
the Plan vested broad and unspecified
discretionary authorities in the NRT and
RRTs. These commenters believed that
certain responsibilities vested in the
NRT and RRTs should be specified in
the Plan. EPA disagrees. The Plan
provides the NRT and RRTs with the
authority they require to act as effective
coordinating bodies. Their activities are
not exclusive of the Plan; rather, they
are complementary to the Plan. For
example, the NRT is empowered to
develop procedures for ensuring
coordination of response activities
among the various levels of government
and private entities (9 300.32(a)(7)(iv}).
This authority obviously does not
preempt the rest of Subparts B and C
which also provide for such
coordination. This section is simply one
of the many provisions in these subparts
to assure such coordination.
Several commenters were confused
over the role of State and local
governments on the Regional Response
Teams. EPA has clarified 9 300.32(b) to
provide that States may be voting
members on the RRT. while local
representatives may participate in
meetings in a non-voting capacity. The
reason for allowing only one vote per
State la to assure efficiency of RRT
operations. Allowing an unlimited
number of representatives from a single
State to vote would distort the fairness
of representation on the RRT. This
would result in an unwieldy and unfair
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday, July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 31197
voting system, which could be biased
toward whoever had the moat people in
attendance. It should be noted that
voting ia rarely necessary within either
the NRT or RRTs since members usually
achieve consensus.
Another commenter suggested that the
Plan specify those agencies that
compose the Regional Response Team.
Such specification ia not appropriate to
the national Plan, since participating
agencies may vary from region to region.
Therefore, specification is left to the
regional plans.
Several commentera suggested that
qualifications for various response
personnel mentioned in Subpart C [OSC
SSC. etc.] be included in the Plan. EPA
believes that the Plan is an
inappropriate place to specify personnel
qualifications. Depending on the area
covered, qualifications may vary and
they are more appropriately considered
in the hiring process, not through
regulation.
Section 300.33 of the Plan discusses
die division of responsibilities, roles and
coordinating activities that should be
used in a response. Section 300.33{a)-
specifies the geographic division of
response authority between EPA and
the USCG. Because commentera noted
that, within the USCG/EPA division.
DOD has authority for response to
releases from its own facilities, EPA has
inserted this exception in 8 300.33(a).
Many commentera urged that this Plan
clearly state that the OSC is responsible
for response operations, that others at
the scene are under the direction of the
OSC. and that the OSC must not be
unduly hampered by officials not at the
scene. Section 300.33(b) of the Plan
clearly specifies that it is the OSC that
directs on-scene operations. That is, the
OSC is the official in charge of directing
on-scene operations.The OSC*s
authority is subject only to other
response authorities delegated under
Executive Order 12316. Otherwise, the
OSC directs all activities during a
response action. The special assistance
authorized by Subpart C (i.e.. the SSC,
ERT and strike forces) includes entities
which may be called upon by the OSC
to assist in responae operations. EPA is
sensitive to the fact that response
should not be unduly delayed while
awaiting approvals or concurrence by
officials who are removed from the
scene.
Section 300.33(b) (1) through [10]
provides a checklist of OSC
responsibilities during a response. This
list is complementary to responsibilities
in Subparts E and P and serves
primarily to assure appropriate
coordination by the OSC One
commenter suggested adding to
$ 300.33(b)(6) a requirement that the
OSC notify FEMA of situations
potentially requiring evacuation.
temporary housing, or permanent
relocation. EPA agrees and has added
this requirement and consolidated
8 300.33(b) (6] and (9) into a single
paragraph. In addition, in order to
assure that the notifications for which
an OSC has responsibility are stated in
one place. EPA has added a sentence to
8 300.33(b)(7) noting that the OSC may
call upon HHS for advice in the worker
health and safety area and included a
new paragraph (9) requiring notification
of affected Federal land managing
agencies. Several commenters stated
that in 8 300.33(b). the OSC also should
be required to notify State and local
agencies. EPA does not believe this
notification is necessary since the Plan
already provides for the National
Response Center to notify the Governor
of the affected State or his or her
designee of discharges or releases.
Other Slate and local agencies should
arrange to be notified through their
State's mechanisms.
A few commenters suggested that the
Emergency Response Team [ERT]
responsibilities cited in 8 300J3(d) of
the proposal be expanded and that only
the OSC be allowed to request the
support of the ERT. EPA does not
believe expansion of ERT
responsibilities is necessary, since thane
detailed in the Plan are broad examples
of the types of services the ERT
provides. Although the OSC is the
primary requester of ERT services, the
ERT also may be needed for response
activities by others. EPA believes this
flexbility should be preserved in the
Plan. Another commenter stated that the
Plan leaves to the ERT decisions which
should be made in the Plan. EPA notes
that nowhere in f 300.34(c) does the
Plan require decision making by the
ERT—it simply outlines ERT expertise
which can be called upon.
Several commenters questioned how
the RRT decides whether or not to
activate. Some of these commentera
were concerned that the RRT should not
become involved in response operations
without approval of the OSC The
Regional Response Team is activated
when the criteria ia 8 300.34(0 are met
It is not necessary for the RRT to receive
OSC concurrence to activate. Instead.
the chairman of the RRT makes the
decision as to whether the RRT should
be activated (often on the basis of a
request from a State representative). In
the majority of cases, the chairman is
from the same agency as the OSC. and.
in fact can be the OSC's supervisor.
Therefore, there should be no
disagreement as to the need to activate
the RRT. Imposition of formal OSC
concurrence requirements are
unnecessary and inappropriate.
Section 300.34(f)(S)(iv) allows the RRT
to suggest replacement of the OSC. A
few commenters suggested that private
parties also be allowed to do so.
Certainly, the Plan does not preclude
such a request; however, it is
inappropriate to encourage such
requests in the Plan, especially since the
OSC will often be involved in situations
where private parties have failed to
clean up properly. Requests for
replacement of OSCs should not occur
every time a responsible party disagrees
with the OSC action.
Several commenters noted that
proposed 8 300.36{cJ did not clearly
slate the CERCLA and CWA
requirements for reporting discharges
and releases. Accordingly. EPA has
clarified the Plan to note that reports of
discharges or releases of oil and
hazardous substances above reportable
quantities should be made in
accordance with 33 CFR Part 1S3, and
section 103(a) of CERCLA. In addition.
EPA has eliminated 8 300.35{d)
regarding pollution reports since the
same requirement appears elsewhere in
the Plan. A few commenters requested
that 8 300.38 of the proposal note that
the Spill Clean-up Inventory System
(SKIM) is also available to private
parties. EPA agrees and has noted this
availability in { 300.37.
D. Subpart D
Subpart D establishes requirements
for Federal regional contingency plans
and Federal local contingency plans.
Several commenters requested that
additional detail be added to the NCP
regarding the required content of these
plans. EPA does not believe additional
material is necessary. First, in the case
of regional plans. 8 300.42 (a), (b) and (c)
outlines the components that should be
included in such plans, and explicitly
states that regional plans will follow the
format of the NCP to the extent possible.
This provides guidance to the regions on
the topics which should be covered in
then plans. Further detail could result in
an unduly rigid mechanistic formula for
developing regional plans. EPA
recognizes that each region will have
distinct needs in developing such plans
and has provided the flexibility to allow
these plans to be tailored to regional
needs. These plans an required lo be
developed by RRTs in consultation with
States.
In the case of Federal local plans
(8 300.43). EPA has deleted the "
requirement that they follow the format
of the national Plan. Several
-------
31198 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday/ July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
commenters pointed out that this section
gave inadequate attention to local needs
and conditions. By deleting the
requirement that Federal local plans
should follow the NCP. EPA is providing
greater flexibility for local plans to be
developed in accordance with
provisions in S 300.43(a) and to be
adequately coordinated with existing
local response structures.
Finally, several conunenters
questioned why the Plan did not require
State and local contingency planning by
State and local governments. EPA
strongly encourages all levels of
government to undertake such planning;
however. EPA believes it id only
appropriate for the NCP to specify
mandatory planning by Federal entities.
Several commenters suggested that
the Plan require adoption of Slate and
local plans when they accomplish the
same purposes as the Federal regional
or Federal local plan. Such a
requirement is unnecessary in this Plan.
Fiat, regional plans cover Federal
regions which cross State boundaries,
thus State plans would not be
appropriate as regional plans. Second.
both Federal regional and Federal local
plans outline how Federal entities will
coordinate with State and local
governments. Local and State plans
generally deal with coordination of
State and local entities. Because of these
differences, such a requirement would.
in most cases, simply pose an additional
burden of examining and determining
that such Plans are not appropriate. It
should be noted, however, that nothing
in this Plan precludes drawing upon
State and local plans where they are
appropriate.
Conversely, other suggested that State
plans be required to conform to the NCP.
EPA does not believe that such a
requirement Is appropriate to the
national Plan since States should be free
to tailor State plans to particular State
needs. This would not however.
preclude EPA from requiring State
planning as a condition for receipt of
Federal funds.
£ Subpart E
Subpart E establishes procedures for
responding to discharges of oil pursuant
to section 311 of the Clean Water Act
This section reflects the experience
gained in oil removal under that
program and remains largely unchanged
from the existing Plan. Like Subpart F,
this subpart includes phases of
response, beginning with discovery of
discharges under J 301X51, and
continuing through documentation for
cost recovery actions in \ 3COM. In
addition. 9 300.56 contains a summary of
actions the OSC should take upon being
notified of a discharge of oil; S 300.56
details requirements for pollution
reports, which are reports submitted on
removal actions; { 300.57 details special
considerations for safety of personnel
and waterfowl conservation which must
be considered during removal action;
and S 300.58 details funding
requirements for oil removal.
EPA received very few comments on
this Subpart. Most comments generally
favored EPA's decision not to make any
significant changes to the procedures in
the existing Plan for responding to oil
discharges. The comments and
modifications to Subpart E are
discussed below.
Some conucentera noted that Subpart
E did not clearly differentiate between
the requirements for persons "in charge"
and "responsible parties" under section
311 of the CWA. EPA has clarified this
distinction in two provisions. First,
S 300.51(a)(l) has been modified to
clarify that notification requirements in
case of oil spills under section 311(b)(5)
apply to all persons, "In charge." not
"responsible parties." Second, similar
clarification has been made to
S 300.55(a)(4) where "responsible party"
has been changed to a "discharger or
other person."
One commenter noted that { 300.58
did not adequately discuss all sources of
funding available for oil response
actions. EPA agrees and has modified
{ 300.58(c) to more dearly differentiate
between oil related funds, including the
oil pollution fund authorized by section
311(k) of the CWA: the fund authorized
by the Deepwater Port Act; the fund
authorized by the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act; and the fund
authorized by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Authorization Act
P. Subpart F
Subpart P is the major new section of
the NCP. It establishes the management
system under which response to
hazardous substances will be
undertaken. Although most of Subpart F
applies to Fund-financed response, it
should be noted that S 300.88 (e) through
(J) also applies to clean-up by
responsible parties. Subpart F
establishes seven phases of response.
from discovery through various levels of
response to documentation of response
for cost recovery purposes. The phases
are designed to give response personnel
a dedsionmaldng framework for
undertaking response action. All of the
phases need not be undertaken. For
example. Phase m—Immediate
Removal, will not be necessary at all
releases, nor will ail releases be eligible
for such funding.
Several commenters stated that the
process established in Subpart F
appears to contemplate a lengthy
planning process. One commenter
suggested that the Plan include
deadlines for particular actions. Another
suggested that planning be minimized.
EPA believes that the response steps
established in Subpart F assure that
Fund money is spent in the most
judicious manner on the most severe
problems by providing several check
points for taking further action. Such
checks are necessary, since at each step
in the planning process new information
may become available showing that the
problem is not as severe as anticipated
or that it is. in fact more severe than
anticipated. The Inclusion of such check
points does not cause delay or lengthy
planning. Subpart F allows the planning
to be tailored to the complexity of the
problem presented
Many commentera suggested that
throughout Subpart F. the term "release"
should explicitly include "substantial
threat of release" under section 104(a) of
CERCLA. EPA notes that the Plan's
definition of "release" (see S 300.6]
incorporates this term m order to avoid
repeating the phrase. Where the Plan
refers to section 106 of CERCLA in
which enforcement authority does not
include "substantial threat" but merely
a threat posing imminent and
substantial endangerment the Plan
notes this through reference to section
109 of CERCLA. The same scheme has
been used with regard to discharges of
'oil.
Section 300.81 sets forth basic
hazardous substance response
authorities and policies. Several
commenters questioned the adequacy of
i 300.61(c)(3) and pointed out that it is
important to keep the public informed
and to include them in the decision-
making process. Specific comments
included: (1) Strong advocacy of greater
emphasis on public participation; (2)
that the Plan places unlimited and
unquestioned authority In the hands of
the lead agency and NRT; (3) that there
should be some procedure to enable the
public to understand the protection they
are being provided; and (4) that the Plan
should Include specific procedural
requirements for public information and
consultation.
EPA agrees that it is important to be
sensitive to the needs of communities
affected by hazardous substance
releases and has incorporated this in
I 300.61(c)(3). EPA has devoted
substantial effort toward developing an
effective community relations program
which has been implemented through
guidance documents. In order to indicate
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137, Friday. July i& 1982 / Rules and Regulations
31199
that tfle Agency has Issued guidance in
(his area. EPA has added In
{ 30O61(c](3) that It ia necessary to be
sensitive to local concerns "in
accordance with applicable guidance."
The guidance provides for development
of community relations programs on a
site-by-site basis.
EPA has added a new } 300.62 on the
State role under CERCLA. EPA decided
to add this new section to emphasize the
ability of States lo undertake
responsibility for much of the response
detailed in Subpart F. This new section
Is discussed at length in Section IV of
this Preamble.
Section 300.63 of Subpart F is the first
step in any response. It details the
methods by which releases are
discovered, and therefore, the methods
by which response personnel became
aware of potential problems. This
section is required by section 105(1) of
CERCLA. The provisions of this section
are discussed at length in Section 0 of
this preamble. A few specific comments
on this section are noted here. Several
commenlera noted that } 300.62(b) of the
proposal was unclear as to the
notification requirements for reporting
releases to the NRG. EPA has clarified
this provision in a new j 300.63(b) by
detailing the requirements for
notification and noting that reporting
requirements under section 103(a) of
CERCLA arise when a repayable
quantity IB released. Another commenter
pointed out that States may not want to
be notified in the case of minor releases
pursuant to proposed 4 300.62. EPA
notes that this is a statutory requirement
of section 103 of CERCLA.
Section 300.64 of the Plan establishes
the procedures for performing a
preliminary assessment of releases. This
assessment la generally based on
readily available information and is
tailored to the particular type of release
(i.e., emergency or long-term). In
situations requiring emergency action
pursuant to S 300.95, this initial
Investigation and evaluation will be
short. In the case of slower, long-term
releases, this step will be more
extensive and Is the first step for
investigating and evaluating the
problems posed by the release. The
content of this section is discussed
generally in Section n above. Additional
comments are noted below.
Several conunenters said that the Plan
was not specific enough regarding the
appropriate extent of a preliminary
assessment and that the assessment
procedures were not adequate for
evaluating a release. Others requested
that such assessments be eliminated
since assessments can be very time
consuming and costly.
EPA believes that S 300.84 Is
sufficiently detailed. The preliminary
assessment la for screening purposes
only—It is not the final evaluation for
determining whether remedial action is
needed. Requirements for a more
detailed preliminary assessment would
interfere with and delay the decision
making process at this stage of the
response. For example, a less severe
release where information ia readily
available would allow an expedited
assessment. More serious releases with
little information available would
require an extended assessment For
this reason* EPA has included the
methods which may be employed to
undertake an assessment, while the lead
agency reserves the discretion to tailor
the assessment to the factors pertaining
to the individual release. EPA further
notes that the assessment is just Ihe first
step in evaluating a release. It is used to
screen out those releases which may not
merit a Federal response. For example,
EPA's experience indicates that the vast
majority of classic spills are responded
to by private parties or Slate or local
governments, making further Federal
involvement unnecessary or very
limited. The assessment also allows the
lead agency to quickly move into Phase
III and take emergency action, if
necessary; to determine that the release
requires further evaluation under Phaaa
IV. through a site inspection, and
perhaps investigation; or to determine
that it does not require Fund-financed
response. This preliminary assessment
assures that limited Fund money is
available to respond to the most
significant releases.
Other commenters questioned the
need for a site visit during Phase IL A
site visit will be made only in those
situations in which additional
information is needed (S 300.94(b)J to
allow the lead agency to make an
Informed decision on the appropriate
response to the release.
One commenter pointed out that
{ 300.63(b) would have prohibited a site
visit if sophisticated safety equipment
was needed, thus prohibiting a visit
even if such equipment was available.
EPA agrees that this provision could be
belter worded and has replaced this
requirement with:'" * * if conditions
are such that il may be performed
safely." This modification allows such
visits to be taken when safety
equipment is readily available, while
still assuring the safety of response
personnel going on or near the release.
A few commenters questioned how
EPA will determine whether further
response is required, i.e.. whether
certain levels of contamination will be
responded lo while others will not.
During the preliminary assessment one
cannot determine with certainty die
degree of contamination. For this
reason. EPA has included the factors of
S 300.64(c) for the lead agency to use In
determining when no further action is
necessary. Amount of contalmination
alone is not the sole determining factor.
The other factors of) 300.64(c) must be
considered as well.
Section 300.65 establishes criteria for
undertaking immediate removals (i.e..
emergency response). Several
commenlera contended that the criteria
for taxing immediate removal needed to
be more detailed. The Plan gives several
examples of the types of situations
requiring emergency action as well as a
threshold for taking such action (see
} 300.8S(a)). EPA does not believe that
further detail ia appropriate. The Agency
has listed as examples those situations
that will clearly require emergency
response. For those situations that are
not specifically listed, application of the
criteria contained in { 300.35(a) will
determine whether emergency removal
ia necessary. EPA believes that this
format provides the flexibility required
for effective response to a wide range of
emergencies.
Several comraenten pointed out that
the statutory requirement of S 104[c)(3}
of CERCLA for limiting response to six
months or Si million was omitted from
the section on Immediate Removal. EPA
agrees that the statutory requirement
should be reiterated in the Plan and has
accordingly added a new paragraph (d).
Several commenters suggested that a
substantial amount of decisionmaking
authority should be delegated to OSCs
in order that response not be delayed
pending consultation with officials not
at the site. Another commenter
suggested requiring OSC consultation
with EPA Headquarters to assure
consistency of Fund expenditures.
Moreover, one commenter suggested
that the Plan allow OSCs to spend up to
$500,000 on removal actions. EPA agrees
that response personnel must be able to
address classic emergency situations in
a timely manner, and believes that
i 300.65 facilitates timely response. EPA
does not believe, however, that
delegations of spending authority should
be included in the Plan, since such
delegations are often subject to
modifications. Internal agency approval
processes for EPA personnel to expend
funds are neither appropriate to the Plan
nor required by section 105 of CERCLA.
Instead. S 300.65 contains the methods
and criteria for determining whether the
problem should be addressed as an
emergency, leaving admtristrative
-------
31200 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
funding procedures to Agency guidance
and directives.
Section 300.66—Phase IV provides for
continuing evaluation of releases
through investigation and inspection of
the release, and details the procedure
for using the Hazard Ranking System
and compiling the National Priorities
List. Section II of this preamble
discusses investigation and inspection
activities and Section V discusses the
establishment of the National Priorities
List.
Section 300.67—Phase V sets forth the
criteria for undertaking planned removal
actions. A discussion of comments
related to planned removal provisions in
the Plan is included in Section VI above.
Section 300.68—Phase VI provides
methods and criteria for undertaking
remedial action and for determining the
appropriate extent of remedy. A full
discussion of the criteria and methods
for determining the appropriate extent of
remedy and the comments on these
criteria and methods is set forth In
Sections D and 01 of this preamble.
Section 300.69—Phase VII requires
response personnel to maintain and
collect information during all response
actions for potential use in coat
recovery. This section of proposed
revisions is unchanged except for the
addition to paragraph (b) of the
provision that information and reports
on response actions must be forwarded
by response personnel only when taking
Fund-financed action. This modification
clarifies that Federal agencies, such as
DOD. that take remedial action using
their OWB road* need not forward such
reports to the RRC or NRT.
Section 300.70 sets forth methods for
remedying releases in accordance with
section 106 of CERCLA. A discussion of
this provision is included in Section D of
this preamble. Several comments were
received suggesting minor modifications
and additions to this section. The
Agency baj incorporated those
modifications and additions that
included appropriate mathoda for
remedying releases and" covered by a
category already bated that wen not
already included in the methods listed in
8300.70
Section 300.71 establishes
requirements for worker health and
safety. This section was proposed as
8 300.70 and detailed worker health and
safety considerations, eligible and
noneUglble costs, and methods for
obtaining funding under the Disaster
Relief Act EPA has deleted the eligible
and nooellgible costs section of the
proposal. Several conunenters found the
section vague and confusing. Since it Is
difficult to discern cost components that
are eligible or noncligible (ram broad
categories which are outlined in the
proposal, EPA is deleting this section.
EPA notes that delineation of eligible
and noneligible costs in the Plants not a
requirement of section 105 of CERCLA.
Eligible costs are specifically defined in
State contracts or cooperative
agreements and other guidance [such as
OMB circulars and EPA grant
regulations).
Proposed } 300.70(a) (now section
300.71) has been modified to clarify that
response personnel must comply with
applicable OSHA regulations. EPA has
deleted the requirement that OSCs
submit safety reports to the work group
established pursuant to section 301(f) of
CERCLA. The work group has nearly
completed its study and
recommendations; thus, it is
unnecessary for OSCs to submit safety
reports fqr the group's consideration.
G. Subpori G
Section 111 (hHi) of CERCLA provides
mat damages for injury to. destruction
of, or loss of natural resources resulting
from a release of hazardous substance,
for purposes of CERCLA and section
311(f) (4) and (5) of the CWA. will be
assessed by Federal officials designated
by the President under the National
Contingency Plan. If further provides
that designated officials will act as
trustees for purposes of section 111 of
CERCLA and section 311(f)(5) of the
CWA.
Section lllfb) of CERCLA allows
claims to be asserted against the
Superfund for (1) claims asserted and
compensate but unsatisfied under
section 311 of the CWA which are
modified by section 304 of CERCLA: and
(2) other claims resulting from a release
or threat of release of a hazardous
substance from a vessel or facility for
injury to. destruction of. or loss of
natural resources, including cost for
damage assessment Such claims may
be asserted only by the President acting
as trustee, for natural resources over
which the United States has sovereign
rights, or natural resources within the
territory or the fishery conservation
zone to the extent they are managed or
protected by the United States, or by
any State for natural resources within
the boundary of that State belonging to,
managed by, controlled by, or
appertaining to the State.
Section 107(f) of CERCLA provides
that the President or authorized
representative of a State will act on
behalf of the public as trustee to recover
for damages to natural resources
pursuant to section 107 of CERCLA.
Subpart C Implements these
provisions, pursuant to Executive Order
12316. by designating those Federal
trustees who will act on behalf of the
President in assessing damages, bringing
claims, and recovering damages for
natural resources under these provisions
of CERCLA. A few commenten were
concerned that Subpart G did not
adequately note the purposes for which
trustees are appointed. EPA has
clarified this by noting in section 300.72
that Subpart G is limited to the purposes
of CERCLA. To clarify that States are
also given authority to undertake such
actions, EPA has added a new 8 300.73
that provides that States are trustees for
resources within the States' boundaries,
belonging to. managed by, controlled by,
or appertaining to the State. In addition,
EPA has added a new subsection in
8 300.71 Section 300.72(a) designates
trustees for land subject to the
management or protection of a Federal
land numbing agency and 8 300.72(b]
designates trustees for fixed or non-
fixed resources subject to the
management or protection of a Federal
agency. These subsections are intended
to clarify trusteeship responsibility for
these individual resources. Subsequent
sections have been renumbered
accordingly.
In addition. EPA has also modified
8 300.72(c) to clarify that in subsection
(c), where affected resources are subject
to the respective statutory authorities
and jurisdictions of both DOI and DOC
in the
thism
areas Identified In
isection. they win act as co-
trustees. In order to facilitate more
efficient and effective exercise of
Federal trusteeship responsibilities, the
DOC and DOI. as part of the co-
trusteeship responsibility for waters
subject to tidal Influence and for
contiguous upland anas where a
pollution incident may affect resources
under the authorities of both agencies,
are encouraged to enter, as soon as
practicable, into a Memorandum of
Understanding which win defineate the
respective trusteeship responsibilities of
each agency in these areas. Co-
trusteeship wifl not apply to a
resource(s) for which either agency has
sole management or protective
responsibility. In these cases, the agency
having that responsibility will act as
sole Federal trustee. EPA hat also
added a provision to 9 300.74 which
encourages that In cases where trustees
have concurrent jurisdiction, the
trustees coordinate their activities. The
term "natural resources." as defined by
CERCLA. is extremely broad. The term
includes both fixed and non-fixed
resources. It is. therefore, possible that
trusteeship responsibilities win overlap.
Since natural resource assessment,
damage assessment and restoration
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday. July 1ft 1982 / Rules and Regulations
31201
planning generally will need to be
performed and restoration plans
developed on a geographic basis. It ia
important that trustees coordinate
efforts.
H. Subpart H
The proposed Subpart H replaced
Annex X of the previous Plan and
provided for a case-by-case
authorization by the Administrator or
her designee of the use of dispersants or
other chemicals in treating oil
discharges or hazardous substance
releases. The Agency explained in the
preamble to the proposed revisions (47
FR10978) that it was eliminating the
detailed testing procedures of Annex X
in order to simplify the process for
authorizing the use of dispersants and
other chemicals. Testing procedures and
a process for authorizing use of
dispersants and other chenucals would
be developed as the Agency gained
greater knowledge on this subject.
Many commenters objected to the
proposed Subpart H. Most common tare
urged that the decision making authority
should not be with the Administrator or
a designee in Headquarters but rather
should be with the OSC La order to
enable rapid decision malting Several
other commenters suggested that the
Plan should include testing procedures
to enable the Agency to develop a list of
acceptable dispersants and other
chemicals that could be used as a guide
In decision making. Finally, some
commenters stated that Subpart H
should provide for Involvement of the
affected State in the decision making
process.
In response to these comments, EPA
has made the following changes to
Subpart H. First, the proposed text of
S 300.81(b) has been deleted as being
unnecessary and. in Its place, provision
has been made for OSCs to authorize
the use of dispersants or other
chemicals. The OSC may authorize the
use of dispersants or other chemicals to
treat discharges of oil. If such
disperaants or other chemicals are on
EPA's Acceptance List developed
pursuant to the testing and acceptance
procedures of the previous Plan. There
are three important limitations in this
authorization. First it-applies only to
discharges of oil and not to releases of
hazardous substances. OSCs have much
greater experience in responding to
discharges of oil than releases of
hazardous substances into water.
Additionally, moat of the dispersants or
other chemicals on EPA's Acceptance
List are for use primarily in treating
discharges of oil The second limitation
Is Out OSCs may only authorize ose of
dispenanta or other chemicals on EPA's
Acceptance List. That list includes
twenty-eight products tested and found
acceptable for their intended purposes
pursuant to Annex X of the previous
Plan. While EPA believes that the
procedures in former Annex X need
modification to simplify the testing
requirements, EPA also believes that the
decisions to include those twenty-eight
products on the list were sound and that
they can be used in an environmentally
safe manner under the proper conditions
and directions. Finally, the Agency, in
S 300.81(b], has specifically provided
that the affected State will be consulted
regarding the use of any dispersant or
other chemicals in the waters of such
State. The OSC must also obtain the
concurrence of the EPA representative
to the Regional Response Team.
For those dispersants and other
chemicals not on EPA's Acceptance List.
S 300.81(c) continues to provide that the
Administrator or her designee may
authorize use of such products for
discharges of oil or releases of
hazardous substances. This provision
ensures that any product may be
authorized for use if it is determined
that such product can be used safely in
the waters into which the oil has been
discharged or the hazardous substances
released.
Subpart H, at this time, does not
Include testing procedures and a process
for designation disperaants or other
chemicals as acceptable for use.
However, the Agency is developing new
testing procedures and will propose
those procedures and an approval
process for public comment in the near
future. The time constraints for
promulgating the final revisions
precluded completion of development of
new testing procedures-in time for
including them in this publication.
VIIL Other Comments
This section discusses additional
issues raised by comments which were
generally applicable to the Plan or a
particular aubpart or which were
outside the scope of the NCP.
Several commentera objected to
language in the Plan that used the term
"should" in lieu of "shall." In some
instances, EPA agreed with the
comments and has modified the
language. Each of these modifications is
noted in the discussion above of the
individual subports. However, EPA
believes that. In the remaining cases,
use of the term "should" is preferable
for several reasons. First, EPA sought in
revising the Plan, to provide a document
that would allow the Federal
government or Stales acting under
contracts or cooperative agreements, the
flexibility to design response actions to
the particular needs of individual
releases. Use of the term "shall" would
impose upon response personnel the
duty to routinely perform certain actions
regardless of site-specific exigencies,
thus inhibiting timely and effective
response. Second, response personnel
have many mandatary statutory
requirements that they must meet prior
to or during a response. Where there is a
mandatory statutory requirement the
Plan specifies those requirements as
mandatory. However, if the Plan were to
make all other requirements mandatory
(such as notification of all other Federal
agencies, all individual State agencies.
and all involved parties] response
personnel would be faced with an
enormous administrative burden that
would severely hamper their ability to
perform their primary objective of timely
and effective response. Finally, in the
new CERCLA response program, there
is. to date, little experience in :
responding to releases from hazardous
waste sites. EPA has made mandatory
these provisions relating to activities
that experience has shown to be
necessary at all hazardous waste sites,
or which are required by statutes. EPA
has provided discretion for other
activities that may be appropriate. This
allows the OSC or responsible official to
make the derision, based on the
particular site conditions, that an action
ia or is not appropriate.
Other commenters questioned
whether permits would be required for
CERCLA sites. EPA also believes this is
an issue beyond the scope of the NCP.
This issue will be resolved in
conjunction with those EPA programs
that affect CERCLA actions.
Several commentera asked what
criteria EPA would use In determining
whether a release poses an "imminent
and substantial endangerment." This
term has limited usage in CERCLA, and
it pertains exclusively to response
authority thresholds for JFund-financed
response to pollutants and contaminants
under section 104{a) of CERCLA and to
the threshold for enforcement actions
under section 106 of CERCLA. Section
106 is not implemented through the Plan.
The term is a legal term of art which the
courts have interpreted through a aeries
of cases, and thus, is beyond the scope
of the NCP.
Many commenters questioned how
clean-up of Federal facilities would be
addressed. EPA is currently developing
guidance on this issue. Since the issue
requires agreement among Federal
agencies as to their respective clean-up
obligations. EPA believes that the Issue
should be resolved in guidance, or
-------
31202
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday. July 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
through Memoranda of Understanding.
rather than through the Plan.
Several commenters objected to the
deletion of Annex VI of the previous
Plan which contained sampling
procedures. Suggestions Included: (1)
That, if deleted, a manual should
thoroughly cover sampling; and (2) that
a separate section should specify basic
elements of a site assessment, including
reference to sampling and test protocols.
The Plan does specify the basic
elements for site assessments in
sections 300.64 and 300 66. However.
EPA does not believe it is necessary to
include technical sampling guidance in
the Plan and notes that sampling
procedures are not required by section
105 of CERCLA. However. EPA agrees
that sampling procedures are important
in assessing sites and, accordingly, has
begun preparation of a sampling
manual.
One commenter suggested that
Subpart F should provide for restoration
of natural resources. The statute does
not require that the Plan address
resource restoration, other than that
which is incidental to the actual
response operation. The appropriate
place for addressing the restoration
phase is through the damage assessment
regulations and claims procedures
required by sections 301 and 112 of
CERCLA.
A few commenters noted that
treatment of oil and hazardous
substances as separate entities in the
Plan makes it difficult to report and fund
incidents involving both oil and
hazardous substances. EPA will
coordinate such incidents on a case-by-
case basis. The statutory authonties
(and. therefore, funding and response
requirements) for the two types of
materials are distinct. Reporting of
discharges or releases should not pose a
problem since both are reported to one
central telephone number.
Several corrunentera raised issues
regarding CERCLA enforcement efforts.
Enforcement efforts are not addressed
by the NCP Guidelines for use of
enforcement authorities have been
published in a separate document at 47
FR 20664 (May 13.1982].
IX. Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Regulatory Flexibility Act
An analysis of the economic impacts
of the revisions to the NCP was
conducted to determine whether the
revised NCP is a major rule under
Executive Order 12291 and. therefore.
required the preparation of a Regulatory
Impact Analysis. EPA concluded that
the revised Plan is a major rule because
it is likely to result in an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis is
available for inspection at Room S-398,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street. S.W.. Washington. O.C. 20460.
This regulation was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980. the Agency has
reviewed the impact of the revised NCP
on small entities. EPA certifies that the
NCP will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. Aside from the level of clean-up
required by responsible parties, the NCP
does nut address* enforcement actions.
However, the Regulatory Impact
Analysis recognizes that some
enforcement actions (including cost
recovery actions) taken against parties
responsible for hazardous substance
releases at sites that are identified on
the National Priorities List after it is
published. Therefore, some of these
costs have been included in assessing
Ihe total impact of the NCP. Moreover, it
is a matter of Agency discretion-whether
or not to proceed with enforcement
actions against small entities which may
be significantly affected by such actions.
Therefore, there are no necessary
adverse impacts on smalt entities
directly associated with the NCP.
As part of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the revised NCP, EPA
estimated that some 60 small firms
might be adversely affected by
enforcement actions associated with the
NCP. This estimate is based on the
relative proportions of small firms to
other size firms within affected
industries, and is not reflective of actual
responsibilities of small firms for
particular hazardous substance releases.
The Agency is consequently not
committed to taking this number of
enforcement actions against small firms,
nor limited to this figure. Nevertheless,
EPA estimates that this would result in
far less than 20 percent of the total
number of small firms experiencing
adverse effects. In general, parties
responsible for hazardous substance
releases may be found across a full
range of industries and SIC codes. No
small organizations will be adversely
affected by the revised NCP. nor is there
any likelihood of significant impacts on
a substantial number of small
municipalities as a result of enforcement
actions associated with the NCP.
Interested parties are referred to (he
details of the analysis, which is
available for inspection at Room S-398,
U.S. Envronrrenlal Protection Agency.
401 M Street. S.W, Washington, D.C.
20460.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Air pollution control. Chemicals,
Hazardous materials Intergovernmental
relations, National resources.
Occupational safety and heahh. Oil
pollution. Reporting and record keeping
requirements. Superfund. Waste
treatment and disposal. Water pollution
(.ontrol, Water supply.
Dated: |uly a 1982.
Ann* M. Gorsuch.
Administrator
Part 1510. Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is redesignated as
Part 300 in a new Subchapter j of
(hapter i and revised lo read as follows-
PART 300— NATIONAL OIL AND
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN
Subchapter J— Superfund Programs
Subpart A— Introduction
Sec
300. 1 Purpose and objectives.
300.2 Authority.
300.3 Scope.
300.4 Application.
300.5 Abbreviations.
300.6 Definition*.
Subpart B— Responsibility
300.21 Dulles of President delegated to
Federal agencies.
300.22 Coordination among and by Federal
agencies.
300 23 Other assistance by Federal
agencies.
300.24 State and local participation.
300.25 Non-government participation.
Subpart C— Organization
300 31 Organizational concept*.
300.32 Planning and coordination.
300.33 Response operation*.
300.34 Special force* and team*.
300.35 Multi-regional response*.
300.38 Communication*.
300.37 Response equipment.
Subpart D— Plant
300.41 Regional and local plan*.
300.42 Regional contingency plan*.
300.43 Local contingency plan*.
Subpart E-Operatlonal R«*ponM
for OU Removal
300.31 Phase I — Discovery and notification.
300.52 Phase d — Preliminary assessment
and initiation of action.
300.53 Phase III— Containment,
countermeasures. clean-up and disposal.
300.54 Phase IV— Documentation and cost
recovery.
300.55 General pattern of response.
300 56 Pollution report*.
300 57 Special considerations.
300.56 Funding.
Subpart F— Hazardous Sutotanc*
Rmponso
300.61 General.
300.62 State role.
300.63 Phase I— Discovery and notification.
300.64 Phasefl— Preliminary assessment.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday, July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
31203
Sec.
300.65 Phase HI—Immediate removal.
300.66 Phase IV—Evaluation and
determination of appropriate response—
planned removal and remedial action.
300.67 Phase V—Planned removal.
300.68 Phase VI—Remedial action.
300.89 Phase VU—Documentation and cost
recovery.
300.70 Methods of remedying releases.
300.71 Worker health and safety.
Subpart G—Trustees for Natural Resources
300.72 Designation of Federal trustees.
300 73 State trustees.
300 74 Responsibilities of trustees.
Subpart H—Use of Dlspcrsants and Other
Chemicals
300.81 General.
Appendix A—Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Site Ranking System: a users
manual.
Authority: Sec. 105. Pub. L 90-610.94 Stat.
2764. 42 U.S.C 9605 and sec. 311(c)(2). Pub. L
92-500. as amended: 86 Slat. 865. 33 U.S.C
1321(c)(2): Executive Order 12316.47 FR 42237
(August 20.1981): Executive Order 11735. 38
FR 21243 (August 1973).
Subpart A—Introduction
S 300.1 Purpose and objective*.
The purpose of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (Plan) is to effectuate
the response powers and responsibilities
created by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERLA) and the authorities established
by section 311 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). as amended.
5300-2 Authority.
The Plan is required by section 105 of
CERCLA. 42 U.S.C. 9605. and by section
311(c)(2) of the CWA. as amended. 33
U.S.C. 1321(c)(2). In Executive Order
12316 (46 FR'42237) the President
delegated to the Environmental
Protection Agency the responsibility for
the amendment of the NCP and all of the
other functions vested in the President
by section 105 of CERCLA. Amendments
to the NCP shall be coordinated with
members of the National Response
Team pnor to publication for notice and
comment. Amendments shall also be
coordinated with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission In order to
avoid inconsistent or dupllcatJve
requirements In the emergency planning
responsibilities of those agencies.
5300J Scop*
(a) The Plan applies to all Federal
agencies and is in effect for
(1) The navigable waters of the United
States and adjoining shorelines, for the
contiguous zone, and the high seas
beyond the contiguous zone in
connection with activities under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or
the Deep Water Port Act of 1974. or
which may affect natural resources
belonging to, appertaining to, or under
the exclusive management authority of
the United States (including resources
under the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976). (See sections
311(b)(l) and 502(7) of the Clean Water
Act)
(2) Releases or substantial threats of
releases of hazardous substances into
the environment, and releases or
substantial threats of releases of
pollutants or contaminants which may
present an imminent and substantial
danger to public health or welfare.
(b) The Plan provides for efficient.
coordinated and effective response to
discharges of oil and releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants in accordance with the
authorities of CERCLA and the CWA. It
provides for
(1) Division and specification of
responsibilities among the Federal. State
and local governments in response
actions, and appropriate roles for
private entities.
(2) The national response organization
that may be brought to bear in response
actions, including description of the
organization, response personnel and
resources that are available to respond.
(3) The establishment of requirements
for Federal regional and Federal local
contingency plans, and encouragement
of pre-planning for response by other
levels of government.
(4) Procedures for undertaking
removal operations pursuant to section
311 of the Clean Water Act.
(5) Procedures for undertaking
response operations pursuant to
CERCLA.
(6) Designation of trustees for natural
resources for purposes of CERCLA.
(7) National policies and procedures
for the use of dispersaata and other
chemtials in removal and response
actions.
(c) In implementing this Plan.
consideration shall be given to the joint
Canada/US Contingency Plan; the
U.S./Mexico Joint Contingency Plan and
international assistance plans and
agreements, security regulations and
responsibilities based on international
agreements. Federal statutes and
executive orders. Actions taken
pursuant to this Plan shall conform to
the provisions of International joint
contingency Plans, where they are
applicable. The Department of State
should be consulted prior to taking any
action which may affect its activities.
9300.4 Application.
The Plan is applicable to response*
taken pursuant to the authorities under
CERCLA and section 311 of the CWA.
§300.5 Abbreviations.
(a) Department and Agency Title
Abbreviations.
DOC—Department of Commerce
DOD—Department of Defense
DOE—Department of Energy
DOI—Department of the Interior
DO]—Department of justice
DOL—Department of Labor
DOS—Department of State
DOT—Department of Transportation
EPA—Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA—Federal Emergency Management
Agency
HHS—Department of Health and Human
Services
NIOSH—National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
NOAA—Natioaal Oceanic and Atmosphem
Administration
OSHA—Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
USCC—U.S. Coast Guard
USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture
(b) Operational Title Abbreviations.
ERT—Environmental Response Team
FCO—Federal Coordinating Officer
NRC—National Response Center
NRT—National Response Team
NSF—National Strike Force
OSC—On-Scene Coordinator
PAAT—Public Affairs Assist Team
' FIAT—Public Information Assist Team
RRC—Regional Response Center
RRT—Regional Response Team
SSC—Scientific Support Coordinator
J 300.6 DeflnWone.
Terms not defined in this section have
the meaning given by CERCLA or the
CWA.
Claim, as defined by section 101(4) of
CERCLA. means a demand in writing for
a sum certain.
Claimant, as defined by section 101(5)
of CERCLA, means any person who
presents a claim for compensation under
CERCLA.
Coastal zone, as defined for the
purpose of this Plan, means all U.S.
waters subject to the tide. U.S. waters of
the Great Lakes, specified ports and
harbors on the inland rivers, waters of
the contiguous zone, other waters of the
high seas subject to this Plan, and the
land surface or land substrata, ground
waters, and ambient air proximal to
those waters. The term coastal zone
delineates an area of Federal
responsibility for response action.
Precise boundaries are determined by
EPA/USCG agreements and identified
in Federal regional contingency plans.
Contiguous zone means the zone of
the high seas, established by the United
-------
31204 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
States under Article 24 of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and
Contiguous Zone, which is contiguous to
the territorial sea and which extends
nine miles seaward Tram (he outer limit
of (he territorial sea.
Discharge, as defined by section
311(a)(2) of OVA. includes, but is not
limited to, any spilling, leaking.
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or
dumping of oil. For purposes of this Plan.
'discharge shall also mean substantial
thredi of discharge.
Drinking water supply, as defined by
section 101(7) of CERCLA. means any
raw or finished water source that is or
may be used by a public water system
(as defined in the Safe Drinking Water
Act) or as drinking water by one or more
individuals.
Environment, as defined by section
101(8) of CERCLA. means (a) the
navigable waters of the United States,
the waters of the contiguous zone, and
the ocean waters of which the natural
resources are under the exclusive
management authority of the U.S. under
the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1978, and (b) any
other surface water, ground water,
drinking water supply, land surface and
subsurface strata, or ambient air within
the United States or under the
jurisdiction of the United States.
Facility, as defined by section 101(9)
of CERCLA. means (a) any building,
structure, installation, equipment, pipe
or pipeline (including any pipe into a
sewer or publicly owned treatment
works), well, pit, pond, lagoon.
impoundment, ditch, landfill, storage
container, motor vehicle, rolling stock.
or aircraft, or (b) any site or area where
a hazardous substance has been
deposited, stored, disposed of or placed.
or otherwise come to be located; but
does not include any consumer product
in consumer use or any vessel.
Federally permitted release, as
defined by section 101(10) of CERCLA.
means (a) discharges in compliance with
a permit under section 402 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act; (b)
discharges resulting from circumstances
identified and reviewed and made part
of the public record with respect to a
permit issued or modified under section
402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and subject to a condition
of such permit: (c) continuous or
anticipated intermittent discharges from
a point source, identified in a permit or
permit application under section 402 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
which are caused by events occurring
within.lhe scope of relevant operating or
treatment systems; (d) discharges in
compliance with a legally enforceable
permit under section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act; (e) releases
in compliance with a legally enforceable
final permit issued pursuant to section
3005 (a) through (d) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act from a hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facility
xvhen such permit specifically identifies
the hazardous substances and makes
such substances subject to a standard of
practice, control procedure or bioassay
limitation or condition, or o'.her control
on the hazardous substances in such
releases: (f) any release in compliance
with a legally enforceable permit issued
under section 102 or section 103 of (he
Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972: (g) any
injection of fluids authorized under
Federal underground injection control
programs or State programs submitted
for Federal approval (and not
disapproved by the Administrator of
EPA) pursuant to part C of the Safe
Drinking Water Act: (h) any emission
into the air subject to a permit or control
regulation under section 111, section 112,
title 1 part C, title 1 part D, or State
implementation plans submitted in
accordance with Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (and not disapproved by
the Administrator of EPA), including any
schedule or waiver granted,
promulgated, or approved under these
sections; (i) any injection of fluids or
other materials authorized under
applicable State law (1) for the purpose
of stimulating or treating wells for the
production of crude oil, natural gas. or
water, (2) for the purpose of secondary.
tertiary, or other enhanced recovery of
crude oil or natural gas, or (3) which are
brought to the surface in conjunction
with the production of crude oil or
natural gas and which are reinjected; (j)
the introduction of any pollutant into a
publicly-owned treatment works when
such pollutant is specified in and in
compliance with applicable
pretreatment standards of section 307
(b) or (c) of the CWA and enforceable
requirements in a pretreatment program
submitted by a State or municipality for
Federal approval under section 402 of
such Act and (k) any release of source.
special nuclear, or by-product material.
as those terms are defined in the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954. in compliance with a
legally enforceable license, permit,
regulation, or order issue pursuant to the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
Fund or Trust Fund means the
Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund established by section 221 of
CERCLA.
Ground water, as defined by section
101(12) of CERCLA, means water in a
saturated zone or stratum beneath the
surface of land or water.
Hazardous substance, as defined by
section 101(14) of CERCLA, means (a)
any substance designated pursuant to
section 311(b)(2)(A) of the CWA; (b) any
element compound, mixture, solution, or
substance designated pursuant to
section 102 of CERCLA; (c) any
hazardous waste having the
characteristics identified under or listed
pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (but not including
any waste the regulation of which under
the Solid Waste Disposal Act has been
suspended by Act of Congress); (d) any
toxic poiiutant listed under section
307(a) of the CWA: (e) any hazardous
air pollutant listed under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act: and (f) any
imminently hazardous chemical
substance or mixture with respect to
which the Administrator has taken
action pursuant to section 7 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act. The terms do
nut include petroleum, including crude
oil or any fraction thereof which is not
otherwise specifically listed or
designated as a hazardous substance
under subparagraphs (a) through |f) of
this paragraph, and the term does not
include natural gas, natural gas liquids.
liquified natural gas or synthetic gas
usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural
gas and such synthetic gas).
Inland zone means the environment
inland of the coastal zone excluding the
Great Lakes and specified ports and
harbors of inland rivers. The term inland
zone delineates the area of Federal
responsibility for response action.
Precise boundaries are determined by
EPA/USCG agreement and identified in
Federal regional contingency plans.
Lead agency means the Federal
agency (or State agency operating
pursuant to a contract or cooperative
agreement executed pursuant to section
104(d](l) of CERCLA) that provides the
on-scene coordinator or the responsible
official.
Natural Resources, as defined by
section 101(16) of CERCLA. means land.
fish, wildlife, biota, air. water, ground
water, drinking water supplies, and
other such resources belonging to,
managed by, held in trust by,
appertaining to, or otherwise controlled
by the United States (including the
resources of fishery conservation zones
established by the Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1976), any State
or local government or any foreign
government.
Offshore facility, as defined by
section 101(17) of CERCLA and section
311(a)(ll) of the CWA, means any
facility of any kind located In. on, or
under any of the navigable waters of the
U.S. and any facility of any kind which
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137, Friday, July 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulationa
31205
la subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
and IB located in, on, ot under any other
waters, other than a vessel or a public
vessel.
Oil, as defined by section 311(a)[l) of
CWA, means oil of any kind or in any
form, including, but not limited to,
petroleum, fuel oil. sludge, oil refuse,
and oil mixed with wastes other than
dredged spoil.
Oil pollution fund means the fund
established by section 311(k) of the
CWA.
Onshore facility, (a) as defined by
section 101(18) of CERCLA means any
facility (including, but not limited to,
motor vehicles and rolling stock) of any
kind located in, on, or under any land or
non-navigable waters within the United
States; and (b) aa defined by section
311(a)(10) of CWA means any facility
(including, but not limited to, motor
vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind
located in, on, or under any land within
the United Stales other than submerged
land
On-Scene Coordinator means the
Federal official predesignated by the
EPA or the USCG (or a Slate official
acting pursuant to a contract or
cooperative agreement executed
pursuant to section 104(d)(l) of
CERCLA) to coordinate and direct
Federal responses under this Plan;
provided, however, that with respect to
releases from DOD facilities or vessels,
the OSC shall be designated by DOD.
Person, as defined by section 101(21)
of CERCLA. means an individual firm.
corporation, association, partnership.
consortium, joint venture, commercial
entity. U.S. Government, Slate,
municipality, commission, political
subdivision of a State, or any interstate
body.
Plan means the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan published under
section 311(c) of the CWA and revised
pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA.
Pollutant or contaminant, aa defined
by section 104(a)(2) of CERCLA, shall
include, but not be limited to, any
element, substance, compound, or
mixture, including disease causing
agents, which after release Inlo the
environment and upon exposure.
digestion, inhalation, or assimilation
into any organism, either directly from
the environment or indirectly by
Ingesting through food chains, will or
may reasonably be anticipated to cause
death, disease, behavioral
abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation.
physiological malfunctions (including
malfunctions in reproduction) or
physical deformation, in such organisms
or their offspring. The term does not
include petroleum, including crude oil
and any fraction thereof which is not
otherwise specifically listed or
designated as a hazardous substance
under section 101(14)(A) through (F) of
CERCLA, nor does it include natural
gas. liquified natural gas, or synthetic
gas of pipeline quality (or mixtures of
natural gas and synthetic gas).
Release, as defined by section 101(22)
of CERCLA, means any spilling, leaking,
punipi:ig, pouring, emitting, emptying,
discharging, injecting, escaping.
leaching, dumping, or disposing into the
environment, but excludes (a) any
release which results in exposure to
persons solely within a workplace, with
respect to a claim which such persons
may assert against the employer of such
persons: (b) emissions from the engine
exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock.
aircraft vessel, or pipeline pumping
station engine; (c) release of source, by-
product or special nuclear material from
a nuclear incident, as those terms are
defined in the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, if such release is subject to
requirements with respect to financial
protection established by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission under section
170 of such act or, for the purposes of
section 104 of CERCLA or any other
response action, any release of source,
by-product or special nuclear material
from any processing site designated
under section 102(a](l) or 302(a) of the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978; and (d) the normal
application of fertilizer. For the purposes
of this Plan, release also means
substantial threat of release.
Remove or removal, as defined by
section 311(a)(8) of CWA refers to
removal of oil or hazardous substances
from the water and shorelines or the
taking of such other actions as may be
necessary to minimize or mitigate
damage to the public health or welfare.
As defined by section 101(23) of
CERCLA. remove or removal means the
clean-up or removal of released
hazardous substances from the
environment; such actions as may be
necessary taken in the event of the
threat of release of hazardous
substances Into the environment; such
actions aa may be necessary to monitor,
assess, and evaluate the release or
threat of release of hazardous
substances; the disposal of removed
material: or the taking or such other
actions as may be necessary to prevent,
minimize, or mitigate damage to the
public health or welfare or the
environment which may otherwise
result from such release or threat of
release. The term includes, in addition.
without being limited to. security fencing
or other measures to limit access.
provision of alternative water supplies.
temporary evacuation and housing of
threatened individuals not otherwise
provided for, action taken under section
104(b] of CERCLA. and any emergency
assistance which may be provided
under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974.
Remedy or remedial action, as
defined by section 101(24) of CERCLA.
means those actions consistent with
permanent remedy taken instead of, or
in addition to, removal action in the
event of a release or threatened release
of a hazardous substance into the
environment to prevent or minimize the
release of hazardous substances so that
they do not migrate to cause substantial
danger to present or future public health
or welfare or the environment. The term
includes, but is not limited to, such
actions at the location of the release as
storage, confinement, perimeter
protection using dikes, trenches, or
ditches, clay cover, neutralization.
clean-up of released hazardous
substances or contaminated materials
recycling or reuse, diversion,
destruction, segregation or reactive
wastes, dredging or excavations, repair
or replacement of leaking containers,
collection of leachate and runoff, onsite
treatment or incineration, provision of
alternative water supplies, and any
monitoring reasonably required to
assure that such actions protect the
public health and welfare and the
environment The term includes the
costs of permanent relocation of
residents and businesses and
community facilities where the President
determines that alone or in combination
with other measures, such relocation is
more cost-effective than and
environmentally preferable to the
transportation, storage, treatment
destruction, or secure disposition offsite
of hazardous substances or may
otherwise be necessary to protect the
public health or welfare. The term does
not include offaite transport of
hazardous substances, or the storage,
treatment destruction, or secure
disposition offsite of such hazardous
substances or contaminated materials
unless the President determines that
such actions (a) are more cost-effective
than other remedial actions; (b) will
create new capacity to manage in
compliance with subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act hazardous
substances In addition to those located
at the affected facility: or (c) are
necessary to protect public health or
welfare or the environment from a
present or potential risk which may be
created by further exposure to the
continued presence of such substances
or materials.
-------
31206
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday, July 16. 1982 / Rules'and Regulations
Respond or response, as defined by
lection 101(25) of CERCLA, means
remove, removal, remedy, or remedial
action.
Responsible official refers to the
Federal offica! (o'r State official acting
pursuant to a contract or cooperative
agreement executed pursuant to section
104(d)(l) of CERCLA). assigned by the
lead agency, responsible for '
coordinating planned removals,
remedial actions and related activities
under Subpart F of this plan. Where
reference is made to the responsibilities
and authorities of an OSC those
responsibilities and authorities also
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday. July 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
31207
'•:) In addition to their general
visibilities under paragraph (a) of
section Federal agencies should:
|1) Make necessary information
available to the NRT, RRTs, and OSCs.
(2) Inform the NRT end RRTa
(consistent with national security
considerations) of changes In the
availability of resources that would
affect the operations of the Plan.
(3) Provide representative as
necessary to the NRT and RRTs and
assist RRTs and OSCa in formulating
Federal regional and Federal local
contingency plans.
(d) All Federal agencies are
responsible for reporting releases of
hazardous substances and discharges of
oil from facilities or vessels which are
under their jurisdiction or control In
accordance with section 103 of
CERCLA, and Subparts E and F of this
Plan.
(e) Executive Order 12318 delegates to
the USCG and EPA all authorities under
sections 104 (a) and (b) and 101(24) of
CERCLA subject to the following:
(1) HHS Is delegated all authorities
under section 104(b) of CERCLA relating
to a determination that illness, disease
or complalntb thereof may be
attributable to exposure lo a hazardous
Sstance. pollutant or contaminant (In
ition. section 104(1) of CERCLA calls
, JD HHS to: establish appropriate
jisease/exposure registries; conduct
appropriate health surveys and studies;
develop and provide appropriate testing
for exposed individuals; develop.
maintain and provide Information on
health effects of toxic substances; and
maintain a list of areas restricted or
closed because of toxic substance
contamination.)
(2) FEMA is delegated the authorities
vested in the President by section 104(a)
of CERCLA to the extent they require
permanent relocation of residents,
businesses, and community facilities or
temporary evacuation and housing of
threatened Individual* not otherwise
provided for. (FEMA is also delegated
authority under section 101(24) of
CERCLA to the extent they require a
determination by the President that
"permanent relocaton of residents and
businesses and community facilities" Is
included within the terms '"remedy" and
"remedial action" as defined in section
101(24) of CERCLA.)
(3) DOD la delegated all authority of
section 104 (a) and (b) of CERCLA with
respect to releases from OOD facilities
- vessels, including vessels owned or
reboat chartered and operated.
(f) If the situation is beyond the
apability of State and local
governments and the statutory authority
of Federal agencies, the President
acting upon a request by the Governor,
may declare a major disaster or
emergency and appoint a Federal
Coordinating Officer to assume
responsibility for direction and control
of the Federal response.
J 300.24 State and local participation.
[a] Each State governor is requested
to assign an office or agency to
represent the State on the appropriate
RRT. Local governments are invited to
participate in activities on the
appropriate RRT as may be provided by
State law or arranged by the State's
representative. The State's
representative may participate fully in
all facets of activities of the appropriate
RRT and is encouraged to designate the
element of the Slate government that
will direct State supervised response
operations.
(b) State and local government
agencies are encouraged to include
contingency planning for response,
consistent with this Plan and Regional
Contingency Plans, in all emergency and
disaster planning.
(c) States are encouraged to use State
authorities to compel potentially
responsible parties to undertake
response actions, or to themselves
undertake response actions which are
not eligible for Federal funding.
(d) States may enter Into contracts or
cooperative agreements pursuant to
section 104(c)(3] and (d) of CERCLA or
section 311(c)(2)(H] of the CWA, as
appropriate, to undertake actions
authorized under Subparts E and F of
this Plan. Requirements for entering into
these agreements are included in
{ 8 300.58 and 300.02 of this Plan.
} 300.25 Non-Government participation.
(a) Industry groups, academic
organizations, and others are
encouraged to commit resources for
response operations. Specific
commitments should be listed in Federal
regional and Federal local contingency
plans.
(b) It is particularly important to use
the valuable technical and scientific
information generated by the non-
government local community along with
those from Federal and State
government to assist the OSC in
devising clean-up strategies where
effective standard techniques are
unavailable, and to ensure that pertinent
research will be undertaken to meet
national needs.
(c) Federal local contingency plans
should establish procedures to allow for
well-organized, worthwhile, and safe
use of volunteers. Local plans should
Srovide for the direction of volunteers
y the OSC or by other Federal, State or
local officials knowledgeable in
contingency operations and capable of
providing leadership. Local plans also
should identify specific areas in which
volunteers can be used, such as beach
surveillance, logistical support, and bird
and wildlife treatment. Unless
specifically requested by the OSC
volunteers generally should not be used
for physical removal or remedial
activities. If, in the judgement of the
OSC or an appropriate participating
agency, dangerous conditions exist,
volunteers shall be restricted from on-
scene operations.
(d) If any person other than the
Federal government or a State or person
operating under contract or cooperative
agreement with the United States, lakes
response action and intends to seek
reimbursement from the Fund, such
actions to be in conformity with this
Plan for purposes of section lll(a)(2) of
CERCLA may only be undertaken if
such person notifies the Administrator
of EPA or his/her designee prior to
taking such action and receives prior
approval to take such action.
Subpart C—Organization.
} 300.31 Organizational concept*.
Three fundamental kinds of activity
are performed pursuant to the Plan:
planning and coordination, operations at
the scene of a discharge and/or release,
and communications. The organizational
elements created to perform these
activities are discussed below in the
context of their roles in these activities.
J30O32 Ptannlnfl and coordination.
(a) National planning and
coordination is accomplished through
the National Response Team (NRT).
(1) The NRT consists of
representatives from the agencies
named in | 300.23. Each agency shall
designate a member to the team and
sufficient alternates to ensure
representation, as agency resources
permit Other agencies may request
membership on the NRT by forwarding
such requests to the chairman of the
NRT.
(2) Except for periods of activation
because of a response action, the
representative of EPA shall be the
chairman and the representative of
USCG shall be the vice chairman of the
NRT. The vice chairman shall maintain
records of NRT activities along with
national, regional and local plans for
response actions. When the NRT is
activated for response action, the
chairman shall be the representative of
the Federal lead agency.
-------
31208
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
(3) While the NOT desires to achieve a
consensus on all matters brought before
it, certain matters may prove
unresolvable by this means. In such
cases, each cabinet, department or
agency serving as a participating agency
on the NRT may be accorded one vote in
NRT proceedings.
(4) The NRT may establish such by-
laws and committees as it deems
appropriate to further the purposes for
which it is established.
[5] When the NRT is not activated for
a response action, it shall serve as a
standing committee to evaluate methods
of responding to discharges or releases,
(o recommend needed changes in the
response organization and to
recommend revisions to this Plan.
(6) The NRT may consider and make
recommendations to appropriate
agencies on the training, equipping and
protection of response teams and
necessary research, development.
demonstration, and evaluation to
improve response capabilities.
(7) Direct planning and preparedness
responsibilities of the NRT include:
(i) Maintaining national readiness to
respond to a major discharge of oil or
release of a hazardous substance or
pollutant or contaminant which is
beyond regional capabilities:
(ii) Monitoring incoming reports from
all RRTs and activating when necessary;
(iii) Reviewing regional responses to
oil discharges and hazardous substance
releases, including an evaluation of
equipment readiness and coordination
among responsible public agencies and
private organizations; and
(iv] Developing procedures to ensure
the coordination of Federal. State, and
local governments and private response
to oil discharges and releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants.
(8) The NRT may consider matters
referred to it for settlement by an RRT.
(b) The RRT serves as the regional
body for planning and preparedness
actions before a response action Is
taken and for coordination and advice
during such action. The RRT consists of
regional representatives of the
participating agencies and
representatives of State governments
(and local governments as agreed upon
with States).
(1) Except when the RRT is activated
for a removal incident the
representatives of EPA and USCC shall
act as co-chairmen.
(2) Each participating agency should
designate one member and at least one
alternate member to the RRT.
Participating States may also designate
one member and at least one alternate
member to the Team. All agencies and
Slates may also provide additional
representatives as observers to meetings
of the RRT.
(3) RRT members should designate
representatives from their agencies to
work with OSCs in developing Federal
local contingency plans, providing for
the use of agency resources, and in
responding to discharges and releases
(see § 300.43).
(4) Federal regional and Federal local
plans should adequately provide the
OSC with assistance from the Federal
agencies commensurate with agencies'
resources, capabilities, and
responsibilities within the region. During
a response action, the members of the
RRT should seek to make available the
resources of their agencies to the OSC
as specified in the Federal regional and
Federal local contingency plans.
(5) Affected States are encouraged to
participate actively in all RRT activities
(see } 300.Z4(a)). to designate
representatives to work with the RRT
and OSCs in developing Federal
regional and Federal local plans, to plan
for and make available State resources,
and to serve as the contact point for
coordination of response with local
government agencies whether or not
represented on the RRT.
(8) The RRT serves as a standing
committee lo recommend changes in the
regional response organization as
needed, to revise the regional plan as
needed, and to evaluate the
preparedness of the agencies and the
effectiveness of local plena for the
Federal response to discharges and
releases. The RRT should:
(i) Make continuing review of regional
and local responses to discharges or
releases, considering available legal
remedies, equipment readiness and
coordination among responsible public
agencies and private organizations.
(ii) Based on observations of response
operations, recommend revisions of the
National Contingency Plan to the NRT.
(iii) Consider and recommend
necessary changes based on continuing
review of response actions in the region.
(jv) Review OSC actions to help
ensure that Federal regional and Federal
local contingency plans are developed
satisfactorily.'
(v) Be prepared to respond to major
discharges or releases outside the
region.
(vi) Meet at least semi-annually to
review response actions carried out
during the preceding period, and
consider changes in Federal regional
and Federal local contingency plans.
(vii) Provide letter reports on their
activities to the NRT twice a year, no
later than January 31 and July 31. At a
minimum, reports should summarize
recent activities, organizational changes.
operational concerns, and efforts to
improve State and local conditions.
(c) The OSC is responsible for
developing any Federal local
contingency plans for the Federal
response in the area of the OSCs
responsibility. This may be
accomplished in cooperation with the
RRT and designated State and local
representatives (see { 300.43).
Boundaries for Federal local
contingency plans shall coincide with
those agreed upon between EPA, DOD
and the USCG (subject to Executive
Order 12316) to determine OSC areas of
responsibility and should be clearly
indicated in the regional contingency
plan. Where practicable, consideration
should be given to jurisdictional
boundaries established by State and
local plans.
(d] Scientific support for the
development of regional and local plans
Is organized by appropriate agencies to
provide special expertise and
assistance. Generally, the Scientific
Support Coordinator (SSC) for plans
encompassing the coastal area will be
provided by NOAA. and the SSC for the
Inland area will be provided by EPA or
DOI. This delineation of responsibility
may be modified within a region by
agreement between DOC DOI. and EPA
representatives to the RRT. SSCs may
be obtained from other agencies if
determined to be appropriate by the
RRT.
j 300.33 fleapoflM operations.
(a) EPA and USCG shall designate
OSCs for all areas in each region
provided, however, that DOD shall
designate OSCs for releases from DOD
facilities and vessels. DOD will be the
immediate removal response authority
with respect to incidents Involving DOD
military weapons and munitions.
Immediate removal actions involving
nuclear weapons should be conducted in
accordance with the joint Department of
Defense, Department of Energy, and
Federal Emergency Management
. Agency Agreement for Response to
Nuclear Incidents and Nuclear Weapons
Significant Incidents, of January 8,1981.
The USCG will furnish or provide OSCs
for oil discharges and for the immediate
removal of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants into or
threatening the coastal zone except that
the USCG will not provide
predesignated OSCs for discharges and
releases from hazardous waste
management facilities or in similarly
chrome incidents. EPA shall furnish or
provide OSCs for oil discharges and
hazardous substance releases into or
-------
Federal Register / Vol 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
31209
threatening the Inland zone and. unless
otherwise agreed, for all planned
removals and remedial actions.
[b] The OSC direct* Federal Fund-
financed response efforts and
coordinates all other Federal efforts at
the scene of a discharge or release
subject to Executive Order 12316. As
part of the planning and preparation for
response, the OSCa shall be
pradesignaled by the regional or district
head of the lead agency.
(1) The first official from an agency
with responsibility under this plan to
arrive at the scene of the discharge or
release should coordinate activities
under this Plan until the OSC arrives.
(2) The OSC shall, to the extent
practicable under the circumstances,
collect pertinent facts about the
discharge or release, such as its source
and cause: the existence of potentially
responsible parties: the nature, amount
and location of discharged or released
• materials: the probable direction and
Itme of travel of discharged or released
materials; the pathways to human
exposure; potential impact on human
health, welfare and safety; the potential
impact on natural resources end
property which may be affected:
priorities for protecting human health,
welfare end the environment: and
appropriate cost documentation.
(3) The OSC shall direct response
operations [see Subparts B and F for
descriptive details). The OSC's effort
shall be coordinated with other
appropriate Federal, State, local and
private response agencies.
(4) The OSC shall consult regularly
with the RRT in carrying out this Plan
and ml] keep the RRT informed of
activities under this Plan.
(5) The OSC shall advise the
appropriate State agency (as agreed
upon with each State) as promptly as
possible of reported discharges and
releases.
(6) The OSC shall evaluate incoming
information and immediately advise
FEMA of potential major disaster
situations. In the event of a major
disaster or emergency, under the
Disaster Relief Act of 1874 (Pub. L. 93-
288). the OSC will coordinate any
response ecrjvitlea with the Federal
Coordinating Officer designated by the
President. In addition, the OSC should
notify FEMA of situations potentially
requiring evacuation, temporary
housing, and permanent relocation.
(7) In those instances where a
possible public health emergency exists,
the OSC should notify the HHS
representative to the RRT. Throughout
response actions, the OSC may call
upon the HHS representative for
assistance in determining public health
threats and for advice on worker health
and safety problems,
(8) All Federal agencies should plan
for emergencies and develop procedures
for dealing with oil discharges and
releases of hazardous substances
(designated under section 311(b)(2) of
the CWA) from vessels and facilities
under their jurisdiction. All Federal
agencies, therefore, are responsible for
designating the offices that can
coordinate response to such incidents in
accordance with this Plan and
applicable Federal regulations and
guidelines. If. In the opinion of the OSC.
the responsible Federal agency does net
act promptly or take appropriate action
to respond to a discharge or release
caused by a facility or vessels under its
Jurisdiction, the OSC In charge of area
where the discharge or release occurs
may conduct appropriate response
activities. With respect to discharges or
releases from Department of Defense
(DOD) facilities and vessels, the OSC
shalfbe furnished by (he DOD.
(9) The OSC should advise the
affected land managing agency and
trustees of natural resources, aa
promptly as possible, of releases and
discharges affecting Federal resources
under ita Jurisdiction.
(10) The OSC is responsible for
addressing worker health and safety
concerns at a response scene, in
accordance with 5} 300.57 and 300.71 of
this Plan.
(11) The OSC shall submit pollution
reports to the RRC and appropriate
agencies AS significant developments
occur during removal actions.
}30034 3p«ctaJForewandTeams.
(a) The National Strike Force (NSF)
consists of the Strike Teams established
by the USCC on the Atlantic, Pacific
and Gulf coasts and includes emergency
task forces to provide assistance to the
OSC
(1) The Strike Teams can provide
communication support, advice and
assistance for oil and hazardous
substances removal. These learns also
have knowledge of ship salvage, damage
control, and diving. Additionally, they
are equipped with specialized
containment and removal equipment
and have rapid transportation available.
When possible, the Strike Teams will
train the emergency task forces and
assist in the development of regional
and local contingency plans.
(2) The OSC may request assistance
from the Strike Teams. Requests for a
team may be made directly to the
Commanding Officer of the appropriate
team, the USCG member of the RRT. the
appropriate USCG Area Commander, or
the Commandant of the USCG through
the NRG
(b) Each USCG OSC manages
emergency task forces trained lo
evaluate, monitor, and supervise
pollution responses, Additionally, they
have limited "Initial aid" response
capability to deploy equipment prior to
the arrival of a clean-up contractor, or
other response personnel.
(c|(l] The Emergency Response Team
[EAT] is established by EPA in
accordance with its disaster and
emergency responsibilities. The ERT
includes expertise in biology, chemistry,
hydrology, geology and engineering.
(2) It can provide access to special de-
contamination equipment for chemical
releases and advice to the OSC in
hazard evaluation; risk assessment;
multimedia sampling and analysis
program; on-sile safety, including
development and implementation plans;
clean-up techniques and priorities;
water supply de-contamination and
protection; application of disperaants;
environmental assessment; degree of
clean-up required*, and disposal of
contaminated material
(3) The ERT also provides both
^ introductory and intermediate level
' training courses to prepare response
personnel.
(4) OSC or RRT requests for ERT
support should be made to the EPA
representative on the RRT. the EPA
Headquarters. Director, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response or
the appropriate EPA regional emergency
coordinator.
fd) When requested by the OSC the
SSC shall serve as a member of the
OSCs staff and assist the OSC in
fulfilling responsibilities in support of
response actions. The extent and nature
of SSC involvement in the operational
mode shall be determined by the OSC
The SSC may:
(1) Coordinate response from the
scientific community to OSC requests
for assistance and to requests from the
OSC. as appropriate, for performance of
environmental assessment.
|Z] Serve as the principal liaison for
scientific advice from the scientific
community to (he OSC. The SSC shall
ensure that differing scientific views
within the scientific community are
communicated to the OSC in a timely
manner.
(31 The SSC will assist in responding
to requests for assistance from State and
Federal agencies regarding scientific
studies and esviroomsntal assessments.
Details on provision of access to
scientific support shall be included m
regional contingency plans.
-------
31210 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday. JuJy 1ft 1982 / RuJes and Regulations
(e) The USCG Public Information
Assist Team (PIAT) and the EPA Public
Affairs Assist Team (PAAT) may help
OSCs and regional or district offices
meet the demands for public information
and participation during major
responses. Requests for these teams
may be made through the NRC.
(f)(l) The RRT should be activated by
the Chairman as an emergency response
team when a discharge or release:
(i) Exceeds the response capability
available to the OSC in the place where
it occurs;
(ii) Transects regional boundaries; or
(iii) May pose a substantial threat to
the public health, welfare or to the
environment, or to regionally significant
amounts of property. Regional
contingency plans shall specify detailed
criteria for activation of RRTs.
[2] When the RRT Is activated for an
immediate removal action, the chairman
shall be the representative of the lead
agency. When the RRT ia activated for a
Fund-financed planned removal or
remedial action, the chairman shall be
the representative of EPA.
(3) The RRT may be activated during
any pollution emergency by a request
from any RRT representative to the
chairman of the Team. Request for RRT
activation shall later be confirmed in
writing. Each representative, or an
appropriate alternate, should be notified
immediately when the RRT is activated.
(4) During prolonged removal or
remedial action, the RRT may not need
to be activated or may need to be
activated only in a limited sense, or
have available only those members of
the RRT who are directly affected or can
provide direct response assistanca
(5) When the RRT la activated for a
discharge or release, agency
representatives shall meet at the call of
the chairman and may:
(i) Monitor and evaluate reports from
the OSC. The RRT may advise the OSC
on the duration and extent of Federal
response and may recommend to the
OSC specific actions to respond to the
discharge or release.
(ii) Request other Federal. State or
local government or private agendea to
provide resources under their existing
authorities to respond to a discharge or
release or to monitor response
operations.
(ili) Help the OSC prepare information
releases for the public and for
communication with the NRT.
(iv) If the circumstances warrant
advise the regional or district head of
the agency providing the OSC that a
different OSC should be designated.
(v) Submit Pollution Reports
(POLREPS) to (he NRC as significant
developments occur.
(6) When the RRT is activated.
affected Slates may participate in all
RRT deliberations. State government
representatives participating in the RRT
have the same status as any Federal
member of the RRT.
(7) The RRT can be deactivated by
agreement between the EPA and USCG
team members. The time of deactivation
should be included in the POLREPS.
(g] The NRT should be activated as an
emergency response team when an oil
discharge or hazardous substance
release:
[I] Exceeds the response capability of
the region in which it occurs:
(2) Transects regional boundaries;
(3) Involves significant population
hazards or national policy issues.
substantial amounts of property, or
substantial threats to natural resources;
or
(4) Is requested by any NRT member.
(h) When activated for a response
action, the NRT shall meet at the/call of
the chairman and may:
(1] Monitor and evaluate reports from
the OSC. The NRT may recommend to
the OSC through the RRT, actions to
combat the discharge or release.
(2) Request other Federal State and
local governments, or private agencies.
to provide resources under their existing
authorities to combat a discharge or
release or to monitor response
operations.
(3j Coordinate the supply of
equipment personnel, or technical
advice to the affected region from other
regions or districts.
8300,35 Uura-raglonai moonae*.
(a) If a discharge or release moves
from the area covered by one Federal
local or Federal regional contingency
plan into another area, the authority for
removal or response actions should
likewise shift If a discharge or release
or substantial threat of discharge or
release affects areas covered by two or
more-regional plans, the response
mechanisms of both may be activated.
In this case, removal or response actions
of alT regions concerned shall be fully
coordinated as detailed in the regional
plans.
(b) There shall be only one OSC at
any time during the course of a response
operation. Should a discharge or release
affect two or more areas, the EPA. DOO
and USCG, as appropriate, shall give
prime consideration to the area
vulnerable to the greatest damage. The
RRT shall designate the OSC if EPA,
DOD and USCG members are unable to
agree on the designation. The NRT shall
designate the OSC If members of one
RRT or two adjacent RRTs arc uiuble to
agree on the designation.
(c) Where the USCG has'provided the
OSC for emergency response to a
release from hazardous waste
management facilities located in the
coastal zone, the responsibility for
response action shall shift lo EPA, in
accordance with EPA/USCG
agreements.
9300.38 Communication*.
(a) The NRC is the national
communications center for activities
related lo response actions. It is located
at USCG Headquarters in Washington.
D.C The NRC receives and relays
notices of discharges or releases to the
appropriate OSC. disseminates OSC and
RRT reports to the NRT when
appropriate, and provides facilities for
the NRT to use in coordinating a
national response action when required.
(b) The Commandant USCG, will
provide the necessary communications,
plotting facilities, and equipment for the
NRC
(c) Notice of aa oil discharge or a
release of a hazardous substance in an
amount equal to or greater than the
reportable quantity must be made
immediately in accordance with 33 CFR
Part 153, Subpart B and section 103(a) of
CERCLA. respectively. Notification shall
be made to the NRC Duty Officer, HQ
USCG, Washington. D.C. telephone (BOO)
' 424-4802 [or current local telephone
number). All notices of discharges or
releases received at the NRC shall be
relayed immediately by telephone to the
OSC and State.
(d) The RRC provides facilities and
personnel for communications.
information storage, and other
requirements for coordinating response.
Each regional plan will specify the
location for the RRC
{30037
MfM
The Spill Cleanup Inventory (SKIM)
system is available to help OSCs and
RRTs and private parties gain rapid
information as to the location of
response and support equipment This
inventory is accessible through the NRC
and USCG's OSCs. The inventory
includes private and commercial
equipment as well as government
resources. The RRTs and OSCs shall
ensure that data in the system are
current and accurate. The USCG Is
responsible for maintaining and
updating the system with RRT and OSC
input.
Subpart D—Plans.
8300.41 Regional and local plant.
(a) In addition to the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). a Federal
regional plan shall be developed for
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday, July 16, 1962 / Rules and Regulations
31211
each standard Federal region and,
where practicable, a Federal local plan
jhall be developed.
(b) These plans will be available fur
inspection at EPA regional offices or
USCG district offices. Addresses and
telephone numbers for these offices may
be found in the United States
Government Manual (issued annually)
or in local telephone directories.
§ 300.42 Regional contingency plans.
(a) The RRTa, working with the States,
shall develop Federal regional plans for
each standard Federal region. The
purpose of these plans is coordination of
a timely, effective response by various
Federal agencies and other
organizations to discharges of oil and
releases of hazardous substances.
pollutants and contaminants in order to
protect public health, welfare and the
environment Regional contingency
plans should include Information on all
useful facilities and resources in the
region, from government, commercial,
academic and other sources. To the
greatest extent possible, regional plans
will follow the format of the National
Contingency Plan.
(b) SSCs shall organize and
coordinate the contributions of
scientists of each region to the response
activities of the OSC and RRT to the
greatest extent possible. SSCs, with
advice from RRT members, shall also
develop the parts of the regional plan
that relate to scientific support.
(c) Regional plans shall contain lines
of demarcation between the inland and
coastal zones, as mutually agreed upon
by USCG and EPA.
J 300.43 Local contingency plans.
(a) Each OSC shall maintain a Federal
local plan for response in his or her area
of responsibility, where practicable. In
areas in which the USCG provides the
OSC, such plans shall be developed in
all cases. The plan should provide for a
well-coordinated response that is
integrated and compatible with the
pollution response, fire, emergency and
disaster plansof local State and other
non-Federal entities. The plan should
identify the probable locations of
discharges or releases, the available
resources to respond to multi-media
incidents, where such resources can be
obtained, waste disposal methods and
facilities consistent with local and State
plans developed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C 6901 et aeq.], and a local structure
for responding to discharges or releases.
(b) While the OSC is responsible for
developing Federal local plans, a
successful planning effort will depend
upon the full cooperation of all the
agencies' representatives and the
development of local capabilities to
respond to discharges or releases.
Particular attention should be given.
during the planning process, to
developing a multi-agency local
response team for coordinating on-scene
efforts. The RRT should ensure proper
liaison between the OSC and local
repicsentatives.
Subpart E—Operational Response
Phases for Oil Removal
j 300.51 Phase I—Discovery and
notification.
(a] A discharge of oil may be
discovered through:
(1) A report submitted by the person
in charge of the vessel or facility in
accordance with statutory requirements;
(2) Deliberate search by patrols; and
(3) Random or incidental observation
by government agencies or the public.
(b] Reports of dischaiges should be
made to the NRC or the nearest USCG
or EPA office. All reports shall be
promptly relayed to the NRC if not
previously reported to the responsible
OSC. Federal regional and Federal local
plans shall provide for prompt reporting
to the NRC, RRC. and appropriate State
agency (as agreed upon with the State).
(c) Upon receipt of a notification of
discharge, the NRC shall promptly notify
the OSC. The OSC shall proceed with
the following phases as outlined in
Federal regional and Federal local
plans.
1300.53 Phase II—Preliminary
assessment and Initiation of action.
(a) The OSC for a particular area is
responsible for promptly initiating
preliminary assessment.
(b) The preliminary assessment shall
be conducted using available
information, supplemented where
necessary and possible by ap on-scene
inspection. The OSC shall undertake
actions to:
(1) Evaluate the magnitude and
severity of the discharge or threat to
public health and welfare and the
environment:
(2) Assess the feasibility of removal;
(3) Determine the existence of
potential responsible parties: and
(4) Ensure that jurisdiction exists for
undertaking additional response actions.
(c] The OSC. in consultation with
legal authorities whep appropriate, shall
make a reasonable effort to have the
discharger voluntarily and promptly
perform removal actions. The OSC shall
ensure adequate surveillance over
whatever actions are Initiated. If
effective actions are not being taken to
eliminate the threat, or if removal is not
being properly done, the OSC shall so
advise the responsible party. If the
responsible party does not take proper
removal actions, or is unknown, or is
otherwise unavailable, the OSC shall.
pursuant to section 311(c](l] of thp
CWA, determine whether authority Tor a
Federal response exists, and, if so, take
appropriate response'actions. Where
practicable, continuing efforts should be
made to encourage response by
responsible parties.
(d) The OSC should ensure thji the
trustees of affected natural resources
are notified, in order that the trustees
may initiate appropriate actions when
natural resources ha\e been or aie
likely to he damaged (see Subpnri f.\.
§300.53 Phase III—Containment.
countermaaaurea, clean-up, and disposal.
(a) Defensive actions should begin as
soon as possible to prevent, minimize, or
mitigate damage to the public healtfi nr
welfare or the environment. Actions
may include: analyzing water samples to
determine the source and spread of the
oil; controlling the source of discharge:
measuring and sampling: damage
control or salvage operations; placement
of physical barriers to deter the spread
of the oil or to protect endangered
species; control of the water discharge!
from upstream impoundment; and the
use of chemicals and other materials in
accordance with Subpart H, to restrain
the spread of the oil and mitigate its
effects.
(b) Appropriate actions should be
taken to recover the oil or mitigate its
effects. Of the numerous chemical
physical methods that may be used, the
chosen methods should be the most
consistent with protecting the public
health and welfare and the environment.
Sinking agents shall not be used.
(c) Oil and contaminated materials
recovered in clean-up operations shall
be disposed of in accordance with
Federa) regional and Federal local
contingency plans.
J 30&54 Phase IV—Documentation and
cost recovery.
(a) Documentation shall be collected
and maintained to support all actions
taken under the CWA and to form the
basis for cost recovery. In general.
documentation should be sufficient to
prove the source and circumstances of
the incident, the responsible party or
parties, and impact and potential
Impacts to the public health and welfare
and the environment. When appropriate.
documentation should also be collected
for scientific understanding of the .
environment and for the research and
development of Improved response
-------
31212 Federal Register / Vol 47. No. 137. Friday. July IB. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
methods and technology. Damages to
private citizens (including loss of
earnings) are not addressed by this Plan.
Evidentiary and cost documentation
procedures and requirements are
specified in the USCC Marine Safety
Manual (Commandant Instruction
M16000.3) and 33 CFR Part 153.
(b) The OSC shall ensure the
necessary collection and safeguarding of
information, samples, and reports.
Samples and information must be
gathered expeditiously during the
response to ensure an accurate record of
the impacts incurred. Documentation
materials shall be made available to the
trustees of affected natural resources
where practicable.
(c) Information and reports obtained
by the EPA or USCG OSC shall be
transmitted to the appropriate offices
responsible for follow-up actions.
$300.55 General pattern at rmponsa.
(a) When the OSC receives a report of
a discharge, actions normally should be
taken in the following sequence:
(1] Immediately notify the RRT and
NRC when the reported discharge is an
actual or potential major discharge.
(2) Investigate the report to determine
pertinent information such as the threat
posed to public health or welfare, or the
environment, the type and quantity of
polluting material, and the source of the
discharge.
(3) Officially classify the size of the
discharge and determine the course of
action to be followed.
(4) Determine whether a discharger or
other person is properly carrying out
removal Removal is being done
properly when:
(0 The clean-up is fully sufficient to
minimize or mitigate damage to the
public welfare (removal efforts are
"improper" to the extent that Federal
efforts are necessary to prevent further
damage).
(ii) The removal efforts are in
accordance with applicable regulations
and guidelines, including this Flan.
(5) Determine whether a State or
political subdivision has the capability
to carry out response actions and a
contract or cooperative agreement has
been established with the appropriate
fund administrator For this purpose.
(6) Notify the RRT (including the
affected State). SSC. and the trustees of
affected natural resources in accordance
with the applicable regional plan.
(b) The preliminary inquiry will
probably show that the situation falls
into one of five classes. These classes
and the appropriate response to each
are outlined below:
(1) If the investigation shows that no
discharge exists, the case shall be
considered a false alarm and should be
closed.
(2) If the Investigation shows a minor
discharge with the responsible party
taking proper removal action, contact
should be established wilh the party.
The removal action should be monitored
to ensure continued proper action.
(3) If the investigation shows a minor
discharge with improper removal action
being taken, the following measures
shall be taken:
(i) An immediate effort should be
made to stop furthor pollution.
(ii) The responsible party shall be
advised of what action will be so
considered appropriate.
(Ui) If the responsible party does not
properly respond, he shall be notified of
his potential liability for Federal
response performed under the CWA.
This liability includes all costs of
removal and may include the costs of
assessing and restoring damaged natural
resources and other actual or necessary
costs of a Federal response.
(Iv) The OSC shall notify appropriate
State and local officials, keep the RRT
advised and initiate Phase HI operations
as conditions warrant
(v) Information shall be collected for
possible recovery of response costs in
accordance with } 300.54.
(4) When the investigation shows that
an actual or potential medium oil
discharge exists, the OSC shall follow
the same general procedures aa for a
minor discharge. If appropriate, the OSC
shall recommend activation of the RRT.
(5) When (he investigation shows an
actual or potential major oil discharge.
the OSC a hall follow the same
procedures as for minor and medium
discharges.
«. 300.56 PoOution report*
(a) Within 60 days after the
conclusion of a major discharge or when
requested by the RRT. the EPA or USCG
OSC shall submit to the RRT a complete
report on the response operation and the
actions taken. The OSC shall at the
same time send a copy of the report to
the NRT. The RRT shall review the
OSCs report and prepare an
endorsement to the NRT for review. This
shall be accomplished within 30 days
after the report bas been received.
(b) The OSCs report shall accurately
record the situation as it developed, the
actions taken, the resources committed
and the problems encountered The
OSC's recommendations are a source
for new procedures and policy.
(c) The format for the OSCs report
shall be as follows:
(1) Summary of Events—A
chronological narrative of all events,
including:
(I) The cause of the discharge;
(ii) The initial situation;
(iii) Efforts to obtain response by
responsible parties;
(iv) The organization of the response;
(v) The resources committed;
(vi) The location (water body, State.
city, latitude and longitude) of the oil
discharge and an indication of whether
the discharge was in connection with
activities regulated under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act [OCSLA).
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act
or Deepwater Port Act or whether it
might have or actually did affect natural
resources managed or protected by the
U.S.;
(vii) Comments on Federal or State
efforts lo replace or restore damaged
natural resources and damage
assessment activities; and
(viii] Details of any threat abatement
actions taken under section 311 (c) or [d]
of the CWA.
(2) Effectiveness of Removal
Actions—A candid and thorough
analysis of the effectiveness of removal
actions taken by:
(i) The responsible party;
(ii) State and local forces;
(iii) Federal agencies and special
forces; and
(iv) (If applicable) contractors, private
groups and volunteers.
(3) Problems Encountered—A list of
problems affecting response with
particular attention to problems of
intergovernmental coordination.
(4) Recommendations—OSC
recommendations, including at a
minimum:
(i) Means to prevent a recurrence of
the discharge;
(ii) Improvement of response actions: •
(iii) Any recommended changes in the
National Contingency Plan or Federal
regional plan.
{300.57 Special consideration*.
(a) Safety of Personnel—The OSC
should be aware of threats to human
health and safety and shall ensure that
persons entering the response area use
proper precautions, procedures, and
equipment and that they possess proper
training. Federal local plans shall
Identify sources of information on
anticipated hazards, precautions, and
requirements to protect personnel during
response operations. Names and phone
number* of people with relevant
information shall be included.
Responsibility for the safety of all
Federal employees rests with the heads
of their agencies. Accordingly, each
Federal employee on the scene must be
apprised of and conform with OSHA
regulations and other deemed necessary
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday, July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 31213
by the OSC All private contractors who
are working on-site must conform to
applicable provisions of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act and
standards deemed necessary by the
OSC.
(b) Waterfowl Conservation—The
DOI representative and the State liaison
to the RRT shall arrange for the
coordination of professional and
volunteer groups permitted and trained
to participate in waterfowl dispersal.
collection, cleaning, rehabilitation and
recovery activities [consistent with IB
U.S.C. 703-712 and applicable Stale
laws]. Federal regional and Federal
local plans will, to the extent
practicable, identify organizations or
institutions that are permitted to
participate in such activities and
operate such facilities. Waterfowl
conservation activities will normally be
included in Phase 10 response actions
(5 300.53 of this subpart).
}300.5a Funding.
(a] If the person responsible for the
discharge does not act promptly or take
proper removal actions, or if the person
responsible for the discharge is
unknown, Federal discharge removal
actions may begin under section
3ll(cJ(l) of the CWA. The discharger, if
known, is liable for the costs of Federal
removal in accordance with section
3ll(f] of the CWA and other Federal
laws.
(b) Actions undertaken by the
participating agencies in response to
pollution shall be carried out under
existing programs and authorities when
available. This Plan intends that Federal
agencies will make resources available,
expend funds, or participate in response
to oil discharges under their existing
authority. Authority to expend resources
will be in accordance with agencies'
basic statutes and. if required, through
interagency agreements. Specific
interagency reimbursement agreements
may be signed when necessary to .
ensure ihat the Federal resources will be
available for a timely response to a
discharge of oil. The ultimate decision
as to the appropriateness of expending
funds rests with the agency that is held
accountable for such expenditures.
(c) The OSC shall exercise sufficient
control over removal operations to be
able to certify that reimbursement from
the following funds is appropriate:
(1] The oil pollution fund.
administered by the Commandant,
USCG, has been established pursuant to
section 311(k) of the CWA. Regulations
governing the administration and use of
the fund are contained in 33 CFR Part
t53.
(2) The fund authorized by the
Deepwater Port Act is administered by
the Commandant USCG. Governing
regulations are contained in 33 CFR
Parts 138 and 150.
(3) The fund authorized by the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, as
amended, is administered by the
Commandant, USCG. Governing
regulations are contained in 33 CFR
Parts 138 and ISO.
(4) The fund authorized by the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act ia
administered by a Eoard of Trustees
under the purview of the Secretary of
the Interior. Governing regulations are
contained in 43 CFR Part 29.
(d) Response actions other than
removal, such as scientific
Investigations not in support of removal
actions or law enforcement, shall be
provided by the agency with legal
responsibility for those specific actions.
(e) The funding of a response to a
discharge from a Federally operated or
supervised facility or vessel Ls the
responsibility of the operating or
supervising agency.
If) The following agencies have funds
available for certain discharge removal
actions:
(1) EPA may provide funds to begin
timely discharge removal actions when
the OSC is an EPA representative.
(2} The USCG pollution control efforts
are funded under "operating expenses."
These funds are used in accordance
with agency directives.
(3) The Department of Defense has
two specific sources of funds which may
be applicable to an oil discharge under
appropriate circumstances. (This does
not consider military resources which
might be made available under specific
conditions.)
(i) Funds required for removal of a
sunken vessel or similar obstruction of
navigation are available (o the Corps of
Engineers through Civil Works
Appropriations, Operations and
Maintenance. General.
(ii) The U.S. Navy may conduct
salvage operations contingent on
defense operational commitments, when
funded by the requesting agency. Such
funding may be requested on a direct
cite basis.
(4; Pursuant to section 3ll(c)f2)fH] of
the CWA. the State or Slates affected by
a discharge of oil, may act where
necessary to remove such discharge and
may, pursuant to 33 CFR Part 153, be
reimbursed from the pollution revolving
fund for the reasonable costs incurred in
such a removal.
[1] Removal by a State ia necessary
within the meaning of section
311(c)(2)[H) of the CWA when the OSC
determines that the owner or operator of
the vessel onshore facility, or offshore
facility from which the discharge occurs
does not effect removal properly, or is
unknown, and that:
(A] State action is required to
minimize or mitigate significant damage
to the public health or welfare which
Federal action cannot minimize or
mitigate, or
(B) Removal or partial removal can be
done by the State at a cost which is less
than or not significantly greater than the
cost which would be incurred by the
Federal departments or agencies.
(ii) State removal actions must he in
compliance with this Plan in order to
qualify for reimbursement.
(iii) State removal actions are
considered to be Phase III actions, under
the same definitions applicable to
Federal agencies.
(Iv) Actions taken by local
governments in support of Federal
discharge removal operations are
considered to be actions of (he State for
purposes of this section. Federal
regional and Federal local plans shall
show what funds and resources are
available from participating agencies
under various conditions and cost
arrangements. Interagency agreements
may be necessary to specify when
reimbursement is required.
Subpart F—Hazardous Substance
Response
} 300.91 General.
(a) This aubpart establishes methods
and criteria for determining the
appropriate extent of response
authorized by CERCLA when any
hazardous substance is released or there
is a substantial threat of such a release
into the environment, or there is a
release or substantial threat of a release
into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant which may present an
imminent and substantial conger to the
public health or welfare
(b) Section 104(81(1) of CfJiCLA
authorizes removal or remedial action
unless it is determined tha' such
removal or remedial action will be done
properly by the owner or operator of the
vessel or facility from which the release
or threat of release emanates, or by any
other responsible party
(c) In determining the need for and in
planning or undertaking Fund-Financed
action, response personnel should, to the
extent practicable, consider the
following:
(1) Encourage State participation in
response actions (see i 30O63).
(2) Conserve Fund monies by
encouraging private parly clean-up.
-------
31214
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday, July 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Be sensitive to local community
concerns (in accordance with applicable
guidance).
(4) Rely on established technology
when feasible and cost-effective.
(5) Encourage the participation and
sharing of technology by industry and
other experts.
§ 300.82 State role.
(a) States are encouraged to
undertake actions authorized under this
subpart. Section 104(d)(l) of CERCLA
authorizes EPA to enter into contracts or
cooperative agreements with the Slate
to take response actions authorized
under CERCLA, when EPA determines
that the State has the capability to
undertake such actions.
(b) EPA will provide assistance from
the Fund to States pursuant to a contract
or cooperative agreement. The
agreement can authorize States to
undertake most actions specified in this
Subpart.
(c](l) Pursuant to section 104{c)(3) of
CERCLA, before any Fund-financed
remedial action may be taken, the
affected Statefs) must enter into a
contract or cooperative agreement with
the Federal government.
(2) Included in such contract or
cooperative agreement must be
assurances by the State consistent with
requirements of section 104(c)(3) of
CERCLA.
(d) Prior to remedial design activity.
the State must make a firm commitment.
through either a cooperative agreement
or a new or amended State contract, to
provide funding for remedial
implementation by:
(1) Authorizing the reduction of a
State credit to cover its share of costs;
(2) Identifying currently available
funds earmarked for remedial
implementation; or
(3) Submitting a plan with milestones
for obtaining necessary funds.
(e) State credits allowed under section
104(c)(3] of CERCLA must be
documented on a site-specific basis for
State oiit-of pocket. non-Federal eligible
response costs between January 1,1978,
and December 11.1980. Prior to remedial
investigation activity at a site, the State
must submit its estimate of these coats
as a part of the pre-application package
when a cooperative agreement is used,
or as a part of the State contract. State
credits will be applied against State cost
shares for Federally-funded remedial
actions. A Slate cannot be reimbursed
from the Fund for credit in excess of its
matching share.
(0 Pursuant to section 104(c)(2) of
CERCLA. pnor to determining any
appropriate remedial action. EPA shall
consult with the affected State or States.
J300.63 PhaM l-Olscovwy or
iMtrflcattoa
(a) A release may be discovered
through:
(1) Notification in accordance with
sections 103(a) or (c) of CERCLA:
(2) Investigation by government
authorities conducted in accordance
with section 104(e) of CERCLA or other
statutory authority;
(3) Notification of a release by a
Federal or State permit holder when
required by its permit:
(4) Inventory efforts or random or
incidental observation by government
agencies or the public;
(5) Other sources.
(b) If not reported previously, a
release should be promptly reported to
• the NRC. Section 103(a) of CERCLA
requires any person in charge oE a vessel
or facility to immediately notify the NRC
as sooc as he has knowledge of a
release (other than a federally permitted
release) of a hazardous substance from
such vessel or facility in an amount
equal to or greater than the reportable
quantity determined pursuant to section
102(b) of CERCLA. The NRC shall
convey the notification expeditiously to
appropriate government agencies, and in
the case of notices received pursuant to
section 103(a). the NRC shall also notify
the Governor of any affected State.
(c) Upon receipt of a notification of a
release, the NRC shall promptly notify
the appropriate OSC.
5300.64 PhaM II—Preliminary
UMUOMnt
(a] A preliminary assessment of a
release identified for possible CERCLA
response should be undertaken by the
lead agency. If the reported release
potentially requires immediate removal.
the preliminary assessment should be
done as promptly as possible. Other
releases shall be assessed as soon as
practicable. The lead agency should
base its assessment on readily available
information. This assessment may
include:
(1) Evaluation of the magnitude of the
hazard:
(2) Identification of the source and
nature of the release;
(3) Determination of the existence of a
non-Federal party or parties ready,
willing, and able to undertake a proper
response; and
(4) Evaluation of factors necessary to
make the determination of whether
immediate removal is necessary.
(bj A preliminary assessment of
releases from hazardous waste
management facilities may include
collection or review of data such as site
management practices, information from
generators, photographs, analysis of
historical photographs, literature
searches, and personal interviews
conducted as appropriate. In addition, a
perimeter (off-site) inspection may be
necessary to determine the potential for
a release. Finally, if more information is
needed, a .site visit may be performed, if
conditions are such that it may be
performed safely.
(c) A preliminary assessment should
be terminated when the OSC
determines:
(I) There is no release;
(2) The source is neither a vessel nor a
facility;
(3) The release involves neither a
hazardous substance, nor a pollutant or
contaminant that may pose an imminent
and substantial danger to public health
or welfare;
(4) The amount released does not
warrant Federal response;
(S) A party responsible for the release.
or any other person, is providing
appropriate response, and on-scene
monitoring by the government is not
recommended or approved by the lead
agency; or
(0) The assessment is completed.
J 300.65 PhaM III—Immediate removal
(a) In determining the appropriate
extent of action to be taken at a given
release, the lead agency shall first
review the preliminary assessment to
determine if immediate removal action
is appropriate. Immediate removal
action shall be deemed appropriate in
those cases in which the lead agency
determines that the initiation of
immediate removal action will prevent
or mitigate immediate and significant
risk of harm to human life or health or to
the environment from such situations as:
(1) Human, animal, or food chain
exposure to acutely toxic substances;
(2) Contamination of a drinking water
supply;
(3) Fire and/or explosion; or
(4) Similarly acute situations.
(b) If the lead agency determines that
immediate removal is appropriate.
defensive actions should begin as soon
as possible to prevent or mitigate danger
to the public health, welfare, or the
environment. Actions may include, but
are not limited to:
[1) Collecting and analyzing samples
to determine the source and dispersion
of the hazardous substance and
documenting those samples for possible
evidentiary use.
(2) Providing alternative water
supplies.
(3) Installing security fencing or other
measures to limit access.
(4) Controlling the source of release.
(5) Measuring and sampling.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 31215
(6) Moving hazardous substances off- •
site for storage, destruction, treatment
or disposal provided that the substances
are moved to a facility that ia in
compliance with subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
(?) Placing physical barriers to deter
the spread of the release.
(8] Controlling the water discharge
from an upstream impoundment.
[9] Recommending to appropriate
authorities the evacuation of threatened
individuals.
(10 Using chemicals and other
materials in accordance with Subpart H
to restrain the spread of the substance
and to mitigate its effects.
[11] Executing damage control or
salvage operations.
(c) Immediate removal actions are
complete when, in the opinion of the
lead agency, the criteria in subsection
(a) of $ 300.es are no longer met and any
contaminated waste materials
transported off-site have been treated or
disposed of properly.
(d) Immediate removal action shall be
terminated after $1 million has been
obligated for the action or six montha
have elapsed from the date of Initial
response to a release or threatened
release unless it is determined that:
(1) Continued response actions axe
Immediately required to prevent limit or
mitigate an emergency;
(2) There is an immediate risk to
public health or welfare or the
environment; and
(3) Such assistance will not otherwise
be provided on a timely basis.
(e) If the lead agency determines that
the release still may require planned
removal or remedial action, the lead
agency or a State may initiate, either
simultaneously or sequentially, Phase IV
or V as appropriate.
1300.64 Pha«« IV-EvatorBon and
planned removal and reiMtfal action.
(a) The purpose of this phase is to
determine the appropriate action when
the preliminary assessment indicates
that further response maybe necessary
or when the OSC requests and the lead
agency concurs that further response
should follow an immediate removal
action.
(b) As soon as practicable, an
inspection will be undertaken to assess
the nature and extent of the release and
to assist in determining Its priority for
Fund-financed response.
(c)(l) Pursuant to section 104 (b) and
(e) of CERCLA. the responsible official
may undertake investigations,
monitoring, surveys/testing and other
information gathering as appropriate.
These efforts shall be undertaken jointly
by the Federal or State officials
responsible for providing Fund-financed
response and those responsible for
enforcing legal requirements.
(2) A major objective of an inspection
is to determine if there is any immediate
danger to persons living or working near
the facility. In general, the collection of
samples should be minimized during
inspection activities; however,
situations in which there is an apparent
risk to the public should be treated as
exceptions to that practice. Examples of
apparent risk include use of nearby
wells for drinking water, citizen
complaints of unusual taste or odor in
drinking water, or chemical odors or
unusual health problems in the vicinity
of the release. Under those
circumstances, a aarnpling protocol
should be developed for the inspection
to allow for the earliest possible
detection of any human exposure to
hazardous substances. The site
inspection may also address:
(i) Determining the need for
immediate removal action;
(ii) Assessing amounts, types and
location of hazardous substances stored:
(iii) Assessing potential for
substances to migrate from areas where
they were originally located:
(iv) Determining or documenting
immediate threats to the public or
environment.
(d) Methods for Establishing
Priorities. (1) States that wish to submit
candidates for the National Priorities
List must use the Hazard Ranking
System (included in Appendix A) to
rank the releases.
(2) EPA will notify Stales at least
thirty days prior to the deadline for
submitting candidate releases for the
National Priorities List or any
subsequent revisions.
(3) Each State may designate a facility
as the State's highest, priority release by
certifying, in writing signed by the
Governor or the Governor's designee.
that the facility presents the greatest
danger to public health, welfare or the
environment among known facilities in
the Stale.
(e) National Priorities List (1J
Compiling the National Priorities List—
EPA Regional Office will review State
hazard rankings to ensure uniform
application of the Hazard Ranking
System and may add, in consultation
with the Stales, any additional priority
releases known to EPA. The States'
priorities will be reviewed and
consolidated by EPA Headquarter)
-------
31216 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
(c) Among the factors that EPA will
use to determine whether a planned
removal is appropriate under
§ 300.87(a)(2) are the following:
(1) Actual or potential direct contact
with hazardous substances by nearby
population:
(2) Contaminated drinking water at
the tap:
(1) Hazardous substances in drums.
barrels, tanks, or other bulk storage
containers, that are known to pose a
serious threat to public health or the
environment:
(•J) Highly contaminated soils largely
at or near surface, posing a serious
threat to public health or the
environment:
(5) Serious threat of Tire or explosion;
or
(6) Weather conditions that may
cause substances to migrate and pose a
serious threat to public health or the
environment.
(d) Planned removal actions shall be
terminated when the lead agency
determines that the risk to the public
health or the environment has been
abated. In making this determination,
the lead agency shall consider whether
the factors listed in § 300.66(c) continue
to apply to the release and whether any
contaminated waste materials
transported off-site have been treated or
disposed of properly.
(e) Unless the EPA finds that (1)
continued response actions are
immediately required to prevent, limit or
mitigate an emergency. (2) there is an
immediate risk to public health or
welfare or the environment, and (3) such
assistance will not otherwise be
provided on a timely basis, obligations
from the Fund, other than those
authorized by section 104(b) of
CERCLA. shall not continue after Si
million has been obligated for response
actions or six months has elapsed from
the date of initial response to the
release.
§ 300.68 Phase VI—Remedial action.
(a) Remedial actions taken pursuant
to this section (other than responses at
Keaeral facilities) are those responses to
releases on the National Priorities List
that are consistent with permanent
remedy to prevent or mitigate'the
migration of a release of hazardous
substances into the environment.
(b) States are encouraged to
undertake Fund-financed remedial
actions in accordance with 5 300 62 of
this Plan.
(c) As an alternative or in addition to
fund-financed remedial action, the lead
agency may seek, through voluntary
agreement or administrative or judicial
process, to have those persons
responsible for the release clean up in a
manner that effectively mitigates and
minimizes damage to. and provides
adequate protection of. public health,
welfare, and the environment. The lead
agency shall evaluate the adequacy of
clean-up proposals submitted by
responsible parties or determine the
level of clean-up to be sought through
enforcement efforts, by consideration of
the factors discussed in paragraphs (c)
through (j) of this section. The lead
agency will not, however, apply the cost
balancing considerations discussed in
paragraph (k) of this section to
determine the appropriate extent of
responsible party clean-up.
• (d)(l) The lead agency, in cooperation
with State(s), will examine available
information and determine, based on the
factors in paragraph (g) of this section,
the type or types of remedial response
that may be needed to remedy the
release. This scoping will serve as the
basis for requesting funding for a
remedial investigation and feasibility
study:
(i) In the case of initial remedial
measures, a single request may be made
by a State for funding the remedial
investigation, feasibility study, design
and implementation, in order that such
measures may be expedited while
continuing the remainder of the remedial
planning process.
(li) In the case of source control or off-
site remedial action, the initial funding
request should be for the remedial
Investigation and feasibility study.
Requests for funding of design and
implementation should be made after
the completion of the feasibility study.
(2) As a remedial investigation
progresses, the project may be modified
if the lead agency determines that
based on the factors in 300.68(e), such
modifications would be appropriate.
(e] In determining the appropriate
extent of remedial action, the following
factors should be used to determine the
type or types of remedial action that
may be appropriate:
(1) In some instances. Initial remedial
measures can and should begin before
final selection of an appropriate
remedial action if such measures are
determined to be feasible and necessary
to limit exposure or threat of exposure
to a significant health or environmental
hazard and if such measures are cost-
effective. Compliance with § 300.67(b) is
a prerequisite to taking initial remedial
measures. The following factors should
be used in determining whether initial
remedial measures are appropriate:
(i) Actual or potential direct contact
with hazardous substances by nearby
population. (Measures might include
fences and other security precautions.)
(ii) Absence of an effective drainage
control system (with an emphasis on
run-on control]. (Measures might include
drainage ditches.)
[iii] Contaminated drinking water at
the tap. (Measures might include the
temporary provision of an alternative
water supply.)
(iv) Hazardous substances in drums.
barrels, tanks, or other bulk storage
containers, above surface posing a
serious threat to public health or the
environment. (Measures might include
transport of drums off-site.)
(v) Highly contaminated soils largely
at or near surface, posing a serious
threat to public health or the
environment. (Measures might include
temporary capping or removal of highly
contaminated soils from drainage
areas.)
(vi) Serious threat of fire or explosion
or other serious threat to public health
or the environment. (Measures might
include security or drum removal.)
(vii) Weather conditions that may
cause substances to migrate and to pose
a serious threat to public health or the
environment (Measures might include
stabilization of benns, dikes or
impoundments.)
(2) Source control remedial actions
may be appropriate if a substantial
concentration of hazardous substances
remain at or near the area where they
were originally located and inadequate
barriers exist to retard migration of
substances into the environment. Source
control remedial actions may not be
appropriate if most substances have
migrated from the area where originally
located or if the lead agency determines
that the substances are adequately
contained. Source control remedial
actions may include alternatives to
contain the hazardous substances where
they are located or eliminate potential
contamination by transporting the
hazardous substances to a new location.
The following criteria should be
assessed in determining whether and
what type of source control remedial
actions should be considered:
(i) The extent to which substances
pose a danger to public health, welfare.
or the environment Factors which
should be considered in assessing this
danger include:
(A) Population at risk;
(B) Amount and form of the substance
present;
(C) Hazardous properties of the
substances:
(0) Hydrogeological factors (e.g. soil
permeability depth to saturated zone.
hydroiogic gradients, proximity to a
dnnking water aquifer); and
(E) Climate (rainfall, etc.).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday. July 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
31217
(ii) The extent to which substances
have migrated or are contained by either
natural or man-made barriers.
(lii) The experiences and approaches
used in similar situations by State and
Federal agencies and private parties.
(iv) Environmental effects and welfare
concerns.
(3) In some situations it may be
appropriate to take action (referred to as
offsite remedial actions) to minimize
and mitigate the migration of hazardous
substances and the effects of such
migration. These actions may be taken
when the lead agency determines that
source control remedial actions may not
effectively mitigate and minimize the
threat and there is a significant threat to
public health, welfare, or the
environment. These situations typically
will result from contamination that has
migrated beyond the area where the
hazardous substances were originally
located. Offsite measures may include
provision of permanent alternative
water supplies, management of a
drinking water aquifer plume or
treatment of drinking water aquifers.
The following criteria should be used in
determining whether and what type of
offsite remedial actions should be
considered:
(i) Contribution of the contamination
to an air. land or water pollution
problem.
(ii) The extent to which the
substances have migrated or are
expected to migrate from the area of
their original location and whether
continued migration may pose a danger
to public health, welfare or environment
(in) The extent to which natural or
man-made barriers currently contain the
hazardous substances and the adequacy
of the barriers.
(iv) The factors Ksted in paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section.
(v) The experiences and approaches
used in similar situations by State and
Federal agencies and private parties.
(iv) Environmental effects and welfare
concerns.
(f) A remedial investigation should be
undertaken by the lead agency (or
responsible party if die responsible
party will be developing a clean-up
proposal) to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the
release. This includes sampling and
monitoring, as necessary, and includes
the gathering of sufficient information to
determine the necessity for and
proposed extent of remedial action.
During the remedial uivestigdtion. the
original scoping of the protect may be
modrfied based on the factors in
8 300.98(e). Part of the remedial
investigation involves assessing
whether the threat can be mitigated dnd
minimized by controlling the source of
the contamination at or near the area
where the hazardous substances were
originally located (source control
remedial actions] or whether additional
actions will be necessary because the
hazardous substances have migrated
from the area of their original location
(offsite remedial actions).
(g) Development of Alternatives. A
limited number of alternatives should be
developed for either source control or
offsite remedial actions (or both)
depending upon the type of response
that has been identified under
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section as
being appropriate. One alternative may
be a no-action alternative. No-action
alternatives are appropriate, for
example, when response action may
cause a greater environmental or health
danger than no action. These
alternatives should be developed based
upon the assessment conducted under
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section and
reflect die types of source control or
offsite remedial actions determined to
be appropriate under paragraphs (e) and
(f) of this section.
(h) Initial Screening of Alternatives.
The alternatives developed under
paragraph (g) of this section will be
subjected.to an initial screening to
narrow the list of potential remedial
actions for further detailed analysis.
Three broad criteria should be used in
(he initial screening of alternatives:
(1) Cost. For*each alternative, the cost
of installing or implementing the
remedial action must be considered.
including operation and maintenance
costs. An'alternative that far exceeds
(e.g. by an order of magnitude) the costs
of other alternatives evaluated and that
does not provide substantially greater
public health or environmental benefit
should usually be excluded from further
consideration.
(2) Effects of the Alternative. The
effects of each alternative should be
evaluated in two ways: (i) Whether the
alternative itself or its implementation
has any advene environmental effects:
and {ii) for source control remedial
actions, whether the alternative is likely
to achieve adequate control of source
material, or for offsite remedial actions.
whether the alternative is likely to
effectively mitigate and minimize the
threat of harm to public health, welfare
or the environment If an alternative has
significant adverse effects, it should be
Excluded from further consideration.
Only those alternatives that effectively
contribute to protection of public health.
welfare, or the environment should be
considered further.
(3) Acceptable Engineering Practices.
Alternatives must be feasible for the
location and conditions of the release.
applicable to the problem, and represent
a reliable means of addressing the
problem.
(i) Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
(1) A more detailed evaluation will be
conducted of the limited number of
alternatives that remain after the initial
screening in paragraph (h).
(2] The detailed analysis of each
alternative should include:
(A) Refinement and specification of
alternatives in detail, with emphasis on
use of established technology;
(B] Detailed cost estimation, including
distribution of costs over time:
(C) Evaluation in terms of engineering
implementation, or constructability,
(D) An assessment of each alternative
in terms of the extent to which it is
expected to effectively mitigate and
minimize damage to, and provide
adequate protection of. public health,
welfare, and the environment, relative to
the other alternatives analyzed; and
(El An analysis of any adverse
environmental impacts, methods for
mitigating these impacts, and costs of
mitigation.
(3) In performing the detailed analysis
of alternatives, it may be necessary to
gather additional data in order to
complete the analysis.
(j) The appropriate extent of remedy
shall be determined by the lead agency's
selection of the remedial alternative
which (he agency determines is cost-
effective (i.e. the lowest cost alternative
that is technologically feasible and
reliable and which effectively mitigates
and minimizes damage to and provide*
adequate protection of public health.
welfare, or the environment).
0c) Section 104(c)(4) of CERCLA
requires that the need for protection of
public health, welfare and the
environment at the facility under
consideration be balanced against the
amount of money available in the Fund
to respond to other sites which present
or may present a threat to public health
or welfare or the environment, taking
into consideration the need for
immediate action. Accordingly, in
determining the appropriate extent of
remedy for Fund-financed response, the
lead agency also must consider the need
to respond to other releases with Fund
monies.
3300.60 PtaM VII—OocunMfitatkM and
(a) During all phases, documentation
shall be collected and maintained to
support ell actions taken under this
Plan, and to form the basis for cost
recovery. In general, documentation
should be sufficient to provide the
-------
31218 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July Ifl. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
source and circumstances of the
condition, the identity of responsible
parties, accurate accounting of Federal
costs incurred, and impacts and
potential impacts to the public health.
wplfaie and environment.
(b) The information and reports
obtained by the lead agency for Fund-
financed response action should be
transmitted to the RRC. Copies can then
be forwarded to the NRT, members of
(he RRT, dnd others as appropriate.
§ 300.70 Method! of remedying rvleai
[aj The following section lists
methods far remedying releases Innt
ma)* be considered by the lead agency in
taking response action. This list of
methods should not be considered
inclusive of all possible methods of
remedying releases.
(b] Engineering Methods for On-Stle
Actions.—(1](IJ Air emissions cortrol—
The control of volatile gaseous
compounds should address both Ijierjl
movement and atmospheric emissions
Before gas migration controls can be
p-ooerly installed, field measurements
to determine gas concentrations.
pressures, and soil permeabilities ahuuld
be used to establish optimum design for
control. In addition, the types of
hazardous substances present, tho depth
to which they extend, the nature of the
gas and the subsurface geology of the
release area should. If possible, be
.letermined. Typical emission control
lechriques include the following:
(A) Pipe vents:
(B) Trench vents:
1C) Gas barriers:
(D) CAB collection systems:
(E] Overpacking.
(11) Surface water controls—These are
e.-nedial techniques designed to reduce
waste infiltration and to control runoff
>: release areas. They also serve to
educe erosion and to stabilize the
urface of covered sites. These types of
ontrol technologies are usually
nplemented in conjunction with other
vpes of controls such as the elimination
t ground water infiltration and/or
..isle stabilization, etc. Technologies
pplicable to surface water control
iclude the following:
(A) Surface seals:
(3) Surface water diversion and
ollection systems:
(7) Dikes and berms:
(?) Ditches, diversions, waterways:
(J) Chutes and downpipes:
(4) Levees:
' 5] Seepage basins and ditches:
(
-------
Federal Register / VoL 47. No. 137. Friday,. July lQr 1982 / Rules and Regulations 31219
(1) Provision of individual treatment
units:
(2) Provision of water distribution
system;
(3) Provision of new wells in a new
location or deeper wells;
|4] Provision of cisterns;
(5) Provision of bottled or treated
water
(6) Provision of upgraded treatment
for existing distribution systems.
(e) Relocation—Permanent relocation
of residents, businesses, and community
facilities may be provided where it is
determined that human health is in
danger and that, alone or in combination
with other measures, relocation would
be cost-effective and environmentally
preferable to other remedial response.
Temporary relocation may also be taken
in appropriate circumstances.
§300.71 Worker health and safety.
Lead agency personnel should be
aware of hazards, due to a release of
hazardous substances, to human health
and safety and exercise great caution in
allowing civilian or government
personnel into an affected area until the
nature of the release has been
ascertained. Accordingly, the OSC or
responsible official must conform to
applicable OSHA requirements and
other guidance. All pnvate contractors
who are working at the scene of a
release must conform to applicable
provisions of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act and any other
requirements deemed necessary by the
lead agency.
Subpart G—Trustee* for Natural
Resources.
{300.72 Designation of Federal trustMC.
When natural resources are lost or
damaged as a result of a discharge of oil
or release of a hazardous substance, the
following officials are designated to act
as Federal trustees pursuant to section
lll(h](l) of CERCLA for purposes of
sections lll(h)(l], lll(b) and 107(f] of
CERCLA:
(a)(l) Natural Resource Loss. Damage
to resources of any kind located on. over
or under land subject to the
management or protection of a Federal
land managing agency, other than land
or resources in or under United States
waters that are navigable by deep draft
vessels, including waters of the
contiguous zone and parts of the high
seas to which the National Contingency
Plan is applicable and other waters
subject to tidal Influence.
(2) Trustee. The head of the Federal
land managing agency, or the head of
any other single entity designated by it
to act as trustee for a specific resource.
(b)(l) Natural Resource Loss. Damage
to fixed or non-fixed resources subject
to the management or protection of a
Federal agency, other than land in
resources in or under United Stales
waters that are navigable by deep draft
vessels, including waters of the
contiguous zone and parts of the high
seas to which the National Contingency
Plan is applicable and other waters
subject to tidal influence.
(2) Trustee. The head of the Federal
agency authorized to manage or protect
these resources by statute, or the head
of any other single entity designated by
it to act as trustee for a specific
resource.
(c)(l) Natural Resource Loss. Damage
to resource of any kind subject to the
management or protection of a Federal
agency and lying in or under United
States waters that are navigable by
deep draft vessels, including waters of
the contiguous zone and parts of the
high seas to which the National
Contingency Plan is applicable and
other waters subject to tidal influence.
and upland areas serving as habitat for
marine mammals and other species
subject to the protective jurisdiction of
NOAA.
(2) Trustee. The Secretary of
Commerce or the head of any other
single Federal entity designated by.it to
act as trustee for a specific resource;
provided, however, that where resources
are subject to the statutory authorities
and jurisdictions of the Secretaries of
the Departments of Commerce or the
Interior, they shall act as co-trustees.
(d)(l) Natural Resource Loss.
Damages to natural resources protected
by treaty (or other authority pertaining
to Native American tnbes] or located on
lands held by the United States in trust
for Native American communities or
individuals.
(2) Trustee. The Secretary of the
Department of the Interior, or the head
of any other single Federal entity
designated by it to act as trustee for
specific resources.
5300.73 State trusti
Pursuant to section lll(h)(l) of
CERCLA and for purposes of sections
lll(h)(l), lll(b) and 107(f) of CERCLA.
States may act as trustee for damage to
resources within the boundary of a Slate
belonging to, managed by, controlled by,
or appertaining to such State.
§300.74 RMfMfUlMIMM of trustee.
(a) The Federal trustees for natural
resources shall be responsible for
assessing damages to the resources in
accordance with regulations
promulgated under section 301 (c) of
CERCLA. seeking recovery for the losses
from the person responsible or from the
Fund, and devising and carrying out
restoration, rehabilitation and
replacement plans pursuant to CERCLA.
(b) Where there are multiple trustees.
because of co-existing or contiguous
natural resources or concurrent
jurisdictions, they shall coordinate ar.d
cooperate in carrying out these
responsibilities.
Subpart H—Use of Dlspersants and
Other Chemicals
§300.81 General
(a) Section 311(c)(2)(G] of the Clean
Water Act requires that EPA prepare a
schedule of dispersants and other
chemicals, if any, that may be osed in
carrying out the plan.
(b) The OSC, with the concurrence of
the EPA representative to the RRT and
in consultation with the States, may
authorize the use of dispersants ar.d
other chemicals on oil spills: provided.
however, that such diapersants and
other chemicals must be on the list of
accepted dispersants prepared by EPA
(c) In the case of dispersants and
other chemicals not included on the list
of accepted dispersants, EPA will
continue to authorize use on a case-by-
case basis. Case-by-case approvals w.iil
be made by the Administrator or her
designee.
Appendix A—Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Site Ranking Siutem; A Users Manual
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations OLisl of Tables
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Using the Hazard Ranking System—
General Considerations
3.0 Ground Water Migration Route
3.1 Observed Release
32 Route Characteristics
3.3 Containment
3.4 Waste Characteristics
3.3 Targets
4.0 Surface Water Route
4.1 Observed Release
4.2 Route Characteristics
4.3 Containment
4.4 Watte Characteristics
4.5 Targets
5.0 Air Route
3.1 Observed Release
3.2 Waste Characteristics
5.3 Targets
8.0 Computing the Migration Hazard Mode
Score. S*
7.0 Fire and Explosion
7.1 Containment
72 Waste Characteristics
73 Targets
8J) Direct Contact
&1 Observed Incident
&2 Accessibility
84 Containment
8.4 Waste Characteristics
15 Targets
-------
31220
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday. July IB, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Ustofniustralfons
FigunNo.
\ HRS Cover Sheet
2 Ground Water Route Work Sheet
3 Depth to Aquifer of Concern
4 Mean Annual Lake Evaporation (In
Inches)
5 Normal Annual Total Precipitation
(Inches)
6 Distance to the Nearest Well
7 Surface Water Route Work Sheet
« One Year 24-Hour RainfaU
9 Air Route Work Sheet
10 Work Sheet for Computing S*
11 Fin and Explosion Work Sheet
12 Direct Contact Work Sheet
Usl of Tables
Table No.
1 Comprehensive List of Rating Factor*
2 Permeability of Geologic Materials
3 Containment for Ground Water Route
4 Waste Characteristics Values for Some
Common Chemicals
ft Persistence (B)adegradabillty) of Some
Organic Compounds
8 Sax Toxldly Ratings
7 NPPA Toxidty Rating*
8 Values for Facility Slope and Intervening
Terrain
9 Containment Values for Surface Water
Route
10 Values for Sensitive Environment
(Surface WaterJ
11 NFPA Reactivity Ratings
12 Incompatible Materials
13 Values for Land Uae( Air Route)
14 NFPA Ignitabllity Levels and Assigned
Values
IS Values forSensltive Environments (Fire
and Explosion)
1.0 Introduction
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) (Pub. L 90-510) requires me
President to identify the 400 facilities in the
nation warranting th« highest priority for
remedial action. In order to set: the priorities.
CERCLA require* that criteria be established
based on relative risk or danger, taking Into
account the population at risk: the hazardous
potential of the substances at a facility; the
potential for contamination of drinking water
supplies, for direct human contact, and for
destruction of sensitive ecosystems; and
other appropriate factors.
This document'describes the Hazard
Ranking System- (HRS) to be used in
evaluating the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substance facilities
to cause health or safety problems, or
ecological or environmental damage. Detailed
instructions for using the HRS an given tn
the following sections. Uniform application of
the ranking system in each State will permit
EPA to Identify those releases of hazardous
substances thai pose the greatest hazard to
humans or the environment However, the
HRS by itself cannot establish priorities lor
the allocation of funds for remedial action.
The HRS Is a means, for applying uniform
technical judgment regarding the potential
hazards presented by a facility relative to
Other facilities. It does not address the
feasibility, desirability, or degree of cleanup
required Neither does, rt deal with the
readiness or ability of a State to carry out
such remedial action as may be indicated, or
to meet other conditions prescribed in
CERCLA.
The HRS assigns three scores to a
hazardous facility:
• SH reflects the potential for harm to
humans or the environment from migration of
a hazardous substance away from the facility
by routes involving ground water, surface
water, or air. It is a composite of separate
scores for each of the three routes.
• SR reflects the potential for harm from
substances that can explode or cause fires.
• Sue reflects the potential for harm from
direct contact with hazardous substances at
the facility (I.e., no migration need be
involved).
The score for each hazard mode (migration
fin and explosion and direct contact) or
route is obtained by considering a set of
factors that characterize the potential of the
facility to cause harm (Table 1). Each factor
Is assigned a numerical value (on a scale of 0
to 3. S or 8) according to prescribed
guidelines. This value Is then multiplied by H
weighting factor yielding the factor score. The
factor scores are then combined: scores
within a factor category are added: then thn
total scores for each factor category are
multiplied together to develop a score for
ground water, surface water, air, flre and
explosion, and* direct contact.
-------
TABLE 1
COMPREHENSIVE LIST TO RATING FACTORS
HAZAW none
HlfialloB
Fir* and
Evploalon
Direct
Contact
BOJJMO CODE UW-M-C
FACTO! CATCGOM
tout*
Charactcrlillca
ContalnaMnt
Conlaluttnl
Obb«rvvJ liutd«nt
Luntalnawnl
TOMlClt)
FACTORS
CROUHD MATE* MUTE | SURFACE UATU ROUTE | 411 ROUTE
o Depth 10 Aquifer of Concern * facility Slop* and
• Met Preclpltolloa Intervening Terrain
• Paracabllliy of 1 Oa«-Y««r Zt-Houi MlnUll
Dnuturtcid Zont t Dlituc* to Mcaiatt Surlaci W«it(
• Phyalcil Slat* • Phyclctl SlBli
• TOBlclty/P«rftllcanc* • ToBlctty/Portlaicaca) RaucKlvlcy/lacoftpAttbi^tCy
• lUtardou* Uaata Quantity • Uaiatdooa UMII Quaatlty Toilclty
lUurdoiu Wait* Quantity
• DItlanc* to Niaraat U.II/ • Olatanca to Stnaltlva Populatloa Within t-NlU Eadlui
Populalloa S«i«cd Environment 6i*tmae* lo San>ltlv>
• Populalloa Scrvatf/Dlaca«c* Envlrooawot
to Hater Intak,* Dotraacreiao
• Contalnivnc
Dlraci Evidence
Mecllvtty
IncoapalltllUy
Otlliaf* to Meareac tulHlaf
Dlatanc* lo Nearett Senaltto* favirena>tM
Land U««
Population Within 1-tlllet kadlw
MueOer of Dulldlnie Within Z-H11* l«diu>
• Obaarved Incident
ei AfEcaolbllity of Jbiiirdou* Sub«lanc«*
• Toxlclly
• Population wichtn 1-HII« Radlua
• Dlatanca la Critical Habitat
7
B
l-a
«1
ol
J
M
P
>->
1
i
-------
31222
Federal Register / VoL 47, .No. 137, Friday, July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
In computing Sn or Soo f>* an Individual
migration route score, the product of 1U factor
category scores is divided by the maximum
possible score, and the resulting ratio la
multiplied by 100. The last step put* all
scores on a scale of 0 to 100.
S* is a composite of the scores for the three
possible migration routes:
11 here:
S.» = grojr.d watpr route score
S,. = surface water route score
S. = air route score
The effect of this means of combining the
route scores is to emphasize the primary
(highest scoring) route In aggregating route
scores while giving some additional
consideration to the secondary or tertiary
routes if they score high. The factor 1/1.73 la
used simply for the purpose of reducing SM
scores to a 100-pomt scale.
The HRS does not quantify the probability
of harm from a facility or the magnitude of
the harm that could result, although the
factors have been selected In order to
approximate both those element! of risk. It la
a procedure for ranking facilities In terms of
the potential threat they pose by describing;
• The manner In which the hazardous
substances are contained.
• The route by which they would be
released.
• The characteristics and amount of the
harmful substances, and
• The likely targets.
The multiplicative combination of factor
category scores Is an approximation of the
more rigorous approach in which one would
express the hazard posed by a facility as the
product of the probability of a harmful
occurrence and the magnitude of the
potential damage.
The ranking of facilities nationally for
remedial action will be based primarily on
S» Sn and SK may be used to identify
facilities requiring emergency attention.
2.0 Using the Hazard Ranking System—
General Considerations
Use of the HRS requires considerable
Information about the facility, Its
surroundings, the hazardous substances
present, and the geological character of the
area down to the aquifers that may be at risk.
Figure 1 Illustrates a format for recording,
general Information regarding the facility
being evaluated. It can also serve as a cover
sheet for the work sheets used in the
evaluation.
Where there are no data for a factor. It
should be assigned a value of zero. However.
If a factor with no data is the only factor in a
category (e.g.. containment), then the factor is
given a score of 1. If data are lacking for more
than one factor In connection with the -
evaluation of either S,*. S,., SH Sn, or SK,
that route score Is set at zero.
The following sections give detailed
Instructions and guidance for rating a facility.
Each section begins with a work sheet
designed to conform to the sequence of steps
required to perform the rating. Guidance for
evaluating each of the factors then follows.
Using the guidance provided, attempt to
assign a score for each of the three possible
migration routes. Bear In mind that if data are
missing for more than one factor in
connection with the evaluation of a route.
then you must set that route score at 0 (i.e..
there la no need to assign scores to Factors In
a route that will be set at 0).
BlUJNa COM SMO-W-H
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137 / Friday. July 16.1982 / Rules and Regulations
31223
FadWy name:
I OCJllOfl;
EPARagon:.
Pvaonfs) hr Uiai^ at tha facrtfty:.
Data:.
Namaof Ravtawar.
Qanaral iluac notion of the facility:
(For example: landW, aurfac* tonpoundmara. pila. containar; lypas of hazardous sutwtancsa; tocation of m
facWly; OomamtnaUon rouai of major ooncam; typaa of information nwdad tar rating; agancy acdon. Ma)
Soorw:
SFE
HGURE1
MRS COVER SHEET
aiLUNOCOOC M«0-«0-C
-------
31224
Federal Ragbter / VoL 47, No. 137, Friday, July 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
3.0 Ground Water Migration Route
J.I Observed Release. If there Is direct
evidence of release of a substance of concern
from a facility to ground water, enter a score
of 45 on line 1 of the work sheet for the
ground water route (Figure 2); then yon need
not evaluate route characteristics and
containment factors (lines 2 and 3). Direct
evidence of release must be analytical. If a
contaminant is measured (regardless of
frequency) in ground water or in a well in the
v jriniry of the facility at a significantly [in
terms of demonstrating that a release bus
occurred, not in terms of potential effects)
higher level than the background level then
quantitative evidence exists, and a release
has been observed. Qualitative evidence at
release (e g.. an oily or otherwise
ubjcctionable taste or smell in well water}
constitutes direct evidence only if it can be
confirmed that it results from n release at the
facility in question. If a release has been
observed, proceed to "3.4 Waste
Characteristics" to continue scoring. If direct
evidence is lacking, enter a value of 0 on line
1 and continue the scaring procedure by
iVAluatingTZoute Characteriati&.
3.2 Route Characteristics. Depth to
aquifer of concern-it measured vertically
from the lowest point of the hazardous
substances to the highest seasonal level of
the saturated zone of the aquifer of concern
[Figure 3). This factor is one indicator of the
jase with which a pollutant from the facility
could migrate to ground water. Assign a
value as follows:
71 « ISO .
Ill
0 to 20._ —...
Aaatanad
value
Indicator of the speed at which a
contaminant could migrate from a facility.
Assign a value from Table 2.
TABLE 2.—PERMEABILITY OF GEOLOGIC
MATERIALS1
Type of matsrW
Net precipitation (precipitation minus
evaporation) indicates the potential for
leachate generation at the facility. Net
seasonal rainfall (seasonal rainfall minus
seasonal evaporation) data may be used if
available. If net precipitation is not measured
In the region in which the facility is located,
calculate it by subtracting the mean annual
lake evaporation for the region (obtained
from Figure 4) from the normal annual
precipitation for the region (obtained from
Figure 5). EPA Regional Offices will have
maps for areas outside the continental U.S.
Assign a value as follows:
Cloy. compact i«.
and Igneous rgcM,
S.R, tonav amyja«r». sitty
ctay towns; )•••
Fine and «nd wty land:
wviy Hums loamy
tandx modarateiy par'
dolo*
(no kMl); modanMir
tnettvad Ignaoui and
rocka.
Not prvdprtBtion (Inctwt)
-c 10 . , , ,..
10 0 +5 - • ••••
+ 5(0 •••IS-—.—. «..»«..««»•««-••• — • —
^ . ifi . „..
^sr
0
1
2
3
Gnat, unt
mred Igneoua and mat*-
AponnmM rang* of
nydnute oonduclMy
< 10-'on/we
••> lir'an/MC...
<10 MO'1 cm/tee -
> 10"'em/we .
Permeability of unscturated tone (or
Intervening geological formations) is an
'Oflrtvad from. Dm. 3 N. Porosity ml Ptrmttt&lr ol
Hilum UtMntt* *> noor-rnrpugfi Porous »«K» RJM.
DaWest ad.. Aeadome Pr«a, N«r Yon. i960: fnra». R.A.
and JA Oerry. Gmunonmar. Pramo-HX. Inc. NOT York.
1978.
enjUNQ coot «se»tois
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137 / Friday. July 19.1982 / Rules and Regulations 31225
Rating Factor
OJ Observed Release
Ground Water Route Work Sheet
Assigned Value Multt-
(Circle One) plier
0 45 1
Score
Max.
Score
45
Ref.
(Section)
3.1
If observed releasd is given a score of 45. proceed to line 0-
If observed release is given a score of 0. proceed (o line [Tj.
0 Route Characteristics • 3.2
Depth to Aquifer of 0123 2 8
Concern
Net Precipitation
Permeability of the
Unsaturated Zone
Physical State
L2J Containment
0123 1 3
0123 1 3
0123 1 3
Total Route Characteristics Score
0123 1
IS
3
3.3
GO Waste Characteristics 3.4
Toxiclty/ Persistence 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 1 18
Hazardous Waste
Quantity
UJ Targets
Ground Water Use
0123456781 8
Total Waste Characteristics Score
26
3.5
0123 3 9
Distance to Nearest \ 0 4 6 8 10 1 40
Well /Population
Served
112 16 18 20
24 30 32 35 40
Total Targets Score
S If line Q is 45, multiply Q x 0 x HI
If line 0 is 0. multiply [|] » 0 * 0 * GO
49
37.330
LZJ Divide line [B] by 57.330 and multiply by 100 Sgw-
FIGURE 2
GROUND WATER ROUTE WORK SHEET
-------
DRINKING WATER
WELL SERVING
5 PEOPLE
DRINKING WATER
WELL SERVING
5000 PEOPLE
« belo th. inaic««d -hazardous substance")
If th« upp«r aqulf«r 1. contaminated an« th. low.r aquifer IB 'of concern . the depth uia DC
80 fUt (vertical distance between ha.ardous aub.t.nce and aquifer of concern) and the populatlo.
would be 5000 persons.
FIGURE 3
Depth to Aquifer of Concern
-------
LAKE EVAPORATION
Inches)
B»««d on period 1946-55
o
Source: Climatic Atlas of the United State*, U.S. Department of Coanerce, National Climatic
Center. Aahvllle. H.C., 1979.
s
1
Figure A
Mean Annual.Lake Evaporation (In Inches)
to
a.
§
CO
-------
Swire* i JLLU»
•atic Atl«« of th«
»«1U. H.C.. 1979.
f th« Pait«< St«t«g. U.S.
of CMHttM, Mtlon»l Cli —tic C.nt.r,
Figure 5
Normal Annual Total Precipitation (Inches)
a
o
LUNQ COOt UW-M-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137, Friday. July 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 31229
Physical slate rafan lo the state of the
hazardous substances at the time of disposal.
except that gases generated by the hazardous
lubstancee ia a disposal area should be
considered in rating this factor. Each of the
hazardous substances being evaluated is
assigned a value aa follows:
Sdd.< _
SottdL unoonvoAdBlBd or unstrtittnd. •
Povdsr or one miteM — .
3.3 Containment
Containment Is a measure of the natural or
artificial means that have been used to
minimize or prevent a contaminant from
entering ground water. Examples include
liners, leachate collection systems, and
sealed containers. In assigning a vatue (o this
rating factor (Table 3). consider all ways in
which hazardous substances are stored or
disposed at the facility. If the facility involves
more than one method of storage or disposal.
assign the highest from among all applicable
values (e.g.. if a landfill has a containment
value of 1, and. at the same location, a
surface Impoundment has a value of 2, assign
containment a value of 2).
TABLE 3.—CONTAINMENT VALUE FOR GROUND
WATER ROUTE
Awan oonufrmm • vtki* el a » (U * *• nosrdou*
•&MHIOM M DM f*e*» » undvflfn by in iillimiSI
rite* (Mint or onMaiD «nd •acquit*
PMC or (2) Mm Is no ground dtfnvnl mMm of
<**po«J ft in* twsir, umg th» lolloping gridtncfc
ing: no wan oontral. _....
3 4 Waste Characteristics. In determining
s waste characteristics sco're. evaluate the
moal hazardous subalancea al the facility
that could migrate (i.e., if scored, containment
is not equal to zero) to ground water. Take
the substance with the highest score as
representative of the potential hazard due to
waste characteristics. Note that the
substance that may have been observed In
the release category can differ from the
substance used in radng waste
characteristics. Where the total inventory of
substances In a facility is known, only those
present in amounts greater than the
reportable quantity (see CERCLA Section 102
for definition) may be evaluated.
Toxicity and Peniatence have been
combined In the matrix below because of
their important relationship. To determine the
overall value for this combined factor.
evaluate each factor individually as
discussed below. Match the Individual values
assigned with the value* la the matrix for the
combined rating factor. Evaluate several of
the most hazardous substances al the facility
independently and enter only the highest
score in the matrix orr the work sheet.
VMM lor
tatty
0
1
' 2
3
VMUC la pntaMin*
0
0
3
e
«
i
0
S
•
12
I
0
•
12
18
1
0
12
18
18
Persistence of each hazardous substance Is
evaluated on its biodegradabUlty as follows:
StrigM eham h»
9ub«MM«ndeM ring cOTpowvH
I «*!•». poiycrBllG oornaoundi 10.000
AK|.gnM
«aiu*
»
i
2
1
«
5
S
7
8
TABLE 4.—WASTE CHARACTERISTICS VALUES
FOR SOME COMMON CHEMICALS
Clumctt/Qonipawid
Tone- "«•*• tgmi> P«w
10
-------
31230
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137. Friday. July 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulation*
TABLE 4.—WASTE CHARACTERISTICS VALUES
Chemical/Compound
TrfcWoroberaene
Xywn*
TOJUO-
«y
2
2
2
Pen*.
tonoe*
3
2
1
B£
3
Rea»
0
0
0
TABLE 5.—PERSISTENCE (BIODEQRAOABIUTV)
OF SOME ORGANIC COMPOUNDS'—Continued
TABLE 6.—SAX Toxicrrv RATINGS—Continued
imdvpnonyleirgkiel
Van Nomnd Rhannald Co. N«> York. t» ad. 1975. Tto
highM nttnojatad undar aadi ehamteal • uaad.
JR8 ABHoeutea, Inc., Matftoobtooj' fot flttinff fftt HtzBd
Paten* at won Ompof* a** M«y s. igga
•Naoonat Fix Protection AHoetfon, National Rr* Cod**,
Vol 13. No. 48, 1977
• Proitunmt {udgnuM baad on lutemmon contained n
nw US. Gout GUM CHRIS Haiardou* Cnamteri Om.
1978
A PirafeMrontfTJ Judgnwnt btt0d on msdnQ ItBratuw.
TABLE 5.—PERSISTENCE (BIOOEGRAOABIUTY)
OF SOME" ORGANIC COMPOUNDS*
octon*
uclyl cnwndv
phHiyl bonioMB
pntMHemnydrtdi
UaariiH wtMon oonOnuoui or r
rw p*iMi of d^y& ffontfii. or
CMJM modnti Mm to lw Mn or muaotti mm*
vinyl DfDW
(d) OManb 4«t*mfc MaMrMi ahler) on to abaortMd. M>
thabody by MuMan. Ingaatton. or ffwuori (ha Mi and
•Men preduo* madam* aftactt totoialng eorOruoua or
ogoaura* axtondkig QMT parted* of day*.
ThoM
Value-0 Ni
Mobulyl carta*
VakM-l MO
•htm
toroopyron*
baniotnopMn*
tonzyi butyl pnyinBlai*
brotnoiOnii butwf
bromopnanyl phyntyl Ml
CNOrOine
> tonzapni
aenlcireailuciuogwuj
dMdrm
dlethyJ phthalato
Mno
priintloM
OriMmyi phiniuM
4 Mnfto-Z-imnophml
1Z3.4.S.7.7-
tt» hmn body. Tra« chmgi* •• not of won wwrtlf
a 0 mnjiMi IM or a product Hrtow pnymt tnpo
Toilcay* (MaJi)M
Malaria* •Neh on tingle enpoeur* laaflng
or iranutaa caue* M«y to ekki or muoou* men>
of auffictont eenrty to threaten If* or to cauee
em prmfcel tnoakmi
rvundaewi*
tnc«
cMorotoiu»n»
pMKMoraHpnmyl
pwiucNoroplwnol
Mttoratomn*
MclnainduroiinBuno
2.4.»«ionlarapMnel
Hpnmylphnpnm
tor Rtanj ft» Htnra
- 1980.
TABLE 6.—SAX TOXICITV RATINGS
O-NO TOUCHY* (Men*)"
Thbj cMontdon bj owen to matartabi whkfi M Ma on* of
(•) Uilaililii «Men cauee no harm under any eonoWon*
W AM*> aMaaanb Matartali anlofi can to atoortod M* tfl*
body by MMMBon. feigacson, or VWJQII tw MI and
wfrtr. en can* m|ury ol wmdam awrariy M gtratlan Ito
Wlowiij t etagjo a^xieur* laatlng eeoond*. mtnutaa, or
hour*, or tokMkig tngaadon of • atigto doe*.
(O Okanfe teat Mttonn* •Men on oonSnuou* or njpMM
anpoaura* axkntng over partodi of daya, momna, or
yam on eaua* M«V to Mi or mueou* mamtranae of
to ffnaien He or
eandnuouo orrapMM opouM to an*!
•fnounto MMndlna, OMV portodi of dvyvi uuitfnx or y
•SB.M i.
(b) Mmmtj oKlch produo* toido true* on huwio
' undir th» mat ununul oonBMorj or by o*f
1975.
••SB. MUD
Danoarou* Properte* ol MuaMaj
RhaVnoH Co, N*ar York. Near
York. 401
1-1
Van Noatmnd Rhamnpu Co, NM York. N*w York. »
TABLE 7.— NFPA Toxicrrv RATINGS*
(1) AcuM leal M>MMi «Mdi an (tag* npouM iMUng
Meonai, irtnuMi or tan CUMI onv rtgM «taca an (h*
^Jn or mucom nmnnnnn ngifaiiii o> an tami o> an
«Ncft on •owwnj under «r» oonttoni
•ouH ofhr no iMfli hard toyond 9m of (
(bl /l«ut» »)U»nfc. MMiWi >Ndi ew to ibmtMd Into Iho
body by tnraMon. honOon, or mrauon »• Mi «J
1 MMrtolionly Honor Imrdaui to m««n. II IBIV to
2 MraniM toantou* to hnrax but vw* ray to
(tfletrtyO ttraam
tmrw*
avi-emyHK»
2,eH«Mroiokian*
•ntmo pMt*y vfln i
Meond*. Mnutt*. or ran, or MoMng
Hgnicn of • -note daw riQ»Jd to <*ul on I
M *• IgfitorC nomot U protoeto* ctoMig •Mch
It anlgnid to rodctono* to tool For not orxn*.
ato Iwtng • floofOl 4 n*a •• normg
•M oMNng iMlBBto to (• iMrapj fe* c
«• IM arovU*
.Onfy i
to
2-
ToxMiiy (Mod)**
W
VHM.1
Moondt. n*mM. or ram
dmjM oflieto on «•
tontmautonc
buM
U-diiiaBimy bargain
11 i>iialti»l napnitialii
l,< a>naciyl phenol
dtocryi
dun or muooui iimitiiiim. Thno tflKto my to fm
mmm of rant opoan tor • nMHr of woondi or
modva* «nx»v* tor • immr of hour*.
(b) AM* *>Mmb UiMMi wMeh em to ttoortod M> f»
bodir by MMMton, maMaan. or ffwouan ffw *Un *nd
ng Mcond*. rrtnuM*, or hour*, or teHoMng Ingatdon of •
Vot 13. No. 40. 1977.
3.S Targets. C'round water tue Indicates
the nature of the use made of ground water
drawn from the aquifer of concern within 3
miles of the hazardous substance. Including
the geographical extent of the measurable
concentration In the aquifer. Assign a value
using the following guidance:
-------
Fadetal Register / VoL 47. No. 137. Friday. July 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
31231
EnmuMlbul
ft^mgn for this combined factor, acorn each
^*a I Individually aa discussed below. Match the
individual valuea assigned with the values in
the matrix for the total score.
Distance to mortal well and population
M/wi/have been combined in (he matrix
below to better reflect the important
relationship between the distance of a
population from hazardona aubatancei and
the size of the population served by ground
water that might be contaminated by thoae
rabataaeea. To detenniiw the overall value
V*JM
TT
MTMU
0
1
2
3
4
s
V
0
riuctoitf
1
0
4
S
12
ia
20
one* lor
2
0
e
12
IB
24
30
•OTMVtl
3
0
1
18
24
32
35
1
4
0
10
20
30
38
40
Distance to nearest well is measured from
rhe hazardous substance (not the facility
boundary) to the nearest well that draws
water from the aquifer of concern. If the
•dual distance to the nearest well ia
unknown, use the distance between the
hazardous substance and the nearest
occupied building not served by a public
water supply (e.g.. a farmhouse). If a
discontinuity in the aquifer occurs between
the hazardous substance and all wells, give
this factor a score of 0, except where it can
be shown that the contaminant is likely lo
migrate beyond the discontinuity. Figure 8
illustrates how the distance should be
measured. Assign a value using the following
guidance:
DMmca
>3mia . ...
i to 2 man _ _ _ ____. . _ _. „ .
2001 IMI to 1 m*§ __ _... _ .. _
<2000 (Ml, __._ ._.___
'SET
0
1
?
3
4
ncooEi
-SO-M
-------
2 MILES
C O NT A Ml N AT E 6 *AOUIF E ft OF CONCERN''
^XXvX SERVING THE POPULATION XX
UNCONTAMINATEO PORTION OF THE»:
:-:-:-:-:>->>:>>- SAME AQUIFER ->>:-:-:-:'-:-:-:-:•
In the situation depicted above, the distance between the hazardous substance
and cho nearest well (No. 1) Is *t Bile. If well No. 1 did not exist, the distance
to well No. 2 would be Immaterial since there Is • discontinuity In the aquifer
(surfarr water) between It and the hazardous substance. Under such circumstances,
the factor score wou-ld be "0". However, If It could be demonstrated that the con-
tamlnent had bridged the discontinuity, the,n the distance to the nearest well would
be 2 miles (assuming well Ho. 1 does not exist).
P
I
0>
E.
»
FIGURE 6
Distance to Nearest Well
S-
SILXINO COM UM-tO-C
-------
Fedoal Register / Vol 47, No. 137, Friday, July 18, 198Z / Rules and Regulations
31233
Population terved by ground water U aa
Indicator of Ilia population at risk, which
Includes reiidents as wall u othen who
would regularly uaa tha watar tuch.aa-
worker* in factories or office* and students.
Include employees in restaurants, motels, or
campgrounds but exclude customer* and
traveler! passing through tha ana In auto*.
buses, or train*. If aerial photography U wed.
and residents are known to DM ground watar.
assume each dwelling unit has 3.8 residents.
Where ground water la used for Irrigation.
convert to population by assuming 1J
person* per acre of Irrigated land. The well or
wells of concern must be within three mile*
of the hazardous substances, including tha
area of known aquifer contamination, but the
"population served" need not be. Likewise.
people within three miles who do not us*
water from the aquifer of concern are not (o
be counted. Assign a value as follows:
PapUrten
1 to 10
1.001 M 3.00
uoiiaifto
.tf Surface Water Route
4.1 Observad Relents. Direct evidence of
release to surface water must be quantitative
evidence that the facility U releasing
contaminants Into surface water.
Quantitative evidence could be- the
measurement of levels of contaminants from
a facility u surface water, either at the
facility or downhill from it that represents a
significant (in terms of demonstrating thai a
release has occurred, not in terms of potential
effects} Increase over, background levels. 0
direct evidence of release has been obtained
(regardless of frequency), eater a value of 45
on line 1 of the work sheet (Figure 7) and omit
the evaluation of the route characteristics
and containment factors. If direct evidence of
release is lacking, enter a value of 0 on line t
and continue with the scoring procedure.
4.2. Route Oancteriitia. Facility •fop*
and intervening terrain an Indicators of me
potential for contaminated runoff or spills at
a facility to be transported to eurface watar.
The facility slope is an indicator of the
potential for runoff or spills to [save the
facility. Intervening terrain refers-to (he
average slope of tha shortaat path which
would be followed by runoff between the
facility boundary and the nearest downhill
surface water. TUs ratine; factor can be
assessed using topographic maps. Table 8
shows values •assigned to various facility
conditions.
One-year 24-hour rainfall (obtained from
Figure a) indicates the potential for area
storms to causa surface watar contamination
as a remit of runoff, erosion, or flow over
dikes. Assign a value as follows:
MUM* tt nHd pncfinl
<'0 u , „. , - , , .. . .. -
10 It 1.0. „..,„..
1' ID 3.°,.n ... ..
^a»
rZr
9
1
a
3
TABLE 0.—VALUES FOR FACILITY SLOPE AND
INTERVENING TERRAIN
FidMy tm wmyt
io"toY"
pa).
hmgi
peO-
UMBI
pen.
0
per
3*
pa
SB
pa
r Mdr t»
JM COO*
«3 pot
-------
31234
Federal Resistor / Vol. 47. No. 137 / Friday. July 18,1982 / Rules and Regulations
Surface Water Route Worn Sheet
Rating Factor
ill Observed Release
Assigned Value Multl-
(Clrele One) pller
0 45 1
Score
Max.
Score
45
Ref.
(Section)
4.1
u observed release is given a value of 45, proceed to line \t\.
U observed release is given a value of 0. proceed to line QQ.
' -1 Route Characteristics
Facility Slope and Intervening 0123 1 3
Terra.n
1-yr. 24-hr flamlall 0123 1 3
Distance to Nearest Surface 0123 2 6
Water
Physical State 0123 1 3
[j] Conta;nment
Total Route Characteristics Scora
0123 t
19
3
0 Waste Oaractonstics
Toxicity/Perslstence 0 3 • 9 12 15 18 1 18
Hazardous Waste 012345*781 8
Quantity
Total Waste Characteristics Score
26
4.3
' 4.4
CEI rarga's °
Surface w*»er Use 0123 3 9
Oistanc? to a Sensuwa 0123 2 . 8
Environ TiMnl
Population Served 'Distance } 0 « 8 8 10 1 O
to Watpr intake | 12 16 18 20
Oownsiream j 24 30 32 35 40
Total Targets Score
m u ime Qj IS 45- rnu"|P'y 0 " 3 * S
II line [T] is 0. multiply \2\ * CU * S * HI
LD Divide line [?] by
U
64.350
64.390 and multiply by 100 S sw -
FIGURE 7
SURFACE WATER ROUTE WORK SHEET
-------
Souio: fc.lul.ll rr«<|u«ncy All*. •( th*
U.S. Cov..1(««ol rrjnttn* Off 1C*.
St.t... T«ctelc*l F.p«r Ha. 40. U.S. 0*p«rtMDt of
, |,C. , 1H).
Figure 8
1-Year 24-Hour Rainfall (Inches)
O.
i
<•
I
50
O
•ILUNO CQDt 4HO-W-C
01
-------
31236
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday. July 18, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Distance to the nearest surface water is the
shortest distance from the hazardous
substance, (not the facilily or properly
hountlary) lo the nearest downhill body of
surf.ice water [B g.. lake or stream) that it on
the course that runoff can be expected to
!(,!low and that at least occasionally contains
water. Do not include mdn-made ditches
u hii.li do not connect with other surface
wdier bodies. In areas having less than 20
inches of normal annual precipitation (sea
Figure 5], consider intermittent streams. This
fi.-.lor -ndicates the potential for pollutants
(lowing overland and Into surface water
bodies. Assign a value as follows:
Otane*
1000 tMI to 1 mile .
. 11)00 Ion
Atrip*
Physical state is assigned d value using the
ptuctdurea in Section 3.2.
4.J Containment. Containment is a
measure of the means that have been taken
lo minimize the likelihood of a contaminant
entering surface water either at the facility or
beyond the facility boundary. Examples of
containment are diversion structures and the
use of sealed containers. If more than one
type of containment is used at a facility.
pxjluate each separately (Table 9) and assign
the highest score.
TABLE 9 —CONTAINMENT VALUES FOR
SURFACE WATER ROUTE
Aa;un containment • v«M at 0 if (i) HI ih« »utt a DM
•IM u swrounddd br awwxi unicura ma «n *i nunrt
canann tnt •orcuat* ta eonwi to ninafl. (pM. or iMkl
iron an wuu. or 12) Mowing uran pradudH nnafl
Horn gnnnng lurtac* mur Ouwwna. evXuat* VM son-
iBnnwm Mr Men of in* omenm imam ol none* or
aaeeut u OM M* and «s*«n i (due n lonomc
Sound diking or dvanan nructura. idoquito IM»
board, and no araaon mdani ._ .. __ —
Sound Hunt or Oman itrueim DM Inaoaqjtu
Duing no) lailiina. M oauniufly unMund
Odung urnound. IMtang. « « ginger 0( eoMpn
B. Cenunm
Copuvm MtM. n Mund oondHoA «r4 w-
raunjad by Mund aVwon or oontMinnnl
Conumn
md n nund eoneMon. but not
By wund oMrtion or oenmnmir«
•yslflrtl _ „.. _.._._ - - _
Contain*™ inking and dMrtoi or oonunmni
vneiunw MMnuAr uraowid — ..———.
Conuinam Waking, ind no ilxiaien or nuiiijilnrimn
iiujcnn* or amraan umcun (atklng or ti
ovgvol
comnd tnd tunounM by tourid <*«i
PiKa cowed, wuun uncomolditod, <*Mr*lon or
Pikw not oovw«a. .MIX jiujintilJind, «nd dV
Ir^ or n dcnokf or QOBBOM
TABLE 9.—CONTAINMENT VALUES FOR
SURFACE WATER ROUTE—Continued
it • vtlua ol « I-11) «S 1
d by oVanMn (nebira* ow am n
oonoWon and tdaquaM «e eonoan tl runoN, apfla, a
tarn t»*t*tx or (2) MirMnng urtiai pradurMi
trom antanng •urtaoa MMr. OMantaa. aiatala *• a
tUnmant lor aacri of 2 mtu .. . .
>lmd.
>1 mM..
1
1 HZinJH.. —
H U t mto
* « i mm
2
( 0 1 mta
t«B kM « S n»kt -
IkUHraki
1
<*«*•.
<100(aM.
<«m*.
Endangand *paoa> an dcugnalad by V* U S. Flah snd WidSti Santo*.
USD
Population served by surface water with
water intake within 3 miles downstream from
facility (or 1 mile In static surface water such
as a lake) is a rough indicator of the potential
hazard exposure of the nearby population
served by potentially contaminated surface
water. Measure the distance from the
probable point of entry to surface water
following the surface water (stream miles).
The population Includes residents aa well as
others who would regularly use the water
such as workers in factories or offices and
students. Include employees In restaurants.
motels, or campgrounds but exclude
customers and travelers passing through the
area in autos. buses and trains. The distance
is measured from the hazardous substance.
Including observations in stream or sediment
samples, regardless of facility boundaries.
Where only residential houses can be
counted (e.g.. tram an aerial photograph), and
residents are known to be using surface
water, assume 34 individuals per dwelling
unit Where surface water is used for
irrigation, convert to population by assuming
l.S persons per acre of land lirlgnled. Aasign
a value as follows:
Population
101-1 000 •- — — — - • -«—.... — ... 1
£,
Otoann
M
mail
0
4
S
12
IS
M
LI9M1H
1-1
rnkM
9
S
12
IS
24
30
• mur
200T-1
mlt
0
S
IS
24
32
3S
9-
2.000
M
0
10
20
30
M
40
5.0 Air Route
5.1 Observed Release. The only
acceptable evidence of release for the air
route Is data that show levels of a
contaminant at or In the vicinity of the
facility that significantly exceed background
levels, regardless of the frequency of
occurrence. If such evidence exists, enter a
value of 45 on line 1 of the work sheet (Figure
9): if not assign line 1 a 0 value and then
S,=a Record the dale, location, and the
sampling protocol for monitoring data on the
work sheet. Data based on transitory
conditions due to facility disturbance by
investigative personnel are not acceptable.
tiuirraftrrn HIT *• '*
-------
Fedeifrl Register ) Vol. 47. No. 137 / Friday, )uly IB. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
31237
f
Rating Factor
LD Observed Release
Mr Route Work Sheet
*3!?<£P
0 45
US
1
Score
Max
Scoie
45
Ret.
(Section)
51
Date and Location:
Sampling Protocol:
If line Q] is 0, the Sa « 0. Enter on line \j\
If line Q i3 45. Iften proceed to line QQ
HI Waste Characteristics
Reactivity and 0123
Incompatibility
Toxicity 0 .1 2 3
Hazardous Waste 012345678
Quantity
5.2
1 3
3 9
1 8
Total Waste Oaractenstlcs Score
El Targets
Population Within 1 0 9 12 15 18
4-Mile Radius f 21 24 27. 30
Distance to Sensitive 0123
Environment
Land Use 0123
i
*-* Multiply Q] » [3)
?0
1 30
2 6
1 3
Total Targets Score
* 0
LU • Divide line 0 by 35.100 and multiply by 100
39
35.100
5.3
S, -
FIGURE 9
AIR ROUTE WORK SHEET
-------
31238
Federal Raoistet / VoL 47, No. 137, Friday, July IB, M82 / fta1a»v and legulattons
5.2 Waste Characteristics. The hanrdaua
substance that was observed for sowing the
release category may be different from the
substance used to scon waste
characteristics.
Reactivity and incompatibility, oeastuea
of the potential for sudden release* of
concentrated air pollutant*, an evaluated
independently, and the highest value for
either is recorded on the •work (beet
Reactivity provides a measure of the fin/
explosion threat at a facility. Assign a value
based on the reactivity classification used 1>y
NFPA (we Table 11). Reactivity rating* For a
number of common compounds an given in
- 4.
TABLE 1 1 —NFPA REACTIVITY RATINGS
TABLE 12.—INCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS—
Continued
8.0 Computing the MigatlioaJJaMord Motto
Score. S»
To compute S» complete the work sheet •
"* (Figure 10) using the values of S^. Stands.
obtained from the fiatemf—-—
OMr raaaNw matatJ and
JJt fjtqand fPfriftufaii
Compute a soeae Jar the AM twal explosion
hazard mode. Sf» when either a state or local
fire marshal has certified that the facility. .
presents a slgntBosBatfjae «r«xsAa«io'n threat
DtS Or
them la e demonstrated .fin and explosion
threat baaed on field observathms te.g..
NFPAkwal
0 Miunai* «rneK ins nomtaRf
under «r« eipotum cunoTbona ind «nieh i
noli
Matanaia «nell n lhamiiJiaa an)
iiaWa out wtudi may baooma mtabl*
eieiaud lampanMna ant praama 01
may met mamaiaraa am readty
caoaoia ol aemnaBrjn a <* <*t*m:a daeam.
peraiurea and praanraa. inehoea
•men »a MnMwe lo
nvgrmai inock
MaM Kfdrtois.
SOft. SOCh. PCk Ob
so.
Oocumant the threat
7.1 Contoiammt, Contoiaimnt it an
irrtfieaterrfUw measures Ohattave been
TBICBB TO fltF^TlflisPft OT^n^FBTTi ij9Z8Tw01l0
substances at iheaWlity tMBcatehlng-fiw or
exploding. Normally it will be given a value
of 3 on the work sheet Irtgure 11). If no
hazardous substancas that are individually
dorc omiMlan ot
0109 «-«
. Conoara^ad Qraup 1-A or
Onai i
pouna» and tul»««m.
Hrak aMoalon. or rtoaml reao-
Group SA
OrouB«-e
Spart
hat nay be hazardous in eoahioation are
segregated and fsoleted se thai ikey cannot
come together to form incompatible mixtures.
assign this factor a value of 1.
7 J Waste Characteristic*. Direct evidence
of Ignitabillty or explosion potential may
exiit in the form of measurement* with
uppiupiurtB testnrfflenta. tf so. assign uiis
Caster a value of 3; If not assign a value of 0
Additional Information can be obtained
from A Method for Determining .the
Compatibility of Hazardous Wastes, H. K.
Hatayama. at aL. £PA-aDO/2-«»-e76 (1980).
Assign a value using Ihe .following guidance:
Poianaal ima»«iamaa. Oanaraeon ol BactFydrogan
TABLE 12.—INCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS
in ing Ion beiov trie mang o* a Graup A melerMeMI a
G-nup B miienal may nave Xe polerul LUiuaquanoa aa
"Oied
Mai
Taxicity should be rated for the moal toxic
of the substances thai can reasonably be
expected to be transported away from the
factnty via (he air route. Using the
information given in Tables 4. 8. and 7. assign
Oman
pra. npttatan, or irWanl HMO-
Group I-A
Graupl-6
vnteoaiar .. EtoNng add katt or tokrant
uuaga and osier oom> Pttsng ttuor ana OMr ear
. n« dnd
r.3om uune
. Span! aad.
_ SoarK mad and
- Span) iUUrt; aod
M I
&OUPZ-A
Qrouoi-B
tny Mala •> Gnup 1-A or
i-a
and QiAMnaa lor rna Handkig ol HBardoua WaaMi Catlgr-
m napanrnani ol Haanv, Sauamama. CaSanaa, Mboacy
1975
Incompatibility provides a rnniaii>art«f the
Increased hazard when haurdons
substances an osfased tauter ncmtrdM
conditions, leading to production of heat
pressure, fire, explosion, violent reaction.
toxic dusts, mists, fumes or gases, or
flammable fumes or gases. Table 12 provides.
examples of incompatible combinations of
materials.
Land use Indicates the nature and level of
human activity in the vicinity of a facility.
Assign highest applicable value from Table
13.
Tartar
SnkMllorWmaMtt
Sa> awar-} a NFM kMal i
SB a** 3 or NFPA NMtt 3 or 4 .
rar
Hazardous Waste Quantity
Assign hazardous waste quantity a value
as described In Section 3.4.
S.3 Targets. Population within a tour-mile
radius It aa indicator of the population which
may be harmed should hazardous substances
be released to the air.
The distance Is measured from the location
of me hazardous substances, not from the
facility boundary. The population to be
counted includes persons residing within the
-------
Federal Ragbtef / VoL 47, No. 137, Friday, July 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 31239
'watt* radius u mil u transients inch u
writers tn Iactarie*, offices, restaurant*.
motel*, or students. It exclude* travelers
passing through the ere*. If ratal
photography U used In making the count.
aaaumei u Individuals, pa dweittng unit
Select the highest value for this rating factor
a* follows:
OaTANCt TO POPULATION FROM HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCE
a
i
lOltolJI
WltoJ
aw* M i
o-« 0-1 a-* »•«
a
u
»
M
a
&0 Computing the Migration Hazard Mode
Scan.Su
To compote 5* complete the work sheet
(Figure 10] using the vejuea of Sn. SH and S.
obtained from the previous section.
7.0 fire and Explosion
Compute a score for the fire and explosion
hazard mode. S*» when either a state or local
Bra marshal] haa certified that the facility
presents a significant fire or explosion threat
to the public or to sensitive environments or
there la a demonstrated fire and explosion
threat based on Held observations je.g,
combustible gas indicator readings).
Document the threat
7.1 Coataiaaaat Containment la an
indicator of the measures that have been
lukan to tnlnlmha or prevent hazardous
substances at the facility from catching fire nr
exploding. Normally it will be given a valui:
of 3 on the work sheet (Figure 1U If no
hazardous subetaaon (hat are individually
ignitabla or explosive are present and those
thai may be hazardous in combination are
segregated and isolated so that they cannot
come together to form incompatible mixtures.
assign this factor a value of 1.
7.2 Waste Characteristics. Direct evtdenr.«
of Ignilability or explosion potential may
exist in the form of measurements with
appropriate Inatrunwnta. If su, assign i.'ns
factor a value of 3: if not. assign a VU'UR of 0.
TABLE 13.—VALUES FOR UNO Use (Am ROUTE)
Dfflaaet to tetuitiv* «nvinaua»at Is an
Indicator of the likelihood that a region that
contains important biological resources or
that fa a fragile natural setting would suffer
serious damage If hazardous substances wen
to be released bom the facility. Aaalgn a
value from Table 10.
Land use Indicates the nature and level of
human activity in the vtdotly of a facility.
Assign highest applicable value from Table
13.
i tt A«rta*nl Ijndt On fro-
duaton «mhn 5 i~nk
Prtm* Ag und
OUmm to MMone/Lmlmih
ol
4 M 1 mH
I la * mto..._
<1 mm
Wttiw »«* a w«
QrounoMMtar Rout* SCOT* (Sgw)
Surtoca) W»t«r Route Scora
-------
31240
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137 / Friday. July IB. 1982 / Rules and Regulation!
Rating Factor
LJ Containment
Fire and Explosion Work Sheet
Assigned Value Mulli- . Max. Re(.
(Circle One) plier Score (Section)
1 3 1 3 7.1
L2J waste Characteristics 7.2
Direct Evidence
Ignitability
Reactivity
Incompatibility
Hazardous Waste
Quantity
'
uJ Targets
Distance to Nearest
Population
Distance to Nearest
Building
03 3
0123 3
0123 3
0123 3
012345878 8
Total Waste Characteristics Score 20
7.3
012345 1 5
0123 1 3
Distance to Sensitive 0123 1 3
Environment
Land Use
Population Within
2-Mile Radius
Buildings Within
2-Mile Radius
'—' Multiply Q X [3]
12J Divide line PH by 1
0123 1 3
012345 1 9
012345 1 5
Total Targets Score ' 24
i
x Qj 1.440
.440 and multiply by 100 S FE "
FIGURE 11
FIRE AND EXPLOSION WORK SHEET
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 137. Friday. July 16. 1962 / Rules and Regulations 31241
fgnitability is an indicator of the threat of
tin at a facility and the accompanying
potential for release of air contaminant*.
Aasign this rating (actor a value based oo the
NFPA classification scheme (Table 14). Table
4 gives values for a number of common
compounds. Assign values aa follows:
I0»«*»
Fta*hpoail> 200-F. or NFPA ami 0
Flonpont 140-F to 200'F V NFPA laval 1
FlashpoM 80-F to I4Q-F or NFPA tool 2 .
FlBshponK BO'F or NFPA tovat* 3 or 4
•ar
0
1
1
3
Reactivity Assign values as in Section 3.2.
inconipatibilitv. Assign values as in
Section 5 2.
Hazardous Waste Quantity. Assign values
as in Section 3 4.
TABLE H.—NFPA IGNITABIUTY LEVELS AND
ASSIGNED VALUES
NFPA Ian*
4 Vary ItemmaMai gam ««ry vatalDt Itamma-
Me lauiat. and mumto m « «v torni of
ikaaa or nan r**d*> tarn •natom mnum
3 Uqurf* •Hen can b* ignMad undai ifl norm*
lampamw» conolaona. Any matanala that ig>
Ma* ipunlanaouarf at normal tamparaim «
2 low* vMcA «ul Iw moiHrimy naatad
7.3 Targets. Distance to nearest
population is die distance from the hazardous
substance to the nearest building or area in
which one or more persons are likely to be
located either for residential, educational
business, occupational, or recreational
purposes. II is an indicator of the potential for
harm to humane from flre and explosion. The
building or area need not be off-site. Assign
valuee as follows:
* Ma to 1 maa*._
201 Mat to * nsau
st MI to zoo I
otoGOM.
Distance to nearest building la an indicator
of the potential for property damage as a
result of fire or explosion. Aaaign a value aa
follows:
Distance to nearest sensitive environment
is measured from the hazardous substances
not from the facility boundary. It is an
indicator of potential harm to a sensitive
environment from fire or explosion at the
facility. Select the highest value using the
guidance provided in Table 13 except assign
a value of 3 where fire could be expected to
spread to a sensitive environment even
though that environment is more than 100 Terr
from the hazardous substance.
TABLE is.—VALUES FOR SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS (FIRE AND EXPLOSION)
Otot.n»
> ft tnri* « -. „ „ ,.„,.-»... «»._.
11 fmtn znotni
o 10 so rm
*E-
0
2
3
Angnad vaiiia-
ttutnc* u> WarlancV . .
Oliiiftp* to Cnttcal KMMBI' „
0
> 100 hMt__... .__
> 4 M*__. - - -
1
1000 (eat to * unit
2
100 to 1009 (Baf .
3
OOOfaat
Ifl 000
Atgr
0
1
a
3
4
S
8.O Direct Contact. The direct contact
hazard mode refera to the potential for injury
by direct contact with hazardous substances
at the facility.
8.1 Observed Incident. If there » a
confirmed instance in which contact with
hazardous substances at a facility has caused
injury, illness, or death to humans or
domestic or wild animals, enter a value of 45
on line 1 of the work sheet (Figure 12) and
proceed to line 4 (toxicity). Document the
incident giving the date, location and
pertinent details. If no such instance Is
known, enter X)" on line 1 and proceed to
line 2.
8.2 Accessibility. Accessibility to
hazardous substance refers to the measures
taken to limit access by humans or animals to
hazardous substances. Aasign a value using
the following guidance:
Number of buildings within two mile
radius (measured from the hazardous
substance, not from the facility boundary] Is
a rough indicator of the property damage that
could result from fire and exploaioa at a
facility. Assign values to this factor ae
follows:
Nunftar of Oi^Jnga
A
1 W 2ft. H _,,.,-..,». J...I.., ...—._ - ...-T, I
W1 to 7W .«. . ..L
791 to not) . .
*-K-
0
1
]
3
4
S
A 2+tour nsvartunca syslem (ag. MeMSon
mourning or aurvaiUanca by guard* or laolity
pariminall wncn oononuoualy monitor* and
control* entry arm tt» laatty.
or
in vtitaal or natual bamar (»«.. a lane* com-
bnadwith a cktf). «t*cfl oomplataly aurrourida
g» laoMr. and a maana to control anoy u at
Omem, tnrougri ina gatoa or otrxr armnca* to
«• taeUy (a g\. an ananoart. n«»>i»on mm-
Sacuray guard, but no bamar — ....
A Darnar, but no wpanta man* 1C control arav
Baman do not uimilamr awroml ma faeMy .
BtLUNO COOC aSW-60-M
-------
31242
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137 / Friday, )uly 16.1982 / Rules and Regulations
Rating Factor
ED Observed Incident
Direct Contact Work Sheet
Assigned Value
(Circle One)
0 45
Multi-
plier
t
Score
Max.
Score
43
ftef.
(Section*
8.1
II Una UJ is 45, proceed to line Q
ff Una Q] fs 0. proceed to line {3]
L2J Accessibility
121 Containment
m Waste Characteristics
Toxicity
GB Targets
Population Within a
1-Mile Radius
Distance to a
Critical Habitat
0123
0 15
0123
012345
0123
1
1
S
3
IS
IS
4 20
4 12
Total Targets Score
[5] if line [7J is 45. multiply [TJ x [*] x Qj]
II line Q] is Q. multiply 00 * 0 * 0 * Q
13 Divide line (U by 21,
000 an<] multiply by 100
32
21,000
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.3
SDC -
FIGURE 12
DIRECT CONTACT WORK SHEET
MJLUM COM U4IMO-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 137, Friday, ftily 16. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 31243
A3 Containment. Containment indicates
whether the hazardous substance itself is
accessible to direct contact For example, if
the hazardous substance at the facility is in
surface impoundments, containers (sealed or
unsealed), piles, tanks, or landfills with a
cover depth of less than 2 feet, or has been
spilled on the ground or other surfaces easily
contacted (e.g.. the bottom of shallow pond or
creek), assign this rating factor a value of 15.
Otherwise, assign a value of 0.
8.4 Waste Characteristics. Toxicity.
Assign a value as in Section 3.4.
8.5 Targets. Population within one-mile
radius is a rough indicator of the population
that could be involved in direct contact
incidents at an uncontrolled facility. Assign a
value as follows:
Population
0 B . _ . .
1 to 100 .. ........ .. . _ ..
101 la 1.000. ______ _ . _ . _._. .
1.061 to 3.000 . _._ ..
3001 to 10000
> 10.000 ...________. .
*%?
0
1
2
3
4
s
Distance to a critical habitat (of an
endangered species) is a rough measure of
the probability of harm to members of an
endangered species by direct contact with
hazardous substance. Assign a value as
follows:
Ourtanco
< 1 mM
A N> 1 mto
4 lo < milt _ . .. ...... __.
>*mto
AU.CAM
vi'.a
0
1
2
3
|FTI Doc 82-19141 Filed 7-lS-82.8«»Tl|
BH1JNQ CODE (MO-SO-M
-------
Thursday
December 30, 1982
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Contingency Plan; The National Priorities
List; Amendment
-------
58476
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 251 / Thursday, December 30,1982 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[SWH-FRL 2274-3]
Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency
Plan; The National Priorities Ust
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") is proposing to amend
the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan ("NCP").
which was promulgated on July IB. 1982.
(47 FR 31 ISO), pursuant to Section 105
of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation. ati
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 251 / Thursday, December 30. 1982 / Proposed Rules 58477
and these actions will be attended by all
appropriate procedural safeguards.
The entries on the proposed NFL are
candidates for response action by the
Agency under CERCLA. which can
include remedial response, removal
action, and enforcement EPA also
encourages voluntary cleanup by
responsible parties. The information
collected to develop HRS scores to
choose sites for the NPL is not sufficient
in itself to determine the appropriate
remedy for a particular site. After a site
is included on the NPL, more detailed
studies will generally be necessary.
Decisions on the type and extent of
action to be taken at these sites will be
made in accordance with the criteria
contained in Subpart F of the NCP. EPA
may conclude that no action is feasible
for some sites on the NPL because of the
need to efficiently use the limited
resources of the Fund. EPA may also
conclude that no action is needed
because further investigation reveals
that the site does not actually present a
problem.
II. Contents of the NPL
As noted above. CERCLA requires
that the NPL include, if practicable, at
least 400 sites. EPA has determined that
sites with a MRS score of 28.50 or higher
will be included on the proposed NPL,
resulting in a proposed NPL containing
418 individual entries. Each entry on the
NPL contains (he name of the facility.
the Stale in which it is located, and the
corresponding EPA Region. For purposes
of information, each entry on the NPL a
accompanied by a notation on the
current status of response and
enforcement activities at the site.
The entries on the proposed NPL are
in groups of SO sites. Within each group.
the releases are presented in order of
their MRS scores, except where EPA
modified the order to reflect top
priorities established by Stales. Section
105 (8) (B) of CERCLA requires that, to
the extent practicable, the NPL Include
within the one hundred highest priorities
at least one facility designated by each
State as representing the greatest danger
to public health, welfare, or the
environment among known facilities in
the State. Any site designated by a Stale
as its top priority is therefore included
within the one hundred highest priority
sites. The States are not required to rely
exclusively on the MRS in designating
their top priority sites, and certain of the
sites designated by States as their top
priority were not among the one
hundred highest sites according to HRS
score. These lower scoring State priority
sites are listed at the bottom of the
group of one hundred highest priority
sites. All top priority sites designated by
States are indicated by asterisks.
m. Development Process
CERCLA requires each State to
establish priorities for remedial action
among known releases and potential
releases in that State, based on the
criteria developed pursuant to section
105 (8) (A), and to submit these priorities
for consideration by EPA. EPA has
worked with the States over the past
year to identify candidate sites:
investigate the sites through monitoring
and sampling of groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil: and apply the HRS
criteria lo the candidate sites.
After the sites were scored! the EPA
Regional Offices conducted a quality
control program to ensure that the sites
were scored consistently and that scores
were based upon adequate information.
In some cases, the EPA Regional Offices
added lo the lists submitted by the
States, taking into account State
comments when available. The EPA
Regional Offices then submitted the lists
to EPA Headquarters.
After this Regional review. EPA
conducted further quality assurance
audits on a sample of the sites
submitted for the NPL Each site
included in the sample was scored
under the supervision of EPA
Headquarters by a consultant trained In
application of the HRS. The object of
these audits was to ensure accuracy and
consistency among the various EPA and
Slate offices participating in the scoring.
Based upon these results, several of the
Regions reviewed their initial results
and adjusted scores where necessary.
Sites were scored for inclusion in the
NPL on the basis of the hazards (hat
existed before any response actions
were initiated. Public agencies might
have been discouraged from taking early
response if such actions could lower the
HRS score and prevent a site from being
included on the NPL In addition, where
response actions have already been
initiated by private parties or another
agency, listing such sites will enable
EPA to evaluate the need for a more
complete response. Inclusion on the NPL
therefore does not reflect a judgment on
any response action completed or
underway. Some releases on the
proposed NPL are currently being
cleaned up by responsible parties or by
the States and EPA.
Response actions already taken were
considered in scoring the categories in
the HRS involving direct human contact
and fire and explosion. These categories
are used only to evaluate the need for
removal action in response to
emergency conditions, and are not used
to determine whether a site should be
included on the NPL
Section 104 (d) (4) of CERCLA
authorizes the Federal government to
treat two or more non-contiguous
facilities as one for purposes of
response, if such facilities are
reasonably related on the basis of
geography or on the basis of their
potential threat to public health.
welfare, or the environment. For
purposes of the NPL however. EPA has
decided that where possible such sites
should be scored and listed individually
because the HRS scores more accurately
reflect the hazards associated with a
site if the site is scored individually.
Listing facilities individually does not
preclude EPA from consolidating
response efforts at these sites or others
where it is cost-effective to do so.
IV. Exclusions
CERCLA restricts EPA's authority to
respond lo 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 respond
to certain types of releases because
other Federal'agencies have adequate
authority to respond. This section
discusses the inclusion of such release?
on the NPL
Releases of Radioactive Materials:
Section 101(22) of CERCLA excludes
several types of releases of radioactive
materials from the statutory definition of
"release." These releases are therefore
not eligible for CERCLA response
actions or inclusion on the NPL The
exclusions apply to: (1) Releases of
source, by-product or special nuclear
material from a nuclear incident if these
releases are subject to financial
protection requirements under Section
170 of the Atomic Energy Act. and (2)
any release of source, by-product or
special nuclear material from any
processing site designated under the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978. In addition, other Federal or
State authority may be adequate to
remedy the threat to public health or the
environment from other releases of
radioactive materials. EPA therefore
solicits comments on whether these
releases should should be included on
the NPL
Releases from Federal Facilities:
CERCLA section lll(e)(3] prohibits use
of the Fund for remedial actions at
Federally owned facilities. EPA will not
list and does not intend to respond to
any sites where the release come soli
from the Federal facility, regardless <
whether contamination remains on-si
or has migrated off-site. The
-------
58478 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 251 / Thursday. December 30. 1982 / Proposed Rules
•>poiuibility for clelanup of these sites
a with the responsible Federal
jncy. pursuant to Executive Order
12316 (46 FR 42237. Aug. 20.1981).
EPA may be authorized to respond
where the source of off-site
contamination is unclear or not verified.
or where it is not exclusively the
responsibility of the Federal
Government. In these situations, the off-
site contaminated area associated with
this type or release is eligible for
inclusion on the NPL Sites that are not
currently owned by the Federal
Government are also eligible for the
NPL. even if they were previously
owned by the Federal Government
Finally. non-Federally owned sites
where the Federal Government may
have contributed to a release are also
eligible for inclusion.
RCRA-Related Sites: Both CERCLA
and RCRA (the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act) contain authorities
applicable to hazardous waste facilities.
These authorities overelap for certain
sites. Accordingly, where a site is an
active RCRA facility authorized by
permit or interim status, it will not be
included on the NPL. but will instead be
addressed under RCRA. The NPL may
include sites that are inactive units
'thin the boundaries of a RCRA facility
he units themselves are not
,thorized by permit or interim status.
Releases of Mining Wastes: CERCLA
clearly authorizes Federal response to
releases of mining wastes. Accordingly.
mining waste releases were included on
the Interim Priority List and the
Expanded Eligibility List and are now
proposed for inclusion on the NPL
However, a number of persons have
expressed the view that such releases
are more appropriately addressed under
other statutory authority. EPA therefore
solicits comments on its policy of
including mining waste sites on the NPL
V. Current Status of Sites
For informational purposess. the
proposed sites are accompanied by
notations concerning the status of
response and enforcement actions based
on the most current facts available. It
should be noted, however, that a site's
status will in most cases change
periodically, and the notations given
here may become outdated. The releases
willl be included in the following
categories: Voluntary or Negotiated
Response: Federal and State Response:
Federal or State Enforcement: and
\ctions to be Determined. Each
tegory is explained below
Voluntary or Negotiated Response.
Release are included in this category if
• esponse actions are currently being
taken by potentially responsible parties
or private parties. This category
includes response actions that are
sanctioned under consent agreements.
consent orders, or consent decrees to
which the Federal Government is a
party. Voluntary or negotiated cleanup
may include actions taken pursuant to
agreements reached after enforcement
action had commenced. Currently, this*.
category does not include sites
undergoing response actions if the
actions are not governed by such an
arrangement with the Federal
Government The information currently
available to EPA does not adequately
reflect all private party cleanups. The
Agency intends to identify ongoing
corrective actions not defined by an
agreement with the Federal Government
in the final NPL and solicits information
from the public concerning these
corrective actions.
This category does not include actions
mandated under Federal and State
regulatory programs to update
operational pollution control systems or
waste disposal operations (e.g..
upgrading surface impoundments
operated pursuant to an NPDES permit).
This category of response may include
remedial investigations, feasibility
studies, and other preliminary work, as
well as actual cleanup.
.Federal and State Response. The
Federal and State response category
includes sites where EPA or State
agencies have commenced or completed
removal or remedial actions under
CERCLA. If the State is primarily
responsible for managing the response
action, the site is included in this
category when EPA has obligated funds
for response. If EPA is managing the
response action, the release is included
when the State has signed a contract to
meet its responsibilities and EPA has
obligated funds for response. For
removal actions, response has begun
when EPA has obligated funds.
Federal or State Enforcement. This
category includes sites where the United
States Government or the State has filed
a civil or criminal complaint or issued
an administrative order. It also includes
sites where a Federal or State court has
mandated some form of non-consensual
remedial action following a judicial
' proceeding. A number of sites on the
NPL are the subject of enforcement
investigation or have been formally
referred to the Department of Justice for
enforcement action. EPA policy
precludes premature release of
information concerning possible
enforcement actions, and accordingly
these sites have not been included in
this category, even though preliminary
enforcement activities may in fact be
underway.
Actions To Be Determined. The
category of actions to be determined
includes all sites not otherwise listed. A
wide range of activities may be in
progress for sites in this category.
Remedial projects may be under
consideration, although funds have not
been formally obligated. Enforcement
investigations may be underway.
Referrals may have been made to the
Department of Justice, prior to formal
commencement of enforcement action.
Investigations may be underway or
needed to determine the source of a
release in areas adjacent to or near a
Federal facility. Responsible parties
may be undertaking cleanup operations
that are unknown to the Federal or State
government or corrective action may
not be occurring yet.
VI. Implementation
Sites on the proposed NPL are high
priority candidates for Fund-financed
remedial action, enforcement action.
and private-party cleanup. The NPL
itself does not determine priorities for
removal action, although EPA may take
removal actions against any site.
whether listed or not that meets the
criteria of sections 300.6S-.87 of the
NCP. EPA will begin considering various
response and enforcement actions for
the sites on the proposed NPL published
today, prior to final promulgation of the
NPL This approach is necessary to
address potentially dangerous sites
during the period before the final NPL is
promulgated. Use of the proposed NPL
will enable EPA to consider response
action on the basis of the most current
information available. This continues
the policy articulated in the preamble to
the proposed NCP (47 FR 10977. March
12.1982).
Absence from the NPL does not
preclude enforcement actions under
CERCLA or other authorities, because
enforcement action may be appropriate
in some situations for sites not included
on the NPL The MRS was designed to
meet specific statutory requirements for
the propose of identifying priorities for
response action, and was not designed
to account for every type of public
health or environmental effect that
might merit enforcement action.
It remains Agency policy to pursue
enforcement actions as an alternative or
complement to Fund-financed response
activities. This will help assure that the
limited resources of the Fund are used
as efficiently as possible. (See
"Guidelines for Using the Imminent
Hazard. Enforcement, and Emergency
Response Authorities of Superfund and
Other Statutes." 47 FR 20664. (May 13.
1982). Consistent with this policy.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 251 / Thursday, December 30. 1982 / Proposed Rules 58479
wherever possible EPA has provided
potentially responsible parties with
notice and an opportunity to confer with
the 'Agency befora-the Agency
commences Fund-financed response
action. includingTemedial investigations
and feasibility studies to help determine
the appropriate remedy. CERCLA does
not, however, mandate such notice to
potentially responsible parties, nor
require notice as a condition precedent
to full cost recovery.
In many situations, it has been
difficult to conduct productive
discussions with potentially responsible
parties in the absence of preliminary
studies indicating what type of response
action is appropriate. The Agency
therefore believes that negotiations may
be more fruitful where such studies have
been completed, or at least commenced.
Accordingly, potentially responsible
parties may be notified after the
remedial investigations and feasibility
studies have begun or are completed.
(See the NCP. 40 CFR 300.68, and the
accompanying preamble. 47 FR 31180.
July 16,1982. for a fuller discussion of
remedial investigations and feasibility
studies.)
Funding of response actions for sites
on the NFL will not necessarily take
place in order of the sites' ranking on
the NPL Sites will receive the highest
priority for response funding if the State
has provided cost-sharing and the other
assurances necessary under CERCLA
section 104(c)(3). and it appears that
enforcement actions will not quickly
lead to private party cleanup. Priorities
among these sites will be based on
impacts on public health and the
environment, as measured by the HRS
scores and other available information,
and on a case-by-case evaluation of
economic, engineering, and
environmental considerations.
VII. Deletion of Sites
Sites may be deleted from the NPL
where one of the following criteria has
been, met:
(1) EPA in consultation with the State
has determined that responsible parties
have completed cleanup so that no
Fund-financed response actions will be
required.
(2) All appropriate Fund-financed
cleanup action under CERCLA has been
completed, and EPA has determined
that no further cleanup by responsible
parties is appropriate.
(3) EPA. in considering the nature and
seventy of the problems, the potential
costs of cleanup, and available funds.
has determined that no remedial actions
should be undertaken at the site.
EPA will delete sites from the NPL by
publishing notice in the Federal Register
at the time of the next periodic update,
naming the site and providing the
reasons for its deletion. The process of
updating the NPL is discussed more fully
in Part X of this notice.
Vm. Changes from the Interim Lists
On October 23.1981. EPA announced
the selection of 115 sites for the Interim
Priorities List (IPL) as candidates for
response action under CERCLA. The
sites were selected by applying the
version of the MRS referenced in
S 300.65 of the proposed NCP (47 FR
10991. March 12,1982) and incorporating
the States' designations of their top
priorities. On July 23.1982. EPA
announced the selection of 45 additional
sites (the "Expanded Eligibility List" or
EEL), under the same criteria used to
establish the IPL. EPA treated all sites
on these lists as candidates for response
or enforcement actions under CERCLA.
The IPL and the EEL were informal lists
used for internal administrative
purposes in choosing initial response
efforts, and are not part of the NCP.
In compiling the NPL. EPA rescored
each site on the IPL and EEL to
determine whether it should be included
on the NPL. Scorn for the IPL and EEL
sites have changed because additional
data are available and the MRS has
been modified However, most sites on
the IPL and EEL are included on the
proposed NPL, and are indicated by the
symbol #. The exceptions are discussed
below.
Additional Information Received.
EPA has determined that incorrect
information was used to calculate the
MRS score for Allen Transformer of
Arkansas, which was included on the
IPL. More accurate information became
available and EPA recalculated the
score using the promulgated version of
the MRS. The resulting scores do not
warrant placing Allen Transformer on
the proposed NPL.
Ineligible for Inclusion. The Fort
Lincoln site was designated by the
District of Columbia as its top priority.
EPA determined that the source of the
release is a Federal facility. Therefore.
EPA will not include Fort Lincoln on the
NPL
Criteria for Deletion. The criteria for
deletion discussed in Part VII have
already been met at some sites on the
IPL These sites and the reasons for
deletion are:
Responsible parties have completed
cleanup: Walcotte Chemical
(Mississippi);
All appropriate Fund-financed
cleanup has been completed: Butler
Tunnel (Pennsylvania): Chemical
Metals, Inc. (Maryland); Chemical
Minerals Industries, Inc. (Ohio);
Luminous Processors (Georgia).
Noncontiguous Facilities. When EPA
developed the IPL, several States
requested that certain noncontiguous
facilities be grouped together to be
considered as single facilities. As
discussed in Part IIL these sites are now
being listed singly wherever possible.
Therefore, certain areas described as
single sites on the IPL will be listed as
two or more sites on the proposed
National Priorities List, as set forth
below:
OeMwn Sand tnd
UangoHen Am* Cm* Land-
NPl
NWSMiSMMLnfflL
VinolSca.
Mam Quo.
Tacora QwnnaL
Commencement Bay-Near-
Datorara Sand md GramL
Army Crook.
IX. Request for Comments
EPA requests comments providing
Information on the sites listed on the
proposed NPL Information on the
factors used to score the sites would be
particularly useful in determining
whether site scores are accurate.
Documents explaining how the sites on
the NPL were scored are available for
inspection in the public docket at EPA.
(See ADDRESSES, in this notice.) EPA
will also continue collecting data
independently to support development
of the NPL
EPA will review and consider
comments received on the proposed
NPL EPA also invites comments and
solicits information concerning sites that
are not currently included on the
proposed NPL that may be appropriate
for inclusion in a later update of the
NPL EPA is not soliciting comments on
the HRS. which was promulgated as
part of the final NCP.
Commenters are requested to bear in
mind the purposes of the NPL described
in the Introduction to this preamble. The
NPL indicates the releases that are
likely to pose the greatest danger to the
public, based on preliminary
investigation. Inclusion on the NPL is a
point of departure for further
investigation. It does not establish that a
particular response is appropriate, nor
does it constitute a judgment concerning
the responsibilities of owners or
operators. The HRS used to score sites
is designed to consider only the
minimum quantity of data commonly
available that will yield a meaningful
estimate of the level of hazard posed by
each site. (See the preamble explaining
-------
58480 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 251 / Thursday. December 30. 1982 / Proposed Rules
the MRS. 47 FR 31187-88. |uly 16,1982).
In developing the NPL. EPA cannot
consider additional data not
encompassed by the factors in the HRS.
EPA will consider such information in
determining the response action, if any.
that is appropriate for a particular site.
X. Promulgation and Revision
Once the comments and the results of
additional investigations have been
considered, the NPL will be
promulgated. Scores used to support
promulgation of the NPL will be based
on the best information available at the
time, including public comment and
State and EPA investigatory data.
Following promulgation, the NPL will
be revised on a quarterly basis. New
, sites may be added on the basis of HRS
scores, or deleted on the basis of the
criteria outlined in Part VII of this
notice. EPA will inform (he States of the
closing dates for each revision of the
NPL.
Congress'.onal statements made
during consideration of CERCI.A
indicate that, once the NPL is
established, revisions can be made in a
routine manner without the necessity of
full notice and comment rulemaking. In
discussing the process for revising the
NPL, Senator Randolph slated:
"Accordingly, although this list must
be published as part of the National
Contingency Plan, it is not intended that
the entire plan be republished each time
the priority list is revised. Public notice
of the revised list is sufficient. [126
Cong. Rec. S14695 (daily ed. Nov. 24.
1980)|"
EPA intends to revise the NPL by
publication in the Federal Register. The
notice will name the sites and provide
reasons for their inclusion or deletion.
The Agency will consider any public
comments concerning revision of the
NPL and make appropriate changes in a
future revision if warranted.
XI. Regulatory Impact and Regulatory
Flexibility Analyses
EPA prepared a Regulatory Impact
Analysis pursuant to Executive Oi cer
12291 (45 FR 13193. Feb. 19.1981) and a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis pursuant
to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612) for the revised NCP at
the time that it was promulgated. Those
analyses considered the impacts of a
National Priorities List: consequently, no
further analyses are needed for this
amendment to the NCP. The analyses of
the NCP are available for inspection at
Room S-398. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street. SW.,
Washington. D.C. 20460.
This action was reviewed and
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under the requirements of
Executive Order 12291.
Signed: December 20.1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch.
Administrator
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.
PART 300—{AMENDED]
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
300 by adding a new Appendix B to the
end to read as follows:
Appendix B—National Priorities List As
Provided for in Section 105(8)(B) of
CERCLA
BUJNG COOt 650O-50-U
-------
Oraud t
Si«cue I
OS MN PIIIDLEV
01 OS NEW CASTLE COUNTY
01 PA BRUIN BOKO
01 HA HOBURM
01 NJ PITTMAN
01 NY WELLSVILLC
01 NJ PLEASANTVILLE
02 NY OSWBGO
07 IA CHARLES CITY
Ot HJ MANTUA
01 08 NEW CASTLI
01 NJ OLD BRIDGS TOWNSHIP
01 MA ASHLAND
02 NJ GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP
01 HI COVENTRY
OS HI SWARTt CREEK
07 M CHEROKEE COUNTY
01 MA HOLBROOR
01 HJ FREEHOLD
01 NH SOMERSWORTH
01 PA HCADOO
01 NH EFFING
Ob AB JACKSONVILLE
08 NT SILVER BOH/DEER LODGS
Ot TX CROSBY
OS MI OTICA
01 NB NASHUA
Ot TX LA MARQUE
OS OB ARCANUM
Ot TX CROSBY
04 AL LIMESTONE A MORGAN
09 CA GLEll AVON HEIGHTS
01 ME CRAY
06 TX HOUSTON
01 HJ BRIDGEPORT
OS IN GABY
OS SO HUITEUOOD
01 MA ACTON
01 MA EAST WOBORN
01 NJ MARLBORO TOWNSHIP
01 FL PLANT CITY
OS MN NEW BRIGHTOII/ASDEN
OS HN ST. LOUIS
01 NY OYSTER BAY
04 FL JACKSONVILLE
08 HT AHACOHOA
0) PA GROVE CITY
OS HN BRAINERO/BAXTER
01 HJ FAIRFIELD
06 OX OTTAWA COUNTY
PNC!
mOOTS CORNER! •
BROIN LAGOON!
INDUSTRI-PLEX!
LIPARI LANDFILL!
SINCLAIR UFIHEftY!
PRICB LANDFILL! •
POLLUTION ABATEMENT SERVICES! •
LABOOUTY BITS
ASLBN KRAMER LANDFILL!
ARMY CBSIKI
CPS/MADI80B INDUSTRIES
NVANIA CHEMICAL!
GEMS LANDFILL!
PICILLO COVENTRY! •
BERLIN * PARKOt
TAR CREEK. CHER. CO.
BAIRO » MCGOIRB
LONE PINE LANDFILL!
EOMERSHORTH LANDFILL
MCADOOI •
RES - BPPING!
VERT AC, INC.!
SILVER BOH CREEK
PUNCH, LTD.!
LIQUID DISPOSAL INC.!
SYLVESTER. IIASBOA! *
MOTCOI •
ARCANUM IRON A METAL
BIKES DISPOSAL PITSI
TRIANA, TEWCSSEI RIVER!
STRIHCFELLOUI •
NCR IN COMPANY
CRYSTAL CHEMICAL!
BRIDGEPORT MNT.t OIL!
HIOCO I
HHITCUOOD CREEK! •
H B GRACE
HELLS CIH
BURNT PLY BOG!
SCHOYLKILL METALS
MEW BRIGHTON!
REILL1 TAR! •
OLD BETHPAGE LANDFILL!
PICKETTVILLB RO LANDFILL!
ANACONDA - ANACONDA
OSBOIHEI
BURLINGTON NORTHERN!
CALDWELL TRUCKING
TAR CUCKI
V
V
V
•
R
R
R-
V
B
R
R "
R
R
R
R
R
V R
R
V
B
B
V
B
E
B
B
S
S
K
E
E
E
E
E
t
E
B
E
B
B
E
*
t
e
B
E
E
C
D
O
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
O
D
O
I V • Valuaury or Ku|Ctlpaa»«, R * Fi.a>c4l ovl it.i
( > Kd.rni».
EPA >e(laa
Sc«le Clly/County
OS IN SEYMOUR
01 NJ BRICK TOWNSHIP
OS MI CADILLAC
10 HA VANCOUVER
04 PL OAVIB
04 PL MIAMI
09 AX TOSCON
01 MY BRANT
09 CA BEDNNG
01 MJ CARLSTADT
01 NJ HAMILTON TOWNSHIP
OS MK OAKDALE
04 PL GALLOWAY
OS IL GREENUP
01 PA DOUGLAS VILLE
01 NJ MILLSBOROUGH
OS HN ST. PADL
01 HA PLYMOUTH
10 ID 6MELTBRVILLB
10 HA fACOMA
01 NJ CAST RUTHERFORD
09 CA RANCHO CORDOVA
09 AS PHOENIX
OS Hjl ST. LOUIS
01 MA MEW BEDFORD
ot LA GA.RROU
OS OH HAMILTON
04 sc COLOMBIA
01 CT HAOGATUCK
OS IL NAUKEGAN
08 CO BOULDER
0) HE HIHTHRQP
01 VT BURLINGTON
0) HV POINT PLEASANT
Of MM ALBUQUERQUE
OT MO ELLISVILLE
01 HD EOUTtlEASTERH
09 TT PACIFIC TRUST TERR.
01 VA ROANOKE COUNTY
01 IA CQUNCIL BLUFFS
09 AS AMERICAN SAMOA
09 AX GLOBE
04 KV BROOKS
04 TN MEMPHIS
01 MC 210 MILES OP ROADS
09 CU GUAM
04 MS GULPPORT
08 OT SALT LAKE CITY
01 IS ARKANSAS CITY
09 CM NORTH MARIANAS
Qioup t
Sll« Hue
8EYHOORI •
BRICK TOWNSHIP LAHDPILL
NORTBERNAIRB PLATING!
FRONTIER BARD CHROME
DAVIB LANDFILL!
GOLD COAST OILI
TDSCON INT'L AIRPORT!
HIDB BEACH DEVELOPMENT
IRON MOOHTAIN NINE!
SCIENTIFIC CHEMICAL PROCESSING
D'iMPERio PROPERTY!
OAKDALEI
ALPBA CHEMICAL!
A A P MATERIALS!
DOOCLASVILLE DISPOSAL
KRTSOUATY PARMI
KOPPER'S COKE!
PLYMOUTH HARBOR/CORDAGE
BUNKER HILL
COM. BAY. S. TACOHA CHANNEL!
UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS
AEROJET!
I9TH AVENUE LANDFILL
GF.AT10T COPUTY, LANDFILL! •
NEW BEDFOBD! •
OLD INGjftRI •
CHEN DYNE! •
SCRDI BLUFF ROAD! •
LAURCL PARK IHC.I *
OUTBOARD MABINE CORP.! •
MARSHALL LANDFILL! •
HIHTUROP LANDFILL! •
PINE STREET CANAL! *
HCST VA ORDNANCE! •
SOUTH UALLEYI •
ELLISVILLE BITE! •
ARSENIC TRIQIIOg BUS t *
KB HASTtl *
MATTHEHSl •
AID.EX CQRP,! •
TAPUTIHU PARMSI •
MT. VI CH MOBILE HOME! •
A. L. TAYLQRI •
NORTH HOLLYWOOD DUMP! •
KB SPILLS! *
ORDOT LANDFILL! •
PLASTIPAXl •
ROSE PAR* SLUDGE PIT! •
ARKANSAS CITY DUMP! •
«CB HABZKOUSei •
Beapooie Stacul t
V R B
B
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
R
D
D
B B
D
D
D
B
0
R
V B
It
R
V R E
V R B
E
B B
D
ft
P
R
D
R
R
R
R
R e
R
C
M
R
B E
R
R
V
R
B
t. V • Voluntary vt Nifcitttled ke»p9Ji»e, R • federal and Mate Rcaponne.
1 - ledc»l
r
^j
g
3>
f
a.
it
CD
M
-------
Qroup 9
EP* KeiloB
State HIT/Coiincy
01 HY OYSTER BAY
01 AL GREENVILLE
OS HI BRIGHTEN
04 FL MIAMI
02 HJ DOVER TOWNSHIP
02 NJ BOOTH BRUNSWICK
Ot FL TAMPA
OS IL HAUCONDA
OS MI HUSKEGOH
01 HH KINGSTON
0) VA SALTV1LLE
92 HJ RSHGWOOO
02 NY NIAGARA FALLS
04 FL HHITEHOUSE
OS OH DEEHFIELn
02 HY BIAGARA FALLS
OS IM U«CS BOH *
OS HI PLEASANT PLAINS TWP
04 FL HARRINGTON
04 FL TAMPA
OS Ml DAVISBURC
OS HI FILED CITY
0) PA BUFFALO
Ot CO LfADVILLE
04 HC CHARLOTTE
04 FL tELLWOOD
OS OH CIRCLE VI LLE
OS OH ASHTABULA
0) PA HARRISON TOWNSHIP
04 FL SEPFNER
01 RI BURRILLV1LLE
02 HJ HAYWOOD • ROCHELLE PR
OB OK CRINCR
OS MM ST. LOUIS PARK
OS Ml ROSE TOWNSHIP
OS MM AHOKA COUNTY
02 NJ EDISON
OS MN LEHILLICR/HAHKATO
0* Ml GRAND RAPIDS
02 NJ BOUND BROOK
02 NY SOUTH GLENS FALLS
02 HJ PEDRICKTOWN
01 RI NORTH SMITHflELO
04 FL BIALEAH
04 FL TAKPA,
OS Ml UT1CA
01 NJ FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP
01 NJ PCKSERTON TOWNSHIP
02 NJ PARSIPPANY, TROY HLS
Ot LA SORENTO
Mia Hue I
GYOSSET LAKDPILL
NOW1RAY ENGINEERING
EPIECELSDRG LANDFILL
MIAMI DRDN*
REICH FARMS
BOOTH BBUNSWICK LANDFILL
KASSAUF-BIMCRLINC*
HAUCONDA BAND a GRAVEL!
OTt / STORY /CORDOVA 1
OTTATI ei COS SI
BALTVILLB HASTE DISPOSAL
BIHOHOOO MIMES /LAMDP ILL
HDOKBB - • ABBA
WHITEBOOSE OIL PITS*
SUMMIT NATIOHALI
LOVB CANAL*
FIBBE* CALO
HASH KING LAUHOftY
P10HEER SAND*
REEVES SE GAtWHIEINCI
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP DUMP
PACKAGING CORP. OP AMERICA
BMNICAI
CALIFORNIA GOLCtt
MARTIN MARIETTA. SODYECO
ICLLWOOD GROUHDWATER COHTAMl
BOWERS LANDFILL
FIELDS BROOK
LINDAHE DUMP!
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL!
WESTERN SAND a. GRAVEL!
HAYWOOD CHEMICAL SITES
CRINER/HAKDAGE*
NATIONAL LEAD TAHACORPI
ROSE TOWNSHIP DUMP*
HASTE DISPOSAL ENGINEERINGI
K1N-BUC LANDFILL*
LEHILLICRI
BUT1ERWOKTH (2 LANDFILL
AMERICAN CYAN AM ID
GE NOREAU SITE
N.L. INDUSTRIES
L * RR - H SKITHFIELD
HH SMH STeVCETI
61HO STRMT DUMP
CiH LANDFILL!
NCTALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS
LANG PROPERTY
SHARKEY LANDFILL
CLEVE RCBER
leapanaa altcua f
R
E
V
E
R E
E
B
V I
R e
V E
E
E
R
E
£
R E
£
V R E
£
E
E
E
E
R
E
D
O
O
O
D
D
D
D
O
D
D
D
O
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
1 V - VeLuntarr or Keaotliied Raaponat. K • Fideral and Slat* laaponae
£ - fnleial and fiate Cnlaiieaent. 0 - Actlona to ke Determined
f - IPL/EEL. * - Slaiee* tellgnalej Tap mailer Slue.
EH Regloa
Stale CIty/Coonir
OS IL MARSHALL
OS MI ST. LOO IS
OS MI NANCCLOU
10 OR ALBABT
02 HY SODTB CAIRO
01 HA DARTHOOTH
02 HJ HUMSTEAD TOWNSHIP
04 TN TOONE
02 NY MOIR>
04 FL COTTCHOALE
07 KS BOLIOAY
01 RI BMITHPIELD
01 MA TYHCSBORO
02 NJ WIUSLOW TOWNSHIP
03 VA YORK COOMTY
OS OH SALEM
01 NJ ELISABETH
OS OB IRONTOH
OS HI tEHNPIELD TOWNSHIP
01 CT BEACON FALLS
01 FA NALVEHN
01 «t ELMIRA HEIGHTS
«1 EC WSW CASTLE
09 CO IDAHO BPBIMCS
01 PA IALMERTOM
OS IN BOONE COUNTY
04 TN LAURENCEBORG
04 PL HHITEHOOSE
04 PL INDIANTOWN
09 AI GOODYEAR
01 HJ PLONSTEAD
02 NJ DOVER TOWNSHIP
04 FL LIVE OAK
02 HY PORT WASHINGTON
06 AR MENA
02 NJ CHESTER
02 HJ SOUTH BRUNSWICK TWP
OB CO COMMERCE CITY
01 MA HESTBOROUGH
02 HY RAHAPO
OS MI ALBIEN
02 HY ALBANY
04 PL FORT LAUDERDALC
02 HJ BOCKAWAr TOWNSHIP
02 HIT OLEAN
04 PL MIAMI
02 HY BATAVIA
0* CA UKIAH
0* CO DENVER
0* HT M1LLTOWH
1: V • Voluntary or Negotiated
E • Federal and State Enforc
Qrou» 4
Site Naaw Reepciue Scelui
VELSICOL ILLINOIS
VELSICOL MICHIGAN V E
TAR LAKE
TELEDYHB WAH CHAUG
AMERICAN THERMOSTAT B
RE- SOLVE! R E
GOOSE FARM! R
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CO. V
YORK OIL COMPANY* R
SAFP BATTERY! R
OOEPKB DISPOSAL, HOLIDAY
DAVIS LIQUID* R B
CHARLES-GEORGE! E
RING OF PRUSSIA
CHISHAN*
MEASE CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL CONTROL* R E
ALLIED CHEMICAL
VERONA HELL FIELD!
BEACON HEIGHTS E
HALVERH TCE SITE
fACIT ENTERPRISES!
DELAWARE BAUD I GRAVEL!
CENTRAL CITY, CLEAJI CREEK*
(ALHERTOM ZINC PILE
ENVIROCHEH
HURRAY OHIO DUMP
COLEMAN CVANSI E
FLORIDA BTEEL
LITCHFICLD AIRPORT AREA
SPEBCE FARM* R
TOMS RIVER CHEMICAL
BROWN HOOD
PORT WASHINGTON LANDFILL t
MID- SOUTH*
COME FILL SOOTH LANDFILL
JI5 LANDFILL E
WOODBURY CHEMICAL!
HOCOHOCO POND
RAHAPO LANDFILL E
HCGRAW fDISON
MERCURY REFINING
HOLLIHGSWORTH*
BOCKAUAY TOWNSHIP WELLS
OLEAH NCLLFICLDt R
VAR50L SPILL!
BATAVIA LAMDFILLI
COAST WOOD PRESERVING
DENVER RADIUM SITE* R
NILLTOWN
Kaapeoae, R • Federal and State Reapenae.
eBetu. D • aetlona lo be Oafemtaed.
1
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
D
D
0
O
D
O
D
D
D
O
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
O
D
1 • IPL/EEL. • - State*1 De a Una led Top Priority Sllea
i
2?
•
8*
s
01
SO
.
CD
5»
•t^
o
•
&
^«
tr
•J
in
•*•*
*^-»
^j
~f
c
gg
CL
CD
*<
o
ID
3
or
*^
0
O
a— *
^
•o
C?
•o
o
at
(B
0.
w
-------
Oroup 6
07 MO VERONA
02 NJ PLOHSTBAO
02 NJ SOOTH KBARNY
09 CA RICHMOND
09 CA FRESNO
«2 NJ BOUELL TOWNSHIP
OS IN BLOOMIHGTON
01 MA LOWELL
01 HH LONDONDERRY
02 NJ PISCATAWAr
02 NJ MARLBORO TOWNSHIP
02 NJ PAIR LAWN
OS IN ELKHART
02 NJ MT. OLIVE TOWNSHIP
02 PR JUJIHA DIAL
02 NJ MONKOE TOWNSHIP
02 NJ ROCKAWAY BOKO
OS IH COLUMBIA CITY
06 MM MILAN
02 NJ BERKLEY
02 NJ DOVER
02 NY VESTAL
10 HA TACCMA
OS IL PEMBROKE
10 ID CALDWELL
01 PA NEST ORMROD
10 HA SEATTLE
09 CA rULLERTON
10 MA HEAD
02 PR RIO ABAJO
09 CA FRESNO
02 PR FLORIDA APUERA
01 NO ELKTON
OS HI NYOMING
02 NJ FLORENCE
OS MI CREIL1CKVILLE
02 NJ VINELAND
0) PA PHILADELPHIA
01 MO SPRINGFIELD
04 6C CAYCB
02 NJ SWAINTON
02 NJ tD I SON
04 PL PEHSACOLA
OS OH IROHTON
02 NJ BAYVILLE
02 NJ CI BBS TOWN
OS IN GARY
OS HI ST. LOUIS
01 RI CUMBERLAND
01 MA CBOVELAND
Sll« Henc Bceponoe Si
SYMTEX FACILITY V
•IJAK FARMI B
SYNCON US INS*
LIQUID COLD
PURITY OIL SALES. INC.
BOG CREBB FARM
NEAL'B LANDFILL*
SILRMINf R
T1HKBAN SITB
CBEMSOL
IHPIRIAL OIL
PAIR LAWN HBLLPIELD
HAIN B.TBBBT WELL FIELD
COMBE PILL NORTH LANDFILL
GE H1RIHG DEVICES
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
ROCKAHAV BORO HELLFIELD
HAYNE HASTB OIL
BOMCSTARtl
BEACHHOOD/BKRKLBY HELLS
DOVER MUNICIPAL WELL 4
VESTAL WATER SUPPLY
COM. BAY. HEAR SHORE TIDE FLAT*
CROSS BROS/PEMBROKE
FLYNN LUMBER CO.
BCLEVA LANDFILL
HARBOR ISLAND LEAD
MCCOLL V
KAISER MEAD V
FfLONTERA CREEK
SELMA PRESSURE TREATING
BARCELOME1A LANDFILL
SAND. GRAVEL AND STONE
SPARTAN CHEMICAL COMPANY
ROBBLING STEEL CO
GRAND TRAVERSE OVERALL SUPPLY CO
VIHELAHD STATE SCHOOL
ENTERPRISE AVENUE
POLBRIGHT LANDFILL*
SCRDI OIXIANAI
WILLIAMS PROPERTY *
HEHORA
AMERICAN CREOSOTE*
B.H. SCHILLING LANDFILL
DENIER 4 BCHAPtR X-RAY
HERCULES
NINTH AVE. DUMP V
GRATIOT CO GOLF COURSE V
PETERSON/PURITAN
GROVELAND HELLS
etae
B
E
C
E
B
E
C
e
E
E
B
E
E
1
D
D
O
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
t V « Voluntary or N«goil*c«« Kciponi*. B • Federal end Stele Beepgnee.
I - F«direl ead Stele Enlcxeeuni. D - Actlone to be Deleralned.
• - IPL/UL. • - Slelee' Deel|uled Top Priority Slue.
1PA Refloa
Slate City/County
10 HA BPOKANE
09 At BCOTTSDALE
09 At RIMGMAH
02 MY HHEATPIELD
04 PL DELANO
OS MI PAR* TOWNSHIP
02 HY BORSEBEADS
01 ME WASRBORN
02 NJ NILL1MGTON
04 RY LOUISVILLE
01 PA STATE COLLEGE
OS OB BYESVILLE
06 AR WALNOT RIDCC
OS OB COSHOCTON
01 PA CIRARD TOWNSHIP
OS IL HAUKECAN
01 MA PALMER
OS HI OTISVILLB
04 PL CLERMOHT
01 PA LOCK NAVEH
01 MD AHHAPOLIS
OJ D2 HEW CASTLE
01 PA HAVERFORD
OS IN GARY
OS MI GRAND RAPIDS
01 MA BRIDGEHATER
OS MI TEMPERANCE
06 LA BAYOU SORREL
02 NJ JACKSON TOWNSHIP
OS MI KALAMAIOO
06 AR EDMONDSEN
OS MI WHITEHALL
OS HI IONIA
02 HJ MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP
02 NJ ROCKY HILL
02 HY BREWSTER
02 NJ ORANGE
00 MT LIBBY
01 PA JEFFERSON
06 TI HIGHLANDS
04 BY NEWPORT
01 PA LOWER PROVIDENCE THP
04 KY NEST POINT
01 CT EOBTHINCTON
€1 PA CRIB
02 NJ BAYREVILLE
08 CO COMMERCE CITY
OB HY LARANIE
01 NH DOVER
06 AR FT. SMITH
Oroup 6
Site Nee*
COLBERT LANDFILL
INDIAN BEND HASH AREA
KIHCMAN AIBPT INDUSTRIAL ABBA
NIAGARA COUNTY RCFOSBI
SHERWOOD MEDICAL
SOUTHWEST OTTAWA LA HDP ILL
KENTUCKY AVE. HELLFIELDI
PIHETTE'B SALVAGE YARD
ASBESTOS DUMP
LEE'S LANE LAHDFILLI
CENTRE COUNTY KEPOME
FDLTE LANDFILL
PR ITT INDUSTRIES!
COSHOCTON CITY LANDFILL
LORD 8HOPEI
JOHNS- MAN VI LLE
PSC RESOURCES
FOREST WASTE PRODUCTS
TOWER CHBMICALt
DRAKE CHEMICAL INC.*
HIODLETOWH ROAD DUMP
TRIS 6PILL SITE
BAVERTOHN PCP 6ITB
LAKE SANDY JO
CHEM CENTRAL
CANNON ENGINEERING
KOVACO INDUSTRIES
BAYOO SORREL*
JACRSOH TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
K 4 L AVE LANDFILL
CURLCY PIT
WHITEHALL HELLS
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
MONTGOMERY HOOSING DEV
ROCKY HILL MUNICIPAL HELL
BREWSTER HELL FIELD
OS RADIUM
LIBBY GROUND HATER
RESIN DISPOSAL
HIGHLANDS ACID PIT!
NEWPORT DUMP
HOVERS LANDFILL
DISTLER BRICKYARD
SOLVENTS RECOVERY SYSTEM
PRESOOE ISLE
SAYREVILLE LANDFILL
SAND CREEK
BAXTER/UNION PACIFIC
DOVER LANDFILL
INDES TRIAL HASTE CONTROL
Reeponee Scecue
R
E
E
R
E
R
E
E
f
E
e
R
R
E
E
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
D
D
P
D
D
D
D
O
D
D
D
O
D
D
D
0
D
O
D
D
D
I. V - Voluntary or Negotiated Beepanee. B * federel end Stele Keeponee,
1 ' IPL/EEL. • - Stetee' Deelgiuled Top Priority Stiel.
•*»
0
s-
Q
3.
•BHKO
SO
na
15*
S5>
""•^
^••i
o
i—
ttak
V|
*
z
9
A-*
•^^
_ -1
3
£
CO
n.
B
*
a
ID
CD
Q-
(D
LO
P
i
^.
I
CD
s.
90
E.
IS
I
-------
EM ..(loo
Sl.lt Clfy/Coutuy
02 MY CLAVV1LLE
07 HO IMPERIAL
06 LA 8LIOELL
01 NV LEETOWN
01 CT CANTERBURY
OS OH OODGEV1LLE
02 NJ OLD BRIDGE
01 PA CHESTER
OJ PA OLD TORGE
02 NJ GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP
02 NY PULTON
OS HI HUSKEGON
01 MH LONDONDERRY
01 WV NITRO
10 HA KENT
OS HI PETOSKEY
OS OB ROCK CREEK
OS OH JEFFERSON
01 KS WICHITA
02 NJ PENNSAUKEN
OS HI KENTWOOO
OS HN ANDOVER
06 AR NEWPORT
OS IN MARION
OS OH READING
04 KY CALVERT CITY
OS OH ST. CLAIRSVILLE
06 TX GRAND PRAIRIE
04 PL MOUNT PLEASANT
01 VT SPRINGFIELD
02 HY LINCKLAEH
01 VA P1NEY RIVtR
OS IL GALESBURG
OS ON IINGSVILLK
02 NY NIAOARA FALLS
OS HI MJkHQUBTTE
OS HI HUSKEGON
02 NJ EVESHAN
04 XY JEPFERSON COUNTY
09 CA CLOVBRDALB
OS HI LUDINGTON
OS HI ROSE TOWNSHIP
01 RI NORTH SHITHFIIiLD
06 TX HOUSTON
01 PA SEVEN VALLEYS
OS IL OGLE COUNTY
03 PA RING OF PRUSSIA
02 NJ FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP
02 NJ FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP
02 NJ BOONTON
O'OUP T
bit* NaBe
LODLOH SAND 4 GRAVEL
ARENA 2l PILLS 1*2
BAYOU BOMFODCA
LEETOWN PESTICIDE PILE
YAUORSKI
HEM LYHE LANDFILL
EVOR PHILLIPS
HADE (ABNII
LACKAHANNA REFUSE
MAHNHEIH AVENDE DUHP
FULTON TERMINALS
6CA INDEPENDENT LANDFILL
AUBURN RD LANDFILL
FIVE CHEMICAL
WESTERN rROCBSSINGI
PETOSKEY MUNICIPAL HELLS
•OCR CREEKAUCR HZBR
POPLAR OILI
JOHN'S 8LDDOE POND
SWOPE OIL AND CHEMICAL)
KENTWOOO LANDFILL
SOUTH AMDOVBR 81154
CBCIL LI NOSEY
MARION 1 BRAGG I OOHP
PR 1ST 1MB
AIRCO
BDCREYE RECLAMATION
BIO-ECOLOOYI
PARxAHORe SURPLUS
OLD SPRINGFIELD LANDFILL
SOLVENT SAVERS
OS TITANIUM
GALESBURG/IOPPEftS
BIG » CAMPGROUNDS
HOOKER - BYDE PARK
CLIPP/DOM DOHP
DOELL t GARDNER LAHDPILL
BLLIS PROPERTY
DISTLER FARNI
MGN BRARBS
MASON COUNTY LANDFILL
CEHETART DOHP SITE
PORESTDALB
•ARRIS (PARLEY ST|I
OLD CITY OP YORK LANDFILL
BYRON SALVAGE YARD
STANLEY KISSLER
FRIEDMAN PROPERTYI
MYERS PROPERTY
PEPB FIELD
...pun.. >»... 1
0
O
D
D
E
D
D
R C
D
D
0
0
E
V
L
D
R
R E
O
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
R
D
D
O
e
D
O
V E
O
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
R
E
B
E
R
D
D
It V • Voluntary ur htf^otl^ied •«»poi»«. R • Icdcr*! and bldlc Rvtp
I • ted«t«l to be 0>l>raliwJ.
• • Da/LlL. • - M>l«* Dcilkiuicd Top Prlorllir Sli».
IP* Region
Sl.te City/County
OS HI SOOTH OS6INEXE
OS HI NILES
06 MM CLOVIS
10 VA TAKIHA
04 TN LEHISBDRG
01 HE SACO
01 PA PHILADELPHIA
06 AR MARION
OS HI GRAND VI LLE
10 OR PORTLAND
02 PR JUNCOS
04 FL NORTH FLORIDA
OS HI CLARE
02 NJ ASBURY PARK
10 HA VAXIMA
OS HI ODEH
OS HI BALAMAZOO
04 SC FORT LAWN
OS HI SPARTA
OS IL HIHHEBACO
OS HI CHARLEVOIX
01 HV POLLAHSBEE
01 HE AUGUSTA
01 PA HESTLINE
OS HI BRIGHTON
OS HI OSCODA
02 PR BARCEUJNETA
OS IN LEBANON
04 (V CALVECT CITY
01 PA STROUDSBUR6
OS HI ADRIAN
OS HI LIVINGSTON COUNTY
OS IL LA 6ALLB
04 TN GALLOWAY
01 DE KIRKHOOD
01 DB DOVER
01 PA HE6T CHESTER TWP
01 DE DELAWARE CITY
01 HO COHBERLAND
01 MY NIAGARA FALLS
01 DE MEN CASTLE
0< NH CHURCHROCK
0* CA BOOPA
04 AL PEBOIDO
02 «Y COLD SPRINGS
0] PA OLD FORGE
04 TH CHATTANOOGA
OS OB WEST CHESTER
01 HO MOSCOW HILLS
04 NC SWABNANOA
t. V - V.liu^n, „. N..oll,l
Group 8
SI to K«e »««po
OSSINEKE
O.S. AVIEI
ATSP/CLOVIS*
PESTICIDE. PIT. YAKIHA
LEHISBDRG DUMP
EACO TAHHIKG
METAL BANKS
CRITTEHDEN CO. LANDFILL
ORGANIC CHEMICALS
COOLD, INC.
JUNCOS LANDFILL
HONISPORT
CLARE HATER SUPPLY
MiT DELISA LANDFILL
PMC YAKIHA
LITTLEPIELO TOWNSHIP DUHP
AOTO ION
CAROLAWN, INC.
SPARTA LANDFILL
ACHE SOLVEWT/MORKISTOUHI
CHARLEVOIX MUNICIPAL HELL
POLLANSBCE SLUDGE FILL
O'CONNOR SITE
WESTLINE
RASMUSSEN'S DUHP
HEDBLON INDUSTRIES
RCA DEL CARIBE
NEDXEB IMC
B.F. GOODRICH
BRODHEAO CREEK
ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT
EHIAWASSEE RIVER
LASALLB ELECTRIC UTILITIES
GALLOWAY PONDS
HARVEY KHOTT DRUM SITE!
WILDCAT LANDFILL
BLOSENSBI LANDFILL
DE CITY PVC PLANT!
LIMESTONE ROAD SITE
HOOKER - IOJND STREET
MB* CASTLE STEEL SITE
UNITED HOC LEAR CORP.I
CELTOR CHEMICAL
PERDIDO CRDWATER CONTAHINATION
MARATHON BATTER* 1
LEHIGH SLECTRIC*
AHNICOLA DUMP
SKINNER LANDFILL
ARENA 1 IDIOXIN)
CUEHTROHICS, INC.
:d leoponi.. 1 » Federal and State Ke»poa.c.
naa Slotua 1
D
D
R
O
D
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
fl E
D
D
D
D
fl E
0
E
E
D
R
D
E
D
E
E
D
D
n
R B
f - IM-/CEL. • - Stale.' Ite.ltiutKd Top Priority SUo».
s
0
•fl
BL
5
3
^^
so
5
8*
&
3
<•
IT*
»!•»
^•1
z
p
to
.^
^
0
?
cr
A
i
s
s
N
f
at
a.
50
e.
s
-------
U-« (-jinn
Sifll* i Ily/Coiiniy
0? NE BEATRICE
OS HI BOCHANAM
01 PA KIHBEBTOH
OS IN BLOOMINCTOM
10 IO RATUDftON
01 PA HARMINSTCR
ID HA LAKEWOOD
OS OH ZANESVILLB
04 CA SACRAMENTO
01 HJ SPARTA
0> IA OES MO1MES
04 IX ORANGE COUMTV
02 NJ JERSCV CIT*
05 OH MARIETTA
0) PA PARKED
01 PA OPPER SAUCON TUP
os IL aetviocRE
OS ID ALUEK COUNTY
Oioup •
Sit. har
PHILLIPS CHMICAL
CLECTROVOICe
KIHBERTOH
LCHOH LANE 1AHOPILL
ARRCOM (DRCXLER ENTERPRISES 1
FISCHER t PORTER
LAXEHOOD
EAUESVILLE HELL PI ELD
JIBBOOH JUNK YARD
A. O. POLITMER
oiro
TRIANGLE CHEHICAL
PJP LAimPIU.
VAN DALE JOHKYARO
CRAJC PAM ORUH SITE
VOORTHAH
BELVIOCftE
PARROT 1IOAO
8»*pona* Siaiu* 1
D
O
O
0
O
E
0
0
D
R
D
R E
D
0
0
0
D
0
I
f
CO
a.
to
a
n
n
CD
3
er
IV- ViJunltry or Kc«oilal«l tenant*. I * F«4rral tai Suit
E • Federal and Sc«r* Cnfore^cni. D • jtcelaiiB to to Dararaln*.]
/ - ItUHL. • - Sci[«' 0»iltu**it Top Prtacllf Slc«.
(FR Doc «2-1»70 Filed li-
BIU.INO CODE 65SO-60-C
-------
1983
-------
«ted States Official Business
uironmental Protection Penalty for Private Use
-gency $300
Washington DC 20460
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 44 / Friday, March 4. 1963 / Proposed Rules
9311
(i] Must be an enlisted member of the
Armed Forces,
(ii) Must be a participant
[iii] Must be training during the last 6
months of his or her first period of active
duty, or any time thereafter, and
(5) If he or she originally enlisted after
September 7.1980, must have completed
at least 24 months of his or her original
enlistment (38 U.S.C. 1631{b), 10 U.S.C.
977).
2. Section 21.5065 is revised-as
follows:
§ 21.5065 Refunds without dlsenrollment
(a) Refunds made without
disenrollment following a discharge or
release unJtr dishonorable conditions—
(1) A discharge or release under
dishonorable conditions may result in a
partial refund of contributions. If an
individual who would have been
eligible, but for the fact of his or her re-
enlistment, for the award of a discharge
or release under conditions other than
dishonorable at the time he or she
completed an obligated penod of
service, later receives a discharge or
release under dishonorable conditions.
the Veterans Administration may refund
a portion of his or her contribution (38
L/.SC. 101.1623).
(2) Amount of refund. The Veterans
Administration shall refund to the
individual all of his or her remaining
contributions made to the fund after the
individual completed the obligated
period of service (38 U.S.C. 101.1823).
(3) Date of refund. The Veterans
Administration shall refund all monies
due the individual—
(!) On the dale of the individual's
discharge or release from active duty; or
(n) Within 60 days of receipt by the
Veterans Administration of notice of the
individual's discharge or release.
whichever is later (38 U.S.C. 101.1623,
1632).
(b) Refunds made without
disenrollment following a short period
of active duty. (1) An individual who
has contributed to the fund during more
than one period of active duty may be
required to receive a refund of those
contributions made during the most
recent period of active duty. When an
individual who meets all the criteria in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section is
discharged, the Veterans Administration
will refund all contributions he or she
made during the most recent penod of
active duty unless the individual meets
one or more of the criteria stated in
either paragraph (b) (4) or (5) of this
section. If he or she meets one of those
criteria, the contributions will not be
refunded unless the individual
voluntarily disenrolls.
(2) Unless a compulsory refund is
prohibited by paragraph (b) (4) or (5] of
this section, the Veterans
Administration will refund all
contributions made by an individual
during the most recent period of active
duty when the individual—
(i) Completed at least one period of
active duty before the most recent one
during which he or she established
entitlement to Post-Vietnam Era
Veterans' Educational Assistance;
(ii) Reentered on his or her most
recent period of active duty after
October 16.1981:
(iii) Contributed to the fund during his
or her most recent period of active duty;
and
(iv) Is discharged.
(3) The circumstances which prohibit
an automatic refund of monies
contibuted during the individual's most
recent period of active duty do not
relate only to the most recent penod of
active duty which began after October
16,1981, but also to the individual's
prior periods of active duty regardless of
whether they began before, after or on
October 16.1981.
(4) Meeting one or more of the
following criteria concerning periods of.
active duty before the moat recent one
will be sufficient to prohibit a
compulsory refund of contributions
made during the most recent period of
active duty. The individual—
(i) Before the most recent period of
active duty began, completed at least
one continuous period of active duty of
at least 24 months, or
(ii) Was discharged or released under
10 U.S.C. 1171 (early-out discharge) from
any penod of active duty before the
most recent one.
(5) Meeting one or more of the
following cntena concerning the most
recent penod of active duty will be
sufficient to prohibit a compulsory
refund of contributions made during the
most recent penod of active duty. The
individual—
(i) For the most recent period of active
duty completes 24 months of continuous
active duty, or the full period for which
the individual was called or ordered to
active duty, whichever is shorter: or
(n) Is discharged or released from the
most recent penod of active duty under
10 U B.C. 1171 (early-out discharge) or
11173 (hardship discharge); or
(iii] Is discharged or released from the
most recent penod of active duty for a
disability incurred or aggravated in line
of duty; or
(iv) Has a service-connected disability
which give him or her basic entitlement
to disability compensation as described
in $ 3 4(b| of thi3 chapter
[8} In computing time served for the
purpose of this paragraph, the individual
is not entitled for credit for service aa
specified in 9 3.15 of this chapter.
However, those periods will be included
in determining if the service was
continuous.
{7] The Veterans Administration shall
refund all monies due the individual—
[i) On the date of the individual's
discharge or release from active duty; or
(ii] Within 60 days of receipt of notice
by the Veterans Administration of the
individual's discharge or release.
whichever is later
(38 USC. 1602. 1623. 1632. 3I03A. Pub L.
97-66.95 Slat. 1026).
|FR Doc. n-HU Filed J-J-BJ 3 45 am)
BILLING CODE U20-01-*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[SWH-FHL-2314-61
Proposed National Priorities Ust
Appendix B of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan
AOENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") proposes to add to the
proposed National Priorities List (47 FR
58476) one additional site. Times Beach.
Missouri. The National Priorities List
("NPL") was proposed on December 30.
1982. as an amendment to the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan ("NCP") (47 FR 31180).
The NCP was promulgated as required
by Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA")
which also required that the NCP
include a list of national pnonties
among the known or threatened releases
•of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants in the United States, and
that the list be revised at least annually.
The NPL identifies pnonty releases for
Fund-financed remedial action and
enforcement under CERCLA. EPA is
taking this step pursuant to the
requirement of CERCLA. Placement of
Times Beach on the NPL at this time
allows the Agency an opportunity to
evaluate the widest range of long and
short term responses to ihe release.
taking into account (he ihreal to public
health and current dislocalion of moil
residents and businesses.
DATE: Commenia muii be submitted an
or before April 4.1983.
-------
9312
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 44 / Friday. March 4. 1983 / Proposed Rules
ADDRESSES: Comments on this action
may be mailed to Russell H. Wyer.
Director. Hazardous Site Control
Division, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (WH-548-E),
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street. SW.. Washington. D.C. 20460.
The public docket for the NPL will
contain the applicable Hazard Ranking
System score sheets for the Times Beach
site as well as a Documentation Record.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sylvia Lowrance 382-2203.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
NPL was proposed on December 30.
1982. Subsequent to its proposal, the
Times Beach site came to the Agency's
attention as a serious candidate for
inclusion on the NPL
The Time Beach. Missouri, site was
one of over 100 sites in the State of
Missouri at which dioxin contamination
was suspected m November 1982.
Extensive sampling by EPA in Times
Beach in late November-early
December 1982 confirmed the presence
of dioxin along roadway areas. After the
area was flooded in December. EPA
returned to re-sample the area and again
confirmed the presence of dioxin in
residences and yards as well as the
roadway areas.
The second round of sampling
provided adequate data to assess the
nature and extent of the release and to
assist in determining its priority for
Fund-financed response as required by
§ 300.66(b) of the National Contingency
Plan. The results of the sconng indicated
Times Beach should be placed on the
NPL
The decision to add Times Beach to
the NPL immediately rather than waiting
for the first update stems from the
serious nature of the problem. Dioxin is
one of the most toxic substances known
to man: it is carcinogenic and suspected
to have effects on reproductive systems.
The area where the dioxin is located
was completely flooded and most of the
residents an in temporary housing
awaiting a determination of the
appropriate action necessary lo deal
with the release. Placement of Times
Beach on the NPL at this time allows the
Agency an opportunity to evaluate the
widest range of long and short term
responses to the release, taking into
account the threat to public health and
current dislocation of most residents
and businesses.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Air pollution control. Chemicals,
Hazardous material. Intergovernmental
relations. Natural resources. Oil
pollution. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Superfund, Waste
treatment and disposal. Water pollution
control. Water supply.
Dated. February 22.19B3.
Anne M. Burfoid,
Administrator.
PART 300—{AMENDED]
It is proposed to add an additional
site on the National Priorities List which
is Appendix B, a proposed amendment
to 40 CFR Part 300. The site would
appear as the next to last site in Croup
5. as follows:
GROUP 5
EPA
rayon
07
S«.
MO
City/ county
Time»
flow*
SIB
nemo
Time*
Beach
Resoon*
status'
0
or Negotiated fWaoonw. n-F«twu m
Slat* Responses. £ = Federal and Sou* Enlo'conant
O'Acdons k> Do OMennmKL
(PR Doc, U-M87 Fllad 1-1-83 145 dm)
BUXINO CODE
-------
Wednesday
May 25. 1983
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Notification Requirements; Reportable
Quantity Adjustments; Proposed Rule and
Designation of Additional Hazardous
Substances; Advanced Notice of
Proposed RulemakJng
-------
23552
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 302
(SW H-FfU. 2207-51
Notification Requirement* Reportable
Quantity Adjustments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY Sections 103(a) and 103(b) of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Lability
Act of 1980 ("Superfund." "CERCLA." or
"the Act") require that persons in charge
of vessels or facilities from which
hazardous substances have been
released in quantities that are equal to
or greater than the reponable quantities
("RQs") immediately notify the National
Response Center of the release. Section
102 sell a reportable quantity of one .
pound for hara/doui substances, except
those for which reportable quantities
hav been established pursuant to
Section 311[b)(4) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
Section 102(b) authorizes (he
Environmental Protection Agency .
("EPA" or "the Agency") to adjust
reportable quantities. EPA is proposing
in this notice to adjust many of the
reportable quantities established under
CERCLA. These RQ adjustments are
intended to reduce the burdens of
reporting on the regulated community, to
allow EPA to focus its resources on the
most serious releases, and to protect
public health and welfare sad the
environment more effectively. To help
implement these changes, the Agency is
clarifying notification requirements for
releases of hazardous substance* undar'
CERCLA.
The Agency is also proposing to
revise reponable quantities established
under Section 311(bK4) of the deaa
Water Act ("CWA") for discharges of
hazardous substance* Into navigable
waters, so that me CWA flection 311
reportable quantitiM «riH b*) identical to
and therefore cunststenl with those
ultimately promolgartad ander CERCLA-
OATtt: Comments must be received on
or before July 23,1963.
AOOMMtt: Cow menu: Comments
should be submitted in triplicate to:
Emergency Response Division. Docket
Clerk. Attention: Docket Number 102RQ.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street. S.W, WH-64A&
Washington. D.C 20460,
Docket: Copies of materials relevant
to this rulemakuog are contained in
Room S-3M at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency JO! M Street. S W.
Washington D C. :W60 The docket u
available for review between ihe hours
of 8 00 a m. and 4 00 p.m. Monday
through Fnda> As provided in 40 CFR
Part 2. a reasonable fee may be charged
for copying services.
FON FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr K. Jack Koo;oomuan. Chief.
Regulation Oeve.opmenl Section.
Emergency Response Division (WH-548
B). U S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street. S.W..
Washington. D.C 20460. or the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9340. in
Washington. D.C.. (202) 382-3000.
SUPPLEMCNTAAT INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
INTRODUCTION
NOTIFICATION
I. Mechanics of Notification
U. Persons Covered by This Notice
UL Releases Covered by This Notice
A. Hazardous Subetancet Subject to Tint
Nonce
B. Definition of Releases Sub|ect lo This
Notice
C Determination of When • Reportable
Quuury Has Been Released
IV. Exemptions From the CERCLA
Notification Requirements
A. Federally Permitted Releaaes
1. Releases From Point Sources With
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPOES) Permits
2. Releases Subject to CWA Section
404 Permits
3. Releases From Facilities With Final
RCRA Permits
4. Releases Pursuant to Marine
Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries
Act Permits
1 Underground Infections Authorised
Pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act
CL Emission* Subject to dean Air Act
Controls -
7. Injections of Materials Related to
Development of Crude Oil or Natural
C«a Supplies
& Introduction of PolluUnts into
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
9. Releases of Source. Byproduct, or
Special Nuclear Materials
B. Peetiede Products
C Releases Reported Under RCRA
• a Continuous Rets****
V. Duplicate Reporting
RepoctabU Qvuudry Adjustments
L Introduction
0, Summary of Methodology Underlying the
Reponable Quantity Adjustments
HI. Number of Reportable Quantity Levels
and Their Values
IV. Use of Criteria To Adjust Raporubia
Quantities
A. Primary Criteria
B. Secondary Criten
C Results of the Proposed Methodology
D. Special Types of Substance*
1 UnluiedRCRA Wanes 'ICFF
1 Radionuclidej
E. Additional One -id ConsideTC d.1 '«:'
Currently Used (or Adiusung Reporaolr
Quanl.iies
F Additional Cnieria Considered bui
Reiected
V Alternative Methodologies Contidered
Reportabla Quantity Adjustments under
Section 111 of the Clean Water 4cl
Summary of Supporting Aiulywe
I C!aa< ncalion and Regulator) Ixr-aci
An* I y si*
U. Certification Why a Requlatorv Klc \ t>ili'\
Analjais U Not Necessar\
Ul Information Impact Anali in
Introduction
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (Pub. L 96-5101. 42 U.S.C.
I 9601 el sea., enacted on December 11.
1980. establishes broad federal authority
to deal with releases or threats of
releases of hazardous substances from
vessels and facilities. The Act specifies
an initial list of 696 hazardous
substances (Section 101(14)). EPA may
designate additional hazardous
substances (Section 102).
The Act requires the person in charge
of a vessel or facility to notify the
National Response Center ("NRC")
immediately when there is a releas*.
designated hazardous substance m an
amount equal to or greater than t.-.e
reportable quantity for that substance
(Sections 103 (a) and (b) '). Section
102(b) of CERCLA establishes RQs for
releases of designated hazardous
substances at one pound, unless other
reportable quantities were assigned
under Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act. Section 102 authorizes EPA lo
adjust all of these reponable quantities.
' A major purpose of the Sections 103
s) and (b) notification requirements is
o alert government officials to releases
if hazardous substances that may
equire rapid response to protect public
.leallh and welfare and the environment.
Under the Act. the federal government
may respond whenever there is e
i lOXel arond«a a separate aad diaiinci
. Sccaoe. lOSiO r*quu*t
nottflcanoa of (tie miience ind location of
(aaluiee el which haxajdou* wuiti have been
tiered, tnaied. or dupowd of and ohich ire net
preamlr patniltad at accorded laurua ititiu
(ader faeBejs 300S at IBs Itaaouraa Cooaonretion
•ad lUeovary Acs of 1S51. u IDMHM (-»OA"V
EPA ha* pubnitMd to latefim laitrpnianv* none*
In4 policy tuteflMBl concerning, ihn nonficaiion. •*
wtU «• a (oral dMl p««aae our ua« (o MI-
ef pack aitae. f%wm who ban oaapued
Becnos OS(ci elCDtOA an aq.ll mbwct
~^g-.i~- iin»1sl«M fl th-^— — 1-1 — -I
i qiMllIU* for the «uapima
l*e« «S FR 01*4 (April
is. iseii).
-------
Federal Register / Vol 4fl. No 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Prooosec Ruiea
23553
release or a substantial threat of •
release into the environment of t
hazardous substance or of otner
pollutants or contaminant! which may
present an imminent and auoatanad
danger to public health or welfare
(Section 104). Response activities are to
be taken, to the extent poeeible, in
accordance with the Nation*]
Connngency Plan developed ander
Section 10S. which has been revised -o
reflect the responsibilities and powers
created by CERCLA (47 FR 311W (July
16.1982)). Notification bued on
reportable quantities it merely a trigger
for informing the government of a
release so thai the need for response
can be evaluated and any neceasary
response undertaken in a timely fashion.
The government will not neceaaanly
respond to all reported release*.
Section 103(b) eatablishe* penalties.
including cruninal sanctions, for persons
in charge of vestela or facilities who fail
to report releases of hazardous
substances which equal or exceed
reportable quantities. Any person who.
aa soon as be baa knowledge ol a
reportable release, fails to report the
release pursuant to Section 103 (a)or (b)
shall, upon conviction, be fined ao more
than $10.000 or imprisoned for not more
than oae year, or both. Notification*
received under Section 103(a| or
information obtained by such notice
cannot be used againat aay reporting
person in any criminal case, except a
prosecution for per>ury or for giving a
false statement
The notification requirements for
releases of hazardous substances are
addressed in this mlesnaking. The rale
proposed today lists the CERCLA
hazardous substances, proposes
adjustment* to The reportable quantities
for 367 of the 098 hazardous substances,
and discusses procedures for reporting
releataea. An Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemakmg (ANPRM1
covering the designation of bacardoua
substances in addibon to thosw specified
In Section 101(1-4) of the Act is also
being published la today's FedacsJ
Refislar.
It should be ootad 4k*t other
provisions of IBSI Aot MITJM applicable
wen when awdileaitasi SMSM required.
Therefore, nothing In thla proposal
should be interpreted aa reflecting
Agency policy or the applicable law
with respect to other provisions of the
Act For example, a party responsible
for • release is liable for (he cosu of
cleaning up that release and for aay
natural mount daaagea. even if the -
release is not subject to the noti§es)tion
requirements of Sections 103 (a) and (b).
Similarly, proper reporting of a release)
in accordance with Sections 103 (a) and
(b) does aot preclude Lability for
cleanup costs The fact that a release of
a hazardous substance u> properly
reported or that it la not subiect to ma
notification requirements of Sections 103
(a) and (b| will not prevent EPA or other
governmental agencies from taking
respone actions under Section 104.
seeking reimbursement from responsible
parties und— Section 107. ar taking an
enforcement action againat responsible
parties.
The section of this preamble entitled
"Notification' addreaaes the CERCLA
notification provision*, including the
persons required to notify the NRCof a
release, the substances for urhish
notification is required, the type* of
releases subiect to the notification
requirements, and the exemptions from
these requirements. The section entitled
"Reportable Quantity Adjustments"
discusses the proposed RQ adjustments
and the methodology used in making
these adjustments.
Notification
/. Mechanics of Notification
Notifications pursuant to Section* 103
(a) and (b| of CERCLA are to be made
by telephone to the National Response
Center. The toll-free number for
notification is (800) 424-8602. except
from the Washington. D.C. metropolitan
area. Hawaii, and Alaska, where the
telephone number for notification LS
(202) 428-2675. When a call is received
by the National Response Center, the
duty officer will ask for infoonatxxi
including the name, addreaa. and
telephone number of the reporting
individual: the idanuty. location, and
nature of the release (e.g. the source.
cause, quantity, and dnraoaa of the
release): the identity of the transporter
or owner of (ha facility or VMM!: the
nature of injuries or property damage:
any other relevant circumstance* such
aa weaiaar condition* and any
corrective actions taken. The National
Response Center relays release
information directly to either an On-
Scene Coordinator at the appropriate
EPA regional office or in On-Scene
Coordinator at the U A Const GanVd
district office. The On-Scni
Coordinator evaluates the situation.
gives the information to appropriate
state and local officials, and decides
whether and how the federal
government should respond to the
release.
//. Ptnonu Covend by Thit Notic*
The Act defines broadly the key terms
of the notification requirements. The
word "person" includes not only
individuals, but private, public, and
governmental entities as well (see
Sec'ion 10i;2tj| 'Vessel" induces
essentially anything "used or capaale of
being seed, as a means of transportation
on water" (see Section 101(28)1
"Facility" is also defined broadly
"facility" means (A) any building uruciure.
initilUnon. equipment, pipe or pipeline
(including any pipe into a sewer or oub'iclv
owned treatment works I. w«!l. pit pord
lagoon, impoundment, ditch landfill, storage
container, motor vehicle rolling nock, or
aircraft or (8) an> me or area where a
hazardous suboiance has been deposited.
•tored. disposed of or placed or olke^»is»
come lo be located, but don not include any
consumer product in consumer use or anv
vnsel (MO Sacnon 101(91. see also Section*
101(17) ("offshore facility' ) ind 101(18)
("onshore facility')).
The definition of "facility" exclude*
consumer products in consumer use.
Releases from consumer products by
consumers, therefore, are not releases
from s facility into the environment and.
consequently, do not have to be
reported. Although the Act does not
define the term "consumer product" the
Consumer Product Safety Act defines
that term a*, generally, any article sold
to a consumer far the person's ua*.
coMsonption or enjoyment sn OT avomd
a household, residence, school, in
recreation, or otherwise (IS U.S.C. 2052).
This definition will apply for nocrficauon
under CERCLA.
Tor notification purposes. EPA will
consider the entire contiguous plant or
installation and contiguous grounds
under common ownership to be the
reporting facility rather than each vent.
pipe, or piece of equipment at such a
plant This wUl avoid unnecessary and
burdensome multiple call* where such a
plant is experiencing more than one
reportable release. A single notification
will suffice for multiple concurrent
releases within a facility.
The "person in charge" of a particular
viesael or facility will vary according to
ine nature of the incident. Examples of
the "person in charge" of a facility, as
the Act defines that term, include a
• truck driver, the shift supervisor of a
treatment works, or a pipeline operator.
The Agency does not intend to identify
specific individuals within a business
entity who are responsible for reporting
releases. Persons in charge of private.
public, and governmental entities are
more familiar with their operations and.
therefore, an better able to assign
reporting responsibilities. When there
has been a failure to notify, me
government wiO daade on a case-by-
case basta whedtar to se*k appropriate
-------
23554
Federal Regular / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
remedies from either the entity or
particular employee*.
///. Releases Cav.-redby nit Notice
A. Hazardous Subitaace* Subject to
77>ts Notic*
Congress incorvoraled *U lilts of
hazardous substances developed ur.der
environmental jtatutes in the Aci *
definition of haiardoui substances
(Secnon 101(14)]- These lists are:
(l) Substances designated pursuant to
Section 311 of the Clean Waier Ad
{••C\VA"):
(2) Hazardous wanes • under Section
3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(commonly known a the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
"RCRA"), but excluding wastes the
regulation of which ha* been impended
by Congress:1
(3) Toxic pollutants lifted under CWA
Section 307(a):
(4) Hazardous air pollutants listed
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
(S) Imminently hazardous chemicals
or mixture* for which EPA has taken
action under Section 7 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act: and
|6) Substances designated pursuant to
Section 102 of CERCLA.
Table 302.4 lists the hazardous
substances, their regulatory synonyms.
and the isomers of these substances that
are subject to the notification
requirements of Sections 103(aJ and
103| b(. The substances listed an those
designated pursuant to other
environmental acts only; no substances
have been designated pursuant to
Secnon 102 of CERCLA. The designation
of substances pursuant to Section 102 ia
dlscueaed in the ANPRM on designation
also published ID today's Federal
Renter.
Table 302.4 will not b* static. If
substances are added to or deleted from
the list* of substance* developed under
.the statute* which an incorporated in
CERCLA Section 101(14). the CERCLA
list of hazardous subeUnpae) will
change. Federal tUfJa** Notice*
reflecting caansjM to tao.lfetj referenced
In Section 101(14) of QObCLA and to
Table 302.4 will b* pufaBaaWd '
simultaneously.
Punuant to Section 101(14](C) of
CERCLA. hazardous substances include
any hazardous waste ra1 .r.g 'he
charactenstics identified or listed
pursuant to Section J001 of RCRA (but
not including any waste the regulation
of which has been suspended by Act of
Congress). These charactenstics are:
igrutabiUty. correeiviry. reactivity, or
extraction procedure tcxicity (ICRE)
U«e Wi-FRSl iOe(s«? j A person
generating a solid waste musi
determine, in accordance with 40 CFR
262 r.(c) of the RCRA regulation*, if a
waste meets these characteristics. If a
waste is hazardous under the RCRA
regulations, it is a hazardous substance
under CERCLA. These hazardous
substance*, hereinafter referred to as
ICRE wastes, are not (and by their
nature cannot be) specifically baled.
Persons who release such unlisted
hazardous wastes in quantities equal to
or exceeding the reponabie quantities
delineated in Table 302.4 for those
wastes will be required, unless
specifically exempted, to notify the
NRC.«
The Act excludes certain energy-
related substances from the definition of
hazardous substances, and these
substances are thereby exempted From
the notification requirements of Section
103. These substances are petroleum,
including crude oil and any Traction
thereof (unless otherwise listed in Table
302.4). natural gas. natural gas liquid*.
liquified natural gas. synthetic gas
usable for fuel, or mixtures of natural
gas and such usable synthetic gas (see
Section 101(14)). The notification
requirements as sel forth in 33 CFR Part
153 and 40 CFR Pert 110 for certain .
discharges of oil remain in effect
Chemical iiibatuces an often known
by several different name*. The nemee
an derived from different origins, which
include systematically applied
nomenclature*, such as the Chemical
Abstracts Collective Index System (e.g..
propanenitnle, 2-hydroxy-2-meihyl-fc
trivial name* (e.g.. aldnn. DDT):
common chemical names (e.g.. lead
acetate, rutrotoluene); end trade names
(e.g.. Dlazmoa Kepoue). The substance*
listed in Table 302.4 an Indicated by the
name(s) u*ed to identify that substance
under the environmental statutes and
implementing regulations incorporated
in the definition of hazardous substance
(Section 101(14)). Because no single
M tliud indar Appradka Vm U> «0
cm P*n SSI thai »f* ooi M *t» UMT feia. __ - _>
• e>«a (f» UMIM urupMfr d^tot, tftttm. or
•icmpu • RCXA kuirtau w*it* pumiMit la
authority cmaMd It fcy HPA, Uwi »«u will non*ia
t hMMOoun wbuue* for Bwpa*« of OCXCLA.
• The ICRE chonciininet (paly only w
(MurdoM tutxiuicn vhiclt tn RCRA WHIM pnoi
IP itotr r«l««M. Th« raltiM ol i •ubu»nc« -nidi
•i&ibiU ena of IB* ROM dttracunitie* bui u aal
• w»a w not« raparuU* «vrak uilM* UMl
tuacunw i* luiad IB 40 CrU Ptit SBX •• •
•aiMdflM raeaiuei Swot ih* purvew of
•ntiftrartnn to la enaaar rnniiitaiaaa of s raapaaaa.
how»»«f iha f«parun| of • r*l**w al my awiand
Din m«» raqunv tenon by (ft* («dfril ta**mm«ii
rc~.eic'rat-:? -j used
Ihrougnout inese staiuies and
implementing regulations, the CERCLA
aubstance* are not listed pursuant to
one nomenclature Consequent
duplicate entries appear for heia dous
substarces which are listed by different
names under the statutes [and ihnir
\mv\e— •-.lira regulations) incorp jraled
mio be^i.on 101(14) Forexa/nsie
lindane. designated under CVV A Section
111 and henaohlorocvclohexane
gamma-BllC. designated unoer CWA
Section 30?{a|. are different names For
the same compound and both names
appear in Table 302.4
It is possible, because of ihe numerous
names for some materials, that a
substance listed is not ideniified by s
name with which all persons who
handle that substance are familiar. Such
a material is considered to be a
hazerdoua substance regardless of how
il is named or identified. To facilitate
identification of substances in Table
302.4. the Chemical Abstracts Service
(CASI Registry Numbers sre also used
in listing the CERCLA hazardous
substances.
EFA is considering several
alternative* for developing a
nomenclature system for the
promulgated list of CERCLA haiardoi
substances. The first alternative woulo
be to adopt the method used m Table
302.4. i.e.. to use those names which
appear in the environmental statutes
(and their implementing regulations)
incorporated m the CERCLA definition
of hazardous substance*. Another
option would be to use only one system
of nomenclature, such as the Chemical
Abstracts Collective Index System name
(either the «th or «h Collective Index).
A third option would be to liat all the
' major synonyms for each substance.
including the name under the Chemical
Abstracts Collective Index System. EPA
requests comments on these options.
Table 302.4 contains many broad.
generic classes of organic and metallic
compounds designated as toxic
pollutants under CWA Section 3O7[a).
such aa "chlorinated phenols."
"phthalate esters," and "zinc and
compounds." Many of the broad, generic
classes of compounds encompass
hundreds of specific compound*.
Consequently, it would be virtually
impossible for the Agency to develop a
nportsble quantity for a genenc class of
compounds which would take into
account the characteristics of ail <
specific compound*, each with dii. <
charaetanatica. Therefore, in publishing
Table XB.4. EPA hat included the
specific compounds developed in
implementing Section 307(a) or Section
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules 23555
311 of the Clean Water Act. but no
adiusled RQ is proposed for these
broad, generic classes. The notification
requirements apply to those specific
compound! for which RQ* are listed m
Table 302.4. rather than to the generic
listings. Thu doe* not however.
preclude liability with respect to
releaserof specific compound! which
are within one of these generic listings
but which are not listed in Table 3r_ 4
for reporting purposes.
The Agency u not requiring
notification of releases of massive forms
of the solid metals ongmally listed
under CWA Section J07|a| when the
diameter of the pieces of metal released
equals or exceeds 100 micrometers
(0.004 inches). Releases of these metals
are excluded form CERCLA reporting
requirements because they are large
enough to be neither respirable nor to
react rapidly with air or water. The
lubstances to which this rule applies are
indicated by a "t" in Table 30&4. They
an alimony, araeiuc, beryllium.
cadmium, chromium, copper. lead.
nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and
zinc. EPA requests comment* on the
notification requirement! for metals.
particularly on the appropriate cuioff
size for maasive forms of these solid
metals.
B. Definition of Releases Sub/ect to tits
Nonce
Congreu defined the term "release"
to include within its scope virtually all
ways that substances ma> enter the
environment:
"releaM" Bean* any spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying.
discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching.
dumping, or diiponog into the environment
• * * (Section 101(22)).
Four typei of releases are specifically
excluded from the definition of release)
in CERCLA Section 101(22). They are:
(1) Releases which result in exposures
to persons solely within a workplace for
which claim* against the) employer or
other persona in available
(2) Emission* froa angina exhaust
from a motor vahiek. rolling stock.
aircraft veaaei dr pepafina pumping
station:
{3) Releasaa of sooroa. byproduct, or
special nuclear material from a nuclear
incident subject to requirements of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for
financial responsibility under Section
170 of th« Atomic Energy Act *! and
• A mtoiM a/ Mura*. byproduct, or
nuctaar «•*•*•! ftaa • praoMaag «u dogniud
und*r Swum laaUMD or 3at|«J W *• Ur»«ua
Mill Tullnv lUdliuoo OMirri Act W 1ST* u aal •
•ralMM' for purpoM* of rviponte icilaa* under
CERCLA but it Mibiecl le ih« nauflcaiioa
(4) The normal application of
ft rtiltzers.
A key element of the definition of
"release' is the phrase "in'o 'he
environment." Although the word
"environment" is broadly defined in
Section 101(8). some releases of
hazardous substances may not enter the
environment. For example the spill of a
hazardous substance onto trie concrete
floor of a r.dnuf
these regulations only wtxere a
component hazardous substance of :he
mixture or solution is dischara. c ir. a
quantity equal to or greater than us RQ '
(44 FR 50r87 (Auzust 29 19791) This
interpretation Mill apply to releases of
hazardous substances under the Act as
well. Thus, a release of 10 pounds of a
solution which contains 1 pound of
hazardous substance A and 9 pounds of
non-hazardous substance B is not
reportable if the RQ of hazardous
substance A is 10 pounds Similarly, a
release of a mixture containing 70% of
an RQ of hazardous substance A and
60% of an RQ of hazardous substance B
Is not subject to the notification
requirements of Sections 103 (a) and (b).
An alternanve approach is to apply
the RQ to the mixture or solution as a
whole. Under this approach, a release of
K pouada of a solution which contains l
pound of hazardous substance A and 9
pounds of non-hazardous substance B
would be reportable if the RQ of
hazardous substance A is 10 pounds or
less. Similarly, the release of a mixture
containing 70^> of an RQ of hazardous
substance A and 60% of an RQ of
hazardous substance B would be
reportable. This approach was not
adopted because it would result in over-
reporting. The Agency instead intends to
focus its attention on those releases
which are potentially moat
environmentally significant • soch as
those releases in which the component
hazardous substance is released in an
amount that equala or exceeda the
assigned RQ.
Any person in charge of a vessel or
facility who is unsure as to whether any
of the components in a released mixture
exceed their RQs is strongly encouraged
to report the release.
IV Exemption* From the CERCLA
Notification Requirements
There are four types of statutory
exemptions from the notification
requirements for releases of hazardous
sabstances in reportable quantities-
rtqutrimtnti of Sections MJ |ej «od fb) [Section
101(2211.
• Ae MM4 la tht prMatbfa to «0
-------
23556
Federal Register / Voi 48 No. 102 / Wednesday May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
(1) Federally permitted release! as
defined in Section 101(101
{2} Applicator! of pesticide products
registered under ihe Federal Insecticide.
Fungicide, and Rodentlcide Act
("FIFRA"):
(3) certain releases of Hazardous
wastes which are required to be
reported under the provisions of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and whicr. are repc.ved to ihe N'RC.
and
(4) certain releases which are
determined to be "continuous' under the
provision! of Section 103(0(2)
This section discusses EPA's proposed
interpretation of the scope of these
statutory exemptions from Ihe
notification requirements of Sections
103(a) and (b).
A. Federally Permitted Releases
Congress did not intend for the
notification requirements in Sections
103(a) and (b) of CERCLA to apply to
the federally permitted release* defined
in Section 101(10).
The laws authorizing the permit and
regulation* that control these release*
provide for notification and luch notification
procedurM should provide Ihe same public
benefit* especially regarding nmely
response—es would be provided in S. 1480.
Nonce w crucial to the removal and remedial
operation* which are central to ihe reported
bill. The federally permitted releaae
exceptions are not directed at avoiding
notice, bul rather to make it clear which
provisions of law apply to ducharging
sources. (Sen. Rep 96-848. 96ih Cong.. 2d
Sesa. SO (1980)).
This section discusses the federally
permitted releases.
1. Releases from Point Sources with
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPOESI Permits.
Section 101(10) identifies three types of
releases from point sources with NPDES
permit* aj federally permitted releases;
(A) discharges in compliance wuh a permit
uder section 402 of ihe Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (B] discharges resulting
from circumstances identified and reviewed
and mad* pan of the public record with
respect to a permit la sued or ssodlfled under
section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and subject h* • condition of
such permit. (Cl cofltnuow or anticipated
intermittent discharges from a point source.
identified in a permit or permit application
under section 402 of (he Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. which are caused by
eventa occunnf within Ihe scope of revelant
operating or treatment systema * * *
This language is identical to that used m
Section 311(a](2) of the CWA to exclude
these releases from the tern "discharge"
with respect to EPA's hazardous
substance spill response and prevention
program. Under regulations
implementing Section 311 of the CWA.
EPA has interpreted th's language 10
exclude basically all discharges of
hazardous substances from an NPDES
point source that are associated with
manufacturing or treairrent processes
a-o thai were laentifiec ar.d considered
in the issuance of the permit This
exemption also applies to discharges
from .NPDES point sources permitted by
a s-aie auiho"«d to operate the NPDES
permit program (40 CFR lir.12. 44 FR
58910 (October 12.19791) As Congress
indicated, the interpretation of these
provisions under Section 311 of the
CWA and the implementing regulations
will be continued for federally permitted
releases under CERCLA, (see Sen Reo
96-948. 96th Cong.. 2d Sess 47 (I960))
2. Releases Sub/ect to CWA Section
404 Permits. Discharges which comply
with a legally enforceable permit for
dredge or fill materials under Section
404 of the CWA are also federally
permitted releases exempt from the
notification requirements of CERCLA
Section! 103(a) and (b). Before issuing
these permits, the government reviews
the substances to be discharged. The
permits allowing the discharge of
hazardous substances are issued only if
DO significant degradation of the aquatic
environment will result. This exemption
applies to discharges in compliance with
(he terms and conditions of either an
individual or a general CWA Section 404
permit.
In regulations implementing Section
311 of the CWA. EPA exempted from the
notification requirement not only those
releases which were in compliance with
Section 404 permiia but also those which
were not subject to permit requirements
under Section 404 of the CWA (Sections
404(0 «nd 404(r)). These latter releases
are not "federally permitted releases"
for purposes of CERCLA: therefore, they
must be reported. Releases in
compliance with a legally enforceable
permit under Section 404 of the CWA
need not be reported.
3. Releases from Facilities with Final
RCRA Permits. Releases from
hazardous waste management facilities
which have legally enforceable final
permits under Section 3005 of RCRA are
also exempted from notification if the
permit specifically identifies the
hazardous substances released and
makes those substances subiect to "a
standard of practice, control procedure
or bioassay limitation or condition, or
other control on the hazardous
substances in such releases ' (Section
101 (10)(E)J. Releases from hazardous
waste management facilities with final
RCRA permits issued by a state are also
considered federally permitted releases
for purposes of CERCLA.
EPA is presently in the process of
p-ornulgaiir.g relations imolemenr--
the permit provisions of RCRA Fi.-.a
standards have been set forextsting
storage facilities and incinerators and
land disposal facilities J46 FR 2302
(January 12. 1981). 46 FR T666 (lanuary
23.1981). 46 FR 12414 (February ;3.
1981): 47 FR 32274 (July 26. 1982)) This
exemption does not aooiy to hazardous
waste management facilities «,nich are
in 'interim status" pursuant to Section
300S(e). "Sites or facilities which have
interim status under Section 30051 e) do
not adequately utilize acceptable levels
of technology, and do not qualify for this
exclusion ' (see Sen Rep 96-848. 96(h
Cong. :d Sess 48(19801) However.
although Section 101(10||E) does not
exempt hazardous waste management
facilities with interim status from the
notification requirements if they release
hazardous substances, such releases
may fall within one of the limited
exemptions to the notification
requirements (e.g.. Section 103(0(1)]
discussed below.
4. Releases pursuant to Marine
Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries
Act Permits. Section 101(10)(F) of
CERCLA includes, in the definition of a
federally permitted release, releases in
compliance with legally en/orceabl'
permits issued under Section 102 (
ocean dumping permits) and Sectic.
(Corps of Engineers permits for ocean
dumping of dredged materials) of the
Marine Protection. Research, and
Sanctuaries Act. Pursuant to EPA
regulations, applicants for ocean
dumping permits must identify the
physical anoTchemical properties of the
matenals to be discharged, and the
permit must identify the matenals which
may be discharged (see 40 CFR Pans
221. 223). Similar procedures and criteria
apply to issuing ocean dredging permits
(see 33 CFR Part 324). These ocean
dumping and ocean dredging permits
cover substances that can be lawfully
discharged. Releases of hazardous
substances not specifically permitted
are subiect to (he notification
requirements of CERCLA Sections 103
(a) and (b).
5. Underground Injections Authorised
pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water
Act. Also exempted from the notification
requirements by the definition of
'federally permitted release is "any
miection of fluids" authorized under
federal injection control programs or
stale programs submitted (or feder-1
approval pursuant to Part C of th
Dnnking Water Act (and not
disapproved by EPA] (Section
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 4& No. 102 / Wednesday. Sfav 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules 2335"
EPA has published regulation!
establishing technical standards and
cntena (40 CFR Part 146) and
regulations governing approval of state. -
programs and permit procedures [40
CFR Parts 122-124). Under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. the nates are lo
take the. primary role in implementing
the underground injection control
program. EPA n to admir.-sier •'v
program only if the Jtaie fails to submit
an appravable program within a
specified ome penod. Any underground
\nieciion wells permitted under a stale
program approved by EPA or under an
EPA-admmisiered program are
considered federally permitted for
purposes of CERCLA notification.
6. Emissions Sub feet to Clean Air Act
Controls Section 101 (10)(H) of CERCLA
includes in the definition of federally
permitted release:
any emission in la the air tubiact to i permit
or control regulation under tecuoo 111.
•ectfon 112. Qtli I part C. title I part 0. or
State implementation plant submitted in
accordance with tacQou 110 of the Clean fur
Act (ind. not disapproved, by tta
Administrator of the Environmental
ProteeTion Agency), including tny ichedula or
waiver granted, promulgated, or approved
under these sacuoos * ' '.
Air emissions permita or control
requirements focua on • limited number
of pollutantr. cntena pollutants and. in
certain cases, designated hazardous
pollutants. Stationary icurcet may emit
hazardous aubalancea that are not
subject to a permit or control regulation,
and therefore must be reported under
CERCLA.
These substance* may be hazardous
•ubatancea under CERCLA because they
were designated under some other
environmenuU statute, rather than the
dean Air Act The Agency recognize*
that reporting of such releasec may be
required, even though the releases have
been reviewed and permitted by EPA or
a state, and are very unlikely to warrant
federal res pome.
Controls oa air release* of hazardous
•ubatauicM under da* Oaan Air Act may
vary bom atata to Harte. so that the
application of B* fcdtmllv pernined
release exemption tar air raleaiea from
the CERCLA notification provisions may
alao vary from state to lUte. For
example, site-jpeciflc cantralt under
state implementation plans may not
contain requirements for controlling
emissions of certain specific organic
compounds that are emitted dunng the
normal opanuan of stationary sources.
The Senate committee that drafted
this exemption acknowledged lhat (ha
Clean Air Act allows control of air
pollutanta lo be achieved in vanoua
ways:
In the Cesn Air Act. unlike some other
Federal regulator, itatutes. the control of
hazardous sir pollutant e-nunoai can ba
achieved through a variety of means: express
emtiilons limitation! (such as control on the
poiuidi of pollu:ant that may be discharged
from s source dunr.g i given time!
ticiuiology requirements (ivich tt floating
roof tioka oa hydrocarbons in a certain
vapor presiurs range): operancnaj
reajifPTenti (such a) Han up or ihut down
procedures to control eiruitioni luring juca
operauoas): work practices (such ss (he
application of waier lo suppress certain
particulars) or other control practicei.
Whether control of hszardou* substance
emissions is achieved directly or indirectly.
the means muil be ipecifically designed to
limit or eliminate emuivoni of t datignsted
hazardous pollutant or a cntena pollutant
(Sen. Rep. 96-444 96th Cong.. Zd Sesa. 49
(1980)1
The exemption applies lo releases
subject to a permit or control regulation
and. aa noted by the Committee, control
mechanisms can take a variety of formi.
There la a suggestion at the end of the
passage that the control must be
"specificalJy designed to limit or
eliminate emission* of a designated
hazardoua pollutant or a cntena
pollutant." EPA solicits comments on
the extent to which thia exclusion
should apply to pollutanta limited or
eliminated by these control practice*.
but not explicitly mentioned aa part of
any requirements.
More generally. EPA ia uncertain of
the extent to which enuasuona from
permitted stationary toucea. if they
contain CERCLA-designated substances,
qualify for the federally permuted
release exemption. The Agency solicits
commenta on the appropriateness of
exempting emission* from permitted
stationary sources from CERCLA'a
notification requirements on the) grounds
that they are federally permitted
releases.
The Agency Intends to conduct a more
detailed investigation of this issue prior
to promulgation of final RQ adjustments.
to identify the extent of problems and
potential solutions. Potential areas of
Investigation include:
• The kinds and quantities of CERCLV
dMtguttd fubatancM r«l*aaad by stationary
sources, to datanuna the extent to which the
adjusted RQs ptupuaad today would require
stationary sources to notify the NRC under
CERCiA:
• Whether such releases can appropriately
ba considered federally permitted releases
under CERCLA:
• The scope of the term "continuous
release" lo datarraine the degrt* to which tir
releases (real stationary toureea nay qualify
for reporORf under the coatlmoaa niasM
provisions oV Section 103(0(21: aaa)
• Separate sir-rtleaM RQs for stationary
sources, to determine whether higher RQs for
air nlttut from tuuaaerj tauiea* m*y
reduce reporting burdens, since EPA
reeogrvzes Mat tne -;act of re
-------
23558 Federal Register / VoL 4& No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
of crude oil or natural tat and which in
remiecled f ' ' (Setiion 101110) (I))
EPA interprets this provision to
include only those activities or materials
which are specifically ranorued by
state law—rather than limply not
prohibited—and la caver only those
activities who** sole purpose la the
production of crude oil. natural gas. or
water, the recovery of crude oil or
natural gas. or the reiniection of fluids
brought to tha surface Crorn such
production.
8. Introduction of Pollutants taia
Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
Section 101(10) U) of CERCLA exempts.
ae a federally pemuited release. the
introduction of pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment work if two conditions
are satisfied (l) The pollutant is
specified in pretreatment standards and
ii m compliance with the standards of
Section 307 (b) and (c) of the CWA. aad
(2) the pollutant is specified in and la in
compliance with enforceable
requirements in a pretreatment program
submitted by the state or local
government for EPA approval.
• Pretrealment standards under Section
307 (b) and (c] of the CWA are of two
types: pollutant-specific standard* for
certain Industrial categories and a
generic prohibition against discharges
which may inhibit or upset the
continued safe operation of the
municipal treatment system.
There are at present few industries
with established pratreatment
standards. Many industrial facilities
would, therefore, be unable to qualify
for this exemption, despite their
compliance with the genenc prohibitions
and local pretreatment standards.
Under Section 311 of the CWA. EPA
published regulations which narrowly
define the manner in which mobile
source* are authorized to discharge
hazardous substances into publicly
owned treatment works (40 CFR
117 13(b|). This regulation remains
effective under this Act.
0. Releases of Source, Byproduct, or
Special nuclear Material*. Federally
permfrtedreleases also Include any
releases of source, byproducts, or
special nuclear material, a* defined by
the Atomic Energy Act of 14M. which
comply with a legally enforceable
license, permit, regulation, or order
issued pursuant to the authority of the
Atomic Energy Act (see Section 101(10)
(KJ).
Radionuclides are genencalty listed as
hazardous air pollutants under Section •
112 of the Cieaa Air Act and therefore
are hazardous subatancea under
JERCLA. Radionuclides include source.
special nuclear, and byproduct-material.
Releases of these materials In quantities
equal :o or greajer than (ne RQ are
generally subject to the notification
requirements, unless they are federally
permitted releases.*
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and stales in which federal authority
ha* been discontinued pursuant to
agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission issue a variety of general
and specific licenses which 30% em the
handling, use. storage, and disposal of
source, byproduct and special nuclear
material [see generally 10 CFR Parts 20.
30-05. 40. 30. 60. 61. 70. 71. and ISO)
These activities, if in compliance with
legally enforceable slate or federal
license* are not subpect to tiw
notification requirements of Section!
l03(a]and(b|ofCERCLA.
The Nuclear Regulatory Comnuseion
regulations provide for reporting
differences in inventories of ihese
materials (see 10 CFR Part 70). To avoid
duplicate reporting. EPA is not requiring
notification of inventory difference* to
the National Response Center under
CERCLA. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission also provides for reporting
releases of radioactive material (10 CFR
Part 20). As discussed below. EPA la
currently reviewing theaa requiremaata
to identify areas of duplicate reporting.
Too regulations of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission contain several
important exemptions from its
provision*, based generally on tha small
quantities of materials involved or the
low levels of radioactivity they emiL
Persons handling these exempted
materials are not subject to legally
enforceable regulations and. therefore.
releases of these materials into the
environment an not "federally
permitted" releases. Notification ui
therefore required under CERCLA:
however, the Agency does not anticipate
thai such releases will frequently
exceed the one-pound reportable
quantity currently applicable to
radionuclides under the statute,
B. Pesticide Products
Section 103(e] of CERCLA exempts
from the notification provisions of the
Act "the application of a pesticide
product registered under tha Federal
Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodentiade
Act (FTFRA) (and) the handling and
storage of such a pesticide product by
an agricultural producer." EPA
interprets the application of pesticides
to refer to the normal application of
of tourc*. byproduct or
nd»r naiinat rwulilaj tm» i nuclear mddcnt
lubjcct 10 tb« Hnanail praiKiiaa nquiriBMU of
SMIIOJI 170 of lh* Alomie EMHD Act in ucludM
from (Kt Aei * dvftmaoa of rcU«M. [SM bcflaa 101
13211
registered pesticide] (and pesticides
used in accordance VM>K FIKRA Ssr' r
5 experimental use permits or F1FRA
Section IB emergency exempuoni) in
wavs which are not IncciU'sre"! v*uh
the pesticides labeling TVi;;
inlirgreiation is consistent wi'i- !!•?
existing regulations promulgated under
the authority of Section Til of the CWA
(40CFRlir;itcM Conaressc'i--•
intend a broad exemption coien?^ all
possible uses, disposals or applications
of pesticides—particularly since FP\
and ik.p states h
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 4ft No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules 23559
notification retirement* of CERCLA
Section 103 (see 128 Cong. Rec S14965
(daily ed.. November 24. 1980) (Remark*
of Sen Randolph)). The RCRA
regulation! create extensive reporting
and recordkeepmg requirements for
persons handling Hazardous waste 140
CFR Parts 260-267). For example. 40
CFR 285 58 requires owners and
operators of hazardous waste faculties
with interim stap .s to report a!l releases
which could-th/eaten human nealth. or
the environment, outside the facility, to
either the NRC or the government
official designated as the On-Scene
Coordinator for that geographical area
(pursuant to 40 CFR Part 300) When
releases are reported to the NRC
pursuant to this RCRA requirement.
CERCLA notification requirements have
been fulfilled. The Agency is examining
RCRA reporting requirements in
connection with CERCLA'» notification
requirements to determine whether
adjustments to either RCRA's or
CERCLA's notification requirement! are
appropriate. The Agency requests
comments on the impact of the RCRA
regulations on the CERCLA notification
requirements.
D. Continuous Re/eases
Section 103(0(2) of CERCLA exempts
certain releases from the general
notification requirements of Sections
103(a) and 103(b). Releases may be
exempted if they are "continuous."
"stable in quantity and rate." and
notification has been given under
Sections 103 (a) and (b) "for a period
sufficient to establish the continuity.
quantity, and regularity" of the release
or under Section 103(c) (which relates to
notification of the existence of certain
facilities that an or have been used for
storage, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous wastes). Notification of
continuous releases must be given
"annually, or at such a time as there is
any statistically significant increase" in
the quantity of the hazardous substance
being released.
The main hinctfea of CERCLA's
notification requirement* is to alert
government official* to the existence of
a situation thai may require a
government response to protect the
public health or welfare or the
environment. Since episodic releases are
by definition "unanticipated." they must
be reported as they occur. Continuous
releases, on the other hand, may be
predictable and can either be literally
continuous or recurring. Congress
recognized in Section 103(51(2) that
CERCLA's objectives would be
satisfied—IB the case of continuous
releases—by less frequent notification.
Thus, instead of reporting every
release as it occurs, persons m charge
are allowed to report certain continuous
releases less often under Section
103(0(2). The purpose of this section is
to reduce unnecessary reports of
releases The rationale for this aporoach
is that when a release is regular and of
stable quantity, the Agency does not
need to be notified each time such a
release occurs in order to ha\e the
information necessary to decide
whether a response to the release is
necessdry. Section 103(0(2) provides.
however, that notification must still be
given (1) under Section 103(c) or "for a
period sufficient to establish the
continuity, quantity, and regularity of
such release ' and (2) "annually, or at
such time as there is any statistically
significant increase in the quantity of
any hazadous substance or constituent
thereof released, above that previously
reported or occurring."
The Agency is considering
development of a policy to identify:
*• The types of rviiim that qualify for lb«
limned exemption under Section 103(0(2).
and
• The Section 103(0(2) notifies uon »cheme.
Pending implementation of Section
103(0- EPA will focus its enforcement
efforts on episodic releases (e g..
accidental, one-time, non-routine
releases) exceeding the RQs proposed
today which may present a serious risk
of harm to human health or welfare or
the environment, rather than on
continuous releases (e g.. routine.
continuous, or anticipated intermittent
releases which are incidental to normal
manufacturing or treatment processes or
operations of facilities or vessels).
I. Types of Releases. The Agency is
considering defining releases that are
"continuous" and "stable in quantity
and rate" to include:
• Literally continuous releises that enter
the environment 24 hour* a day. 309 davs •
year. Examples include haurdous tubitancet
leaking from pipe* or lagoons into surfac*
water, leaching into the soil or groundwaier.
or evaporating.
• Releases continuous during operating
hour*, such at releases from some coounuoui
industrial processes:
• Release* fraa batch operation*, and
• Rouune. anticipated, intermittent
rcleiiet of hazardous substances that are
Incidental to the normal manufacturing or
treatment processes or operations of facilities
or vessels. Examples include releases from
relief valves, the maintenance of pollution
control equipment, charging of coke oven
batteries, and tank cleaning operations.
In order for a continuous release
which is stable in quantity and rate to
be subject to Section 103(0(2).
notification must be given pursuant to
Section 103(c). or under Sections 103 *\
and (b) for a 'period sufficient 'o
establish the continuity quan:.t\ dna
regularity" of the release Report.na
under Section 103(c) is addressed in 46
PR 22144 (April 15 1981) and Mill r.ot be
discussed further here The Asenc\ is
considering several approaches tor
defining the "period sufficient "
including:
• Establish..113 a single penoc sue- j« A
week, a month, nx tnonuii. or a year) of
reporting (hat will be required for ail
releases: or
• Specifvmg the number of resort! .nsi'-iJ
of a toecific time period 10 estaal'in >ne
'period sufficient
EPA solicits comments on these or
any other approaches for implement,-3
the Section 103(0(2) notification
provisions.
2. Section 103(f) Notification Scheme.
The Agency intends (o develop a
notification system for continuous
releases. An approach under
consideration involves an annual
written notification identifying the
hazardous substance being released, the
quantity and rate of such release, and
the environmental media affected. The
Agency does not anticipate that this
written notification would be
necessanly costly or elaborate: it does
not anticipate that sophisticated
analysis (o determine the constituents u
a release or that special monitoring to
determine the quantity or rate of a
release will be needed. A new
notification (either written or by
telephone) would be required if there :i
a statistically significant increase in the
amount, or statistically significant
change in the type, of hazardous
substance being released. EPA is also
considering whether applicanons for
federal permits containing information
on the nature of these releases might
suffice to show that a release qualifies
for the continuous release exemption.
Three alternatives for defining
"statistically significant increase" are
under consideration:
• Requiring reporting whenever a release
falls outside some expected ringe based on
statistic*! tettt. tuch •• in* "Student's t" te;
• Requiring reporting whenever the
amount released exceeds the amount
ordinarily releaied by tome pre-established
factor luch ai 2. S. or 10 limei the daily
average: or
• Letting the relener determine what u i
statistically significant increase
EPA requests comments specifical'v,
on the moat feasible approach for
continuous release notification, the
information to be required, what the
Agency should consider a statistically
significant increase in the release, and
-------
3560
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
any other relevant issues. EPA hopes
thai luch infonnauon will enable it to
develop a system which imposes a
minimal burden on both the regulated
community and the government while
achieving the underlying statutory
objectives.
V. Duplicate Reporting
CERCLA reporting requirements may
duplicate or overlap with reporting
requirements for some hazardous
substance releases under other federal
or state statutes. For example, a
possible area of overlap exists between
CERCLA and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's requirements for reporting
releases of certain radioactive
substances. Another potential area of
duplicative reporting is (he overlap
between CERCLA and the reporting
requirements associated with the ground
water monitoring requirements for
facilities with interim status pursuant to
RCRA (see 40 CFR 285.83). Overlaps
may also exist with reporting systems
established under state law.
Congress did not intend thai the
CERCLA reporting requirements
duplicate existing notification
procedures (see 126 Cong. Rec. S14965
(daily ed_ November 24.1980) (remarks
of Sen. Randolph)). To ensure that the
notification requirements, established by
CERCLA will be neither duplicative nor
unduly burdensome. EPA is currently
reviewing other relevant federal and
stale reporting requirements to identify
areas where it may be possible, in the
future, to eliminate redundancy and
enhance the overall effectiveness of the
notification procedure*. For example.
permit Application* onder other
environmental statutes may supply
sufficient information to show that a
releaser qualifies lor the alternative
form of notification wader Section
103(0(2).
If reporting requirements under other
statutes do not fully address the goal* of
CERCLA. the CERCLA notification
provisions weald bet applicable). For
example, a federal norttVation ijrsteaa
for releases of haaardoma Materials as
defined by tha DeparOMOt of
Transportation (DOT] exbta oader the
Hazardous Material Trmtwportatioo
Act (see «0 CFR 171.15). Under tha DOT
regulations, immediate telephone
notification to the NRC is triggered by
sever* aeddantu that cause death.
Injury, or serious yiupetty damage, or by
release of ettologic and rsdiologic
materials, poisons, and other sgents (46
FR 17738 (March Ifl. un)|. Written
reports are required for all other
release*. Because tha DOT requirements
do not cover all releases encompassed
by CERCLA. the Sections 103 (a) and (b)
reporting requirements currently apply
and (hose releases must be reported to
the National Response Center.
The Agency recognues that shippers
and earners of hazardous substances, in •
order to comply with CERCLA
notification requirements, will rely on
the U.S. Department of Transportation's
("DOTs") regulatory mechanisms. The
Agency intends to coordinate today's
rulemaking with DOT regulations under
the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act and DOTs regulatory responsibility
under Section 306 of CERCLA. EPA will
work with DOT lo develop a cordinated
and integrated let of regulations so that
shippers and earners of hazardous
substances will be subject to only one
set of regulations. The Agency request*
comments on the proper manner of
coordinating the various regulations
governing releases of hazardous
substances.
Reportable Quantity Adjustments
I Introduction
Section 102(b) establishes a
reportable quantity of one pound for all
hazardous substances other than those
with different RQs established under
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
Congress enacted this provision in part
to ensure that reporting of release*
would begin immediately upon
enactment of CERCLA. because
reporting is essential for response.
The statutory RQs were intended to
be of temporary duration pending EPA
review snd adjustment of those RQs. To
that effect EPA committed to Congress
in late I960 to revise those reportable
quantities (126 Cong. Rec. H11792
(December 11980)). This rulemaking
propose* adjustments to the statutory
RQs baaed upon specific scientific and
technical criteria which correlate with
the possibility of hazard or ham upon
the release of a substance'in a
reportable quantity. These revised RQs.
therefore, enable the Agency to focus its
resources on those releases which are
moat likely to pose potential threats to
public health and welfare and the
environment. Such RQ adjustments will
slso relieve the regulated community
from the burden of making report* of
releases which are unlikely to pose such.
threats.
Analysis is complete for 387 of (he 898
hazardous sac-stance* designated under
CERCLA. Of these 3tff
substances.today'• rule proposes to
raise 177 of the RQs established under
CERCLA. to lower 28 of the RQ*. and to
leave the remaining 182 RQ* unchanged.
Eighty-nine of tha 698 hazardous
substances are hazardous waste
streams under RCRA. rather than
specific or ger.enc substances Analysis
of 28 of these Hazardous waste s'-aar.s
is complete Today i rule proposes to
raise the RQs of IS of these ware
streams and to leave the other 11
unchanged These 26 are incluC" i -n "-e
387 mentioned abo\e Adiustmr u >o
the statutory RQs for the otner V -»
substances will be proposed if
appropriate, when Further anaKs s i«
complete
The primary purpose of nouficRtion is
to ensure that releasen notify the
government so that the goi?rar.ent cun
assess the need to respond to the
release. The different RQ levels do not
reflect a determination thai a release c.'
a subsiance will be hazardous dt the RQ
level and not hazardous below that
level. EPA has not attempted to make
such a determination because the actual
;hazard will vary with the unique
circumstances of the release, and
extensive scientific data and analysis
would be necessary to determine the
hazard presented by each substance In a
number of plausible circumstances.
Instead, the RQs reflect the Agency'*
judgment that the federal government
should be notified of releases to which a
response ought be necesaary. The
reponable quantities, in themselves, do
not represent any determination that
releases of a particular sue are actual!
harmful to public health or welfare or
the environment.
Many other considerations besides
the quantity released affect the
government's decision concerning
whether and how it should respond to a
particular release. The location of the
release, tls proximity to drinking water
supplies or other valuable resources, the
likelihood of exposure or miury to
nearby populations, and other factors
must be assessed on a case-by-case
basis. The reporting requirement is.
however, the trigger for assessments of
these considerations to be made.
Because CERCLA'* RQ adjustment
methodology differs from that used
pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act ("CWA"). some of the RQs
being proposed today are not the tame
as those under the CWA. A person u
charge need not report a release twice:
one report to the NRC suffices. As
discussed later in this preamble. EPA is
also proposing today to sdjust the CWA
Section 311 RQ* to be identical with
those proposed under CERCLA.
//. Summary of Methodology Underl'
i/ie Reportablt Quantity Adjusuner
The Agency has wide discretion in
adjusting the statutory RQ* for
hazardous substances under CERCLA:
-------
Federal Register / Vol «. No 102 / Wednesday
:5. 1983 / ?--rcv.-j R. -s
2336:
In determining reportable quantities under
(his paragraph (Secnoa *a|(2| of S. 14801 the
President may consider my Factors deemed
relevant 10 aJmimsiering the reporting
requirements or the President's other
responsibilities onder this Act.
Administrative feasibility and practicality
should be primary factors. In addition, the
President may revise such regulat.ons from
time to time i/ underreporting of over-
reporting la occurring under existing
regulation! (Sen. Rep 96-B4& 96lh Cong.. 2d
Sen 29(19801)
The Agency found that it was
practical to uae portions of the RQ
methodology established pursuant to
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act in
adjusting the CERCLA RQs because the
regulated community and government
response agencies are familiar with the
CWA Section 311 reporting
requirements. Section 311(b)(4] of the
QVA requires reporting of discharges of
certain hazardous substances into
navigable waters (see 44 FR 50796
(August 29.1979). 40 CFR Part 117).
Pursuant to CWA Section 311. EPA
determined reportable quantities for
diachargM by correlating aquatic animal
toxicity ranges with five reporting
categories, i.e.. 1-. 10-. 100-. 1000-. and
3000-pound levels. The approach
proposed today utilizes these five RQ
levels but applies other criteria in
addition to aquatic loxicily. The six
"primary criteria" which are used to
adjust RQs are:
• Aquatic Toxtcity:1
• Mammalian Toxicity.'
• Igniiability:
• Reactivity:
• Other Toxic Effects.*and
• Carcinogemcity.
Certain of the Sectien 101(14)
hazardous substances have been
identified as potential carcinogens using
the Monographs of the International
Agency for Research on Cancer and the
Annual Report on Carcinogens of the
National Toxicology Program. Some of
these are known human carcinogens.
RQs are not currently being adjusted on
the basis of caranogematy because (he
Agency has not completed collecting
.and analyzing data a* caraoogsmiaty.
When the analysis kt oonpleted It will
be published in a separate notice of
proposed rultmakbaf, Until final
promulgation 01 awfssjBM RQs> for
carcinogen!, their RQt (like those for all
other CERCLA hazardous substances)
will be left at the sutulory level.
In addition, the analysis of other toxic
effecu It not yet complete for all
'Toxidty te
-------
23562 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. Mav 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
gallons for liquids, pounds for solids. or
cubic feet for gaseous materials. This
alternative waa rejected because it
would be much more confining for •
releaser to determine whether a.
reportaWe quantity bad been released if
different anils were need far different
forms of the same hazardous subitance.
The only exceptions to this approach are
radionuclides. which are discussed
elsewhere in this preamble.
Section 102(a) of GERCLA authontes.
and the legislative history encourages.
the Administrator to set a single
importable quantity for any hazardous
substance, regardless of the medium
into which that substance is released, la
order to develop simple and practical
notification provisions, the Agency is
establishing a single RQ for each
hazardous substance. As the legislative
history indicates:
The provision intentionally omits from the
fequmneai to determine "reporting"
quantities toy rafaieuoe to harm or hazard. A
luifle quannry is to b* determined tor Mch
hazardous «uo«taee«. and thl* i ingle quantity
require* notification open reUa** into tny
environmental medium. It would be virtually
Impossible IQ daternuna a iingla quantity
applicable to all media «hik at the same
tune unking such quantity to aajr subjective
concept of hacm.
It is essential mat such qoamMea be
relatively «onpl« for time sabfoet to
aotirlcaBoa requimkents to vndentand and
comply with. Sine* reieaan tn MCB>
quantities bigger oooficaaan requveaents.
but do aot. IB and of themselves, give rise to
other uabittbn under tha Act. tha PmuUnta'
broad dtscrauoa to select qaaaaun will not .
unfairly burden BOM parsons subject lo me
Act (Sen. Rep. M-44& gain Cong. 2d Sett. 23
(1880)).
If multiple RQs which vary in
•ccorducsi with the environmental
media Into which. *h* substance io
released were established. It would be
more difficult for the regulated
community to comply with the reporting
requirements. Since releases often occur
into mote than ooe medium. tha
releaser. under a aaahi BQionaat '
would be uncertain wtich IQ mold
apply. Consequently, the aaiitipla RQ
approach is not being vawdbv thai
Agency In tola prnp maj TlsyAfancy
mii<-ftg comments coocavobu situatioQe
when dlBerent RQs may be appropriate
for dUEareat media.
IV. U*t of Criteria to Adjust Reportage
Quandtiat
This section diacuaaea the six primary
criteria and the three secondary criteria
used (o propose adhieCed RQe.
The propoeed strategy consists of sfat
primary criteria.-
1 Aquatic Toxicity;
2. Mammalian TOTICTV (includ:-1;
oral, cennal. and inhalaiion ion,:.-jet):
3. Ignilability.
4. Reactivity:
5. Other toxic effects: and
8. CarcinogenJaty.
Onginally. the Agency considered
using only aquatic toxicity for RQ
ad|us:ments because aquatic toxiaty
had been used to establish RQs
pursuant to the CWA. The Agency
determined, however, that additional
characteristics of potential hazard lo
human health or welfare or the
environment should be taken into
account. Consequently, in addition to
aquatic loxicity, five other primary
criteria and three secondary cntena are
being applied.
I. Aquatic Toxjcity. For aquatic
toxiaty. the categories established
pursuant to Section 211 of the CWA are
used (see Exhibit 1). Each of these
categories is linked to one of tha five RQ
levels (1.10.100.1000. or 5000 pounds).
The RQ value based on aquatic toxicity
is identical to the RQ promulgated under
CWA Section 311 except where the use
of updated aquatic toxiaty data haa
resulted in different RQs. For 22
substances, the Agency has updated the
aquatic toxiaty data used to set the
CWA Section 311 RQs. For 11 of these
22 substances. RQs are beitg proposed
on the basts of this updated data. Four
of these would have been lowered on
the baaia of other cntena even in me
absence of revised aquatic toxicity data.
For 10 other of these substances.
adjusted RQe are not proposed because
analysis la still underway for other toxic
effects and/or careinogenidty. One
other RQ is not lowered because of the
application of the secondary criteria,
A tower RQ is proposed for PCSs on
the baste of revued aquatic toxicity
data. Under CWA Section 311. the RQ
for PCBa waa originally set at 10 pounds;
In today's proposed ralemaking. a 1-
pound RQ is assigned Because of the
widespread see of PCBa. die Agency is
concerned about the effect of mU
change on the number of release
notifkaooaa made by the regulated
community. Increased notification may
result from reports of ruptures of
transformers and capacitors containing
PCBs in electrical transmission systems.
The Agency requests data, information,
and comments on the likely number of
notifications and on the effect of 'frtT
notukations on protection of public
health and welfare and the environment.
E«Hi8IT
Pu"S'j*« ..- .
1000 _ <0-• C
SOOO . 190 "*9'»1 !>»• W ^^
IISUL
Source: 43 FR 10492 (March 13 igrj)
2. Mammalian Toxicity Three types
of mammalian toxtcity were evaluated-
oral dermal, and inhalation toxicmes. A
five-level scale was devised for each.
(see Exhibit 2). The RQ chosen for
mammalian toxicity represents the
lowest of the values denved from these
Uuee scales.
A substance was rated as toxic on the
basis of Ita ICm or LOM value, wuch is
the concentration or dose oC a substance
which causes the death of 50% of a
defined experimental animal population.
Upper-bound toxiaty values wen
identified for each of the three scales.
These values were correlated with a
5000-pound RQ value. The upper-bound
toxiaty unit of 200 mg/kg for dermal
toxtcity waa adopted from toxicity
screening cntena considered for
designating hazardous substances under
the Clean Water Act (40 FR 59966
(December 30,1975)). The upper-bound
toxicity limit of 2.000 ppm for mhalauon
toxicity waa adopted from a study
performed, by the National Academy of
Sciences for the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG-O-m-74. System for Evaluation
of tha Hazard! of Bulk Water
Transportation of Industrial Chemicals.
February 1874). An upper-bound Mai
(ingeation) toxicity value of SCO mg/kg
waa adopted baaed on the assumption
of a "standard man" (70 kg body weight.
swallow volume of 21 cubic centimeters)
being exposed to a situation which
would allow him to taka ooe swallow of
a hazardous substance. (The one
swallow assumption (or a IS kg child
also yjelda a 500 rag)kg upper oral
toxiaty limit.)
Once the upper-bound tonaty levels
were chosen, the toxiaty ranges in
Exhibit 2 for the 1-. 10-. 100-. 100O-. and
5000-pound reportabie quantity
calegones were scaled for mammalian
toxiaty in the same ranoa aa the ranges
for aquatic toxicity In Exhibit 1. High
) were
RQ* (1000 or
assigned to substance* with low
toxicity. while low RQs (1 or 10 pounds)
were assigned to substances with high
toxiaty.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. Mav 25. 1963 / Prosed ?-:?3 23563
EXHIBIT 2.—CATEGORIES POP REPOATABU; OuAwrrrv ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON MAMMALIAN
PO
1 iQw * <0 * ^s)n«j
'« I 0 I «»/«««U3U< 1
100 I »*«tJ)
(cc) "ODD- F [37 8- Cl tad Boiling Point
fBP]'« l«' F (W
Q.
• Insignificant Hazard — Noncombutlible.
ExHierr 3.— CATEOOMICS ran REPCMTABCE
Qu«*mrv AOJUVTMCMTS BAUD ON
This scaJ« doe* not correlate these
categoric* with RQ levels: the Agency
established the correlation between
igniubdiry categories and RQ levels as
described betew.
The Agency adjusted the NAS scale
by adding s new category, "pyrophonc"
substances (those substances capable of
igniting spontaneously). The
"pyrophonc" category was added
because the Agency believes that
spontaneous ignitability is an important
potential hazard that should be
considered in adjusting RQs. The
Agency also modified the NAS scale by
deleting the "non-combustible" and
"slightly hazardous" categones. The
Agency did not use the "non-
combustible" category because releases
of non-combustible materials do not
warrant government response on the
basis of ignitabdiiy. The "slightly
hazardous" (flash point > 140* F)
category was deleted because the RCRA
regulation! use 140* F as the cut-off
point for regulating liquid hazardous
waste* on the basis of ignitabUity. (Se«
40 CFR 1 281.21.) Therefore, the; Agency
has determined that substances with a
flash point above 140* F do not pose a
sufficient potential hazard to warrant a
5000-pound RQ on the basis of
Igni lability.
The Agency decided to use four rather
than five RQ levels for ignitability. The
1-pound RQ level waa abandoned
becauM small releases (less than 10
pounds) of flammable substance*, if
Ignited, will generally be consumed so
quickly that any federal government
response action would be infeaaible.
Since notification of these release*
would generally not trigger any federal
government response activities, the
Agency eliminated the 1-pound RQ level
for the ignin'abillty criterion. The
Agency then assigned RQ values of 10.
100.1000 and 5000 pounds to the revised
NAS ignitabtllty scale.
4. Reactivity. Five-level scales were
developed for reactivity (sea Exhibit 4)
based in large part upon NAS scales
developed for the U3. Coast Guard. Tha
NAS tsta'bfijbed two scales for
reactivity: ippctiviry with water and
self-reaction. The NAS scale* provide
mesa categories:
!.g SO.
; povon or onoMtov
' Un oCK'"»at '«u»t IK-
Canianniggn mvr mni
poff^^vnuoB^ flo i vwov
The Agency established the correlation
between these categories and RQ levela
aa described below.
The Agency adjusted the NAS
reactivity with water scale by adding a
new category, "inflames" with water.
The "Inflames" with water category was
added because the Agency believe* that
the potential hazard caused by
In/laming with water should be
considered in adjusting RQ values. The
Agency further modified the reactivity
with water scale by deleting the "no
appreciable reaction" and "slightly
hazardous" categories. The "no
appreciable reaction" category was
deleted because the federal government
need not be Informed of releases on the
basi< of their reactivity with water if DO
appreciable reaction will occur. The
"•lightly hazardous" category was
deleted because substance* falling into
this category, such as chlorine, do not
pose a sufficient potential hazard to
warrant a 5000-pound RQ on the basis
of reactivity with water.
4— CATEQOOItS FCW REPOMTASLE
QUANTITY ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON
BeAcnvrrv •
'• TtMM MRU «f» o*fla«d la Exhibit 1
HOI
-------
23564
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Ru!e9
QUANTITY ADJUSTMENTS 8»SEO OH
REACTIVITY «—Continued
i
JjOOO.
I 1^^^—_
i ••wQaWl
i -.
Similarly. the Agency adjusted the
MAS self-reaction scale by deleting the
"no appreciable reaction" category
becauM the Agency believes that
releases of substances would not
warrant respooM on the basis of then,
•eif-reacbOB wheo no appreciable
reaction will occur.
For both the reactivity with water and
lelf-reaction scales. only four (rather
than five) RQ levels were utilized by the
Agency. The 1-pound RQ level was not
used for adjusting RQs on the basts of
reactivity because small releaaaa (lew
than 10 pounds) of reactive subitucea
wfD generatty be consumed ro quiddy
that any federal government response
action would be Defeasible and they are
generally handled adequately by
appropriate local or ttata response
personnel Therefore, the Agency has
asaigned RQ varaes of 10. 100. 1000 and
5000 pounds to both of the reactivity
scales.
& Other Toxic Effect* Data OB otiisr
toxic effects have been used to adjust
the statutory RQs for some of the
hazardous substances, while for other
hazardous substance*, data on other
toxic affect* an still being evaluated by
thai Afency. RQ adjustmeaU for the 223
hazardous substances which are still
being analyzed far Una critanoo will be
proposed, where appropriate, once the
analyiu it complete. Proposed RQ* an
not shows in Table 30CL4 for taaea)
substances. The procedure for analyzing
the other «««"• effects of a suht*?'"'* >a
based upon tha {allowing data:
hrveU for repealed unusaiii (•t/day far 79
ka BAB): aad
• Tharyp»ofsflact(H»ei»eiTrna.
merely the trigger for alerting the
government to a release*, the government
-------
Federal Bagjster / VoL 4& No. 10* / Wednesday. Mav 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules 23565
I not necessarily respond to all
reported reledses.
The methodology used to develop an
RQ for the hazardous substance
crotonaldehyde (CAS Nos. 4170-30-3
and 123-73-9) demonstrates how the
pnmary cntena an combined. Under
today's proposal, crotonaldehyde's
aquatic toxicity correlates with a 100-
pound RQ while its mammalian toxicity
would suggest an RQ of 5000 pounds (is
ignitability correlates] with a 1000-pound
RQ. It ia not sufficiently reactive to
assign it an RQ on the basis of the
reactivity cntenon. It does not exhibit
other toxic effects nor baa it been
identified by the sources discussed
above as a known or suspected human
carcinogen. Pursuant to the strategy
discussed above, the "primary criteria"
RQ of crotonaldehyde u 100 pounds.
Some coromenters have suggested that
RQs should be selected on the basis of
the cntenon associated with the
medium into which releases of a
particular eebetance ewe* freqeeady-* > *•
occur. For example, ft aee keen
suggested that ammonia " ia usually
released into the air. yet it is very toxic
in water. Setting the RQ for ammonia
based on aquatic toxicity. then, may
result in an RQ lower man necessary for
most releases of ammonia. EPA a not
selecting this approach because (1) data
are not generally available to identify
the moat prevalent release medium for
moat CERCLA hazardous substances: (2)
even wnere data are available, it is
difficult to determine the prevalent
medium of release for substances that
are released into more than one
medium; and (3) setting RQs on the
baaia of the most prevalent release
medium may prevent me government
from fearmnf of reJeeeee HSSS> other
• media thai pose greater kazaedm."-
B. Secondary Catena .
Certain of the primary cntena RQs
have been further ad|ustad using factors.
referted to here aa secondary catena.
that reflect natural dissipation processes
which may redoes) tfaa riak poaed by the
release of a bazardooa substance.
Three pinnseea h^agridabfllty.
hydrolysis, and pesitojysia—have been
used ss iiMiiiilaii criteria far adjusting
• the proposed RQr
• Blodegradabuity la (he degree 10 which a
substance is capable of being degraded into
Was eeateiex chemicals by biological metis
(•4. sttsymev..-o»>. gro-p i—On, a j
the chpmical ttrjciurc (i e.
RX-h G -KO I •' X and
- Ptiotolytn 11 a aroceii rhai occnn «nen
a chemical abiorbf !i«nt and then undergoes
an enera> vanaf
substances. EPA believes that snail
releases of these subatances would be
less likely to ment notification to the
NRC. The one-level increase in RQs
reflactm the Agency's judgment that the
danger posed by the release of certain
substancea will be minimized due to
these disaipannn processes.
The application of the secondary
criteria resulted in raising the RQs of 28
substances. The secondary cntena are
not used in this proposal to raise RQs
that are based' on other toxic effects.
The "primary.cntena" RQ is the
proposed RQ for these substances.
C Results of the Proposed Methodology
Data- wen available to asec'c"'.o. „
»r i 3"d. therefore the p'"CO*-C RQ '"v
d ••or.iurn bi.tuonde ---n.11. -r. :."o
app.ication of the pr.tr. rv and
secondary crr.ur.d to '" -• i" JV.M. d. ]
See the Backi-ound Document lo
Support ma Notice of P ooosed
Rulemakmg Pursuant tc Section 102fbl.
Table 30: 4 lists ail of -e CERCLA
hazardous aubsidnces. together with
their statutory RQs and their proposed
RQs where applicable The first part
lists the indmdual hazardous
substances TPBU' iled under lhp s'aiu'°s
cited in CERCLA Section 101(14| The
genenc groups of chemicals designated
under CWA Section 3071 a 1. (uch as
"SILVER AND COMPOUNDS are
pnnted in all capital letters and have no
RQ assigned to them."These genenc
groups of chemicals could potentially
encompass hundreds of specific
compounds with varying toxicities.
Consequently, it u oot appropriate to
establish one RQ for each genenc group.
The second part contains the 89
hazardous waste streams designated
under 40 CFR 281.31 and 281.32 (RCRA f
and K lists). The Agency designated
many of these waste streams as
hazardous under RCRA because of the
presence of specific hazardous
constituents in the waste streams aa let
forth in Appendix VU of 40 CFR Part
261. The Agency ia proposing RQs for
these waste streams oased on these
hazardous constituents. The pnmary
and secondary cntena. discussed abov
were applied to each hazardous
constituent n order to derive an RQ
value. If a waste stream m 40 CFR 281.2
and 281.32 has more than one hazardou
constituent the RQ assigned the
. particular waste stream represents the
lowest RQ associated with the
hazardous constituents present in that
waste stream To illustrate this process
assume that a hypothetical waste
stream has three hazardous
constituents— X. Y. and 2— and that ti
RQs associated with these hazardous
constituents are: X*10 pounds. Y = V
pounds, and 2 - 5000 pounds. The RQ
for this hypothetical waste stream is.
therefore. 10 pounds—the lowest RQ
associated with any of us hazardous
constituents.
EPA has proposed an RQ (or each o
the RCBA POD1 through FOOS wasJe
streams. The Agency has also propose
individual adjusted RQs for many of il
hazardous solvents bsted under these
„__ ia RQ 6«cauM ibry
iMdBMMrS*ctHMini of
CWA.
-------
23566 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Kules
waste streams. Adjusted RQs are no)
proposed for certain solvents that are
undergoing analysis (or other toxic
effects or carcinogemcity. The waste
stream RQ is the lowest RQ assigned to
any individual solvent listed under that
waste streaokA releaser may use the
RQ for the individual solvent rather
than the RQ for the waste stream, if he
can establish the indentity of the
specific solvents which have been
released. When the releaser is unsure of
the identity of the solvents that have
been released, the RQ for the waste
stream must be used. For example.
assume that a hypothetical waste
Stream. FOOX, has three solvents listed
under it in Table 302.4. Solvent A.
Solvent B. and Solvent C. The RQs
associated with these solvents are:
A a 10 pounds, B = 100 pounds, and
C 31000 pounds. Therefore, the RQ for
the waste stream FOOX is 10 pounds.
the lowest RQ associated with any of '
the individual solvents Identified under
FOOX. This RQ must b« used unless the
releaser knows which specific solvents
are being released.
D. Special Types of Substances
Several types of substances, notably
unlisted ICRE wastes and radionuchdes.
pose special problems for RQ
adjustment and require separate
discussion.
7. Unlisted RCRA Wastes (ICRE
Wastes). As no'ed previously, the
CERCLA hazardous substances include
hazardous wastes which exhibit the
characteristics of ignitabihty.
corrosivity. reactivity, and extraction
procedure loxlcity, but which axe not
specifically listed as hazardous wastes.
These are commonly known as unlisted
ICRE wastes (sew 40 CFR 281 JO through
40 CFR 281.24J. These wastes were all
given a ttatutory RQ of on* pound under
CERCLA.
The Agency is proposing an RQ of 100
pounds for the unlisted hazardous
wastes exhibiting the characteristics of
ignitability. corrouvitjn, and reactivity
(40 CFR 201.21.28LA tad UL23).
Because the cooatttaanta of thaae
unlisted wastes are ganaraOy unknown.
it is impossible to apply the primary and
secondary criteria to these waste*. The
Agency has amved at the 100-pound RQ
by assuming that these wastes will, on
the average, fall within the middle Level
of the five RQ levels, Le.. 100 pounds.
An alternative approach (o setting
RQs for unlisted ignitable. corrosive.
and reactive waste* la to base the RQs
on the RQs assigned to similar
substances, namely listed hazardous
wastes. The RQ piuuuaed moat often for
hazardous waste* assigned on the basiJ_
of reactivity is 10 pounds while the RQ *
proposed moat often for hazardous
wastes on t>-e basis of ignitabiliry 19
10U) pounds. Unaer unis alterr.anve
approach, unlisted wastes that are
reactue would be assigned an adiusted
RQ of 10 pounds, wmle igrj/as's
unlisted wastes would have a 1000-
pound RQ. Corrosivity is not a primary
or secondary en tenon, so th:i approach
could not be used to set an RQ for
unlisted corrosive wastes. Another
problem with this approach is that EPA
has not determined that listed and
unlisted hazardous wastes pose similar
potential hazards. The Agency.
therefore, has selected the 100-pound
RQ for unlisted ignitable, corrosive, and
reac'ive wastes Comments oa the
proposed RQ for unlisted ignitable.
corrosive, and reactive wastes are
requested.
Although the pnmarv and secondary
criteria cannot be applied to the unlisted
wastes exhibiting ignitability.
corrosivity. or reactivity, they can be
applied to the wastes exhibiting ..
extraction procedure (EP| toxicity.
Because £P toxicity is defined in 40 CFR
261.24 as the presence of certain
minimum concentrations of 14 specific
materials (contaminants| in the extract
from the waste after performing a
defined extraction procedure, the
primary and secondary criteria have
been applied to each contaminant Thus.
there are separately listed RQs for each
of the 14 different EP toxic wastes. For
wastes containing one of the 14
contaminants, the corresponding
proposed RQ is found in Table 302.4
under the entry "Unlisted Wastes,
Characteristic of EP Toxicity." unless
RQ adjustment is being deferred for the
contaminant because an analysis of
other toxic effects or earcinogenlcity
must still be performed (i.e.. arsenic,
cadmium, chromium (VI). lead, and
selenium).
If more than one contaminant is found
in an EP toxic hazardous waste, the EP
toxicity RQ is baaed on the lowest RQ
for any EP toxic contaminant present. If
an unlisted hazardous waste exhibits
the characteristics of EP toxicity, as well
as one of the other characteristics. It will
be assigned the lowest applicable RQ.
Comments on the proposed RQs for
unlisted ICRE wastes are requested.
2. Radionuclides. Radionuchdes are
hazardous substances under CERCLA
because they were designated as
hazardous air pollutants pursuant to
Section 112 of.the Clean Air Act.
Today's proposed rule does not adjust
the RQ for radionuclides. The Agency
will adjust the RQ for rsdionuclide* in a
future rulamaking: until that tun*, the
statutory 1-pound RQ is applicable.
The Agency ;s considenra several
issues for :'j(j.-e ac;.s;rr.erus to
rad.onucixve RCJS T"-.*o maior -euicc
issues are-
• The urru (tie As«r.cj jnou.d MSB ID
measure RQr and
• Whether one RQ ihould be «ei for all
ndionuclidet or whether d.fferem RQs for
• pec.fic radionuclidei should be used
EPA recognizes that the pound is not a
suitable unit in which to measure (he
RQ for radionuclides. because releases
much smaller than one pound can
seriously threaten puolic healih or
welfare or the environment. EPA is
currently considenng rwo alternative
types of measurement units For
radionuclide RQs. dose-equivalents and
activity levels. Dose-equivalents
(usually measured in rems) are used for
comparing biological effects of rddiaiion
on tissue. The acuvity level of d
radionuciide release (measured in
becqerels or curies), on the other hand.
Is the actual number of disintegrations
of radionuclide atoms per unit lime
The category of radionuclides
includes over a hundred specific
substances. The Agency is considenng
whether to set one RQ for all
radionuclide*. or different RQs for
specific radionuclides. A generic RQ ft
all radionuclides might be established in
the form of a dose-equivalent. If the
Agency list RQs for specific
radionuclidea. then the RQs will be
listed in the form of activity levels. The
potential effects of a radionuclide
release and subsequent exposure
depend not only on the number of
disintegrations, but also on the kinds of
radiation (alpha, beta, or gamma) and
the energie* of each, as well as the
unique circumstances of the release.
Thus, different hazards are posed by
individual radionuclides depending
upon the different types of radiation
emitted, and different RQs in sctmiiy
levels are appropriate if Individual
radionuclides are listed.
In order to select an approach. EPA is
considenng its pnor expenence as well
as the experiences of other federal.
slate, and international agencies. For a
discussion of radionuchdes. see
Background Document to Support the
Notice of Proposed Rulemakmg Pursuant
to CERCLA Section 102(b).
Supplementary Report Radionuclides.
available for inspection at Room S-
U.S. Environmental Protection Age
401 M Street S.W.. Washington. D.C.
20460,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules 23567
£ Additional'Criteria Considered Bui ''"
Not Currently L'sed far Ad/usting
Reponable Qaantittea.
As noted earlier. EPA has wide
discretion in adjusting reportable
quantities. The legislative history
indicates that:
la dataraunuig reportable quo/inties under
thu paragraph (Section 3(al(2) of S 14801. the
President mav cons d-r tn\ fac'3rs d--e--i
relevant to adminisi*.- 13 me repor;ir.g
requirements or the President i other
responsibilities under thu Act
Administrative feasibility and practicality
should be primary factors. In addition the'
President may revue such regulation* from
lime to time if under-reporting or over-
reporting is occurring under existing
regulations (Sen Rep 96-848. 96(h Cong. Zd
Sess. 29 (19HO)|.
EPA is considering using the criteria
discussed below to adjust RQs. but has
not incorporated these criteria into the
RQ adjustments proposed today This
criteria include:
• Release History
• Release Potential
• Corrotiviiy
The Agency solicit! comments on
whether and how to use these or other
feasibility or practicality criteria in
implementing • simple notification
system. In particular, the Agency solicits
comment on the purer? administrative
criteria discvssed under release history
and release potential and on any
additional administrative criteria which
may be used to adjust RQs. More
generally. EPA is interested in soliciting
comments from persons who are
familiar with characteristics of
hazardous substances and common
Industry practices for handling these
substances. In order to Identify
additional factors not carrerrdy used by
EPA that ought be appropriate for
adjusting RQs. The'Agency will consider
such criteria in promulgating final RQ
adiustments. if appropriate
;.• Itelease History. As me Agency
gains experience in hamtirnsj reports«f
releases of CERCLA hatarrlnus
substances, II may (hd that some
substances are frvqMntiy released in
situations that raooire aa emergency
response. Such release history ought be
used to adjust RQs. For example, if EPA
has in the past responded to 100-pound
releases of hazardous substances, an
RQ of 100 pounds may be appropriate.
' In an analysis of release history. EPA
would evaluate past releases to
determine how often s response was
necessary, and. if so. what type of
response was required This analysis
would include consideration of the
medium into which the releases lake
place the frequency with which releases
•occur fte geoerapWc-teeatton and
circumstances of releases, the kind of
equipment or techniques necessary to
eliminate the. ha:a.-d after releases bate
occurred, the cost of response, the type
of terrain on which the releases of the
substance occur, and estimates of the
success of the responses. If analysis of
these factors indicates that federal
response has generally not occurred or
is not necessa.-> for repored releases of
a particular substance, the RQ for that
aubstance could be raised. The
legislative history, which stales that
regulations may be revised if under-
reporting or over-reporting occurs. •
encourages such an approach.
Although the National Response
Center and EPA and Coast Guard
districts have received hazardous
substance spill notifications for several
years, the data on release history are
limited The CWA Section 311
substances released into navigable
waters and transportation-related
releases provide a substantial history of
release patterns, but not all the CERCLA
hazardous substances have been subject
to reporting requirements pursuant to
CWA Section 311. Similarly, until
passage of CERCLA. not all releases of
CERCLA hazardous substances have
been uniformly subject to DOT reporting
requirements. Even in the absence of
systematic and comprehensive records
concerning release haatory. RQ
adjustments might be based on the
experience and and judgment of On-
Scene Coordinators familiar with the
type of response appropriate for
releases of hazardous substances.
2. Release Potential. Several factors
may be used to predict the likelihood
that hazardous substances will be
released into the environment. These
include: (s) distribution mode, (b)
transportation mode, and (c) packaging
and containerlzauon. The Agency might
raise the proposed RQs for substances
that are less likely to be released and
lower the RQs for substances that are
more likely to be released.
(a) Dittnbutioa mode. Some
hazardous substances are produced
exclusively as intermediates for use in
the same plant location which produces
the intermediates. Other hazardous
substances may be produced at
locations that are fairly close to the
plants at which they are consumed and
converted into other substances. Where
only a few plants produce the hazardous
substance or where the consuming
plants are either at the same site or
nearby, the RQ suggested on the basis of
the primary and secondary criteria may
be relaxed because of the relatively
small nsk of release from the limited
distribution of the hazardous substance.
(b) Transportation mode The modi" of
transportation, e g rail truck or bar-.:-'
may have an influence on the likelihood
of a •- ease If some hazardous
substances are generally shipped bv a
transportation mode that expo'^s Lhe-:
to a particularly Kign nsk of U-te
releases, the RQ may be reduced-
hazardous substances which are
primarily sh-poed by lafer mooes of
tranjso.t.Vinn m.irr -AM ;rr— RQs
increased.
(c) Packaging and contasneriiatian
The method of packaging a hazardous
substance could be used to modify its
RQ Substances that are usually
packaged m a fashion that substan;iall>
reduces the likelihood of release (such
as very high-priced substancesl may be
assigned RQs on the basis of the
smallest package size. There is also
likely to be some correlation between
the size of a container normdlly used for
shipping and the amount of a Hazardous
substance that is likely to be released
because a release from only one
container is more likely than a release
from a number of'containers
simultaneously RQs might therefore be
set on the basis of container sizes for
some substances.
It is not clear that adjustment of BQs
on the basis of release potential would
result in a significant reduction in
reporting burden. If a substance is rarely
released because of special handling.
packaging, or distribution, then reporting
costs may be insignificant regardless of
whether the RQ is low or high.
Therefore, raising the RQs of substances
that have a low release potential may
not affect the reporting burden.
Moreover, regardless of how likely or
unlikely a release is. notification may be
necessary for releases thai may pose a
significant threat to the public health or
welfare or the environment..
EPA solicits comments on the
appropriateness of using feasibility or
practicality criteria for adjusting RQs. in
light of EPA's authority to consider any
factors deemed relevant to
administering the CERCLA reporting
requirements.
3. Corrosivity Corrosivity is one of
the four criteria RCRA uses as a basis
for regulating unlisted hazardous wastes
(ignitability. Corrosivity. reactivity, and
EP toxicity) anoMherefore was
considered for setting RQs under
CERCLA. Comsivity may be important
in determining the potential hazard of a
release because corrosive substances
can cause injury and property damge.
Corrosivity has not been used as a
criterion for assigning RQs under
CERCLA because EPA has not
developed or identified an appropriate
-------
23568
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday, May 25. 1963 / Proposed Rules
scale for rating corrosivity. The RCRA
regulation* define the characteristic of
corrosivity in term* of pH ranges tad
rate of attack on steel (40 CFR 261 22: 45
PR 3312Z (May 19.19801 and M FR 35247
(July 7.19B1J). The pH ranges apply on.y
lo aqueous waste* and the rate of attack
OR 9teel test applies only to liquids. IT
EPA used a corrosmty seal* cased on
Lheae teats, corroitvrty couJd not be used
to adjust RQs when the hazardotu
substances were neither in aqueous
solutions nor were liquids, despite the
fact that luch substances might pose
potentiaJ hazard* due to corrosivity. The
Agency attempted to apply other tests
and exisiung data in developing a
corrosivity scaie. but was unable to
establish a five-level scale that
addressed the corrosiviiy of all of the
CERCLA hazardous substances.
Accordingly, corrosivity wa< not used ai
a criterion is adjusting RQs.
F. Additional Criteria Considered. But
Rejected
EPA considered, but rejected, using
the additional cntena discussed below
to adjust RQs. The Agency solicits
comment on whether these cntena
should be used to adjust RQs.
7. Ease or Difficulty of Cleanup. When
a substance ta easy lo clean up. the
releaser may be more willing to take
cleanup action. Notification might
therefore be unnecessary unce the
government would not need to respond.
11. however, a substance i» particularly
difficult lo clean up or presents unique
cleanup requirements, the releaser may
be less likely to dean up even small
releases of the substance unless
required to do so and given assistance.
One possible criterion for setting RQs,
then, is to determine the ease or
difficulty of cleanup and adfoat RQs far •
certain substances so that eaady-
cleaned up sub trances receirehigher
RQs and substances with unique
cleanup requirements racer** lower
RQs. ...-•-:
EPA ha* not indoded atat or
difficulty of cleanup a* • criterion
because ease of cleana) doM not
guarantee thai the reUaear will actually
take cleanup action DOT do vaiqve
cleanup requirement* necessarily mean
that proper repoue will not taken by
the releaser. Thus, it ha* not been
possible la cotrelate the ease or
difficulty of cleanup with the
government's need to know of s release
in order to determine what response
action lo lake, if any.
2. Vatatilitattan. RQi could be
adjusted based upon a substance's
tendency to voUiiLze. the process by
which a substance vaporizes into the
air. Volatilization U a transport process
that could be used as a criterion for RQ
biodcgradabmry, nyarolysi*. and
photolysis.
EF \ is not using this criterion ••) the
RQ adjustment process Leca^ie i~e
hazard posed by s release of a
hazardous substance does not
necessarily aec:< ase whsn :r.e
substance moves from sou or waier into
the air. Only the medium changes, not
the hazardous characteristics of the
substance
V Alternative Methodologies
Considered
The Agency has considered several
other meihodoiogie* for adiusing RQs
but is not currently using inem for me
reasons given below The Agency
solicits comments on these
methodologies, particularly anv
additional data that could facilitate a
more complete evaluation of any of
them.
A Hazard Index
A hazard index (HI) can be used to
assign to each hazardous substance a
single number that represents the
potential hazard of that substance when
released to all media. Low RQs could be
assigned 10 substances with high HI
numbers, and high RQs to substances
with low HI numbers. The HI number
could be calculated by:
(I) Identifying the en ten* that would bs
uted (o rate the potential hixsrdi iitocuied
wiUi each tubitancr.
(2| Rating each lubttaac* on tht batti of
each criterion tcoordinj to th« potential
hiiard posed by the subauncs for that
cntanoKaad
(3) Combining the rannos ui «a tquttioo
dial redacts the weight to be given to each
cntanoa
The rating of the various cntena
would be based on existing data and
can lake into consideration any or all of
the primary and secondary cntena. a*
well as other cntena. The cntena can be
grouped into five general categories, as
outlined in Exhibit«. The following en
examples of different ways the ratings
can be combined ta form two unique
hazard index equations:
HI - (Health Effscujx (Aggnvtiinf
ChancttniUes)» fWvlfsra EfTectilx
fMitigiu&gTraiufannaboa Caartensucs)
or ' *
HI - (Health Effect!) ••• fWelfarB Effects) •»•
viniuj ChtracieniDct] •»•
I Mobility].
of chemicals with sirrtlar hazard c.-.co
scores
• Cdrcinogenicit)
• Muiaqemciry .
Wtlfart Effects
Corronviiy
ReaciiMiv
Aquatic Tomcuy
Many other equation* an possible.
After the ratings are combined and a
single numerical value obtained for each
hazardous substance, reponable
quantities would be ssaigned to groups
• st.cs
• Pertinence
• BioBccumuialion
• Toxic Combustion Products
Mitigating Transformation Characteristics
• Biodegridaiion
• Hvdrolyiif
• Phoiolym
• Oxid*uoo
Environmental Mobilitv
• Volatility
• Solubility
There are tnaior differences between
using a hazard index and using the
methodology being proposed today
Under the proposed methodology, the
primary cntena are evaluated
independently and the proposed RQ is
based on the pnmary cntenon that
yields the lowest RQ value identified for
any of the applicable criteria. Under a
hazard index, the same criteria could be
independently evaluated, but the
proposed RQ is based on all the cntena.
not just the most sensitive one. The
results of the two different approaches
could be significantly different.
Under the proposed methodology, it is
possible thai the Federal government
may receive many reports that do not
require a response, while under a
hazard index, it is possible that the
federal government will not receive
reports concerning certain releases
which might warrant a response.
Notification is a trigger for determining
whether a response may be necessary.
and the legislative history, in discussing
response authority, indicates that:
BecJUM delay wilt ofttn eaicerbite *n
already wnou* timcaon. the bill (S 1460}
authorizes the President lo wtpcad when *
substantial threat of releiM nay exist This
standard is inundad ta b« « flixibls one ind
holds that it i* prafarrtbte to en on the tide
at protecting public hsalth. welfare, intf
nvtronneni la adssbustanai tht rctpc
authority of tas rod |S«n. Rep. 80-9*4.
Cong. £d Sett. 56 (1980)).
Advantages of the hazard index
system are thai the system can relate to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48 N'o 102 / Wednesday, Mav 25. 19B3 / Proposed Rules 2356'
dll medi'd and ;hat it can accon-na.ite x
wide variety of criteria wnich can
provide a relate • •neasure of j
subsidnce s potenCdl harm or ruzard
EPA would face several proolens in
implprrenting a hazard index s\stern
Under irvs strategy, each subsMnce
must be ranked tjr e*c^ c.-'t-r-,-,
Because ihe necess-uv da'a d-= -ot
availdols''or _essarv
data Conservative CPlault vdk-s could
be chosen, pending dpveloprrent of
further data. Second, there is no sen
agreement as to how criteria are to be
combined to form a scientifically-
acceptable hazard index. Specific
examples of different hazard index
algorithms are included in the
Background Document to Support the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Pursuant
to CERCLA Section I02(b). The report
applied these algorithms to 27 sample
substances and compared the results.
Any number of plausible equations can
be developed, yielding different hazard
indices and different RQs for the
substances examined. There is no single
established method for determining how
to weight different criteria, so an
additional level of subjective judgment
would be introduced into the RQ
adjustment process.
B Scenarios
Scenarios can be used to develop a
model of the behavior of substances
after they are released, based on
specific sets of circumstances that
describe the events likely to follow a
release. For instance, data can be
assembled to describe what would
happen if • release to the soil led to
contamination of underground sources
of drinking water. On the basis of rough
projections of potential harm under
scenarios of differing probabilities,
alternative RQs can be set.
This alternative was rejected because
of ill scientific complexity: scenarios
which dttempi to model the effects of
hazardous lubttucM in •
comprehensive manner are by their
nature highly complex, require extensive
analysis, and can be subject to
considerable controversy. Furthermore.
developing RQs on a case-by-case basis
using seenurKjs requires extensive ddia
thai are not generally available.
C. Fate and Effects Research
This strjirgy is based on the fate o 'id how i"e
designated iizd.-anus substance drui i:s
environmentdt products each result in a
specific hazard to publ'C health or
weif.i'9 or ""e pi\ironrt"ii This differs
from scTd- o iJii-. ""oo.-ent m :rut it is
mor? --omDrehcn« -.p dnd icpcipc it
oocs not fn .1 :-!v nr nose events
which dre i.keiv to follow a release but
instead atteTipis to describe all
potcnt'dl e'rects of a re'pise The
dvaildi Jata dnd sc oif.fic techniques
will no) support ;he broad and uniform
apclication of such an dporcMch dt this
lime making '.Se uiilitj ol this ^oprojch
very limited.
RQ Adjustments Under Section 311 of
the Clean Water Act
EPA is also prooosm* m this
rulemaking to revise certain of the
reportable quantities established under
Section 3U|b|(4| of the Clean Water Act
(40 CFR Part 117) for discharges of
hazardous substances into navigable
waters, so that the CM A Section 311
RQs will be identical to those proposed
under CERCLA. While CERCLA requires
reporting of releases of hazardous
substances into the environment. CWA
Section 311 covers a smaller list of
hazardous substances and applies only
to discharges into navigable waters.
Section 311(b|(S) of the CWA requires
any person in charge of a vessel or an
onshore or offsho.e facility (o nonf> the
appropriate agency of the United States
government as soon as he knows of any
discharge of a hazardous substance
from that vessel or facility that equals or
exceeds the applicable RQ. The
hazardous substances which must be '
reported under the CWA are all listed as
hazardous substances under CERCLA.
and reporting under CERCLA is required
for every type of release of a hazardous
substance that is subiect to reporting
requirements under CWA Section 311.
Thus, notification will be simplified
considerably by making the
requirements under both statutes the
same.
Reportable quantities which have
been promulgated under CWA Section
311 differ from the adjusted RQs
proposed under CERCLA for several
reasons. First, the CERCLA RQ
adjustment methodology ad|us(s RQs on
the basis of other primary criteria in
addition to aquatic loxictty. which wds
the basis for establishing reportable
quantities under CWA Section 311
Semnd. the proposed CERCLA RQs use
sume updated data on aquatic toxicity
Third the CERCLA methodology
provides for RQs to be raised one level
on the buns of secondary cnlen.i. which
represent r. i:_.-j| dissipa'inn j":r
operating on saasMnr-s -•'•..••• '
the en1.; — irriri
EP-\ bciifves "idt r» CFSC; \
Seciion 31i;!)i(4; of •••' CV. \ if.^
The Pr
for 'i-e
the •J
puouc
L'nl ,"• i 1 'j\ n-sulitnnn J.'-prnv--
po'i-i IK' •>••« tecr-ijn ••J^P
.11 • • 'in'. -.7 ••• ,v-'.tipr-'
M of »h'i.f, ~.j\ JP • i— .• jl in \-e
nr wci1 \rr ol ihe Lnucd 'o fnh sh^ilfun
BUJIIC d-U p.-.s i'.e prnp>*ri\
A smsjie report to ih
Response Cer.irr v\nl s.msfv thp
notification requirements ot both
statutes If (he CWA Section JU RQs
were not adjusted, certain relnases
would be subject to CERCLA and nut
CWA Section 311. and others lubiect to
CWA Section 311 and noi CERCLA.
Notification requirements will be
simpler for the regulated community to
understand and for the federal
government to administer when they ar
identical. Reportable quantities under
both statutes are set forth in Table 302.
40 CFR Pan 117 remains otherwise
unchanged, because it contains
provisions govpmin* notification-
procedures, penalties, and jurisdiction.
EPA solicits comments on the
appropriateness of adjusting the CWA
Section 311 RQs 10 be identical with th
CERCLA RQs
Summary of Supporting Analyses
/. Cfassifiratiua iiiid Regulatory laipac\
Analysis
Rulemaking protocol under Executiv
Order 12291 requires (hat proposed
regulations be classified as major or
non-major for purposes of review by th
Office of Management and Budget.
According to the E O 12291. maior rule
are regulations that are likely to result
in.
(1) An annual effect on the economy
of S100 million or more: or
(2| A maior increase in costs or price
for consumers, individual industries.
federal, state, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions, or
(3] Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment.
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of the United Stales-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or expoi
markets.
The Regulatory Impact Analvsis.
available for inspection at Room S-~>?
U 5 Environmental Protection Aqenr-.
401 VI Street. S W Washington. 0 C
204GO. shows lhai today's proposed
regulation is non-maior became it
-------
23570
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
results in a net cost savings of
approximately S19 3 million '• •
// Certification Why a Regulatory
nalysis Is Not Necessor/
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
requires that a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis be performed for all rules that
are likely to have "significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities
EPA certifies that this regulation will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities See
Chapter 7. Regulatory Impact Analysis
///. Information Impact Analysis
EPA requires an Information Impact
Analysis (o be earned out for all rules
that impose a paperwork burden on (he
public. This analysis estimates the
bm'den imposed on parties outside EPA
for activities such as recordkeeping or
notification. It is anticipated that RQ
adjustments will change the paperwork
burden imposed on the regulated
community for information collection
associated with reporting releases. As
estimated in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis, the paperwork burden of
notification and recordkeeping on
private parties will be reduced by 57,000
hours by the rule proposed toddy.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of i960. 44 U.S.C. Section
3501 et seo.. the reporting or
recordkeeping provision* thai are
included in this proposed rule have'been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
Section 3504(h) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act Any final rule will
include an explanation of how the
reporting or recordkeeping provisions
contained therein respond to any
commend by OMB and the public.
List o/ Subjects in 40 CFR Part 302
Administrative practice and
procedure. Air pollution control
Chemicals. Hazardous materials.
Hazardoua material* transportation.
Hazardoua tubataaca*. Hazardous
wastes, Intergovernmental relations.
Liabilities. Natural resources. Nuclear
materials. Penalties. Pesticides and
pests. Radioactive materials. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Superfund. Waste treatment and
disposal. Water pollution control. Water
supply.
1. It is proposed to amend 40 CFR by
adding Part 302 as follows:
'• Thit tigun do«t not AtofW* ih« cant or
benefit! luocuitd wuhmnPnuou* r*l**M*
PART 302-OESIGNATION,
REPORTABIE QUANTITIES. AND
NOTIFICATION
S«c
302 1 Aoplicaoility
3022 Abbreviations
302.3 Oefinilioni
302 4 Designation of hazardous mbitances
302 3 Deiertnmaiion of reponable
quami:-e>
3029 N'oiifiCdtion requirements
302 J Penalties.
Aulhonl) Section! 101 and '.02 if the
Compreheruve Environment! P.e«{jonie
Comoenjation. tnd liability Act or 1080 14:
USC. 9601 el iea |. Secnoni Ju and Mlfal
of (he Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 USC. 12S1*U*7).
f]02.1 Applicability.
This regulation lists those substances
designated as hazardous substances
under Section 101(14) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Lability
Act of 1980 ("the Act"], identifies
reportable quantities for these
substances, and sets forth the
notification requirements for releases of
these substances. This regulation also
sets forth reponable quantities for
hazardous substances designated under
Section 311(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Water
Act.
1302.2 Abbreviations.
CAS Registry No.-Chemical
Abstracts Service Registry Number
RCRA-Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978. as amended.
Ib = pound.
Kg-kilogram.
RQ =•reportable quantity.
J 302.3 Definitions,
As used in this part, all terms shall
have the meaning set forth below:
(a] "The Act". "CERCLA", or
"Superfund" means the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(Pub. L 96-510):
(b) "Administrator" means the
Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA"):
(c) "Consumer product" shall have the
meaning stated in 15 U.S.C. 2052:
(d) "Environment" means (1) the
navigable waters, the waters of the
contiguous zone, and the ocean waters
of which the natural resoruces are under
the exclusive management authority of
the United States under the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of
1976, and (2) any other surface water,
ground water, drinking water supply.
land surface or subsurface strata, or
ambient air within the United Slates or
under the jurisdiction of the L'rv.ied
States
(e| rdc •!!) ,-eans (s; jn> bund.ri.
structure msui.ji.nn e!j'..pr-.eni pipe
or pipeline {-ncluilinij j.iv itpe '-Jo a
sewpr or publicly owf'C • eif.pnt
works) well ,;.< pond lunon
impoundment, ditch, idn mil stor.icp
coma'-.er motor vehicle r jilm? jiock.
or air:r...u not
disapproved by the Administrator of (he
Environmental Protection Agency),
Including any schedule or waiver
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. N'o. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules 235
granted promulgated, or approved
under ihese secnuns. (9) any iricct.jn of
fluids or other malerals JU*NO-I. •i
under applicable Suui law \\\ lot >r.e
purpose of stimulating or (reaura ••••ells
Tor the production of crude uil. natural
gas. or water, (ill fur the purpose of
secondary, tertiary, oroihur enhanced
recoverv of crurt * oil or ~ot :r j! 3.1$ or
fin) wh.rh are Drought :o re 5i.-t.ice ;n
coniunction with the production of crude
oil or natural gas and which are
remjec'od. (10) the introduction of any
pollutant into a publicly owned
tredtment works when such pollutant is
specified in and in compliance with
applicable pretrcatment standards of
section 307(b) or |cj of the Clean Wdter
Act and en/orceaole requirements in a
pretreatmenl program submitted by a
State or municipality For Federal
approval under section 402 of such Act.
and (11) any release of source, special
nuclear, or byproduct material, as those
terms are defined in (he Atomic Energy
Act of 1954. in compliance with a legally
enforceable license, permit, regulation.
or order issued pursuant to the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954:
(g) "Hazardous substance" means any
substance designated pursuant to 40
CFR Part 302:
(h) "Hazardous waste" shaJI have the
meaning provided in section 1004 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act:
(i) "Navigable waters" or "navigable
waters of the United Slates" means
waters of the United Slates, including
the territorial seas:
(j) "Normal application of pesticides"
means application pursuant to the label
directions for application of a pesticide
' product registered under section 3 or
section 24 of the federal Insecticide.
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as
amended (7 U.S.C lie et seq.\ (FIFRA),
or pursuant to the lerns and conditions
of an ax?cr:rren(jl ':se oeT.-t issued
under ,- -• 01 5 •/ t r. A. -,r f.-suant :o
an eiempiior. granted indcr s«;i non 18
of FIFRA'
|k) 'Offshore fjr-Iits" mp.ins any
facility of any kind located in. on. or
under, any of the navigable writers of
ihe Unsied Slates, and an> facility of
any kind which is subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States and is
located .n. on or under any other
waters, other than a vessel or j public
vessel:
(I) "Onshore facility ' mcjns .iny
facility (including, but not limited to.
motor vehicles and rollin; stock) of any
kind located in. on. or under, any land or
oon-navigable waieri within the United
Stales:
- [m| "Person" meant an individual.
firm, corporntinn. association.
partnership, consortium, joint venture.
commercial entity, United Stales
Government. Slate, municipality,
commission, political subdivision of a
State, or any Interstate body:
(n| "Release" means any spilling.
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting.
emptying, discharging, injecting.
escaping, leaching, dumping, or
disposing into the environment, bul
excludes (t) any release which results in
exposure to persons solely within a
workplace, wiih respect to a claim
which such persons may assen against
the employer of such persons, [2]
emissions from the engine exhaust -of a
motor vehicle, rolling stock, aircraft.
vessel, or pipeline pumping station
engine. (3| release of source, byproduct.
or special nuclear material from a
nuclear incident, as those terms are
defined in (he Atomic Energy Act of
1954. if mch release is subject to
requirements with respect to financial
protection established by the V :c!ear
R=:u!ator\ CjT.rr.iss.on j-.der sec'..n
l.'O
imt
ccn
UC34
l*»)
UKJ
UOOS
P047
**um
C4Mgonr
g
5
.
^•^".^»—™»-
t
o
MHO
AMMMI
1004*3
-------
-3572
Federal Register / VoL 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1903 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302 * - LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABiE QUANTITIES—Connnued
(US NO
Coo* ti
i *,<**e«
•care ac# -wyi
•41V
Alwwun •rftfl* ,
A--^— .»*—
141 786
M36U
T»M
now
MM!
Mt967
IUU
107071
79011
mo?
107131
I160A3
M«OM
1971M
10JW1
10043019
(IU9
eii«n
10MH7
10197100
1 1 1 1 7SO
M»ir«
UlUOIt
"MMt
XI MU
'—-•»'— ---
,»~«™ _
E«4«m. io«4^».
*»»««. «.»«..— i
,
1 "Tini'm tr-f . *
1 13 4 i0.iO.M«4cna>»< 4 «• S 1 s»r«ui>i«»
1 4 i.<-*naaii»on«in>mnm
_
1H.IJ4.TB«»J««,
'
- - - .
:
ISCO •
t"
10
1"
1*
sooo
I'
1
r
100
MOO
I"
I'
1
100
1000
9000
r
100
MOO
MOO
MOO
1000
MOO
sooa
MOO
1000
MOO
1
4 •
1
1 •
1
< 1
1
4
4
1 4
4
4
4
4
1
M
4
114
4
4
1
4
4
14
1
4
4
t
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
t
1
1
I
1
uaoi i
U003
POOl
U004 1
1
uao»
MO*
«003
uoo/
ucn*
1X0*
Ultt
»004
POM
POM
• POOT
POM
UOII
1
4
1
3
i
0
C
a
0
0 i
o
c
1
0
0
0
A
X
a
0
0
e
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n»
VMOM'Oi
'0(4 541
1 000(4*41
100(41 41
MOOWQl
uoourcn
IOOM4S4I
1(04141
Moouroi
•ni
f
10(4 }4»
100(44 4| .
MOOU270I
IOO(4X4»
W90I2270I
I000<4i4l
1000|4J4>
f»
9000(9170)
3000(7270)
MOOIJI70I
soootnrei
i
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 23. 1983 / Proposed Rules
235:
TABLE 302 4 . UST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ANO RE?OflTA8L£ QUANTITIES—Conunued
SM .ion
C*'-^
A^T* '*>»
A^anr «r«
AfTOOr 'f"
ARSENONO CCMPOUNO9
An«w «uhM .......
vii" r T^nfM _,. IMMM. .
59'jri* i
13171*
TTTXM
1211>7*I
143074]*
7MUM
1JW71
•MJM
1»1J»
74409W
7»4?m
100239 It
77HJ44
13090)M
12*74112
11104])]
1114I1S1
9JK9219
1M722M
MC9Mn
1M7!«
7T7H94
I10U2I
13032*2
13032*2
IJJ7J31
(
~~"t"~*t~*~'M |
1
;
1 """
KOQ
(•
1000
sooo j
tooo
MOO
9009
MOO
MOO
!•
1000
t.
|«
1000
IOM
IOOO
1000
1000
sooo
r
t«
!•
r
(.
.
i«
r
9000
1000
9000
9000
sow
sooo
I
1
I
1
1
4
1
I 4
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
t
1
1
I
I
u
4
t
1
1.4
1 4
1 4
I
I.*
j 0
— 1 a
__ . c
<«M j A
. . C
0
_ __-_
._
P1I*
U»I
,
. — _
POIO
con
nil
Mil
P9II
a
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
c
c
c
e
c
X
X
X
X
X
X
•^^••••^^
UOOiU
00144
000 »*
SOOOtZZ'
,«444
COCKS.
Moour
10BI4J .
9001 ar
foooiur
Moora?
lOOim
soooiai
9000(17)
ft
1000144,
100(41.
1 DOOMS
I00014J
1 000(4 J
1000(4)
1(0 4 VI
1104V
1(0 4JJ
1(0 4M
1(0 4V
1(0 4V
110 4J4
It9
999
-1 (••
in
119
999
lit
-------
23S74
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday, May 25. 1983 / Proposed RUea
TA8LE 302 « . LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND agPORTABLE QUANTITIES— Cont.nued
AUMflfW _ _ . . - - -1
Aam7 T 3 4o»roo(i I 4iwdoi»-4 T-aai* *-vnfO+
I JO wi^jjju ,
B«OT«. i*..r*»o.
CAS NO
13013:9
892422
IH22U
492809
115029
Hi 564
90077
2MSI4
9991
sasil
S6S5J
6U33
492806
1 l«9ttl
6011'
101144
1
636211
99996
100016
71412
101943
101907
)OO447
94901
541 711
M6'l
1130207
106381
9J478
106421
118741
110827
109992
106661
121142
>U . *, »>M.~I "i
•4W.MS.~V-.
*^ ~. ^.J^r^rr
-
~i
94nitr« ftrmja -iif-n-. _ . . .. ...
(^•JU-^— .
o.O*cfi>va08mi»r«
fflOcAOOMr*rtn«
1 «VOcP>OraO«ni«n8j . ......
^QCrtOfQOWJfft*
O^nai enorvM . __^_
Tom.m ».wcr.vi«i«
f*%
Cvaenv-^r*
RQ
9000
I"
I'
1*
10
I'
1"
•' 1
'• 1
r
r
1000
i*
i*
1000
100
IOO
r
t«
1000
1000
1000
1000
f
oro« ,
COOT" MIX C4 4qar> °>.-o*i'-:i
i i
4
2.1
4
1
4
4
1
4
4
4
24
2.4
4
1.4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1.2.1.4
2.4
124
14
24
24
2.4
4
4
1.4
24
1.4
1 24
114
24
»•••*
J0i0
POU
Ullf
UOI6
UOI*
uoir ;
U019
UOI9
0094
MI2
VXI4
P024
U049
\jOtt
I
UI61
P077
U019
U030
U037
POI9
U070
U071
U072
uoir
U723
U23*
UI27
U096
U1M
U720
UI04
1
1
i
1
• i
i
_..__
0
c
0
*
8
8
B
B
0
B
C
C
C
0
4*41
•
•
•
10(4941
f
9000(2270)
If*
9000122701
f
m
1
i
1
• ••
10(4 94)
100(4S4|
f
100(49 4)
100(49 41
9000(2271)
I00(4« 4(
1
11000149*1
>00<4& 41
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday, May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
23S75
TABLE 302 4 . LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPCRTAflLE QUANTITIES— Continued
Haaroous Subtianc*
tt^MM*. ,
Bcnionti i 2 m«mv»W»WOiv^-4llyl- - ..._. „
-•
— _ ._
8FWVUUM AnO COMPOUND*!
CAS No.
•OU02
94»7
120MI
(4JM
9M3S
M9U
906931
12MO
won
M06*
S101S4
•4741
117140
51 434
OMM
9809*
»71
non
M3S3
207009
IU30
100470
19124]
903»
X33»
10*314
«907T
918M
211019
100447
1440417
7T8747J
V>c.um <>-i:-ma=C
**»">*""
CVTOniWl-n.
P OJ J_
• . ^J» — ^^.Jfc— A— j^^^._ ^_
0«urvt en«MHi«
1 J*O4i^Uf1WrKM
]4H_ ^
B«ni-«
^^
B— . rj,[nmmjm^
.^^
i ! PC°» i
oo Coot" ' ».'• C4i«gonr »ai«;ii'a
i-
looo
!•
r
i'
100
i*
i*
i*
1000
1-
I*
1*
I*
9000
1000
t.
1000
100
r
1000
24
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2.4
1-14
2.4
2,4
2.4
1.4
4
4
4
4
2.4
4
2.4
2
I
2.4
1
1
2
2.4
2.4
4
4
1
2.4
1 4
2J.4
2
1
u.ra
U141
uoso
O'iJ i
UTC7
U023
U»4
UO34) 1
U1W
uca
U044) •
UOU
U10>
UI07
U020
UMO
P014
U021
U»2
U010
...
uoa
UMl
U197
uoa
uou
POM
P01S
• 1
1
0
c
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
c
^^^^^^^^•MB
o
*^-«B«««>_
c
c
*
t
jooouim
1000(4*41
If
m
vxazrrai
10001454)
««
100)4141
taaoam
9000U379!
1000|4S4|
100I4S.4)
100(41 4)
5000
SOOOr
I 1000)4*
100014
M.
-------
23576
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302 * - LIST CP HAZARDOUS SU8STANCES AND REPORTA8LE QUANTITIES— Continued
Huron* Suosunct
o>s NO i
Coa«
1
ttrWii • BHC —
aw BMC
(tiD«wvM44un«.JJ-jin*«M-
rZT ""
(Vim
IM+
MC>
wn-
dw*V Mni>4 pKimMlil .
—
I3WW4 1
S469»
111911
II 14441
iciaoi
942861
13776I
M7817
906663
792SI
101993
317971
924)143
309033
71363
7M03
IM7»
4170903
764*10
123864
110190
104464
71343
7M19
69647
10792*
79012
*~
.... .„
uxjtm
3 3 Oil *n* iTTMntiariT .^. . , ,
2 ProMnon*. i-*>om» . — — — __
M*m«n«. ffwromo . ^ — — «- . —
•vfc ncira
u— V i-f__
u««v «*>• ««» «*O.-A-«UI»I gninii4i4l
1
MOO
9000
I-
1
^
!•
!•
r
f
!•
r
!•
f
I'
I"
t.
(.
f.
100
I*
9000
looo
100
9000
i
i
2
2
i
< 21
2
1
• i
2,4
| 4
1
4
4
24
1.4
24
4
4
2.4
4
4
24
24
4
2.4
4
4
1
4
4
1.4
4
1
4
1
J
124
1
•Oit
I
i
UCM ,
U021 i
uO'l
UMl
YOM
U024
UOJ»
U027
POI6
U2M
U02*
U246
1
POI»
UttJ
!
UO30 '
1
POII
UI7J
1X39
U03I
UlSt
U1M
UOM
0074
U031
UOM
1
' 1
'
1
C
c
A
0
• c
c
s
A
A
o
c
A
0
I
0
0
0
0
"i
...
MO 4»4,
1|Q 4)41
•.a 'i4i
100M4444
ttt
H
IOUW4J4I
1000(444,
100(44.4,
10(4 Ml
10(4 Ml
MODI 2270
10OOI444
10(4 S4,
100441.,
1I04J4I
900M227C
SOOO(J37(
50004JJ7
1
i
17
j 1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
23577
T>8LE 302.4 • LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTA8LE QUANTrTIES—Continued
MUVOM SuOiunc* 1 CAS Ma o«qw4ior» 5-xy»-«
1
C«Mfic md — -— - - — . -
Cuarmjm K«II« ........ -
CACMIUM AND CCMPCUNCS
C4Onun BrgnnM . _ _
Cumuli cniond* .. ..
Outturn VMnam - - - —
C*1MTV»* , .. , .
'.KS.
1
7440O9 •
1
M906 |
77894J8 ,
1019364
7778441
U740I86!
7 4207
137UIM
992018
M1HM1
777*14}
«0013»
1J30M
91796
«1S4M
7»»73»
M4939
M9M
8X104
79M7
•nu
is63«ea
7SIM
7J1H
U33739
792Z1
U3504
jans
74444
U3904
7M7I
309033
»mt
IH49
59M7
S4M7
1
Mytfoivofv^invtvw o*4«. . .
r^.ff^f^
^^OUT4M •• i i IHBI
•Mtflinflk MVWMQf^ .
CNerOtfw t*tf*-«*^ . _ .
OTW«»
C^'yttiri _ . _.
4 1 u«v\*"a*Mn. i 2 • S 6.7 1 frociMMQro-3* 4 7 7»
Mtfarv«»
p-CMoro-Acmoi . .^_^
^hcno^ 4^wof^3 *n«^*»
^cnm 4
-------
23578
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302.4 . UST OF HAZAFOOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABlE QUANTITIES—CamnueO
ruJKHOUl SuMIIBe»
CHIOBINATEO s*P-rw»l.E>.e
OLOBlNAfEO P-ENOlS
CM..CPOALKVI STH6PS
fl»l|J |'|'-- . ..... -_ T
i rm.-iuna>'ii •
mpofjq ANO COMPOUNDS .....
-.,.„„ p ..--. *
CAS NO
S08774
4»*011
107200
10*4/1
tonor
1 08404
rsooa
10 1'Qt
7009723
J427W
nun
rniMi
1OM304
1111)744
1J7UI90
tOIOISH
I00490U
771*437
I74IJ
7440SM
-
H^WVS^^.
_ . j
2 N|0n^^tnn0 N H ^44 2 aM(nin.
— - - - - -1
P*««.2<«o«.
2
c-nu-<~^r,
.. —
1
PO '
r
10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. Ko- 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules 33
TABLE 302.4 - LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES— Continued
Muaraoui Swoiiance
Crceion .. — - - - -
C'**0*MI — - -
flfe
»
>
C/tSvK iOd _ _ -
Gwona4M*o« - _- —- . — -. —
fn< • i . i
too.
Cy«'N >mi« 30
««»-,o~S,-_W,
I>M«IC JCd . .
Ono»«i
1
1
1
1
1
^_^_ 1
cnujui*
; i
IH.I 1 2-OuueneuMiM J (b«2-
-
) 4-0 A*Jd
1 12 menimcimi-KH. (»»oi>*-ie«i»i I0-(i-iit«no.
4 4 000
TOE
roe
ooc
PO
'000 .
'XO
100
1
100
100
10
100
100
10
100
100
10
'000
r
i
100
100
100
I"
1
1
!•
r
OOP*
Cod* " v *xr«
1 SuixMf '
4 '
1 1
1 i
1 4 '
» 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
4
4
4
1 4
4
1 4 1
4
124
4
1.4
1
1.4
4
124
1 24
I
1/I5J
-M !
UOfJ .
uou
— -1
. .. -._.!
I
1
0 i
0
a
H •
P031
^933
UOS4
uotr
UOM
U2*0
U140
uoio
uoao
UOM
i
c
A
c
0
t
s
s
I .
t
*
f
§
•
I0»
woo
100
f
1
too
'00
IOC
to
l«
IOC
10
101
wo
11
II
If
-------
23580 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. Mav 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302 4 . UST CF HAZAflOC' IS SUBSTANCES AND HEPGRTABLE CUANTITlES-Contirued
«. .
oo r
>4 oor
DOT AMD WETA80LI"3
O^acnorcoeunwio i 3 < "eirsro-JH cycooucifc a\-
Oaitiio 1
1 2 S 6-OtoflUMiVKafW _ — -
M-
10Ht2
9H07 '
i
1334 IS
S3703
1
S3 703 •
U7M
1
i
M12I '
1918009
1 I44C5*
I178C4
2303164
23930935
7U21Z28
•9301
mni
101447
S4I73I
94501
108447
»I941
;s274
79711
i-ii. -v »w*a -3
P-"""'Vitn0n'nl
44 CST
. ' S'C-i -"T' ."-• •""' '"•
COT
-!-!».,.) . . |
OB, ^M.M
C«aiua(a.n I^UVKKW
Oocntol a n li/-m-jc«n«
2 5 t-0i0onnii«iric(i<4)
n-Sulvl oniniui*
A-euiyi pmnauii
Oibuiyi onmiuw* '
PWJ . .
44 OOO
roe
*°^»«-««n-
g OcnaiaMiucno
1 9uflJ4« 1 lOKTOorO- _
( 1 1 B'OPQnyO 4 4 -Htmna) 3 3 Jicr'Orfr
RQ CAM" «l«t ' Caiigav ' "^xxno-.i
'tune* >
i
1
i •
t
i*
r
I
V
i1
!•
!•
100
•00
•000
1:00
1
)•
r
i"
t
100
1*
I*
I'
r
124
2 ;
1 4
4 !
4 '
1
24
24
4
4
4
12,4
1
1
1
i
24
24
2.4
24
2.4
24
2
2.4
2
4
VTOI '
i
U221 1
UOM
uou
U064
UOM
UOM
uon
uou
0074
U060
U070
uori
U0'2
(J071
U070
U07I
uan
t
i
i
i
_j
a
c
c
X
3
X
X
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
0
MO 4V>|
*
i«4 Ml
f
'
tOOM*'
IOOOI4MI
H04J4)
f
1(0 4S4|
1(0 4M|
100<4S 4)
tOOu»«|
•00(444)
10014] 4|
10M41 4|
woaa-";
WOOIJ27C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 19B3 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302 4 • LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES A/C flEPORTASLE OUANTTTlES-Conflnusd
-------
.3582
Federal Resisler / Vol. 48 Mo. 102 / Wednesday Mav 35. 1983 / Prooospd Rules
TABLE 302.4 - LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND R6PORTA8LE CUANTlTiES-Comnued
Hiurooui Suoiunc* ', C*S Ne
i
3 ) Omwmyl-l i«ietn<«f«OI 1 Oul J/W4 O-
((Ruinyiimroictiocnyi 1 oi«««
OnwinimraHinn* _.--._ — - • - -
J^-.W- uv
— « --•-
e-
p.
frOmwr-irtmni irt
2.4. "
2*
""*"*"*'*
Ood^cveOTimtMionc tat
Enaottjiw - —
4iona • Erao*u
HZ13M9
103107*
14473:
PMu'liO^ S.^Ontfl1! 1 oCa*
flQ COM (1 At^'t C4io^o'Y *
i
•*>(jrion« i 2 am«inooo
r
i*
I'
I*
looo
i
109
1000
t
r
i
4 1
4
4
4
1 4
24
21
24
4
1
2.4
4
1
2.4
1.1
14
2,4
4
1.4
2
24
4
4
2.4
1
1 4
4
4
1
1
H4
2
2
2
4
'2.4
PO/I '
U101
U'02
UlOJ
P047
P014
PC 44
giM
UIO*
P020
U<07
uiot
mo*
P0»l
U1IO
JIM
003»
P04*
POSO
POM
PMI
a
i
0
a
0
e
a
a
a
a
8
a
c
0
a
0
c
X
a
a
;
a
: '-
t
c
1
t
OKi!2"H
MOOiU'll
10*44.4)
10014441
K»4l 4|
I00|4l4|
1001444)
100(4441
1000(4441
400012270)
t
t
1000(4541
MO 4441
1001 43 4|
100)4141
100(44 4)
1000(444)
1(0 444)
1(0 4V
not
1(0444)
1000(444)
1(04*41
1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 43. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules 23;
TA8LE 302 * - L'ST C? HAZARDOUS SU9STANCCS AND fl6POflTA8LS QUANTITIES— Coni*x*-i
Coo* •
"Oi«
AND ufiTagOUTES
10664
EIPIXH .. . .
Euunimn* 1 I Um.lTyi.J -owin-
'OOO i 4
j
i. ..-___- -. _. _ _. i 'COB . 14
«ic"4 iip-« ft^avB**
18004
•000.
SUM *•*
Emw, U
CNT* i.i
EiAan4k IX
El*4T«. 1, 1. 1.2.2.2 rwucniofO-
ElMIW 1 I (llHIB>U"««>«la«Tllfcl(t«"Q*f* —
rw*cni* ..-
: 1 2 U«n« Oc
ICO4U
S10IM I I
ACME 4C4 4»V MUT ..
U
> I 0«i«ia>e*Mn*
< I<
J* _ LlO»4
4 ' U«l
] '
J 4 I UOJi I
4 | U1M
I
1.4 , WO*
MM
MOO
M
r
r
i*
tOQO
MOO
4
4
1
14
t
tJ>
2.4
4
u
4
1
0
C
0
0
U3lO
U'»J
not !
uan
unr
xxrr
na
IOOC
JOOC
JOOC
0
0
c
too
MOC
KOI
100
-------
23-84 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302.4 . LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PEPORTABLE QUAMTlTIES-Coniinued
— *~~
Eirtii«Acoi4fv..f« t»truc*ae Kitf IE"*) -
E!Pyt «w«f . „ . . .-
emu nMMnMAmM
Cutfton - .— . _, - _ «••. -_ — — .• .—.—
r
CAS Ma
752-1
MOO*
964S7
151564
i
7MO
97832
42900
1185979
29*4874 1
Sfr*M74
7709040
778 SM
10431*44
tQQ 28323
1 00*5693
7734943
7702830
88737
77824 l *
10000
64186
110178
11000*
nan
108318
110009
785344
MHO
r ' '
,*„*-««
CM** - - -
,.1-L.wui aa !
E^4r« i locnwro
-
ACJCC aod. "y9» tod -m ufl - . —
Fufurwi
1 *op«n«i 2 l-«eo«T-
1
PQ
1000
1000
I"
1"
,.
I"
1*
(.
1000
1000
ton
!•
100
1000
1000
ton
100
1000
(.
,.
i1
,.
i-
1000
•MO
I-
WOO
,.
,.
looo
1009
1000
,.
I1
,.
r
r
r
i
COM'T
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
2.4
4
4
4
1
1
1
4
1
,
1
1
1
1
4
2,4
1
4
4
1.4
1.4
4
1
4
t
1.4
14
1 4
4
,
4
4
1
2
2
.
Will* 1
UH5 !
.. 1
UMj
UH7
U0'8
UIK
UI18
P097
UDt
POM
U120
POM
POST
UiM
um
P081
UI24
UJM
UU»
U147
UU»
UIK
U200
U.M
UIU
C4itqonr '
a
0 1
0
0
1
g
c
c
c
c
c
e
a
c
c
c
9
C
A
.
A
,
0
0
a
c
c
0
c
•
—»_.. —
I
•9mmK.li
•X'.*.i
i»c,j2-:v
M00i?f11
1
110(45 41
"MCM4.I
1000(4Vl)
,
IOM(4S4t
1000(4441
100IM4VII
I000(414t
,
100(41 4)
IOOM4V*-
IOOC
I000(.
100(41 41
I000t41l|
ie<4S4i
,
f
10(4 14|
100(41 <)
ft
xootam
ft
MOM 22791
100(4J4|
1000t4»4,
1000(414|
MOOI2170)
I000(44>4|
100(45 4)
,
1 .
J
"•
1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
235
TA8LE 302 t • LIST OP HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ANO PEPCBTA8LE C'JANTmES-Com.nued
ManrOM Suaaiixe* C*S No
M€PT»CHI.O« »M> »»eT»BOV.ir65
Hmucniv MOUM ... - -
"^
HE^o.«^™e,-~~, . _
1.2.3 i.igiOi^«iynWTitlTifm-nr' 4 **.» • 7 9 a*
1.2 3 4 10 l»M«neNoi»4) 7-wowi 4 4* J 0.7 i to
ocuiiiuiu tnoa.M*!^ J nwmtMrunaomnww
1.2.3 4 10 10-M4)ltCfllW»t 4 44.1 0 Ol-MUHVIO
1 2.3 4 10-10 inntmnm i 4 4*5 0 0«-Muny«»
1 4 1 OtndO «i»«nwn4»anipniniMn«,
Ityirtm 1 J OtrmWrfl _ __. ^
**
^^
*^
_^
102073
i
116741 •
1
1M9* >
7BOO
00171
07721
401730
40S730
7090*
1000717
717IM
xmt
10IJ001
J7U7
140710
122007
00944
7919*
7047010
74900
7004303
7490*
7004391
7903311
1703004
00119
7U01
•0417
193391
90O4M4
7U31
71101
70791
• •-. >-WX.i-> *1
a«4u4ian S.-w^r-^ i i "CRA
BQ i Coot ii { Ait 4 C*i«9ort ; »x«xu.
i
.
!• 1
I"
1'
1
1
t
1
I'
1
f
\
1*
5000
10
MOO
10
1000
100
f.
r
'•
I*
,.
1*
1000
1
J
i \
1 1
71
I J
114 i
1
12.4
1.2.4
14
4
4
4
. 4
4
4
4
4
4
2.4
4
1
1 4
1.4
1.4
14
4
1 4
4
4
4
24
4
4
4
2
1
i
U'X
PMI
•oar
1
UI3I
POM
PCOO
P004
gia
U2H
P002
um
UOM
-------
23386 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302.4 . LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ANO REPORTA3LE QUANTITIES-Contmued
KUUOOOU1 *«•»•••
,
1
3(2M)-i»i.uo»o««. J f«fnnom«nv^ - — - - i
i
,
Vittr *•)-*•«•*•
CAS MO
inwi
J7S3964
'"-J22
i
14JM01
301314 '
7439921 >
7TM40*
704UJ2 1
101024*4 1
77W9S4
I3814M1
7783482
10101630
1009974*
744*277
1072391
Mi 89094
I33UM
18739*07
744*142
1314170
192870
5189*
143073M
I717S3
110117
10031*
123331
10*773
14MB
203MS7
M3041
77833 Si
993151
1(11)7))
77I2847
•-—•—•-
!nmm_.i.
MHI4V4M-2 0"»
4^kQC *T*f 'flAd UJI . _ _ ^_««^_«^B — .«.__.
01—
M~SW~..*
611M4
i}«04'
PO
•oco
!• 1
1
r
!•
MOO
MOO
MOO
MOO
1009
MOO
MOO
MOO
!•
MOO
MOO
MOO
1
1000
10
MOO
MOO
r
r
100
10
10
10
^
.
t.
,.
Cod* rt
4
4
1
1.4
4
2
1 4
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
1
I
12.4
1
1
1
1.4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
U.4
I
4
4
4
Si.**- •
•ji-ii
U'42
UU3
UI44 '
c
c
3
1
:
:
U14S
U144
UI29
U147
U14*
uta
UIM
UI51
mt
ma
U1U
]
X
0
0
0
c
A
X
X
c
lOOOuyii
• *
III
It
II
II
It
lit
II
in
• *
11
it
1(04541
III
100(4) 4)
MOMZ270)
MOOI2270I
1000(454)
1
10(414)
1(04*4)
II
It
tt
1(0 «441
100014V
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302 < • LIST OP HAZARCOUS SUBSTANCES AND BE°CRTABLE QUANTITIES-Ccnnrued
HUWOM Sutiunc*
124401
»»!
i'
i
1000
•jCtl
1
100
7SOW ' U«ITy»«l cMina*
M«nin* ado-
MomtM. ncnoroflucr» .
4 r.u«fi*n»i*k«a«M i 4 5.9 7 a • ixvucw*
4 7 u.mtranttn. 1J.4.54.75
J« 4 7 7»
Mmil g*anat.
smta
'UU
•'Ml
74931
17749
9?M1
91901
'67SJ771
72439
17M1
71U9
74«39
74*71
79JS1
7I1M
Ml 144
70304
M4«l
74913
7 SOW
soooo
•1
903*4
MOB
f
>4
•
4
1
IA4
L-M*
VAM
Will
c
c
0 '
1
in
•am
: >< I
TlOl
£«*'
TntMa
2 «J ian<4j»<|Mmni»inyxiv«*m
i2-Onwi4»
i 1.1-Tncnafa«a<4Vi* -_-_
4 4- «m*t»rmtma-t
ilanwavywn* i l-an>«»» a ^iny«- . .
Fomwowijdii
HjorABni nwinyh
, 74M4 i U«1fl4ra
scoo
r
100
9000
1
4
4
1 4
4
U.4
1 4
4
4
14
4
14
4
J.4
4
4
4
4
24
1 1,
4
4
4
4
U31I
A
yjj, , ,
UO" 1
uui
U1I9
UH3 i
•1.9
•01.
win
U039
UIM
Ulll
PON
UI47
U114
•097
uon
U199
U04fl
UIM
U22.
uia
UH7
UOH
U090
A uia
UIM
moo
OOH
U139
0
•
.
X
0
i
0
D
e
*
0
-____
c
9
C
c
•><^^H 4^^.^
C
C
_*.. —
c
A
A
1
101
100
/
JOK
IOC
IOC
'(C
MX
>R
MOI
WO
IOC
. 'f
HO
lO
10
10
10
-
1C
1C
-c
1
1
-------
23588 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1963 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302 4 - LIST OF HAZARDOUS SU8STANCWANO R£PORTA8L6 QUANTITiSi-Commued
Htuidoui
SiMiton
ei^ "Q
'0 I Co-« »
M4BV -KBufyl >4fOM
Ullllyl ienint'4
4.M4im 3 04""ine»»
0 SI I
nu»N.nnia4umbi«
iMtinn-t ovmnoM
MtrtVMng* __
ui«mvonC . ..
MancmmfUim*
NIMH ...... __ _.
S i i NMnm4e4MeMm. l§i eai I uom '0-1 >
2LJ A-ira4an-4KVi*-L tne^noMranauiiant
MnxifiM 4 .«»i|-»«i4«Hb«H anno ' "iJgiyh
l.4.MienaiaqM«r« .
i iimiimmi»M „__,
i »nti»i>minni
t-Hia«H>*m. HH-OHttfiuummin.
Mcxa AND cou^aciftos.
xmn etmat ---
TFuemnnifioi
702S7 '•i^tnarm N «waia.N mwKyfcN ^iro.
• 0 &OIAWIV O o-™«oor»rv3n<«or«oip«o4'»
I
KM10I u*i»* itcttuiy k«a
rrtutr
4|IH).Pr«MnOMlI><
S0077 ' ij*rooit i >^an»»4B^o>
nii4XfV»«4wiiwwv-»A«inh
74CH
JC07M
8M3MI1
41203
IMIM
IMIM
HMt
1JO17
IISM
A4U-CM
J-Cnw)
10
109
MOO !
100
I1
(•
1
1000
ion
1000
10
MOO
1*
11 NijnmitKKttt
tuti fiimimin
1 nmfflnni
1MMIM
Thoina. i minipapni
100
1*
1*
I 1 '.'
HI 197
1
I4JH7U |
MOO
MOO
1000
MOO
1
4
114
14
4
4
I
4
4
I
4
4
4
a
i
i
4
1
4
4
1
I
! -X <
• X1CI4VII
f
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 43. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1963 / Proposed Rules
TA9LE X2 * t-'ST C? HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND Pe=OflTA3lE CUANTlTlES-Coniinued
MaarOM Suniam ' C*S No
nine tea
B-NilIOMMX* - - .
NillOOVMIVI Old* . .
flfc
,
• —
QW^rfH UtfOliiM . •
'Ouacvml22ilr>igun»i>}-M9M
| M129«t«
Si4n.ion ' »*Ma =C
'"**<1 n«» . . __
Si-raow4) tUWK*
i Cftoro-2 3 •aorvafOO4«w . ..
i
i
PQ Cow tl
I*
'000
1
I"
I'
1000
1000 1
1'
1000
I"
row
1
!• 1
r
i
" i
,. i
i*
i-
I"
r
t*
1000
1
!•
• •
. 1000
. 1000
4
1
4
4 !
1 1
I •
4
1
i. !
i
14
1 i
4
2
'.
4
14
2
24
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
1.2.4
4
4
4
4
4
i 4
4
1
1 4
1
i
"»CS» i |
«I1I« ' ClWJOT •9UVU
t
PO."
i
u i
PO., 1
1
Ul.-l
u"J 1
ui n
Ul'4 .
uni
U
-------
23590
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 23. 1983 / Proposed Rules
-—"-•~' ~^^™ "^ ^-^^^^— ..- - -
TABLE 302 4 - LIST OF HAZ4PCCU5 SUBSTANCES AND QE?OR7*BLE GUANTiT.ES— Continued
Mftumou* Su»m» ^,5 Ho
Pwawcnye*
Pifimen
'^•AGf 2 4>«^nKlO^41 •'"•Jtf^f'O'CtWK •- Ji * •. .M...
^wo. 23« ft.(«fr«cnaan> . .
(**••*»»««•
OK-.
PhfHOMne aad. MM Mfl _ _ _,__ .____.
'23637
KMJi
87881
S04«09
12442
850 18
1089U
91178
131*91
120632
8'850
IOM79
11291
8M1*
13412 1
'
S9902
91914
88082
M82M
1*3399
UIM
1OM15
2MOO
7i*4l
7M3J12
7WUU
311411
74*4277
29M22
601H
51914
M3U
»7972
5-jn.iory "m~e *1
•*~n *~r«
i J s r-,o.4^ 2 • s.(/'"r"»>- i
StfnXBffC B4)MJC«^IO'^ ,
E'JUK* o««>'*cnia'» i
1
B«ni4>w. nydraiY- - _._ J
'
I * Otf*ftfOO*t-*g .__•_ ...«„.. ...
p2ZIZ*X»
2 1 4 «.r(««cna'aenanal . . ..
MIV
0 O-0*uv S w*»my< Oiir<4Topnotenaii>
Otao'coyf iwOiooft>-ion«.« «... .....
- *-• • Si ="— '•— <•
'• i
i
f
'•
!•
•0 i
1"
t*
1000
c
I'
I-
1-
1'
I'
<0
1 *
1-
I'
1 •
I"
MM
i*
1000
I'
1-
1
4 )
14
4
4
1
1
' 24
4
1
4
2
U.4
24
24
4
2.4
4
2.4
2.4
4
24
2.4
<2.4
4
4
2.4
4
4
24
4
4
1.4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1 4
4
PM9
UI44
U.M '
U1M
1.041
U039
P034
UOII
U082
U101
P020
P047
Ul>0
U2<1
U7M
UZ31
POM
UIJT
P092
POM
POM
PO4I
UU1
U0417
POM
POM
POO
POM
P040
i
i
i
0
8
0 i
8
8
8
a
c
8
8
4
A
a
c
a
0
a
0
*
a
i
8
IOOCHS4I
'.04J4I
MO 4*41
"»«J«1
f
'00(4311
*000l22'0l
1 00|4*4|
toon* 4i
100(41 4|
1 001*141
1000H*
100141
10(4*41
10(4 Ml
Iff
n
100(41 4)
1000(4*4)
100(414|
MOOl 22*01
1001414)
*000(22>9I
It
10(4-
100(4*.,
1(04*41
100(4*41
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Weiir.esdax. Md\ 15. 1963 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302 « • LIST cf HAZARDOUS SUSSTANCES *.*.o ==3CflTA3L=
SuMUTU
CASNo I
°O Coo* i
°C»>
pwoMn»o«w« *°o. OO-a«"«mc iBi^MWp • i.::' "•-!•
'» II
PMatononit anemone*
PMmenonn merianai
pMTMtim ESTERI . . ..
PMMIB trrwinoi
vro
•00
IOO
1000
POLTCHlORlNATED BiPWENTtS [fan .
KXYNUCUAM AROMATIC HVOAOCABBONS
Pouaun
Petiuun
Pauuum nyaraiM
•auuuwgtfmini
l t rrimm »Oi
13 K
I33MU |
77M4IO
101 Ji JIM
rntso*
771
100 I
1)10143 I — .....
.1
1
• • .
I99tO>U I a.»OcM*ia t|l.) «a»m>i.a <
GhntfMKWMM.
10710*
MIM
1
II3OT14
mm
10T190
MITIT
7UU
1M30
1M77T
7M31
MUII
nmu
107197
I07«2*
IJ
rtooutyi voana
100*
1000
10
10M
109
I-
r
r
10
r
i
u<«9
Ultl
• HO
C
B
S
C
0
D
'OX
no
iaoc
ioa
>00i
A
e
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1.4
4
4
«
4
1.4
4
4
4
4
4
1
<
IJ4
UIM
UIM
Ul'l
UOX7
UIH
U14f
not
rw
mi
um
U140
uoot
•OIP
0
D
C
C
C
*
C
A
0
0
c
k
c
I
i
no
r
tot
1(0
woe
MO
MO
IOC
ICC
100
10
ICC
10
soc
MC
19
II
1C
-------
23592
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1963 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302 4 . LIST CF MAZAPCOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITiES-Cominued
_~~
k^ij JVO 1 ^IQUllMOiTr' Sy^O'^'^H
HO
Slllbtar.
! Coo* 't
1
,
OCB» i
win* 1 CM
friuunu no
I-MWI
""
1-Preem. 1 12)33 n»i«cr»or» _ .
fVilh < _. _.
•
SCLENHJM ****O COMPOUNDS
'9M1
126987
140MS
97912
1071 M
19094
93721
(2362*
107106
7667J
71569
75554
107197
129000
HI 299
121211
110M1
9160}
I007S4
1090M
107403
61229
yasa
1107}
n63006
773249*
74440M
630104
. - ......
100
1-
sooo
10>
3000
100
5000
sooo
1*
1*
1008
r
i*
r
100
1000
1000
1*
,.
1000
1000
4
*
1J«
4
4
4
4
1.4
1.4
1
1 4
1
4
2,4
1
4
4
I
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1.4
4
1
3
4
M
4
4
4
t
2
1.4
4
1.4
4
0007
UOO9
U'M
000*
U11J
U11*
U>«2
no*
U233
Ur94
U063
00*7
POOH
UIM
U17*
U191
P07J
UIM
UIM
U200
U201
U202
U203
U204
UI04
U2OS
U204
0
8
C
C
0
0
c
c
8
0
a
0
0
c
c
0
c
c
D
0
o
0
0
MOM 22701
I30l«<.<|
10001434)
M»
00014341
MOW 22 701
1000)444)
1000)414)
100(46 4)
5000122701
100(4S4)
1000)4341
100U4.4)
1
1000145
MOOI23
1000)434)
19
3000O270)
9
9UUUUJAJI
1001414)
ff
SUUOUIfOI
9999
30O014JJT7)
KOOI2270)
1 ,
*
• t
• 9
99
tt
_ II
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25, 1963 / Proposed Rule. 22
TABLE 302 4 • LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AIMO HEPORTA3LE QUANTITIES—Contimjed
&Mr i ......_. _. . . .
SILVER *«o COMPOUNDS . .
««fe__*««»
f-rtlr-ir-
Soawc Dcnvwi*
S9h« Mk^lM.
«_>.. .. | .,
5oOum
sntf-miawf- —
^
* — |M|
CAS MO
T 4*0124
rreiea*
•3731
wiin
ITttiM
Muua
louaoi*
I313M1
7TT4H1
231SSXO
.
IJOJM
mn2t
174414
71H794
10039394
I0140IU
10101 MO
10M1««
mutt
1Q1Z4JM
I010I1M
1*431
•TtlTfT*
niiou
1114M1
97l4t
U7J7)
5714»
I004»
77130*4
1314*03
N 8*464
B*^IW> S"XX>'"*
*UMnM . .. ...
__ __
•
SL^^-^-^
BM-M
aiMMA.)i.wM. — «-
no
»•
1*
1000
iQQO
i*
1000
MOO
WOO
iQOO
IOOO
tODO
IOOO
100
too
MOO
MOO
lOOQ
p
10
iOOO
Suruior*
COM *P
•
I
2
1
f 4
C^L '.
UC'I
!
|
PtOO
••win.
c^ i
C
.00
^
tOOO
na
ion
"
loa
•o<-
I0(-
*
IQOO
•
-------
23594 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302.4 . LIST OF HA2AflOOUS SUBSTANCES AND PEPORTA8LE OUANTmES-Comnued
OSNa
BO
Cod* r»
PCHA I
ClIigBV
Suifwc *O(L am«ny« MI* — — • •- — — —
Suiftxte Mid IMI.«*MD ut — — • '
?4t-r1f.4 _... . _,__
i
Z.« yT mm ..-•»- - --•
T i.u.uj.wuiwur
77731
i
•MolM
B7«S !
M7M <
2006*40
1
«37W i
2S4J997 '
«17«»*f 1
I9JM78
29IMIM
13M0991
mtf
HM3
174801*
MOJO*
rmi
11719*
U902
3M9249
780W
107491
10M09
swia
717194
131432S
74402N
S636M
•SB7M
7711 1»
10103491
tJ1«3»
1103Mie
74M1M
«S4S
M1961M
441437
74111
IMMS
79194
ns«*
U4M21
Urtt-1
3m«myi iu"
IUIO
U212
P10*
P1 10
Pill
U213
PI12
P04J
P1 13
U214
U2U
U210
U217
- P1IJ
P114
Pill
U21I
P94S
P04»
U1U
POI4
PI1«
U2I*
POM
P87J
1
8
S
B
9
•
I
0
X
A
•
C
A
/
•
•
•
•
1
•
•
*
• •
ioa
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
23-
TA9LE 302 « • LIST OP HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PSPORTABLE CUANTITiES-Coniinuao
Ilimnma SuBtoxe*
.*«_.«-. ...
' -
«
DM, n
*t*T
• i^_j fviff
CAS No
U'ZS4)
1
Ktor
•Mill
MOI3U
U'11
1
S3MO
1JOM1
nut
TWO*
«01«
7901*
rMM
aiOHB
uou
M/as
7SSOJ
«tU4
1M7IT
ran
(MA.)
i
R«qw4iory SY'«J"V'"«
H.0M.C. -VX<*4 . . !
SMI
-
2.4 VT 40d
•»nni»i i" 4M.
SI4IUW "TUUIIII °O
OCA* i |
"0 COMI' i «••• . C4i«go>v Paroi
f
1000
r
i"
i
109
100
t*
1000
1000
1000
10
I"
100
1000
MOO
1000
r
r
i*
r
r
t.
4
4
4
1 4
1
4
1
I
1.4
14
IJ4
4
4
1
4
1 4
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
U7H
U011
U2ST
MM
unt
UHl
UI30
U1M
uns
UZM
a
A '
C
1
1
B
C
a
0
c
§
c
I
I
•0014
1014
lOOOl
10014
1
tiO •
lOOli
IOOC
1
f
'ODD
tl
K
»•
IOM
MOO
1
1
100
100
toot
tot
i
i
'
1
1
-------
23596- Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 30Z4 • LIST OP HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ANO REPORTABLE QUANTrTIES—Continued
WaraM luMBVM
Jtttf
u«iT«jiia«n 001* __- .-
• IM> . . tft'*
IJJ-TB ,041*
VttwiumfV) HUH
i»
*
»»
?k. i
t
•""
rfVnr-ir- nirim* *^r"*
CASNa
68711
60791
Mian
10102004
30478760
rao3594
1314921
1314621
27774136
106094
75014
7)334
61812
1330207
106363
»S4'6
10*421
130071*
90596
74400M
H7344
S28262M
I443M71
133307*
76M*U
704MS7
987211
77U4M
SS7411
TTTMM
77TWM
127622
I314M7
1M7171*
7733020
1374MM
IM23M*
H«4iii »•"•*
Ettwn* I,l4cniai»
1 fHpft»Af
p
a««».
.-
• .
HO
1
1
1
1
108
100
l«
|»
WOO
MOO
t«
1000
1000
1000
1000
l>
MOO
(•
1000
1000
r
«•
l«
1000
9000
100O
MOO
1000
1000
10
1000
1000
1000
9000
MOO
1000
9000
9000
9000
SMMfV
Cad* »r
1 4
1.4
1.4
1.«
1.4
1 4
4
4
1
1
4
t 4
M
1
1
2.3.4
1*4
4
I 4
4
2
2
t
1
1
|
1
I
1.4
t
I
|
1
|
1 4
1
I
1
t
1
ACM
WMM
Nun**
PI91
U12*
U247
P123
U340
U3JJ
UJ37
U237
P1K
•120
PI 20
\JG*1
U07V
P001
U230
U200
F121
PI 22
PVBOM
C4t«Q..t
X
X
X
X
a
i
Q
o
g
c
c
0
•
g
a no
PowniKg)
1(0
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rului
'23597
TABLE 202 -t LIST OP HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ANQ PEPCSTAflLE QUANTITIES-Continued
CAS Ma
Swum*
I » Wt1l4>
ZVoxwn i«u«r«n»
not
.j 1464441] |
100MI11
Th* <
M Tantnonm***
IM rncNaramnmii* _ .
lei M«III»I»» emoro*
(dl 1 I 1 rnanorocman* _ .
(0 CftonnaiM fluoroL«t»n« . . —
F002 _.
n» t
MOO
r
127114
'MM '
sens i
|NA|
"I 1
MTV
MM
(ct TnemoioigHMn»
W 11 i.Timiuni»ifiin«i
M OttraMxnno
(1) l.U-7nena»i22->iA(
(him
•Ml
Ul*yw».
0(4J.
1014
10(4
-------
23598
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 19B3 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302.4 - LIST OF HA2ARO3US SUBSTANCES AND REFOBTA8LE QUANTITIES—Continued
CAS NO
SI4M0T
HO
Coat it A in* I
•KtfTMf I
F010 .
Wll
CMxcnxq win nuaa* "•" " MB» "»" ""•"• I
fMM rawq eevnw* •"•"• "won «• »IM
n in* o>oc*ii iticm rar gfwou* nw«* n««- I
I
SO*M evind* vnuaera *om wn Dim HI ;'t«-«q •
irom IIMIM i*M (Monq 5O«lixxn (••eifll (or i
praraii mwiit PUI ffMnxq W«K cyinat <0«»
mil (ram uii Dim pa cittrig)
FOU
Qumnoq *timit« vniinwo uuaqM msm 1
IMIII nut mvq OMnnanf «fiw« cvanidn
»• us«a « IM ofactn innoi 'or WKWUS
MUU IM« iMorg oiMncnxg vunvtiv IMI-
imm Butgcu
mr
louunqel
K001 M-._ «..«.._
Bottom « MM amow K«/or i
K001
WUI<
KS03 ,
*«•
»om«ot»
ilud9* from tft» proOucun
KOM
KOOS.
KOOT .
W«l
of «o« But
«ud«i from M proaunan
Mia.
K011
Ootttm tvMm tarn *•
proCwnon of
Mil.
Beean an** fan t»
MU
S0HOH10 tVH W
ot
M19
SM bonom (ram M i
KOK
i ol Mmy cncna*
rmdMI rgm tfw praduc-
oan ol CMOH mra
Mir
H««y» mai not MUral kam in
count n fwmdticMnal KMJMUH|U»>
* I 1014 VI)
l«414|
II
M
tt
lit
IM
III
II*
II
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed RuJei 23599
TABLE ?OZ 4 • LIST Ce HAZAPOOUS S-SS~ANCES AND "''QRTABLE CUANTIT'ES-Conunu*>
CAS MO
«0
I . I "<:**
Coo* .' ' *«•«
C* ««tarv
KOI*
ML20
I l»f. •*'£* V I
nerof t
Kon. ______
KOS3
K024 .
MH_
HHB oy no ntraHn of
Svco^nTiM tanTra roounon «
KOtr
KOZi
101 I.I.I.KMIOWMni
K0»
*—« •» p—Mud «Mm «rop« n n*
•MO ol 1.1.1 -.juoio^rwx
i ot tmonmnimn
KW1.
;
i
|
1
i
0 V
0 1 K
I
x
X
1
I
1
UMIIl'l
tit
t(0<
MO
M
1(0
-------
23600 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABlE 302 4 - UST C- HAZAPOOL'S SU9STANi:eS ANO BE=CRTA8LE CUANTITies_Cont *•.**
Sutuunr
CAS NO.
ao '
FVliir CUM »on tn« larnf t *"
OIVI«C •&> t IM POOHCMM
I i
K040
M41 . _ i —
v«M!>nM tttni«wii Hunt* tiem in* praoucuon
ei IB>I
'•*«*•« Mm n* man-
ten * W trtdnaaowm n M pmcun at
KOil.
K0*4 ..
in*
tram «H
wxq, >ofmiMM» vd MMng el
mi* *«• TNT
Hun ra«in) xdutay
Siaaa* Bmioi Knot *on v* pnraUMii ratmna
TMH
PWt .
EraMH eartxt i
MM*
nan
> M» VI* 0MMUOM
itoa
(V
XOM
:n «
:crarqa<
III
n
10(414}
ft*
r*
**«
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48. No 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
'TABLE 302 * • LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ANO SEPOPTASIE QUANT— ES-CcmmU«a
ruiaraove Sueiuxc*
CAS NO
•git
C vu4ue»»r n
jieaucwai
•006
KMI
KOM
ce>w»> oonW
OIKOU)
KI03 .
«IOO.. _.
WUIOI
i irem nemorcwy e«o
i "| '
- I 0
MW
MOO
1(0
110
i
I
« 04»9 4IMUM or am* iai< *fi«m
it* «ac4iei >«• tuotuvK
Iff f ow fcwncv •• 40*111 IK* HO -or rvooracian « 4 MIUTD
i • «ae*M in* CEPCUk iKcuian t «u« »Q iar u nuiraau*
dCTrtrq 4* Muraav* •••mi vte 4 net ig o* canthMO •"" • '
' • • rn»c4M4 ne AQ « o««q 4«t^n«a to tn« 9*f^«
t ne 'ooorano at 'OWIIM ot >»4i4i>« >o«"« o> IR
1 1 Mciin ine UMIHM wwc* 4« eiMwd BY i 2 1 or « Mia.
t datum »» tuiuien «wc> '« atwejram at IKW weiivci
I MOKJIM IK UMiMn MWC*> 'or iM*qrv4io« o> u«4 woturo
1 K»CTie4 »• »urmer> IOKC« ipr MnirnBoii ot itx mB4ii»ice
4 MOBtM* »<« luwenr towc* "or fin y«i«i o>
no toot**
tf« ea«r tow tflecn, ctmiorv
-------
23602 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
( 303.9 Determination of reoortable
quantities
(a) Listed Hazardous Substances. The
quantity in the column "Proposed RQ"
for each substance in Table 302.4 \» the
reportable quantity for that substance.
(b| Unlisted Hazardous Substances.
Unlisted hazardous wastes cssignated
by 40 CFR i 302.4(b) have the reportable
quantity of 100 pounds, except for those
unlisted hazardous wastes exhibiting
the characteristic of EP toxicity
identified in 40 CFR { 261 24 Unlisted
hazardous wastes which e\mbit EP
toxicity have the reportable quantities
listed in Table 302.4 for the contaminant
on which the characteristic of EP
toxicity is based. If an unlisted
hazardous waste exhibits EP toxicity on
the basis of more than one contaminant
the reportable quantity for that waste
shall be the lowest of the reportable
quantities listed in Table 302.4 for those
contaminants. If an unlisted hazardous
waste exhibits the characteristic of EP
toxicity and one or more of the other
characterises referenced in 40 CFR
| 302.4(b). the reportable quantity for
that waste shall be the lowest of the
applicable reportable quantities.
1302.1 Notification requirements.
Any person in charge of a vessel or an
offshore or an onshore facility shall, as
soon as he has knowledge of any release
(other than a federally permitted release
or normal application of a pesticide) uf a
hazardous substance bom such vessel
or facility in a quantity equal to or
exceeding the reportable quantity.
determined by this part in any 24-hour
period, immediately notify the National
Response Center ((800) 424-8802: in
Hawaii. Alaska, and the Washington.
D.C metropolitan areas (202) 426-2875).
|30Z7 Penalttee.
(a) Any person
(1) In charge of a vessel from which a
hazardous substance ia released, other
than a federally permitted release. Into
or upon the navigable woJen of the
United States, adjoining eBBreiinas. or
into or upon the watati of • contiguous
zone.
(2) In charge of a vessel from which a
hazardous substance ia released, other
than a federally permitted release.
which may affect natural resources
belonging lo. appertaining to. or under
the exclusive management authority of
the United States (including resources
under the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1978). and who is
otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of
the United Stales at the time of the
release, or
(3) In charge of a facility from which a
hazardous substance is released, other
than a federally permitted release.
in a quantity equal to or greater than
that reportable quantity determined
under this part who fails to notify
immediately the National Response
Center as soon as he has knowleuge of
such release shall, upon conviction, be
fined not more than $10.000 or
imprisoned for not than one year, or
both.
(b) Notification received pursuant to
this paragraph or information joumed
by the exploitation of such notification
shall not be used against any such
person in any criminal case, except a
prosecution for perjury or for giving a
false statement.
(c) This section shall not apply to the
application of a pesticide product
registered under the Federal Insecticide.
Fungicide, and Rodenncide Act or to the
handling and storage of such a pesticide
product by an agricultural producer.
2. It is proposed to revise 40 CFR 117 3
as follows:
1117.3 Determination of reoortaoie
quantities.
The quantity listed with each
substance in Table 302.4. in 40 CFR 302.4
is determined to be reportable quantity
for that substance.
Dated: Apni 28.1983.
La* L Ventaadif,
Administrator.
in DM. O-IJMI ru*t J-M-n. tu ta\
40 CFR Part 302
[SWH-m. 2207-te 1
Deaignatlon of Additional Hazardous
Substance*
AO.BNCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
•UMMANY: Under Section 102(a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 ("CERCLA" or "Superfund").
the Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA" or "the-Agency"] is considering
proposal of regulations to designate
hazardous substances in addition to
those already designated under Suction
101(14) of CERCLA. Section 102(a)
requires the Administrator to
promulgate regulations designating as
hazardous substances those substancea
that, when released into the
environment, may present substantial
danger to public health or welfare or the
environment. This Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking ("ANPRM"!
discusses and solicits comments on
various approaches (hat the Agency
may use to determine what additional
substances, if any. should be proposed
for designation as hazardous.
OATCS: To be considered, written
uomments must be submitted m
triplicate on or before July 25.1983.
AOONBSS: Send written comments to:
Emergency Response Division. Docket
Clerk. Attn. Docket No. 102 ADO. U S.
Environmental Proternon Aqencv. 401 M
Street. S.W. WH-540B. Waihmqion.
D.C 20460.
POH PUNTMIN INFORMATION CONTACT!
For general information contact'
RCRA/Superfund Hotline. (800) 424-
9348 ((202) 382-0000 in Washington.
D.C).
For specific information contact: Or.
K. |ack Kooyoomiiam. Chief. Regulation
Development Section. Emergency
Response Division (WH-M88). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street. S.W.. Washington. O.C 20480. or
the RCRA/Superfund Hotline (800) 424-
9346. in Washington, O.C (202) 302-3000.
sumjMiMTAMV INFORMATION:
1. Background lafonnalioa
Substances are designated aa
hazardous under the Comprehensive t
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act of 19&*
CERCLA (Pub, L 98-610). 42 U.S.C
Section 9601 at MO~ in two ways.
Section 101(14) defines "hazardous
substance" to include substancea
designated under certain provisions of
other environmental statutes: Sections
307(a) and 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (Clean
Water Act). Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act Section 3001 of the Solid Wast*
Disposal Act (commonly known as the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. "RCRA"). and Section 7 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act. In
addition. Section 102(a) requires the
EPA Administrator to promulgate
regulations to designate as hazardous
substances other elements, compounds.
mixtures, solutiona. and substancee that
may present substantial danger to public
health or welfare or the environment
when released into the environment.
. The consequencea of designation can
be substantial. First. Section I03(a) of
CERCLA require* that releases of
designated hazardous substances (hut
equal or exceed reportable quantities
("RQs") be reported to the National
Response Center unless the release It
federally permitted or otherwise
exempted. (For a further discussion o.
reportable quantities and release
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 25. 1983 / Proposed Rules
23
notification see the Nonce of Proposed
Rulemakmg ("NPRNC ) on Superfund
Notification Requirements and
Reportable Quantity Adjustments
published elsewere in toddv s Federal
Register.) This notification allots the
federdl government to determine
whether a response is neress.irv In
addition. Section 103(b) establishes
penalties, including criminal sanctions.
for persons >r. charge of vessels or
facilires who fail to report -clcdses of
hazardous substances which equal or
exceed rcportuble quantities \ny such
person who. as soon as he has
knowledge of a reportable release, fails
to report'the release pursuant to Section
103 (a) or (b) shall, upon conviction, be
fined no more than 510.000 or
imprisoned for not more than one year.
or both.
Regardless of whether a reportable
quantity of the hazardous substance is
released and proper notification is
given, any person responsible for a
release of hazardous substances may be
liable for
(A) All costs of removal or remedial
actc -. incurred by the United Slates
Cot- -nment or a State not inconsistent
with the national contingency plan:
(B| Any other necessary costs of
response incurred by any other person
consistent with the national contingency
plan and
(C) damages for iniury to. destruction
of. or loss of natual resources, including
(he reasonable costs of assessing such
injury, destruction, or loss resulting from
such a release (see Section 107 of
CERCLA). •
Finally, substances designated as
hazardous under CERCLA must also be
listed as hazardous materials under the
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act [see Section 306(a) of CERCLA).
EPA intends to consider carefully
these economic impacts in developing
its designation strategy.
II. Major Alternatives Under
Coasideratioa aod Requests for Public
Coininoot
EPA coniaapUlts that the -
designation proem will involve two
distinct slept* First the Agency will
identify • candidate list or lists of
substances to be considered for
designation. Second, the Agency will
identify the criteria to be applied to
determine which substances on the
candidate list or lists will be designated
as hazardous substances. EPA is
considering several alternatives for both
of these steps. The first section below
discusses the potential candidate lists
and the second section discusses
possible criteria for designating
substances from these candidate lists.
The Agency has conducted several
preliminary economic and technical
analyses in support of this A.SPR.M
These analvses are par; cf t!-e
rulemakmg record. An ir 193:
These mcrcdients will be evaluated '
i.11 \ :o ai:ierrr ne taeT risible c?!e:
on rr^n dnd the rnuror.- i-it It —;u
be possible for EPA lo analvze all of
these pesticides and pesticide active
ir.srca-enis to determine whether ihj
should be designated as hazardous
substances under CFRH A EPA sol
comments on -nelhotS Mr se't-ngi
priorities for analysis of these
substances.
(21 Chemicals listed under RCRA.
CFR Part 261. Appendix VIII. e\clud
those already listed under Section
101(14). These substances are hazar
constituents of RCRA wastes (45 FR
33132-33133. May 19. 19301.
(3) Materials listed under the
Department of Transportation ("DO
regulations issued under the Hazarc
Materials Transportation Act. exclu
those alreadv listed under Section
101(14) These lists designate mater
considered hazardous for the purpo
transportation (49 OR 172.101.172.
(4) Substances determined by the
International Agency fur Research i
Cancer ("IARC") to demonstrate
carcinogenic characteristic «luc
those already listed under an
101(14). IARC has assessed ...* evic
for carcinogemcity cf substances fr
experimental animal studies and
classified these substances into fiv<
groups according to the extent of
evidence of carcinogemcity: (l)
sufficient evidence. (2) limited evid
(3) inadequate evidence. (4) negaliv
evidence, and (3) no data. Substanc
might be included on the candidate
if the IARC has determined that the
sufficient or limited evidence of
carcinogemcity. Sufficient evidence
indicates a causal association belw
exposure and human cancer, while
limited evidence indicates a possit
carcinogenic effect in humans, altr
the data are not sufficient to
demonstrate a causal association I
1. International Agency for Resear
Cancer, monograph supplement.
September 1979).
(S) The 1902 list of explosive ma
subject to regulation under 18 L'SC
Chapter 40. 47 FR 40974-40979
(September 18.1982). This list of
explosive materials is designated
Director of the Bureau of Alcohol.
Tobacco and Firearms.
(6) The Toxic Substance "inlr
(TSCA) Section 4(e) list.' i th
of chemical substances snu .mxtu
recommended for pnority considc
-------
23604" Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 102 / Wednesday. May 23. 1983 / Proposed Rules
in regard to testing requirements under
TSCA Section 4(a) (see the TSCA
Chemical! in Progress Bulletin. Volume
3. Number 1. April 1982).
General Lists
(1) Chemical Activities Status Report
("CASR").Tb\t data base identifies
substances that the Agency has already
regulated, thai it is proposing for
regulation, or that it otherwise is
considering. CASR covers other
substances in addition to those alreadv
regulated or proposed for rulemakmg: it
also includes those substances for which
the Agency has demonstrated some
concern, even if no rulemaking has
begun. CASR is limited to EPA Activities
and doe* not reflect the activities of
other agencies or departments (e.g..
DOT. Coast Guard ). CASR has been
Issued as a two-volume Agency report.
EPA 560/13-85-OWaAb. but the
candidate list would be the actual CASR
data baae. which is constantly updated
and may differ slightly from thu report.
(2) The Suspect Chemicals
Saurcebaok. This list already includes
chemical substances derived from
regulatory lists or other publications
that have been issued not only by EPA
but also by DOT. the Department of
Health and Human Services, the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, and LARC. It does not
go beyond substances that have already
been regulated, considered for
regulation, or listed for testing. This list
was prepared by Executive Enterprise
Publications Company. Inc.. in
cooperation with the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturers Association.
(3) Toxic Substances Control Act
Chemical Substance Inventory. This list
Includes approximately 55.000
chemicals. It is likely that moat known
potentially hazardous chemicals would
be included and* considered for
designation if thli list IB used. The
Agency, however, could have difficulty
in establishing priorities and applying
designation criteria in • timely fashion
to this list, and data oa thsM substances
may be insufficient
B. Criteria for QesigMtiam
The Agency has Identified four
alternative sets of criteria for
designating candidate substances as
hazardous for purposes of CERCLA.
Comment is specifically solicited on
these alternatives, and on combinations
of them.
Designation Alternative t: Critical
Value Strategy. This approach
resembles the primary and secondary
criteria used to adjust RQs. (See today's
NPRM on Superfund Notification
Requirements and Report able Quantity
Adjustments, published elsewhere in
toda> s Federal Register, for J more
de'diled explanation o: this process | To
assort RQs to designated hazardous
substances, the Agency would evaluate
whether substances exhibit any of the
following characteristics- a a _T:c
toxiciiy. mammalian (oral, dermal or
inhalation) toxicity. ignitability.
reactivity, other toxic effects.
carcino«er:ci!y. a-d a tendency to
dissipate into the environment. These
charac:ensrcs or —it«na are used to
adjust repo-able quantities in the
accompanying NPRM. In applying this
approach to designation.' the Agency
would establish a critical value for each
of the above cnteria. Substances would
be designated if the rating of the
substances were above the critical value
for any en tenon. If there were
insufficient evidence to judge, the
substance could be retained as a
candidate pending the collection of
further data. The data gathered in the
designation process would also be used
to establish RQs for substances once
they have been designated.
EPA specifically solicits comments on
the following issues:
(1) Are the critical values developed
to adjust reportable quantities also
appropriate for designation of hazardous
substances? (These critical values are
discussed in the accompanying Notice of
Proposed Rulemakmg on Superfund
Reportable Quantity Adjustments. Part
IV.)
(2) Are other critical values more
appropnate for designation of hazardous
substances?
Designation Alternative £• A
Combination of Production Level and
Critical Value Strategy. This alternative
would identify substances on the
candidate list for further analysis if their
annual production level exceeded some
specified amount. The critical value
methodology would then be applied to
these substances to determine whether
they should actually be designated. This
method treats production volume as an
indication of release potential It
assumes that there is less chance of a
release if a substance is produced in
relatively small quantities. For Imported
substances, the amount imported would
be added to the domestic production
level.
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act
screened substances by production
level. The Clean Water Act s final
promulgated list of hazardous
substances includes those hazardous
substances produced at a level of 10
million pounds per year or more. The
Agency has found that the materials
most commonly encountered (i.e.. spilled
mos1 frequently) in Section 311 spill
situations are those produced in high
volumes. Serening by production '-*•
results in fewer candidate substances
than Alternate 1. which means :r i: :\e
Agency may be able to analyze for
possible designation the subitances
r.jit Ke!v to be released If thu
approdxh is taken, however, certain
potentially hazardous substances that
may be released will not be considered
for possible designation because thay
are no longer produced or they are
pr )duceJ in low volumes.
The Agency specifically requests
comments on the following pumts (1) if
production level is used to screen
substances for analysis, what
production level should be selected as
•the cutoff point, and (2) what problems
could occur when substances with low
production volumes (hat might
otherwise be considered hazardous are
not designated.
Designation Alternative !• Hazard
Index. This approach involves a scoring
system to evaluate the relative potential
threat posed to public health or welfare
or the environment when candidate
substances are released to the air.
ground water, surface water, or sod. A
vanety of rating factors (e.g. toxicity.
reactivity, bioaocumulation. persistence.
carcmogerucity) would be used to
determine the kinds of hazards that
would result and. insofar as possiole.
the degree of hazard posed. EPA solicits
comments concerning the appropnate
rating factors. An equation would be
used to combine these several factors
into a single number. A substance's
hazard index value derived in this
fashion could be compared to the values
determined for other substances, and a.
ranking of substances would be
possible. A cutoff point for designation
could then be determined.
A hazard index approach provides a
quantative ranking of hazard that
facilitates setting a cutoff point and it
uses all available data. It is possible.
however, that (1) data gaps nay make a
substance appear less hazardous than it
is and may make relative ranking
difficult to develop. (2) a cutoff point
could not be easily determined. (3) there
would be no general agreement in the
scientific community on how rating
factors are to be combined to form an
acceptable hazard index for a broad
listing of chemicals, and (4) different but
equally defensible equations would
result in different rankings for the tame
subtanca.
Designation Alternative 4:
Combination of Release History and
Critical Value Strategy. This approa.
would identify all candidate substances
with a history of release problems. For
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No 102 / Wednesday. Slav 13. 1983 / Proposed Rules 2360:
example- substances would be
considered Tor designation if their
release had required frequent or
extraordinary response (e g.. rap.ci
evacuation) m the past, or if ihev hnd
frequently been identified at sites
undergoing remedial action --nde-
CERCLA. The critical value strategy
would then be applied to determine
which substances pose a threat to public
health or welfare or the «rvifontrer.t
This approach identifies tor CERCLA
designation those substance ih j( pose
a threat to public health or welfare or
the environment and (hat have a proven
history of release problem]. Designation
of substances thai have not historically
been a problem ia avoided. H may be
appropriate, however, to designate
substances that an rarely, if ever.
released becauae of the potential hazard
they pose. In addition, non-regulated
substances art not usually monitored
when releases of hazardous substances
occur, so thai there nay be no release
record of a substance that is released in
potentially significant amounts.
111. Other Issues
Several issues will arise regardless of
the alternatives selected. The issues
include designation under oiner solutes
and the uae of categorical designation.
A. Effects of Designation Under Other
Statutes
Substances may be added to or
deleted from the lists identified under
Section 101(14) of CERCLA: Sections
307ta) and 311(b)(2)(A) of the Clean
Water Act Section 112 of the Cleaa Air
Act Section 3001 of RCRA and Section
7 of TSCA. Substances added to these
lists will be added to Ihe CERCLA hsl
and substances deleted from these lists
will be deleted from the CERCLA list
(jn.css ii-t ire aiso des.gnatefl jnccr
some oiher provisions) In proposma any
dddihorn -n these other lists. EPA will
ref.irer.i.e .ne 'act thct 'hese subiu- -es
will automatically be designated under
CERCLA. EPA anticipates proposing
RQs for these substances at that tirr.p
EPA iu..uts comn-prus on any ether
arrangements that might be helpful to
1.1 form tr.c public concern.ng additions
to or deletions from these lists.
B Categorical Venus Individual
Destination
Hazardous substances could be
designated as categories of substances
(e.g.. acids] or as individual substances
(e.g.. sulfunc acid). If designation is by
category, however, the designation may
be too broad. Although such an
approach guarantees that all truly
hazardous substances in that category
are designated, it could impose an
unnecessary burden on the regulated
community and might prevent EPA from
focusing on the most senoua releases. In
addition. RQ assignment might be
complicated if individual substances
covered by a single categorical
designation required different RQs.
Individual designation, on the other
hand, is a time-consuming process, and
designation of particular substance! as
hazardous under CERCLA may take
longer than if the categorical designation
approach had been used A delay or a
failure to designate substances as
hazardous may adversely affect public
health or welfare or the environment
The Agency reouests public commen'
on the rclalue ncr :$ .. _sir>ff-"-rt|
versus individual deji^n.n.in
IV Public Comment
To summarize ;hf oreviuns
discussion, cubliAcurr-rit 15
specifically requesvd on the F
(1) The ulternativi i presented for
developing a list of candidate
substances:
[2] The alternatives presented for
jclpcurn substances from tkecandidat
list for ucsi;r.diion a» hazardous for
purposes of CERCLA:
(3) The option of designating no new
hazardous substances:
(4) The relative ments of designdiint
substances categorically or Individual!
(3) Data bases or techniques that
could be used by (he Agency to Till dai
gaps about substances being considen
for designation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Pad 302
Administrative pracnce and
procedure. Air pollution contraL
Chemicals. Hazardous malenala.
Hazardous material* transportation.
Hazardous substances. Haurdoua
wastes. Intergovernmental relations.
Liabilities. Natural resources. Nucleu
materials. Penalties. Pesticides and
pests. Radioactive materials. Reportu
and recordkeepmg required
Superfund. Waste treatmen
disposal Water pollution cc ,u Wi
supply.
Ojlcd: April 24 1963.
LM L Vmtaadif
Acting Administrator.
-------
Thursday
September 8, 1983
Part VII
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final and Proposed Amendment* to
National Oil and Hazardous Substance*
Contingency Plan; National Priorities Ust
-------
40658 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thursday. September B. 1983 / Rulea and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFfl Part 300 •
lSwEB-fm.2421-1)
Amendment to National OH and
Hazardous Substance Contingency
Plan; National Priorities Ust
AOINCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") is amending ihe
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan ("NCP"). which was
promulgated on fuly 18,1982. pursuant
to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act of 19HO
("CERCLA") and Executive Order 12316.
This amendment supplements the NCP
with the National Priorities List ("NPL").
which will become Appendix B of the
NCP. CERCLA requires that the NCP
include a list of national priorities
among the known releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances.
pollutants, and contaminants throughout
ihe United States, and that the list be
revised at least annually. The NPL
constitutes this list.
OATIS: The promulgation date for this
amendment to the NCP shall be
September 8.1983. Under section 305 of
CERCLA. amendments to the NCP
cannot idke effect until Congress has
had at least 60 "calendar days of
continuous session" from the date of
promulgation in which to review the
amended Plan. Since the actual length of
this review period may be affected by
Congressional action, it is not possible
dt this time to specify a date on which
the NPL will become effective.
Therefore. EPA will publish a Federal
Register notice at the end of the review
period announcing the effective date of
this NPL. EPA notes, however, that the
If-yul effect of a Congressional veto
pursuant to section 305 has been placed
in question by the recent decision.
l':i.i>:\>ration and Naturalization Sfrvirf
\ Chaciha. U S. . (Docket No.
HO-1B32. decided June 23.1983)
Nonetheless, the Agpncy has decided, as
a matter of pohcv. to submit the NPL for
Congressional review.
AOOftESSIS: The public docket for thp
\CP will contain Hazard Ranking
Svsiem (MRS) score sheets Tor all -SUCK
nn the NPL ds well dS a
Documentation Record" for ejch site
drsMul,.lfirv Kleiilnliiv Art AnnljMS
I. Introduction
Pursuant to sf-L'ujn 105 of inn
Cn~-.prprn>n>'ive Fn1. ironmentdl
Rrsponsp Ciimprnsjlinn. find Liability
Act of 1980. 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657
("CERCLA" or "the Act"), and Executix-
Order 12316 (46 FR 42237. August 20.
1981), the Environment*! Protection
Agency ("EPA" or "the Agency")
promulgated the revised National
Contingency Plan ("NCP"). 40 CFR Part
300. on July 16.1982 (47 FR 31180). Those
amendments to the NCP implement the
new responsibilities and authorities
created by CERCLA to respond to
releases nnd threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants.
Section 105(8)(A) of CERCLA requires
that the NCP include cnteria for
determining priorities among releases ur
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 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 permanent remedy for a release
(CERCLA Section 101(24)). Criteria for*.
determining priorities are included m
the Hazard Ranking System ("HRS").
which EPA promulgated as Appendix A
of the NCP (47 FR 31219. July 18. 1982).
Section 10S(8)(B) of CERCLA requires
that these criteria be used to prepare a
list of national priorities among the
known releases or threatened releases
throughout the United Stales, and that to
the extent practicable at least 400 sites
be designated individually EPA has
included releases on thp NPL i* here
CERCLA authorizes Federal response to
the release. Under section 104(d) of
CERCLA. this response author-ty is
quite broad and extends to releases or
threatened releases not only of
designated hazardous substances. Sut nf
any "pollutant or contaminant which
presents an imminent and suostantsal
danger to (he public health or welfare
CERCLA requires that this Notiunnl
Priorities List ("NPL") be included ds
part of the NCP Today, the Agency i.t
amending the NCP by adding the NPL «i
Appendix B. The discussion belmv mrtv
refer to 'releases or threatened
relens.es" simply ds "releast1*
'facilities," or '«aes."
U. Purpose of the NPL
The pnmdry purpose of (lie NPL it
slrtted in the legislative history nf
CFRCLA (Report of lhn Commnt.- .>..
I ill irmuiifiil niul Put'I ir \\nrk- NI-I...II
-------
Federal Register / Vol. «, No. 175 / Thuraday. September a. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 40859
^^•^^^^^^^•^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^•^^^^•^^^^^^^^•^^••^^•••••••^^^^•^^^^•^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^^^'^^^"'^^^^^^^^^^^•^^^•••••••^^^^••^••••^^•v
Report No. 96-448.96th Cong.. 2d. Sets.
60 (1980)):
The priority lists tar»e primarily
informational purposes, identifying for the
Slate* and tha public UIOM facilities and utes
or other releases which appew to warrant
remedial actioni. Inclunon of a facility or uta
on tha Hit doei not in itself reflect a judgment
of the activities of its owner or operator, it
doe* not require iho*e persons to undertake
any action, nor does it assign liability to any
person. Subsequent government action in the
form of remedial scttons or enforcement
actions will be necessary in order to do 10.
and these actions will be ((tended by all
appropriate procedural safeguards.
The purpose of the NPL therefore, is
primarily to serve as an informational
tool for use by EPA in identifying site*
that appear to present a significant nsk
to public health or the environment. The
initial identification of a site in the NPL
is intended primarily to guide EPA in
determining which sites warrant further
investigation designed to assess the
nature and extent of the public health
and environmental risks associated with
the site and to determine what response
action, if any, may be appropriate.
Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not
establish that EPA necessarily will
undertake response actions. Moreover.
listing does not require any action of
any private party, nor does it determine
tha liability of any party for the cost of
cleanup at the site
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 among sites on the NPL EPA
does not rely on the scores as the sole
means of determining such priorities, as
discussed below. Neither can the HRS
itself determine the appropriate remedy
for a site. The information collected to
develop HRS scores to choose sites for
the NPL is not sufficient in itself to
determine the appropriate remedy for a
particular site. After a site has been
included on the NPL. EPA generally will
rely on further, more detailed studies
conducted at the site to determine what
response, if any. is appropnate.
Decisions 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 NCP After
conducting these additional studies EPA
may conclude that it is not feasible to
conduct response action at some utes
on the NPL because of more pressing
needs at other sites. Given the limited
resources available in the Hazardous
Substance Response Fund, the Agency
must carefully balance the relative
needs for response at the numerous sites
it has studied. It is also possible that
EPA will conclude after further analysis
that no action is needed st the site
because the site does not present a
problem.
III. Implementation
EPA's policy is to pursue cleanup of
hazardous waste sites using all
appropriate response and/or
enforcement actions which are available
to the Agency. Publication of sites on
(he final NPL will serve as notice to any
potentially responsible parry that the
Agency may initiate Fund-financed
response action. The Agency will decide
on a site-by-site basis whether to take
enforcement action or to proceed
directly with Fund-financed response
actions and seek recovery of response
costs after cleanup. To the extent
feasible, once sites are listed on the NPL
EPA will determine high priority
candidates for Fund-financed response
action and enforcement action through •
State or Federal initiative. The
determinations will take into account
consideration of which approach is more
likely to accomplish cleanup of the site
while using the Fund's limited resources
as efficiently as possible.
In many situations, it is difficult to
determine whether private party
response through enforcement measures
or Fund-financed response and cost
recovery will be the more effectiv e
approach in securing site cleanup until
studies have been completed indicating
the extent of the problem and
alternative response action*.
Accordingly, the Agency plans to
proceed with remedial investigations
and feasibility studies at sites as quickly
as possible. (See the NCP. 40 CFR 300.68,
and the preamble. 47 FR 31180. (uly 18.
1982. for a more detailed discussion of
remedial investigations and feasibility
studies.)
Funding of response actions for sites
will not necessarily take place in order
of the sites' ranking on the NPL EPA
does intend in most cases to set
priorities for remedial investigations and
feasibility studies largely on the basis of
HRS scores and the Slates' priorities
simply because at this early stage these
may be the only sources of information
regarding the risk presented by a site.
Funding for the design and construction
of remedial measures is less likely.
however, to occur in order of HRS score.
State assurance that cost sharing and
other State responsibilities will be met
are prerequisites for construction of
remedial measures. Taking those factors
into account, priorities for design and
construction will be based on impacts
on public health and the environment.
as indicated by the HRS scores and
other available information, and on a
case-by-case evaluation of economic.
engineering, and environmental
considerations.
The NPL does not deiermme priorities
for removal actions. EP \ may take
removal actions at any me. whether
listed or not. that meete the criteria of
sections 300.65-87 of th • NCP. Likewise.
EPA may take enforcen ent actions
under applicable siatuti s against
responsible parties regardless of .
whether the site is listed on the NPL
IV. Process for Establishing the NPL
Section 105(8) of CERCLA
contemplates that the bulk of the initial
identification of sites for the NPL will be
done by the States according to EPA
criteria, although EPA also has
independent authority to consider sites
for listing. For that reason, most of the
sites on the NPL were evaluated by the
States in accordance with the HRS and
submitted to EPA. In some cases.
however. EPA Regional Offices also
scored sitee using the HRS. For all sites
considered. EPA reviewed the HRS
evaluations and conducted quality
assurance audits on a sample of the
sites submitted for the NPL The purpose1
of these audits was to ensure accuracy
and consistency in HRS scoring among
the various EPA and States offices.
On December 30.1982. the pt I
list of 418 sites was published IK
Federal Register. The 418 sites consisted
of any site specifically designated by a
State as its top priority, and all sites
receiving HRS scores of 28.50 or higher.
This cutoff score was selected because
it would yield an initial NPL of at least
400 sites as suggested by CERCLA. not
because of any determination that it
represented a threshold in the
significance of the risks presented by
sites. On March 4.1983. the Agency also
proposed to include the Times Beach.
Missouri, site on the NPL and has
considered comments on that site along
with those for the other 418 sites. Based
on the comments received on the
proposed sites, as well as further
investigation by EPA and the Slates.
EPA recalculated the HRS scores for
individual sites where appropnate.
EPA's response to public comments, and
an explanation of any score changes
made as a result of such comments, are
addressed on the NPL in the "Support
Document for the National Priorities
List." This document is available in the
EPA dockets in Washington. D C. and
the Regional Offices.
Some commenters staled that certain
specific sites that EPA did not c- 4er
in developing the proposed NPl t
inclusion on the NPL In most SUL.. oases
EPA did not have sufficient data to
score the sites using the HRS. EP^ and
-------
40660 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1963 / Rules and Regulations
the Stales an in (he process of
investigating and evaluating those utei.
and will propose to include any site*
that meet EPA s criteria for listing on the
NPL in future updates. In addition, some
commenters submitted comments or
information supporting the inclusion of
sites that EPA had evaluated according
to the HRS but had not proposed
because (he sites scored too low. The
Agency is considering those comments.
and where new information results in
raising the HRS score of a site over
28.50. will propose to include the site on
the NPL in a future update.
The Agency considered accepting
further comment on the final NPL sites
for a second 90 day period following
proposal of the first NPL update. This
option was considered in order to be as
responsive as possible to the concerns
of s few commenters who had requested
extensions of the original comment
period. In fact, in an exercise of its
discretion. EPA was able to consider
practically all late comments, and
believes that this more than adequately
accommodated the concerns of the few
commenters who had requested more
time. Accordingly. EPA has determined
thai the NPL can now be published in
final form and thai a second opportunity
•for comment is not necessary.
V. Contents of UM NPL
As noted above. CERCLA requires
that the NPL Include, if practicable, at
least 400 sites. The NPL established
today contains 406 individual entnes.
The December proposal was based on a
minimum HRS score of 28.50. and EPA is
continuing to use the same minimum
score as the basis for including sites on
the final NPL Each entry on the NPL
contains the name of the facility, the
State and city or county in which it Is
located, and the corresponding EPA
Region. For informational purposes.
each entry on the NPL is accompanied
by a notation on the currant status of
response and enforcement activities at
the site, as described more fully below.
The sites on the NPL are listed in
order of their HRS scant (except where
EPA modified the order to reflect top
priorities designated by States, as
discussed In the following paragraph)
The list is presented in groups of 50
sites. EPA has grouped the sites in this
manner to emphasize the fact that minor
differences in HRS scores do not
necessarily represent significantly
different levels of nsk. Within these
groups EPA will consider the sites to
have approximately the same priority
for response actions.
Section 105(8|(B| of CERCLA requires
that, to the extent practicable, the NPL
mctude within the 100 highest priorities
at least one facility designated by each
Slate as representing the greatest danger
to public health, welfare, or the
environment among known facilities m
the Stale. For (hat reason. EPA included
within the 100 highest priority sites each
site designated by a State as its top
priority. The Agency did not require
States to rely exclusively on the HRS in
designating their top priority sites, and
certain of the sites designated by the
States as their top priority were not
among the one hundred highest sites
accordingly to HRS score. These lower
scoring State priority sites are listed at
the bottom of (he group of 100 highest
priority sites. All top priority sites
designated by States are indicated by
asterisks.
One commenter said that the HRS
scores do not represent levels of nsk
with sufficient precision to allow the
Agency to array sites on the NPL
sequentially by score. The commenter
contended that EPA could not properly
distinguish on the basis of score
between the nsks posed by two sites
whose HRS scores differed only slightly.
This commenter recommended.
therefore, thai EPA list sites on the NPL
in two groups: The first group would
consist of the top 100 sites, while the •
second would be comprised of all the
remaining sites. Both groups would be
organized alphabetically by EPA Region.
EPA has decided to list sites
sequentially by score because it wants
the presentation of the NPL to be simple
and easily understood, and because it
believes that, at a minimum, large
differences in HRS scores between sites
can be a meaningful indicator of
different levels of nsk. Based on its
expenence with the Interim Pnonties
List, which was prepared before the
formal NPL process began, as well as
with the proposed NPL EPA has found
thai the public wants to know the
relative HRS scores of sites. As EPA
discovered with the Intenm Pnonties
List, when sites are listed alphabetically
or by some other non-sequential manner
the public is still likely to assume that
the sites presented high on the list are
those presenting the greatest nsk to
public health. Thus, listing sites other
than by scores could result m confusion.
Even if the Agency were to list sites
on the NPL on a non-sequential basis.
public concern about the relative scores
could soon cause the media or members
of the public to obtain the HRS scores
snd compile a list presented
sequentially by score. A large number of
people requesting copies of the proposed
NPL list preferred to receive the list
presented sequentially by score.
While EPA agrees thai (he HRS
scoring system is not so precise as to
accurately distinguish between the risks
presented by two sites whose scores arc
very close, it was not designed 10 do so
and the Agency has not relied upon it on
that basis. The HRS had to be designed
fur application to a wide variety of sues
and to sites where expensive., detailed
data on all relevant characteristics are
not available: consequently, the HRS
can only roughly approximate the risk
presented by the various sues. For thai
reason, presenting the NPL sites
sequentially by score simply reports the
numerical results of applying this
system for approximating nsk and does
not represent a determination by EPA
that any particular site on the NPL
necessarily presents a greater risk than
all sites listed below or a lesser risk
than all sites listed above. EPA is
confident, however, (hat the HRS is an
effective tool for approximating nsk and
that differences of more than a Few
points in score generally are meaningful
in discnmmatmg between sites. For this
reason also, therefore. EPA has chosen
to list sites sequentially by score to
avoid the misapprehension that all sites
on the list present an equivalent level of
nsk even when separated by twenty or
thirty points in score.
EPA will continue, whenever possible
to accompany the presentation of the
VPL with the caveat that minor
differences in score may not be
meaningful and that therefore a given
site may not necessanly be "worse"
than the site or sites immediately
following.
Another commenter recommended
establishing a dual list, so that (he
second list could indicate those sites ai
which substantial progress in cleanup i«
being made. The Agency believes that
(he effort involved in establishing a
second list would not be justified. In
order to develop a dual list the Agency
would have to determine what
constitutes "substantial progress" and
develop the cntena for making such a
determination. This would also requirp
EPA to conduct extensive engineering
and evironmental studies of all sues ai
which cleanup is being done before pai h
publication or update of the NPl.. In
addition, such a list could result m
undue emphasis on partial solutions
being implemented at a site rather chdn
on the completion of cleanup to
minimize the risks to the public and the
environment Rather than taking the
resource-intensive approach suggested.
EPA has included in ihe NPL a notation
for each site thai summarizes the status
of action at the sue. based on simple.
easily venfiable criteria. Where private
parties are taking response actions
pursuant to a formal agreement with
-------
Fader*! RagUtar / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1983 / Rule* and Regulations
EPA. (he status of the lite i« described
by notation M "Voluntary or Negotiated
Response." EPA alio Intends to delete
sites from the NPl when cleanup has
been completed.
The Agency his included in the NPL
for informational purposes several such
categories of notation reflecting the
current atatui of response and
enforcement actions at sites. It should
be noted that them notations are based
on the Agency's most current
information. Because a site's status may
change periodically, these notations
may become outdated. Site status will
be noted in the fallowing categories:
Voluntary or Negotiated Response (V);
Federal and Slate Response (R): Federal
or State Enforcement (E): and Actions to
be Determined (D). Each category n
explained below.
Voluntary or Negotiated Response.
Sites are included in this category if
pnvate panics are taking response
actions pursuant to a consent order or
agreement to which EPA is a party.
Voluntary or negotiated cleanup may
include action* taken pursuant to
consent orders reached after EPA has
commenced an enforcement action. This
category of response may include
remedial investigations, feasibility
studies, and other preliminary work, as
well as actual cleanup.
Several commenten were concerned
that this category did not adequately
reflect voluntary response efforts
undertaken without formal agreements
with EPA. However. EPA studies have
shown (hat many of the response
actions undertaken by pnvate parties
outside the sanction of EPA consent
agreements have not been successful.
Furthermore, some private parties) have
represented routine maintenance or
waste management activities as
response action*, thereby leading to the
conclusion that only after a thorough
technical review can the Agency
describe action* by private parties as
"responses". Thna. EPA believes that to
describe actions taken outside consent
orders as "response" would in many
instances be misleading to the public as
EPA cannot assure the public that the
actions are appropriate, adequate.
consistent with the NCP. and are being
fully implemented. Therefore, the
Agency encourages any responsible
parties who are undertaking voluntary
response actions at NPL sites to contact
the Agency to negotiate consent
agreements.
This is not intended to preclude
responsible parties from taking
voluntary response actions outside of a
consent agreement However, m order
for the me to be deleted or to be noted
in the voluntary or negoiidted response
category. EPA must still sanction the
completed cleanup. If the remedial
action is not fully implemented or is not
consistent with the NCP. the responsible
party may be subject to an enforcement
action. Therefore, most responsible
parties may find it in their best interest
to negotiate a consent agreement.
Federal and State Response. The
Federal and Slate Response category
includes sites at which EPA or State
agencies have commenced or completed
removal or remedial actions under
CERCLA, including remedial
investigations and feasibility studies
(see NCP. | 300.66 (fHi). 47 FR 31217.
July 18. 1982). For purposes of this
categorization. EPA considers the
response action to have commenced
when EPA has obligated funds. For
some of the sites in this category EPA
may follow remedial investigations and
feasibility studies with enforcement
actions, at whicn time the site status
would change to "Federal or State
Enforcement."
Federal or Slate Enforcement. This
category includes sites where the United
Slates or Che State has filed a civil
complaint or issued an administrative
order. It also includes sites at which a
Federal or State court has mandated
some form of non-consensual response
action following a judicial proceeding. It
may not. however, include all sites at
which preliminary enforcement
activities are underway. A number of
sites on the NPL are the subject of
enforcement investigation or have been
formally referred to the Department of
Justice for enforcement action. EPA's
policy is not to release information
concerning a possible enforcement
action until a lawsuit has been filed.
Accordingly, these sites have not been
included in the enforcement category.
Actions To Be Determined. This
category includes all sites not listed in
any other category. A wide range of
activities may be in progress for sites in
this category. The Agency may be
considering whether to undertake
response action, or may be conducting
an enforcement investigation. EPA may
have referred a case involving the site to
the Department of Justice, pnor to
formal commencement of enforcement
action. Investigations may be underway
or needed to determine the source of a
release :n areas adjacent to or near a
Federal facility Responsible parties
may be undei taking cleanup operations
that are not covered by consent orders.
or corrective action may not be
occurring yet.
VI. Eligibility
CERCLA restricts EPA s authority to
respond to the release of certain
10661
substances into the environmen
explicitly excludes some jubslan^.a
from the definition of release. In
addition, as a matter of policy. EPA may
choose not to respond to certain types of
release's under CERCLA because
existing regulatory or other authority
under other Federal statutes provides
for an appropriate response. Where
ihese other authorities exist, and the
Federal government can undertake or
enforce cleanup pursuant to a particular.
proven program, listing on the NPL to
determine the priority or need for
response under CERCLA does not
appear to be appropriate EPA has
therefore chosen not to consider certain
types of sites for inclusion on the NPL
even though authority to respond to
them may exist under CERCLA. If.
however, the Agency later determines
that sites which it has not listed as a
matter of policy are not being properly
responded to, the Agency will consider
listing those sites on the NPL.
This section discusses the comments
received on these categories of releases
and tha Agency's decision on how lo
address them on the NPL
Releases of Radioactive Materials
Section 101(22) of CERCLA < ies
several types of releases of ra> ive
materials from the statutory delation of
"release." These releases are therefore
not eligible for CERCLA response
actions or inclusion on the NPL The
exclusions apply to 1) releases of
source, by-product or special nuclear
material from a nuclear incident if these
releases are tubiect to financial
protection requirements under section
170 of tha Atomic Energy Act and 1}
any release of source, by-product or
special nuclear material from any
processing site designated under the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Contra
Act of 1978. Accordingly such
radioactive releases have not been
considered eligible far inclusion on the
NPL As a policy matter. EPA has also
chosen not to list releases of source, by
product, or special nuclear material froi
any facility with a current license issue
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). on the grounds that the NRC ha
full authority to require cleanup uf
releases from such facilities [Formerly
licensed facilities whose licenses no
longer are in effect will however be
considered for listing I Comments
generally supported :ne position.
Some commenters said thai FPA
should also not list fdcilr.ies old
current license issued by a Si
pursuant to a delegation of authority
from the NRC pursuant -o section ZN <
the Atomic Energy Aci !•>: U S C. :o:i
-------
40662 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
EPA hat decided, however, that Its
policy of excluding licensed facilities
from the list should extend only to those
fdcilmei over which the Federal agency.
the NRC. haa direct control. When a
facility is licensed by a State pursuant to
an NRC delegation, the NRC has no
authority, short of withdrawing the
delegation itself, to enforce conditions of
(he license or determine that new
conditions are necessary. EPA
recognizes that the licensing State may
be able to ensure cleanup of any release
through the license, but has decided to
list such sites on the NPL to provide
potential Federal authorities if
necessary. Since listing on the NPL m no
way determines whether actual cleanup
actions will be taken. EPA will be able
to defer to the licensing State whenever
the Agency determines that Slate efforts
are adequate to address the problem.
Some commenters stated that no sites
of radioactive releases should be
included on the NPL for several
reasons. One point made was that other
Federal authorities, such as the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1978 (UMTRCA). provide adequate
authority to control releases from such
sites. With the exception of certain
specified sites (which EPA has not
considered for listing on the NPL).
however. UMTRCA addresses the
problem only by inclusion of conditions
"in facility licenses and does not
authorize any direct response actions.
While UMTRCA may prove adequate in
some cases. EPA believes that CERCLA
provides sufficiently broader authorities
to warrant listing in anticipation of the
possibility that action under CERCLA
may prove necessary or appropnate at
some of these sites.
Another point made was that the HRS
does not accurately reflect the real
hazard presented by radioactive sites
because the HRS scores releases of
radioactive matenal even when those
releases are within radiation limits
established by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and by EPA pursuant to the
Atomic Energy Act. As explained above
in discussing the HRS approach to
icorr.g observed releases, this factor is
designed to reflect the likelihood that
substances can migrate from the site.
.mi thai the particular release observed
is itself a hazard In addition. EPA's
experience has been that some
r.idiorfctue releases do exceed these
sinnd.irds. confirming the premise of the
MRS that a current observed release in
low concentrations may be followed by
prettier releases leading to higher
rnrupnlrdlinns
Releases From Federal Facilities
CERCLA section 111(e|(3) prohibits
use of the Fund for remedial actions at
Federally owned facilities. In the
proposed NPL. EPA did not list any sites
where the release resulted solely from a
Federal facility, regardless of whether
contamination remained onsite or has
migrated offsite. EPA did. however.
consider eligible for inclusion on the
NPL sites where it was unclear whether
the Federal facility was the sole source
of contamination, on the grounds that if
it turned out that some other source
were also responsible EPA might be
authorized to respond. In these
situations, the offsite contaminated area
associated wiih this type of release waa
considered eligible for inclusion. Sites
that are not currently owned by the
Federal Government were also
considered eligible for the NPL even if
they were previously owned by the
Federal Government. Finally, non-
Federally owned sites where the Federal
Government may have contributed to a
release were also eligible for inclusion.
EPA chose not to list releases coming
solely from Federal facilities because of
the lack of EPA response authonty. and
because the responsibility for cleanup of
these sites rests with the responsible
Federal agency, pursuant to Executive
Order 12310 (46 FR 42237. Aug. 20. 1981).
EPA incorporated this position into the
NCP. at section 300.66(e)(2). 47 FR 31215
(July 16.1982). However, a number of
commenters believed that Federal
facilities should be listed on the NPL
when the HRS score was sufficiently
high in order to focus public attention
and appropnate resources on the most
senous sites even though they are not
eligible for Fund-financed remedial
action. After consideration of this
comment, the Agency believes that it
may be appropnate to include Federal
facility sites on the NPL when they meet
the cntena for inclusion, and has
decided to propose a future amendment
to the NCP which would permit it to do
so. While it was not feasible to consider
Federal facilities for inclusion in this
final NPL or in the first update. EPA
intends to begin considering Federal
facilities for Inclusion on the NPL and
expects to include qualifying sites in the
next Feasible NPL update proposal
EPA will develop working
relationships with Federal agencies on
the implementation of corrective actions
ui Federal sites, whether on a future
version of the .NPL or not. If the'sites are
owned by the Department of Defense.
they will take the appropriate action, us
they have response authority under
Executive Order 12318. For sites owned
hy other dgennev KPA AI|| conduct thr
remedial action with funding provided
by the agency that owns the site. In both
of these instances, the response action
must be in conformity with the NCP. |ust
as all response action performed by
private parties must be.
ROM-Related Sites
Both CERCLA and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
contain authorities applicable to
hazardous waste facilities. These
authonties overlap for certain sites.
Accordingly, where a site consists of
regulated units of a RCRA facility
operating pursuant to a permit or interim
status, it will not be included on the NPL
but will instead be addressed under the
authorities of RCRA. The Land Disposal
Regulations under RCRA (40 CFR Parts
122. 260. 284. and 265) give EPA and the
Statea authority to control active sites
through a broad program which includes
monitonng. compliance inspections.
penalties for violations, and
requirements for post closure plans and
financial responsibility. RCRA
regulations require a contingency plan
for each facility. The regulations also
contain Groundwaier Protection
Standards (40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F]
that cover detection monitonng.
compliance monitonng (if ground water
impacts are identified) and corrective
action.
These monitoring and corrective
action standards apply to all "regulated
units" of RCRA facilities, i.e., any part of
the waste treatment, storage, or disposal
operation within the boundaries of the
facility that accepted waste after
January 28.1983. the effective date of
the Land Disposal Regulations (47 FR
32349. July 28.1982). Even if the unit
ceases operation after this time, the unit
is still required to be covered by a
permit and the monitonng and
corrective action requirements will be
enforced. Given this alternative
authority to ensure cleanup, regulated
units of RCRA facilities generally are
nui included on the NPL. This is true not
only of sites subiect to EPA-
admimstered hazardous waste programs
but also to sites in States that
administer programs approved by EPA.
Even in the latter instance, close Federal
control is ensured by the
comprehensiveness of (he program
elements required of all State programs
coupled with EPA s authority 10 enforce
Slate program requirements directly if
the Slate fails to do so. Only if the
facility is abandoned and the RCRA
corrective action requirements cannot
he enforced will EPA consider listing ihe
site on the NPL for possible response
under CF.RCLA. F.PA does, however
-------
Federal Remitter / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1983 / Rulea and Regulations 40663
consider eligible for lining on the NPL
those RCRA facilittei at which a
significant portion of the release
appears to come from "non-regulated
unit*" of the facility, that is. portions of
(he facility that ceased operation prior
to January 26.1983.
Releases of Mining Wastes
Some commenters presented the view
that CERCLA does not authorize EPA to
respond to releases of mining wastes.
and that sites involving mining wastes
should not be included on (he NPL This
view is based on the interpretation that
mining wastes are not considered
hazardous substances under CERCLA.
CERCLA includes in its definition of
hazardous substances materials that
constitute hazardous wastes under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). In the 1980 amendments to
RCRA. the regulation of mining wastes
under Subtitle C of RCRA was
temporarily suspended and that
suspension is presently in effect. For
that reason, the commenters believe that
mining wastes should not be considered
hazardous substances under CERCLA.
EPA disagrees with the coromenters'
interpretation. The Agency believes that
mining wastes can be considered
hazardous substances under CERCLA if
it meets any of the other statutory
criteria (e.g.. if the material is also a
hazardous air pollutant listed under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act). Mote
importantly, however. EPA'a authority
to respond to mining waste releases.
and the Agency's ability to list mining
waate sites on the NPL does not depend
on whether mining wastes are
hazardous substances. Section 104(a)(lJ
of CERCLA authorizes EPA to respond
to releases of not only "hazardous
substances." but also "any pollutant or
contaminant." "Pollutant or
contaminant" is defined very broadly in
section 104(a)|2) to include essentially
any substance that may cause an
advene effect on human health. EPA is
convinced that mining wastes can
satisfy these minimal criteria, thai the
Agency therefor* has the authority to
respond to releases of mining wastes.
and that listing of mining waste site* on
the NPL is appropriate
Commenters also preserved ifce view
that it is unclear whether CERCLA was
intended to address the type of waste
problem, characterized by low
concentrations and large volumes.
dssociated with mining waste They
argued that the approach taken under
RCRA. of preparing a study of mining
wastes before determining whether
regulation of such wastes is appropriate.
should be adopted in the CERCLA
program as well Commeniers suggested
that as a policy matter, long term
permanent remedial actions could be
postponed and only removal actions
taken at such sites when emergency
conditions warrant.
As described above, however, the
response authorities of CERCLA are
very broad. As long as EPA has the
authority to respond, and no other
Federal statute provides authority
comparable to CERCLA. the Agency has
the obligation at least to evaluate the
precise extent of the nsk and the
possible response actions at all sites
that upon preliminary investigation
appear to present a significant risk. EPA
should also remain free at least to
consider all types of response actions at
all sites in order to determine which is
the most appropriate and cost-effective.
and should not limit itself to considering
only removal actions at a particular
class of facilities. Inclusion of the NPL is
appropriate in order to begin the process
of determining how to address such
sites. Since inclusion on the NPL does
not determine whether response actions
will be taken or what response is
appropriate. EPA is free to develop an
approach for responding to mining
waste sites that takes into account any
unique features of such sites.
Comments also presented the view
that the HRS is not an appropriate tool
to estimate the nsk to health and the
environment presented by mining waste
sites.
They pointed out that the HRS does •
not consider concentration levels at the
point of impact, but rather the mere
presence of the substance in the
environment As explained in Part VII
below, however, the purpose of sconng
for an observed release without taking
level of concentration into account is
.limply to reflect the likelihood that the
subject substances will migrate into the
environment, which in the case of an
observed release is 100 percent. Future
releases, or even current releases for
which concentration data do not exist.
may raise the level of concentration to
the point that it presents a greater risk
than the release first observed. While
releases from mining waste sites may be
somewhat less likely than releases of
man-made chemical substances to ever
reach extremely high concentrations.
harmful concentrations can occur from
mining waste sites and (he distinction is
not sufficient to invalidate the HRS as
an aporopriate model for scoring mining
waste sues.
Another comment was that the
locations of mining waste sites are
generally rural, so that the only sizable
target population are far downstream.
The comment alleged that these
populations are considered in the HRS
scnrmg but in reality may never be
affected. This assumption, however, is
false. The HRS considers only those
persons living within a three mile radius
of the site as constituting the target
population. If a mining waste site has a
high score for this factor, it indicates
(hat despite the fact that the locations of
such sites typically are rural, this
particular site has a significant number
of people within three miles
Indian Lands
EPA has always considered sites on
Indian lands to be eligible for inclusion
on the NPL However, one commenter
was concerned that some sues on Indian
lands may not have been included in (he
State evaluation of NPL candidate sites
because Indian land*'are not subject to
State jurisdiction. The Agency
recognizes thai this may happen.
However. EPA Regional Offices may
also evaluate sites for inclusion on the
NPL The Agency urges commenten to
submit information on any sites which
they feel may not have been evaluated
during preparation of the NPL for
consideration in subsequent updates.
Non-Contiguous Facilities
Section 104(d)(4) of CERCLA
authorize* the Federal Government to
treat two or more non-contiguous
facilities as one for purposes of
response, if such facilities are
reasonably related on the basis of
geography or on the basis of their
potential threat to public health,
welfare, or the environment. For
purposes of the NPL however. EPA has
decided that in most cases such sites •
should be scored and listed individually
because the HRS scores more accurately
reflect the hazards associated with a
site if the site is scored individually In
other cases, however, the nature of the
operation that created the sites and the
nature of the probable appropriate
response may indicate that rwo non-
contiguous sites should be treated as
one for purposes of listing and EPA has
done so for some sites on the final NPL.
Factors relevant to such a
determination include whether ihe two
sites were part of tl'.e same operation If
so. the substances deposited and the
means of disposal are likely to be
Similar, which may imply that a single
strategy for cleanup is appropriate In
addit'on. potentially responsible parlies
would generally be the same for both
sites, indicating that enforcement cr cot
recovery efforts could be very s.miljr
Tor both sues Another factor is whether
contamination from ihe two sites are
threatening the same ground water or
-------
40664 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1963 / Rules and Regulations
surface wster resource. Finally. EPA
will also consider the distance between
the non-contiguous sites and whether
the target population is essentially the
same or substantially overlapping for
both sites, bearing in mind that the HRS
uses the distance of three miles from the
site as the relevant distance for
determining target population.
Where the combination of these
factors indicates that two non-
contiguous locations should be
addressed as a single site, the locations
will be listed as a single site for
purposes of the NPL. While the nature of
the listing may be a guide to prospective
response actions, it is not determinative:
EPA may decide that response efforts.
after all. should be distinct and separate
for the two locations. Also. EPA may
decide to coordinate (he response to
several sues listed separately on the
NPL into a single response action when
it appears more cost-effective to do so.
VII. Changes From the Proposed NPL
The Agency received a total of 343
comments on 217 of the sites listed on
the proposed NPL General comments on
the NPL are addressed throughout this
preamble. Significant comments
regarding specific sites are addressed in
the Support Document for the National
Priorities List, previously cited. A
number of the site-specific comments
addressed similar issues, and EPA's
approaches to those common issues are
presented in this section.
A total of 144 HRS score changes have
resulted from the Agency a reviews of
comments and other information, and
these are summarized m Table I. EPA
determined that a total of five sites that
had been proposed have HRS scores
below 28.50 and should not be included
on the NPL. For seven sites, the Agency
is still considering the comments
received concerning those sites and was
unable to reach a final decision on
listing in time for this publication. EPA
will continue to evaluate these sites and
make a final decision on them in a
Future update to the NPL In one
instance, where cleanup actions have
jdequately addressed the problems.
EPA determined that a site should be
deleted from the proposal and not
included on the final NPL In addition.
!-.tu Stales have revised their
designations of top priorities These
iteTis are addressed below
Waste Quanrm A number of
commenters Sdid that trip waste quantity
\dlnes assigned under the HRS were too
high because EPA had included the
nnn-hazdrdous corsntuents of the
hazardous substances in calculating the
(|ii.mtity of waste located at the facility.
1 his issue was raisrd and rpsolvpd
when the Agency adopted the HRS. In
the preamble to that publication (47 FR
31190. July 16.1982). EPA addressed the
rationale for including all constituents.
including the non-hazardous portions of
the materials, in the calculation of the
quantity of hazardous waste at a site.
Briefly stated, the rationale for the
Agency's approach is that detailed
information of the portion of the total
substances at a site that consist of
hazardous constituents is expensive to
determine, and therefore, because of the
need to use a consistent method of
evaluation of this factor at many sites
nationwide, cannot be required as an
element necessary for HRS scoring. EPA
recognizes that most hazardous wastes
contain some fractions of non-hazardous
substances, and this fact was taken into
account when the rating scales for
waste quantity were established. In
most instances a very small amount of
the hazardous substances can have a
significant impact on public health.
welfare, or the environment. The
Agency did not revise waste quantity
values in response to comments
presenting calculations that excluded
the non-hazardous constituents.
Consideration of Flow Gradients. In
some instances commenlers maintained
that, based upon their conclusions
regarding prospective movement of
contaminants in ground waters, the
values assigned by EPA to population
served by ground water are too high.
The HRS. however, specifies that all the
population using the aquifer of concern
within a three mile radius of the facility
should be included in the calculations of
population served by ground water. The
Agency's approach is based on the
difficulty of predicting precisely the
movements of ground water
furthermore, in establishing the rating
scales, the Agency took into account the
fact that most wells within the three
mile radius would not be affected. As
was the case with the waste quantity
issue, this issue was addressed and
resolved in adopting the HRS in |uly
1982. The rationale for the Agency s
approach is further addressed in the
preamble to the NCP (47 FR 31190-91.
July 18.1982) and is equally applicable
now
Scoring on the Basis of Current
Conditions Some commenters fell that
EPA should take current conditions into
account when scoring sites where
response actions have reduced the
hazards posed by the site EPA scored
iitrs for inclusion in the NPL based on
the hazards that existed before any
rpsponse actions were initiated. This
policy was explained in the preamble to
trip final revisions to the NCP (47 FR
31187 July 18. 1982) The Agpncy
explained that public agencies might
have been discouraged from taking early
response if such actions could .ower the
HRS score and prevent a me fiom being
included on the NPL. This has jmed out
to be the case, as at least one S'ate and
some EPA Regional Offices hai e
actually sought reassurances p: tor to
taking emergency action at sitej that a
site's HRS score would not be lowered
as a result of the response action.
Alternatively, some private parties
might have only taken action sufficient
to lower the score to the point thai it
would not be listed on the NPL but
would not be completely cleaned up.
Those types of score manipulations
could be accomplished by such actions
as temporarily removing wells from
service to lower target scores, or
removing wastes from a site to lower
waste quantity scores while failing to
address contaminated ground waters. 01
by remedying only air discharges where
ground or surface water contamination
also present a problem. Therefore. EPA
was and is concerned that sconng on
the basis of the latest conditions at a
site could encourage incomplete
solutions that might leave significant
health threats unaddressed.
Even where the response actions
occurred before the listing process
began. EPA believes that these actions
should not be considered when sconng
the site for the NPL The ability of the
HRS to approximate nsk at a given site
is based on a number of presumed
relationships between the vanous
factors considered in calculating the
HRS scores. When partial response
actions are conducted, the validity of
these relationships for the purpose of
approximating the nsk posed by a site
may be affected. For this reason, if the
site is rescored taking the response
actions into account, the drop in score
that may result might not reflect a
commensurate reduction in the level of
risk presented by a site.
For example, the factor of hazardous
waste quantity, when considered wuh
other factors that predict the toxicity of
the substances and the likelihood of
release, helps predict how extensive the
harm from a release can be For a site
that has been in existence for some
time, however hazardous substances
may already have begun migration
toward ground water or surface water If
the hazardous materials on the surface
are then removed, and the site is scored
according to conditions existing after
removal, the site would be assigned a
negligible value for waste quantity, even
though substantial amounts of the
material may still be under the site and
a potential threat lo the puohc health.
-------
Fedarri Regjitgr / Vol. 46. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 40665
Another example it where lome of the
original population at nsk ha< been
provided with alternative drinking water
•uppliet. In such a case, tha population
at nsk factor might be rescored quite
low. even where the alternative supplies
are temporary, costly, or limited m
supply. In addition, reacanng in this
situation could penalize residents for
securing alternative supplies by
lowering the priority of the site or
deleting it from the list and thereby
precluding completion of proper
remedial actions. A final reason is thai
response action at sites is an ongoing
process, and it may became unduly
burdensome to continually recalculate
scores to reflect such actions.
Where response actions have already
been initiated by private parties or
another agency, lilting such sites will
enable EPA to evaluate the need for a
more complete response. Inclusion on
the NPL therefore does not reflect a
judgment that responsible parties are
failing to addresa the problems. The
Agency believes, therefore, that this
approach is appropnate. and consistent
with the purpose of the NPL as stated in
the legislative history of CERCLA.
Small Observed Release. Some
commenters maintained thai EPA
incorrectly assigned value* for observed
releases to ground waters because (he
measured concentrations of the
substances involved were below the
regulatory limits specified under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. The MRS
states:
If • contaminant is tneatured (regardless of
frequency) in ground witer or in • well in the
vicinity of • fadliiy ai * iigoificandy (in
i«nns of demonstrating that • release hat
occurred, not in terms of potential erTecli)
higher level than UM background level then
. . a release has been obswved (NCP.
Appendix A. t J.1. 47 PR 91224, July 1& 19*2).
This scoring instruction is based on
the fact that the observed release factor
is considered far purpose of estimating
the likelihood that substances can
migrate from the site. When a release ia
observed in any quantity, as long as the
concentration it above background
level that likelihood is 100 percent, and
this factor receives the maximum score
of 45. The observed release factor is not
intended to reflect the level of hazard
presented by the particular release
observed. The hazard presented is.
rather, approximated by the total scorp.
incorporating (he observed release
factor indicating the likelihood of
migration with other factors such as
waste quantity, toxicity. and the
persistence of the substance. These
combined factors are indicative of (he
possibility of future releases of much
higher amounts. Furthermore.
concentrations of substances migrating
in the environment tend to show
extreme variation through lime and
space. Given that only periodic sampling
is feasible in mo»t instances, requiring
contaminants to exceed certain levels
before assigning an observed release
could exclude many sites from the NPL
which may be endangering the public.
The rationale for this approach is furthei
discussed in the preamble to the NCP
[47 FR 31168 (July 16.19B2)).
Summary of Scon Change*. A
summary of the 144 sites where EPA's
review of comments and new data
resulted in • final score thai changed
from the score as onginalry proposed is
shown un the table below.
-------
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST NRS SCORE CHANCES
—~~~~~~^— — — — — State City/County
State Cl ty/County
EPA
CT
CT
HA
HA
HA
HA
HE
HE
ME
mi
MH
tm
HH
HH
BI
VT
CPA
NJ
HJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
HJ
NJ
HJ
NJ
NY
NY
uv
• •
NY
NY
NY
C.I
PR
Region 1
Southing! or.
Canterbury
Bridgaweter
Groveland
laet Woburn
Acton
Maehburn
Saco
Nlnthrop
Dover
Kingston
Soaeraworth
Naahua
Londonderry
Coventry
Burlington
Rrnion II
Hount Olive Tup.
Dover
Gloucester Township
Man t us
Harlboco Township
PI t lean
pedr led town
Rocksway Township
Dover Township
South Cairo
Be lav la
South Glens Pall*
Niagara Palla
Wellevllla
Veetal
Juana Dial
Barcelonet a
Site Naa*
Solvent* Recovery Gyateaa
Yaworakl Wast* Lagoon
Cannon Engineering
Qrovaland Hell*
Walla 8.H »
WB Orace Co. (Acton Plant)
Plnette'e Salvage Yard
Eaco Tannery Haste Pita
Wtnthrop Landfill
Dover Municipal Landfill
Ottatl and Orosa/Hingston
Steal Drua
Soaaraworth Sanitary
Landfill . I
Sylvester
Tlnkhaa Oarage 81 t*
Plclllo Coventry
Pine Street Canal
Coabe rill North Landfill
Dover Municipal Mell 4
Gens Landfill
Helen Rraaer Landfill
laperlal Oll/Chaapion Chea
Liparl Landfill
H.L. Industries
Rockaway Tounahlp Well*
TOM River Chemical
AMrlcan Theraoetat Co.
Batavia Landfill
G.E. Moraau Sit*
llook*r-8 Area
Sinclair Refinery
Veattl Mater Supply
Vestal Water Supply 1-1
Vaetal Mater Supply 4-2
O.E. Wiring Devlcea
RCA, del Carl.te
BRS
original
17.28
16.70
18.19
40.06
19.20
19.10
19.61
11.40
40.47
16.90
11.40
61.17
61.26
42.70
67.70
40.40
42.44
42.24
68.88
70.06
. 42.69
72.12
49.74
44.46
41.87
48.01
44.16
49.61
12.18
72.01
42.24
42.40
11.28
Score .
Revised
44.91
16.72
19.89
40.74
42.71
19.11
11.98
41.19
11.61
16.98
11.41
61.16
61.28
41.24
91.61
40.42
47.79
28.90
68.11
71.66
11.87
71.60
11.96
18.90
10.11
11.61
10.18
ie.ii
11.61
11.90
17.91
41.24
11.24
11.14
EPA
DE
OE
MO
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
WV
EPA
PL
PL
PL
PL
B?l
8Tb
PL
PL
KY
KY
NC
8C
TH
TH
TH
TH
EPA
IL
IL
IN
HI
Ml
MI
Region Ijl
Mew Caetle County
Haw Caatle County
Anna poll*
State Col lag* Bor.
Parker
North Whitehall Twp.
R labor ton Borough
Harrlaon Yownahlp
McAdoo Borough
Orova City
Palaarton
Eric
Meat 1 In*
Saltvllle
rollanaba*
Region IV
Oalloway
Panaacola
Ulaleah
Mount Pleeeant
Jack eon vl lie
Taapa
Claraont
Calvart City
Meat Point
Bwannanoa
Cayc*
Chattanooga
Call away
Lawranceburg
NeBphla
Region V
Maukegan
La Sail*
Oary
Oary
Grand Baplds
Charlevoli
Msrquetta
Daltoo Twp.
HR6
Site Bane Original
Ax ay Creak Landfill
Haw Caatla Spill
NlddletowD Road Duep
Centra Coiu.ty Kapone
Craig Pan Drua Site
He leva. Landfill
Klabarton
Llndana Doap
McAdoo Aaaoclatee
Oeboraa
Palaerton tine Pile
Praaqua Isle
Meat Una
Baltvllle Waste Disposal
Pond*
Pollanabaa Sludge rill
Alpha Chealcal Corporation
Asierlcan Creoaote
Morthweet 18th Street LP
Parraaore Surplus
Plckettvllle Boad Landfill
Reevae BE Galvanising Corp.
Tower Chealcal
B. P. aoodrlch
Dlstler Brickyard
Chaatronlcs. Inc.
SCROI 01 liana
Aanlcola Duap
Ga 1 laway Ponds
Murray Ohio Duap
North Hollywood Duap
Johna-Manvllle Corp.
LaSalle Electric Utllltlee
Lake Sandy Jo (HfcM Landfill)
Nldco I
Buttarworth 12 Landfill
Chsrlevali Municipal Mell
Cliff/Cow Duap
Due 11 and Gardner Landfill
69.96
18.41
18.11
19.44
28.71
41.79
29.42
SI. SO
41.12
18.41
46.44
17.20
11.81
11.21
11.89
11.66
40.44
49.27
14.61
IB. 7S
11.97
18.11
11.14
17.62
10.01
40.46
10.14
10.78
44.41
6.18
18.82
1O.98
18.11
60. 4 J
10.10
11.91
14.66
14.66
Bcora -
Revised
69.91
18.11
19.16
41.09
18.71
10.11
19.44
11.62
61.01
14.60
42.91
40.19
11.71
29.12
11.77
41.24
18.41
49.41
17.61
4.3 94
18.71
44.01
11.01
44.77
10.16
40.70
40.91
10.77
46.44
19. 4b
18.20
42.06
18.21
46.44
10.11
17.94
14. 1O
14 68
5
1
at
•"i
8
1
90
4
&
5
Q
•Ck,
*
z
o
—
en
5
i.
B>
n?
T3
to
cr
n
-~
so
5"
0
a
a.
30
CB
E.
5"
9
-------
State Clly/County
EPA
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
Hi
HI
HI
Ml
HI
Ml
HI
MM
UN
HH
MM
OH
OH
OH
Oil
Oil
OH
EPA
AR
AD
AH
Aft
Aft
All
LA
tm
NM
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
Region V (concluded)
Gieillchville
Sc . Luul •
Oacoda
lam*
Kenwood
Alb! en
Temperance
Piler City
Paioikey
flu m agon Height*
H-*ncelon* Tup.
Si . Lout*
Bt 11 nerd/ B* lion
Pridley
Lahili ler
SI . Louie Park
Mnguvklle
Clrcleville
fronton
Aalitabule
Uaw Ly*)*
Zaneivl lie
Region VI
Hewpor 1
Walnut Ridge
Edaondaon
Pt. Sailth
Hena
Jackaonvl lie
SI Idell
Milan
Albi qunque
Ottawa County
Grand Prairie
Croiby
Highland*
LaHarqua
Croaby
Bridge City
Site Heae Or
Grand Tievcrie Overall
Supply Co.
Cratlot County Landfill
Supply
Hedbliw Industrie*
Ionia City Landfill
KentKMd Landfill
McCraM Edlaon Corp.
Novaco Induetrlei
Packaging Corp. of Aeerlca
Petoakay Municipal Well
PI eld
SCA Indperdent Land till
Tar Lake
veleicol Nichigaa
Bui ling ton dad he in
PHC Corp.
L*hi Ill*r/M*nk*co
ML Induitrlee/Terecorp/Glob*
Big u Caapground
Boueie Landfill
C.H. Schilling Landfill
Field* Brook
Hex Lye« Landfill
Zeneevi lie.
Cecil Lln.laey
Prtt Induetrle*
Curley Pit
1ndu*lrl*l Meat* Control
Mid-South Mood Product*
I'ertic. Inc.
riayou Bonfouca
lloaaatak* Mining Co.
South Val liy
Tar Creek
Bio-Ecology Gyeteae. Inc.
French; Ltd .
tUijhleiiii* Acid Pit
t-otco
Mhr* Diauoeel pit*
Triangle Chemical Co.
IIRS
jglnel
40.86
U.eO
11 .70
IB. oa
11.4)
44.6)
18.16
11.91
11.91
16.lt
48.10
48.78
• •% |%at
* e» , U9
IB. 41
14.16
1O.4I
10.91
14.78
11. ao
40. 11
11.61
17.70
18. fB
11.40
19.40
18.10
16.90
41.41
64.96
16.71
41.29
11.17
18.10
11.10
61.10
17.66
62.70
61.60
aa.i4
Scot*
Havlaad
11.11
u.ei
11.19
11.11
11.19
11.42
18.20
11.91
41.68
14.11
48.11
el A A 1
•HI e V a*
46.17
61.10
42.49
J9.97
10.71
10.49
14.16
44.91
11.11
11.19
11.60
19.47
40.11
10.11
41.87
61.46
19.78
' 14:11
42.14
iB is
15. ut
61.11
17.77
62.66
61.62
1B.71
State City/County
EPA
1A
KS
KS
no
EPA
CO
CO
CO
CO
co
CO
BT
XT
HT
MT
NO
SO
UT
•Y
EPA
AS
Al
CA
CA
CA
EPA
OH
OR
HA
MA
HA
MA
MA
MA
HA
MA
Region VII
De* Hoi nee
Ackanaaa City
Cher Okie County
Verona
Region VI It
Leadville .
Ideho Springe
Denver
Boulder County
Couerce City
Coeferce City
Anaeood*
Llbby
Ml lliovn
Silver BOM/
Deer Lodge
Southeastern
White. ood
Salt Lake City
Larael*
Region IX
Scottadale
«lobe
Okleh
Clovecdale
Eel ma
Region X
Portland
Albany
Spokane
Yak k ma
Vancouver
Seattle
Mead
Lak«Hood
Yak IK*
Kent
HBS
Site Nene Original
Dee Honee TCE
Arkanaaa City Ouep
Tar Creek
Syntei facility
California Gulch
Central City. Clear Creak
Denver Radiua Sit*
Herehlll Landfill
8*,nd Cteek
Moodbury Cheaic*! Co.
Anaconda Seal tat -Anaconda
Llbby Ciound Meter Con tea.
Nilltown Beeerwoir Bediaent*
Silver Boo Cieek
Araanlc Trloiida Site
Mhltewood Creek
Boaa Park 61udge ftt
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie
Traatlng
Indian Bend Uaeh Are*
Mountiln Via- Hoblla Hoae*
Eatate*
Coeat Mood Preeerwlng
HCH Brake*
Sal me Treating Co.
Could. Inc.
Teladyne Hah Cheng
Colbert Landfill
FHC Corp. IVaklaa)
frontier Hard Chroaa
Harbor (eland Lead
Hal ear Head
Lakevood
Paaticlde Lab
Meatarn proceeeing Co., inc.
28.91
4.1]
66.74
41.77
11 .94
46.10
44.00
41.00
11.0O
41.00
18.10
11.70
41. eo
6J.80
14.00
19.10
7.10
17 00
40. o:
16.46
42.02
14.12
41.17
12.84
48.11
40. Tl
32.18
11.91
41.79
29.07
11.10
16.10
Scoie
Mvieed
42.78
1.49
18. li
41.18
11.84
11 .19
44.11
46.11
19.61
44.67
18.71
17.61
41.18
61.16
14.07
61.76
7.46
17.14
42.34
10. 1 4
44.71
14.70
48.81
12.11
14.27
41.19
17'.91
34.69
38.07
42.49
29.11
18.61
MLUMO COM 4MO-*ft-C
Aft
a.
s
3.
99
A
B"
&
^
^.
<
SL
-^
5
•2.
o
»•*
oJ
H
e
3
i
to
f
Ul
V
•W
S
cr
ID
P»
70
BB
o.
70
i
-------
Federal Reyrter / Vol. 4ft No. 175 / Thursday. September B. 1983 / Rulea and Regulations
Proposed NPL Sites with Scores
which Fall Below 28.50. The following
sites will not be included on the NPL
because EPA has determined that the
HRS scores are below 28.5ft
SUM
.. , Cflnmdm Coi»«y Una*
, Pinei Aotd
Ono
- , Van
Sites Still Under Consideration. In the
case of the following sites. EPA was
unable to reach a final decision on
whether to include them on the final
NPL in lime for this publication.
SIM*
&MIMIM
Knon* _
Area.
BraiSmi
, Out w«nr Suooty
TOOT** Duma
EPA will announce its decisions
regarding these site* in subsequent NPL
updates.
Deletion, The criteria for deletion.
which are discussed in Part VIII betow.
have already been met at the Cratiot
County Golf Course site which was
included on the proposed NPL EPA has
coruulted with the State of Michigan
and has determined that the responsible
parties have completed cleanup of the
site such thai no Fund-financed
response will be required.
Name Revisions. In some instances
EPA has determined that the names of
sites should be revised to more
accurately reflect the location or nature
of the problem. Those name revisions
are listed below:
V*
Ql
HJ
OH
0«
In addition, in (he case of one site
proposed for the NPL the Vestal Water
Supply, the Agency has determined that
there are two distinct sites rather than
one as was previously believed.
Ceohydrologic studies have indicated
that the ground water contamination is
present in two distinct plumes.
apparently from two different sources.
Thus, the site name has been revised to
Vestal Water Supply Well No. 1-1 and
Vestal Water Supply Well No 4-2.
States' Top Priority Sites. The State of
Mississippi has informed EPA that the
Plaslifax site, previously designated as
their top pnority «le. is not the State's
highest pnority. Since the Bite does not
otherwise meet the criteria for inclusion
on the NPL the Plastifax site has not
been hated. Missusippi has designated
another site as its top priority, which
EPA has proposed for inclusion on the
NPL in the proposed update immediately
following this final NPL promulgation ui
today's Federal Register. Likewise, the
Siate of Maine has informed-EPA that
the Winthxop Landfill la no longer
considered their top priority site.
However, that site has a sufficiently
high HHS score to warrant inclusion on
the list and has been included. Maine
has not yet designated an alternative
top priority site.
VIII. Update* and Deletions to the NPL
CERCLA requires that the NPL be
revised at least once per year. EPA
believes that more frequent revision
may be appropriate. Thus, the Agency
may revise the NPL more often than is
specified in CERCLA. NPL revisions, or
"updates." may add new sites lo the
NPL and may delete sites from the list.
EPA anticipates that each update
publication will present proposed
additions, proposed deletions, and the
current NPL consisting of all sites
previously established as part of the list
as well as the final listing of sites that
were proposed in the preceding update
publication. EPA's first NPL update is
proposed in today's Federal Register
immediately following this publication
of the final NPL
In addition to the periodic updates
described above, EPA believes it may be
appropriate in rare Instances to add
sites to the NPL individually as the
Agency did in the case of the Times
Beach site in Missouri.
The Agency plans to identify and
consider additional sites for inclusion on
NPL updates in the same manner as for
sites on the initial NPL States have the
primary responsibility for identifying
sites, computing HRS scores, and
nominating them for inclusion on the
NPL although EPA Regional Offices
may assist in investigation, sampling.
monitoring, and sconng. and may in
some cases consider candidate sites on
their own initiative. EPA will notify the
Slates in advance of each update
publication of the closing dates for
submission of proposed additions (or
deletions, as discussed below) to EPA.
EPA will exercise quality control and
quality assurance to verify the accuracy
and consistency of sconng. The Agency
will then publish a proposal of jll «nes
that appear to meet the en ten a far
listing, and solicit public comment on
the proposal. Based on comments, and
any further review by EPA. the Agency
will determine final scores, and in the
next update publication will include on
the final NPL any sites that score high
enough for listing. For the proposed
update immediately following this
rulemakcmg in today'i Federal Register.
the Agency haa continued to use the
same minimum HRS score of 28.50 lhat
was used lo establish eligibility for this
final rule.
There is no specific statutory
requirement that the NPL be revised to
delete sites. However. EPA has decided
to consier deleting sites in order to
provide incentives for cleanup to private
parties and public agencies.
Furthermore, establishing e system of
deleting sites affords the Agency the
opportunity to give notice that the sites
have been cleaned up and gives the
public an opportunity to comment on
those actions. On June 26.1982. the
Agency developed a guidance document
which addressed how sites may be
deleted from the NPL This guidance
suggested that a site meeting any of the
following criteria could be deleted from
the NPL-
[1] EPA in consultation with the Sia
has determined that responsible parlies
have completed cleanup so that no
Fund-financed response actions will be
required.
(2) All appropriate Fund-financed
cleanup action under CERCLA has been
completed, and EPA haa determined
that no further cleanup by responsible
parties is appropriate.
(3) EPA. in considering the nature and
seventy of the problems, the potential
costs of cleanup, and available funds.
has determined that no remedial actions
should be undertaken at the site.
EPA does not consider this guidance to
be binding, and may revise it to provide
for deletion of sites based on other
factors in appropriate cases. EPA will
delete sites from the NPL by publishing
notices in the Federal Register at the
time of the updates, naming the sites
and providing the reasons for deletion.
EPA expects that updates to the NPL
will be solely for the purpose* of adding
sites lo or deleting sites from (he NPL
The current EPA position, which will
serve as guidance For individual listing
and deletion decisions, is that updates
will not present any HRS score chang"
for sites that might alter a site's relai
ranking, nor will they delete any site*.
the basis of score changes Once a final
HRS score has been calculated for a
site, and the site has been included on
the NPL EPA does not pUn to conduct
any recalculations of HRS^sr.orew to
affect anv site's lisimii.
-------
Federal lUgirtM / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thursday. September a. 1983 / Ruin and'Regulations 40669
Several commenters presented
suggestions to the contrary. Some
recommended that EPA revlae HRS
scores periodically to reflect the results
of cleanup activttiea. and suggested
deleting any site whose HRS score
dropped below the cutoff. Other
commenters addressed the possibility
that new data gathered on a site might
alter previous assumptions in iconng.
and suggested continual resconng to
reflect any new data for purpose* of
adjusting a site's position on the list or
deleting the site if the score fell below
the cutoff.
While it is not necessary to resolve
theae issues now. as they will be
considered as port of each future update
determination. EPA believe* that a
number of important factors support its
current position that silea on the final
NPL should not be rescored for future
updates. With respect to sites where
response actions have been taken, the
MRS was not designed to reflect
completeness of cleanup, and therefore
should not be used as a tool for deleting
site* from the list or altering their
relative ranking. As discussed in Part
VII of this preamble, in explanation of
EPA's policy to score sites on the basis
of original conditions rather than take
cleanup actiona into account the HRS
approximates nsk on the baais of the
original conditions at the site. If
response actions are taken into account
in scoring, the lower HRS score that
results might not reflect a commensurate
reduction in the level of nsk presented
by the site.
Another reason discussed in Part VII
is that revision of scores simply because
cleanup has been partially completed
might encourage partial solutions to
potentially serious nsks of public health
and welfare and environmental harm.
Removing a ute from the list based on
score changes resulting from partial
cleanup might give private parties an
incentive to design response actions to
effect such changes rather thu
completely remedying the situation at
the site
In addition to the foregoing reasons.
other considerations justify the current
position not to rescore silea after final
listing. These considerations apply not
only 10 cleanup situations but also to
situations vthere a score might be
affected by new information about a me
or by detection of an error in the original
calculations
The process established by EPA for
establishing the NPL is comprehensive.
involving initial scoring, public proposal.
consideration of public comment, re-
examination of data and scores, final
score calculation, and inclusion on :he
final NPL. Given this level of scrutiny
and the time and expensp involved in
scoring sites. EPA believes it
appropriate to consider inclusion of a
-r- nn ihp final NPL to end the scoring
Furthermore, aa described in Part II of
this preamble, the purpose of the NPL is
primarily informational, to serve as a
tool for EPA to identify Mies that appear
to present a significant nsk to public
health or the environment, for purposes
of deciding which sites to investigate
fully and determine what response, if
any. is appropriate. EPA believes (hat it
,s moat consistent with that statutory
purpose to cease the costly and time-
consuming efforts of life scoring once
the NPL development process on a site
is complete. Rather than spend the
limited resources of the fund on
resconng efforts, the Agency wants to
use all available resources to clean up
site*. In addition, because the NPL
serves as guidance for possible future
action and does not determine liability
or whether response actions will be
taken, a decision not to recalculate
scores will not prejudice any potentially
responsible parties. This is especially
true since any additional information
can be considered at other stages of
EPA's investigation and response
process.
EPA recognizes that the NPL process
cannot be perfect and it is possible that
errors exist or that new data will alter
previous assumptions. Once the initial
scoring effort is complete, however, the
focus of EPA activity must be en
investigating sites in detail and
determining the appropriate response.
New data or errors can be considered in
that process. Since HRS scores do not
alone determine the priorities for actual
response actions, any new data or
revealed error that indicate that a site is
either more or less a problem than
reflected in the HRS score wiM be taken
into account and the priority for
response adiuited accordingly. If the
new information indicates that the site
doea oot present any significant threat
to health or the environment, the site
will meet one of the EPA criteria for
deletion regardless of any original or
revised HRS score.
In conclusion, because the HRS was
not designed to reflect reductions in
hazard resulting from cleanup, because
of the desire not to create the incentive
For incomplete cleanup actions, because
of the need to conserve resources and
focus on further investigation and
cleanup, because the NPL serves
-------
Appendix B— National Priorities List
,„ Group 1
IT OIT1 HMI •
CITY/COD VM
MB POMI
•TMOS I
• PA
MO BT BIT* BAHB
Group 2
Cm/COUHTf
MS PONS B
ATAtll* t
01 BJ
01 01
01 »A
01 BJ
01 BA
02 BJ
ot n
• I IA
01 M
•1 M
•1 M
• I W
• I U
•1 U
M M
• 1 H
•1 aji
M U
• I •
•I BP
•I NT
04 t*
01 BB
01 HI
01 M
•t tl
• 1 OB
•t n
•4 AJ.
•• CA
•I M
•« TB
•i BJ
01 CO
01 MA
0» MB
02 BJ
04 ft
0> U
01 BY
04 ft
0* «T
10 MA
04 ri.
01 BJ
01 BY
01 IB
01 O*
07 *S
01 MJ
Lirui] LkBDrlLL
moor* coma* IABPHII, •
IIOIB LAOOOII
HUB HLANU UBOPIU.
INDMni-PLBI
ruci UBOTILL •
•OUOTIOB ktATBMMT laamcai
LkAOOMT* 1ITI
MM CAUI 1ABDTILL
CPB/MAAItOB
«B» CMTU COOT*
MOIB tOBOOGB
BJWTOA TGNMBIB
•LkAlAJBVXUB
6JMIOO
CMBLBI Clf I
•M CAITU COOBTT
V B 1
• c
V • I
* i
• t
PIU.
in 4 r*JM>
BUM A BOanu
ri>i uunrtu.
Maitiar LABDHU
cuii •
•ILVU BOB/DUB IAMBI
ru«ci, MB.
1TLVUTM •
LIQOID DIirCMAL IBC.
aCADOO AMOCIATU •
BDICO •
MCUM noB » mm.
• IBM MCKMJa Mt*
nBBSMBB «!*••
(*CtO« »ULB*|
•cira ce.
JCU CO.
UBIAL » oit
1MB CUU
• k OUbCt CO.
•tlLLI Tk> •
•miir nr BOC
•CBUTLKILL lUTMJi COkr.
MM •*IdrrOM/»IMIB IILIJJ
OLD »RIMC« 1ABWILL
UIVU I* GUVftNUIBG CO»r.
ABkCOHU MtLTII - JUBkCOHD*
BUTCM tBOCISSIBC CO., IBC.
UUBIC4B CUO5OTI BMM
CklDHfLL TKOCtlMC CO.
a HOUCkU
IIXMOUI ICCVCLIHC COB P. •
t*« CHEEK
CHROICt COUMTV
1B1CI TOMMSHir WMOTILL
•T. LOOM *kM
*OMBMI»
C1TT
t I
OTBTtl Ul
UUCQBM
nut
MBSACOIA*
•OOTI
OTTMfc COOMTV
CHMQUB COOBT*
•DICK
Of BI
It MA
14 n.
04 PL
0* M
» n
t* CA
•a BJ
•t oo
II BJ
•( M
ai aa
as BJ
ai m
ai HI
It IB
a> BJ
II CA
It M
01 M
oa n
at M
IB OB
• 1 U
ai ai
M a*
M U
•t oa
14 ac
•i e*
11 CO
«s -it
t* BM
01 «r
01 wv
OT BO
00 BO
0» TT
01 VA
01 IA
Ot U
0» AB
04 TB
04 BY
01 MC
09 CU
at at
OT M
OB e»
•aBTBBBNAIM PLATING
rUMTIBB BABB CBBOBB
DAVIB LAMDriLL
001* CQABT OIL COBP.
TKBOB IBT'L AIBNBT
MIDB BIACB DBVILOMEOT
IBOB BBOBtAIB BIBB
acianir ic CBBBICAI. aBoctiiiao
CAiironiA aoica
B'UMJUOBMPHTC
a • v BATSBIAL*
BBTaOMATT VABJi
•MMM COO
N.BBORI aMMoa/CABBoa aaa
aoBBBB aiu tjnno
MaOJR OBBBMI. COBP.
COM. Mr. a. tacoBA i
OMOBB* UMOPIU.
BYOBsrr lABoriu.
aiBBTMwn A¥UOB uuioriu.
TBUOTO «AB CMMQ
BBATIO* COOBTI LABECIU. •
Piciua turn •
r •
acani aurr BOAD •
Lkomn. MM, IBC. •
BABBBkU LABDVILI. •
ODTBOAB0 BABIB* COBP. •
es*i
U*
TACOBA
OBOVI CITT
OTBTBB Mr
MOnil
a •
a •
a a
out IBOH on
MB* ITkSBT CABAL •
BUT VIBCINIk OBCMAHCB •
ILLIBVILLB BITB •
AMCMIC TBIOBIOB BIM •
PCB BABTBB •
BATTBBM BLBCTBOPUriBC •
AIDKI COBP. •
BOVMTklB VIM •DHUJ BOMH •
TAVOTIMO »AM •
BOBTB OOLLYMOOtt DUMP •
A. L. TAYLOBfVltLC* Of TUB OBOHSI
PCB BPILLB •
OBDOT LAMOriLL •
kOSB PAU BLUOCI PIT *
ABMBSAB CITI
•CB
ALBOaOBBOJDB
BOBLIBOTOB
POIMT PLBABABT
•LLIBVILLB
BOOTHA1TMB
PACIPIC TBBST tMJU
BOABOBK ooarrr
COOMCrt BLOBYB
CLOBI
MBBICAB IAMOA
MOOkB
110 BIUB OF
GUAM
SALT LAU CITY
AIKANSAS CITY
•OBTB HAB1AIUB
P
P
I V • VOHJMT»»» Oil BtOOTIkTtD »CSN>BSI| •
• • rtocML AND stATt furotcattifti o
- •T*TIS> OISICMATtO tot rklORITT (ITtS.
- riOCRAL UO> ITKTS kCSPOIUli
• ACTIONS TO Bl M*(MIiaO.
ll V - BOUBrtABT OB BCOOTIATBD MSPONBBi B - PCDBRAL AMD BTATB
I • rSOUAL ABO ItATB BBPOBCBNBHTl B > ACIIOBB TO M OBTIBMIMSO.
• - arAru* MBIOUTIO top PBIOAITI IITBB.
-------
Group 3
EPA
B£C
01
04
01
04
01
01
04
01
01
01
•1
•1
04
01
01
01
01
04
01
01
04
04
01
02
• 1
00
04
01
01
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
04
04
01
01
01
01
0*
oe
OS
01
ST
NT
AL
HI
rL
•J
NJ
PL
IL
BB]
•I
BJ
BJ
rt
•i
n
IN
rL
HI
»A
ac
PL
BY
PA
CO
BI
NJ
OB
NI
Nil
MJ
OB
NJ
NI
NJ
PA
RI
PL
FL
HI
MJ
NJ
NJ
CA
LA
IL
HI
— - •
SIT! NAMI •
SINCLAIR RCPINERV
NOMORAY ENGINEERING CO.
SPlEGELBtRG LANOrlLL
NIANI OB UK SERVICES
BEICM FARMS
SOOTB BRUHSHICR LANDFILL
BASSAUF-SINERLINC BATTBBV BIO*.
NADCOHBA BAND 4 CIA VI L
OTTATI A aaBB/BINOJtON BTtBL DAOR
ani ETON. Y /COBHOVA
•L INDOBTBIBB
BDNMOOO •UU/LAJBJTIU
MiTCBOau ou nra
vt LO a: at, MiCBiaa
ODMHIT NATIONAL
tOW CANAL
riBBBB CALO
PIOMBU BAIO CO.
BPBHGPISLO TOMWSBIP DOM*
BRANICA LANDFILL
HAjrriN NABisrTA.axwvBCO
BELLHOOD ORODHDMATIA CONTAM
PACRAGING COBP. Of AMERICA
NOOE>R - B ABBA
LIBOANE OOMP
CBBTRAL C1TT. CLEAR CBIBE
TAYLOR ROAD LAB OF ILL
•BSTSBB SAND 1 OAAVIL
MAYMOOO CHEMICAL CO.
BARDACBJ/CBIHSA
BOOB TCMXSalP OOMP
NASTB DISPOSAL BNCINIERIMG
RIN-IUC LAM D* ILL
ROM IRS LAND' ILL
TONS IIVEB CHEMICAL
RUTT1RUORTH ll LAHDTILL
AMERICAN CYABAMID co.
HELEVA LANDT1LL
BATAVIA LANDFILL
L » RB. INC.
AW 10T« STRICT LANDPILL
SirTY-SLCOND STREET DUMP
ClH LANOflLL
HCTALTEC/ ACROSYSTEHS
LAIIC PROPERTY
SHARKCY LANOflLL
SCLHA THEATIMC CO.
CLEVC KtBlR
VELSICOL ILLINOIS
TAR LAKE
CITY/COOBTY
VELLBVILLI
CRItMVILLS
GUIS* OAE tOMNSBir
NIAMI
PLEASANT PLAINS
SOOTH BBUNM1CB
TAMPA
NAOCONDB,
1 BINOBTON
MAXTOR MNVBUV
flDBICIfOBBJ
BfJKBROOB) RjQMBJBJB
RMlBNVMNB
n. LOOM
DUXriBLD lUNBBBlr
B*tJMBUNl rAUOt
i* room
•aasLnaroN
DAVISBOBa
ROPPALO KNTHSBIP
CBABLOTT*
IflitJtOOO
riLBR CITY
•1A4AU VALLO
HHBNlBOBl VQMHNllff
IDABO BrBIBOB
OBTVNBB
OORBILLVILLC
NATNOOO/RtfCBBIH »E
CBJNBB
RO9B fttQBBir'
AMDOVBB
BOISOB TOVNSBir
CIBCUV1LU
10MB BIVER
GRAND RAPIOS
ROUND BROOB
MORTB NBITBBAU TUP
•ATAVIA
BORTN BMITBTIBLO
RIALCAH
TAMPA
UTICAy
FRANKLIN BOROUGH
PEMBBRTOM TOWNSHIP
PARSIPPANY. TROY BLS
SELMA
SORRENTO
HA RS HALL
NAMCBLOHA TOWNSHIP
kBOPONSB
STATUS 1
a
D
B
B B
1
V
B
B
B •
H
* BJ
B
N
• t
* •
B •
V B
C
B
B
B
D
D
•
•
B
•
B •
•
B I
B
D
• B I
D
O
B
1
B
B
1
1
U
R
1
O
O
I
O
V
R
BPRs
RIO ST
OITI NAME
CITY/COOWTY
RESPONSE
STATUS I
02 M
01 NA
01 BJ
04 TN
01 BT
04 rL
01 RB
01 BI
01 U
01 M
•i m
•I OB
•1 BI
01 OB
01 mi
01 Ct
OS NN
01 PA
01 NT
01 OB
04 TB
01 IB
01 IN
04 n
04 rL
0* AB
01 NJ
04 U
04 U
01 NT
01 BJ
01 NJ
01 PA
01 OB
01 CT
OS CO
01 MA
04 ET
01 NI
0* CA
01 BY
04 rL
01 NT
04 rL
00 CO
04 PL
01 MO
OS NT
01 HJ
01 NJ
COMBO riLL NORTH LAHUrlLt
RE-SOLVE. INC.
eOOSB TARN
VELBICOL I BAR PENAN COUNTY)
TORR OIL CO.
BAPP BATTIB* BALVACB
DOBPEB DISPOSAL, HOLLIDAI
DAVIS LIQQIO NAOTB
CBABLBB-GBOBaB BBCLAMATtOB
• DM OT fMQMIB,
CBIBMAB CXBSB
IICAL
CO KB
KB
rACBT HBTBBJN.IBBB. INC.
DBLANABB BAND A OBAVBL LAMDTILL
MBAAT OB 10 DONP
BRVIROCBEN
MIOCO I
rnisMnr BVRHB •oao rotBBBBvn»a co.
rUkUOA OTBBL COB*.
LITCBTLBLO ALRVOBT ABBA
BPBNCB rAJM
MIB-BOOVB NOOO PBODOCTO
•BAOJ NOOD IBSBBBVIK
ffOBT NABBIBOTOB LANOTIU.
coua riu. OOWB uunriu.
JIB LABOPILL
CINTRB COOMTT atOBl
riBLOB BROOB
•OLVEBT8 BECOVBRT BBNV1CS
NOODRORI CHEMICAL CO.
HOCONOHCO POND
DISTLBR RRICRYARD
RAHAPO LAUOPILL
COAST MOD nESERVIHC
MERCURY REPINING, INC.
BOLLINGOMORTH OOLDMLCSB TERMINAL
OLSAH BELL PIILO
VAR90L SPILL
DEMVIB BADIIJM BITB
TCMSR CHEMICAL CO.
•YMTEB PACII.ITY
MILLTCMM BSSERVOIB SEDIMEHTB
PIJAI PARM
6YNCON BESINB
MOUNT OLIVE TWP 0
DARTMOOTH R B
PLUMSTBAD TOHHSHIP B
TOONS V
NOIRA R
COTTONOALE A
JOHNBOH COOMTII O
OMITNPIBLD B B
f TMiB^*WHJ B
NINBLCN TOMBUIP B
KMU COOPIY B
O
• •
IRDMTOB O
BATTLB CBSES B
BBAOOH PALLS B
BRAIMBBO/BABBB B
•ALMOUi A
ELBLBA V
•M CABTLI COONTT D
LAMMMCEBbBa D
SIOBBMLLI R
CART B E
VHITBMOOBS S
INOIANTOm B
OaOOYBARVAVDNOALE B
LIVB OAI D
PORT NUBINOTON I
CBBOTBB TONBSBIP B
JANOBBnG/O.BBOMSNIC S
OTATB COLLBOC NOBOOG E
ASITABOLA R
COOTBINOTOM V B
CCMMIBCI CITY R
MESTBOROOGH R
NRST POINT R
MHAPO E
ORIAB E
COLONIB E
PORT LAUOEBDALE O
OLEAN
MIAMI V
OEhVER
CLERHONT
VCRONA V
H1LLTOHN
PLUNCTCAO TOWNSHIP
SOUTH SEARHY V
l< « • VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPOMSEi B - FEDERAL AND STATE
B - PEDLRAL ANt> STATE ENPORCEMEHTl O • ACTIONS TO H DETSRMI
• • STATE*' DES1CNATID TOP PRIORITY SITES.
O.
11 • • VOLONTAAV OB BEGOT 1ATED RESPOMSEi
• • rUBOAL AHD StATB ENrOBCEMIHTi
• • STATES' BBB1CHATID TOP PRIORITY SITES
R - PEDIRAL AND STATE RI'SPOHat.
D - ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED
O
a.
D>
en
n
n
g.
ya
-------
EPA
BEC
09
09
01
04
02
01
04
01
OS
01
01
01
OS
02
OS
OS
10
02
02
OS
Of
02
02
0*
10
OS
OS
00
10
02
01
01
OS
01
04
02
Ol
01
04
OT
01
02
02
02
02
OS
06
01
01
OS
BT
CA
Ck
MH
PL
NJ
MB
PL
PA
IB
HA
HA
BJ
HI
BJ
IB
•A
HJ
HJ
IB
U
HJ
HV
AI
MA
IL
IL
CA
HA
PB
PB
RD
HI
BJ
TB
HJ
PA
HA
EC
NO
PA
HJ
NJ
HJ
NJ
IN
»H
HI
HO
NI
VI WM|* •*
CITE MAHE •
LIQUID COLO OIL CORP.
PURITY OIL SALES. INC.
TINKHAM GARAGE
ALPHA CHEHIIAL CORP.
BOG CREEE PAM
BACO TANNER* HASTE PIT8
PICUTTVILLE ROAD LANOPILL
PkLNEkTOB I IMC PILE
BBkL'a LANDTILL
aiLBaaiM CUBICAL ooap.
BELL* CAB
cansoL. DBC.
trroanv HOHICIPU. BILL VOLO
PAIR LkHH BELL PI8LD
BAIH BTfiaET BELL HELD
LBB 1 LLI EkjHABkATO
LAEBHOaD
BOBRO* TOMBIRIP LABDPIU.
BOCRAMAT BOkOOGB BELL PIBLD
BATHE BABTB OIL
OES BOIHU TCB
BEACMOOO/BUBLBV HTLIJ
VUTAL HATER BOPPLV WILL 4-1
IBOIAB aaao BMB aaa*
COB. MV. BKAB MOBB/TIOa PLAT
LASALLB ILBCTRIC OtlUtlM
CBOSI aaoa/pBuaon
HCCOLL
OOLBUtT LABDPILL
raoBTBBk caaaa •
BARCBLOHBTk LkBOTILL
SAHO. OtkVEL kBD aTOBB
BPARTAB CREMICAL CO.
ROSBLINC ITESL CO.
AHNICOLA DOMP
VINELAND STATE SCBOOL
ENTERPRISE kVENUS
CROVELAHD HILLS
BCRDI DIIIAHA
POLRRIGMT LANDPILL
PRESQUE ISLE
WILLIAMS PROPERTY
BENORA. INC.
DENZEJi A SCNAPER X-RAY CO.
HERCULtS. INC (GIBBSTCUNI
NINTH AVE. DUMP
GUHLEY PIT
PETCRSUN/PURITAH. INC.
TINES BEACH
HASH UNG LAUNDHV
CITY/COUNTY
RICHMOND
MALAGA
LOHDaNDERRV
CkLLOHAV
BOMELL TOMBSBIP
SACO
JACKSONVILLE
PkUIERTOH
BLOOHINOTOB
LOHELt
BOBORH
PI SCAT AH AY
PBTOKEI
PAlk IABB
ELUART
LBBILUBB
LRjaBoao
BOBROa TOVBBBIP
aocEMAT TonaiaiP
COLOIBU CITV
MI HOiaas
aaaELBt TOHBBBIP
VBITkL
acomoku
tiaan UIUBII •
LA BALLB
iBBaanaa tomaur
POLLB«TOB
OPOSkBB
«IO aOAJD
PLORIDA afma*
BLETOB
BTCBXBO
PLORBHCB
CBATTABOOCk
VI HE LAND
PHILADELPHIA
GROVELAHD
CAYCB
BPRINOPIELD
ERIE
BMAIHTON
•DISOa TOMHSUIP
MVVILLB
GIBUTOMH
GARY
EDMONDSEN
LIHCOLH/CIMBERLAHD
TINES BEACH
PLEkSAHT PLAINS TUP
RESPONSE
STATUS t
B
0
R
D
R
R
D
0
a
B a
•
D
•
D
0
B
•
•
O
B B
D
0
B
D
B •
a
B
O
B -
O
D
B
a
D
O
0
0
a
a
0
D
a
D
a
D
V B
O
V
a
D
|i V . VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RCSFOHSRl
C - PEDERAL AND STATE ENFURCEMENTi
• • STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES
R - PEOERAL AND STATE RES POMS E|
O - ACTIONS TO RE DETERMINED.
EPA
BBC ST
OS MB
01 Nk
02 NY
04 PL
OS HI
02 BY
01 BJ
04 BV
ot aa
os oa
os oa
01 PA
10 BUI
01 BA
OS BI
01 tk
•i tm
01 M
os n
OS IL
OS BI
OS BI
02 BJ
OS BI
10 BA
OS BI
01 BJ
01 BJ
01 BV
01 BV
01 BJ
M TE
01 PA
01 NT
04 av
01 Pk
04 PL
OS BI
01 BY
02 BJ
Ol BH
02 HY
OT BO
01 CT
01 BV
01 HJ
01 Pk
01 Pk
02 BJ
02 MV
ll V -
Groups
BITS NAME •
HL IHDUSTR I ES/TARACORP /GOLDEN
CANNON ENGINECRIHG CORP. ICECI
NIAGARA COUNTY REPUSB
BHERMOOD MEDICAL INDUSTRIES
BOUTIIHEST OTTAWA LANOPILL
OHTUCRY A VS. HELL PIBLO
AMCSTOS DOHP
LEE -0 LABB LAHDPILL
parr LHDOS TRIER
rOLTB LAHDPILL
CORBOCMB LANDFILL
LORD-RBOPB LAHDFILL
PHC CORP. uaanuu
MC aaaooacaa
PGBBBT BABTB PBODOCIB
BRAE* CBKBICU.
•avEBTflBB OCP
BBB CkBTLB BULL
LAEE BABDV JO IBM LkHOPIU.)
JOBBB-BkBVILU CORP.
CREH CENTRAL
BOVACO SHDOBTRIBB
JkCBBOa TOWHSBIP LANDFILL
B k L aVBHDH LABDFILL
BAIRBR BEAD
CBAJLLEVOIE BDBICIML BKU.
BOBTGONERV tOMHBaSP BOOSING DBV
BOCET BILL MOHICIPki BILL
BBBMBTBJI BELL PIBLD
WatkL BATBB SOPPLT BBtX 1-1
O.a. RAOIOH CORP.
HIGHLANDS kCID Pit
BASIN DISPOSAL
UBBV GROUND BAIU OOBTkMIBATIOB
BBBPOBT OOBP
HOVERS LAHDPILL
PkRRJMOaB BORPLOB
BEDBLOM INDUSTRIES
BAZTRB/OHIOH PACIFIC TIB TREAT I HC
akVaSVILLB LANDFILL
DOVER BON 1C I PAL LANDFILL
LUDLCH BAND k GRAVEL
HIHEERyaTOUT/kOMAIHB CREEK
VAUOR8KI HASTE LAGOON
LEETOMN PESTICIDE
BVOa PHILLIPS LEASING
HADE IABHI
LACRAHAMNA REFUSE
BANNHCIM AVENUE DUNP
PULTOB TERMINALS
VOLUNTARY OR HtGOTIATEO RESPOHCCl
PIOERAL AMD STATE EHPOBCMEMTl
RES PONS 1
CITY/COUHTY STAtOS 1
8T. LOUIS PABC V
BRIOCEMATER R E
BHEATFIELO O
DC LAND D
PARK TOMHSHIP E
BOR6SUEAD8 O
BILLINCTOH D
LOOISVILLE O
BALHOt BIDOB • B
JkCaaOB IOBBBBIP O
•"RkBELIB YOHB8BIP D
oiakRD Tonani •
IkJIBA V
PAUUR H
OTI8VILLB. •
LOCB BAVBB B
akvaaroBD •
BOB CMTLB COOBTY D
Ok*T B
BkOEBOAH D
BYOHIBG TOBBBBIP D
TRMPBBkHCa »
jkcasoa TomaaiP B
OtfBTEMO TOHHOalP B
BkAl> ft
CHARLEVOII O
BOBTOOHERT TOMnHERIP D
aocn BILL anannna o
POTBkH OOOBTV •
«aSTkL •
oakaoa B
BioaLkHoa a
JBPVBBSOBl aOBOOCBl B
LIBRV O
RSMPORT B
EAGLE VI LLE B
BOUHT PLEA8AHT V
OBCOOk ft
LARAMIE O -
6AYMVILLB ft
DOVBta D
CLAYVILLB ft
1MPRRIAL R
CANTERBURY E
LEETOUM D
OLD aaiDGB TCUBSHIP 0
CHE8TEB R E
OLD FORGE BOROUGH t
GALLOWAY TOBHSBIP O
PULTOB V
B • FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSEl
o • ACTIONS TO RE DETERMINED.
• /STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES.
i
0>
•n
2
cv
"™*
90
rS
^9.
a
CP
"**•"
«i^
0
•""
^
w
o
•^
CJI
^-»
J
•^
e
3
ex
n
•<
*/•
•a
CD
• •!•
\J
A
OB
• ^
»-*
0
U
^^^
?o
RT
CD
a.
70
n
5"
a
-------
EPA
UG
01
01
01
OS
07
02
01
04
01
OS
OS
OS
•s
•1
OS
•4
01
02
01
OS
02
OS
0*
OS
02
• 4
10
01
01
• 4
01
01
01
01
04
01
OS
0)
01
01
02
OJ
OS
01
os
04
01
04
OS
01
ST
m
MV
OH
OH
ES
NJ
•E
AB
OB
•I
•I
O*)
OB
IB
YT
n
•A
IL
• Y
NI
CA
• 1
•J
BY
MA
OB
MI
Ml
HI
• I
ME
TE
PA
IL
PA
•J
NJ
MJ
NJ
HI
MV
MI
MM
NY
TN
Ml
PA
SITE NAME •
AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL
PIKE CHEHICAL. INC.
LASKIM/FOPLAR OIL CO.
OLD MILL
JOHNS' SLUDGE POND
(MOPE OIL 4 CHEMICAL CO.
MINTUROP LANDFILL
CECIL LIEDSEV
SANEIV1LLE HELL tlBLO
BRAND TBAVB*** OVERALL SOPFtl GO.
S00TB AMDOVBB BITS
BMIMOOD LAMDFIU.
•ABIOM (BBAOal OOEUT
nuiTrai, nc.
•OCBYB RECLAMATION
BIO-BCOLOCY OtSYBBS. IMC.
OLD BPBOKjriBLB LABXTIU.
SOLVENT SAVERS
O.S. TITABIOM
GRLSSBDBC/EOPPBRS
BOOKER - BYDE PARK
•CA INDEPENDENT LANDFILL
MOM BBARRS
DUELL 4 GARDNER LABDfILL
ELLIS PROPERTY
OISTLRR FARM
•ARROR ISLAHD LEAD
B.B. BCEILLIRO LA SWILL
CLIFF/DOM DUMP
•CM KB TAKE BINING CO.
•ASOM COUNTY LANDFILL
CEMETEBT OOMP
STAMINA MILLS. IMC.
PIMETTB'B SALVAGE YARD
•AMIS IPARLEY STt
OLD CITY OF YORR LANDFILL
• YRON SALVAGE YARD
STANLEY RESSLER
PRISDMAM PROPERTY
IMPERIAL OIL/CHAMPION CHEMICALS
MYERS PROPERTY
PEPS FIELD
OSS 1 NIKE GROUND WATER CONTAN
POLLAHSBEE
U.S. AVICI
AT 4 EF / CLOVIS
AMERICAN THERMOSTAT CO.
LEW1SBURG DUMP
HCCRAH EDISON CORP.
METAL BANKS
CITY/COUNTY
LONDONDERRY
HITRO
JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP
ROCK CREEK
•ICHITA
PEBNSAUEEN
• INTHROP
BEMPOBT
IAMBS VI LLE
tiBBIUCBVlLUI
ABDOVBB
BBTMOOO
•ABIOM
•BAOIM
•T. CLAUUJVILLB
OBAMCt PAALRIB
OBBIMOjfUljO
UMC BLABS)
PINBY BIVBB
BALBSSaBO
• IAGABA PALLS
•OSaODB MIOBTS
CLOVERDALB
DALTOM TOMBSBir
EVES BAN TOBBBBIP
JBFPEBJOM COOMTT
SEATTLE
EAMILfOB famOBIt
MAAUUB1U
MILAN
VERB MAROOSYTB TOT
BOSS CENTER
•ORTS BMITBFIELD
MAS KB URN
BOOSTOB
SEVEN VALLEYS
•YRON
SING OP PRUSSIA
UPPER FREEHOLD IMP
MORGANVILLS
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP
BOONTON
OSSINEKE
FOLLAMSBEE
HOMARD TOMNSHIP
CLOVIS
SOUTH CAIRO
LCMI5BURG
ALBION
PHILADELPHIA
RESPONSE
STATUS 1
,
V
• E
B
V 1
O
•
o
0
o
D
B
D
B
D
B
D
D
V
•
*
B
D
O
B D
V B
B
•
• B
O
• B
B
•
•
B
•
D
D
B
D
B
O
•
D
B
B
IP*
UC ST
Group 8
OITI KAMI •
CITY/COUNT*
RESPONSE
STATUS I
|, V . VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE, • -
B - FEDERAL AND ST»« iNPORCENENTi O « ACTIONS TO
• . STATES' OLSICNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES.
(IHIIoc U i4bHH.Ird» 1-«J a«*»m|
•ILLINO COOE tMO-M-C
.
M DETERMINED.
04 BY O.P. GOODRICH
OS NI ORGANIC CHEMICALS, IMC.
02 PI JVINCOS LANDFILL
04 PL NUMI8PORT LANDFILL
02 BJ NIT OBLISA LANDFILL
10 OR GOULD. INC.
OS NI AUTO ION CHEMICALS. INC.
04 SC CAROLAHH. IMC.
OS Bl BPARTA LANDFILL
OS IL ACME BOLVBHBVMOBBIStaMB
01 HE O'CDMBOB
OS MI kASMOSSEB'S DUMP
01 IA •BBTLIBBS
OS MI IONIA CITY LAMDPILL
OS IB MBDEB IBC
oa n OB BiBiafi Btmcu
OS OB MMW LBME UUYDPILL
Oa PR BCA DEL CARIBE
01 PA BAOOBBAD CUBS
OS Ml ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT CO.
OS Ml SB I AMASSES RIVKR
01 DE BAR VET 4 EHOTT DRUM. IMC.
04 TH CALLAMAY PITS
OS OS BIO O CAMPGROUND
01 DE MILOCAT LANDFILL
01 PA BLOSBBBU LANDFILL
01 BB BLAMAU CITY PVC PLANT
01 BD LIMES TOME BOAD
Oa BY BOOKRR - I02HD BTREST
01 DE MEM CASTLE STEEL
•4 EM ONI TED BOCLBA* CORP.
04 AB INDUSTRIAL MASTB CONTROL
0* CA CBLTOR CHEMICAL MORES
04 AL PEROIDO OAOOMD HATER COBTAM
02 BY MARATHOH BATTERY CORP.
01 PA LBHIGH ELECTRIC 4 EMG. CO.
OS OH SKINNER LANDFILL
04 MC CHCMTRONICS, INC.
07 MO BKBHAHDOAB STASLU
04 LA BAYOU NOMPOUCA
01 VA SALTVILLB MASTS DISPOSAL PONDS
01 PA BIMBERTON
01 MO MIDDLCTOHH ROAD DUMP
10 MA PESTICIDE LAB
OS IN LEMON LANE LANDFILL
10 ID ARRCCH (DREXLEB ENTERPRISES)
01 PA FISCHER 4 PORTER CO.
0» CA JIBBOOM JUNKYARD
02 NJ A. O. POLYMER
02 NJ DOVER MUNICIPAL HELL 4
«, V • VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RCSPONSEl
B - FEDERAL AND STATE SNPOMCENEHTl
• - STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES
Group 9
EPA
REG ST SITE NAME •
02 MJ ROCRAHAY TOMNSHIP NELLS
04 11 TRIAMCLS CHEHICAL CO.
02 NJ PJP LANDFILL
01 PA CRAIG PARK DRUM
Al M VOORTMAN FARM
OS IL BSLVIDERS MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Si « . VOUBfTABY O* BODTIATED B*SPONSB|
• I FEDERAL AND STATS EBVOBCBMECTl
CALVERT CITY
GRAND VI LLE
JUHCOS
NORTH NIAMI
ASBUBY PARE
PORTLAND
EALAMASOO
PORT LAMB
• PASTA TOHMBBIV
MOBBISTOMM
ADCOBTA
BRIGBTOM
MESTLIBB
IOMIA
LEBANON
JOAMA OIAS
MM LYME
•AECELOBETA
BTROORSRORG
ADRIAN
•OMELL
EIRKNOOO
CALLAMAY
RINGS VI LLB
DOVER
•TEST CALB TCMMSBIP
DSLAMAU CITY
CCMRERLAND
•1AGARA PALLS
•EM CASTLE COOBTT
CRURCR ROCK
PT. BMITB
BOOPA
PEROIDO
COLD SPRINGS
OLD POBGC BOROOGM
MEST CHESTER
SMAMMAMOA
HOSCOM MILLS
SLIDE LL
SALTVILLE
BIMBERTON BOROUGH
ANNAPOLIS
YAKIMA
BLOOMINCTOH
BATHORUM
MARMIMSTEN
SACRAMENTO
SPARTA TOWNSHIP
DOVER
O
E
0
O
n
B
B
B B
•'.
ft
•
•
B
0
D
O
•
B
B
B
E
D
D
B
D
B
B
O
D
O
R
O
D
R E
D
D
S
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
E
0
•
D
• - FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE.
O - ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
CITY/COUNTY
•OCKAMAV
•RIDGE CITY
JERSEY CITY
PABKCR
UPPER SAUCOH TMP
• ELVIDERE
• - FEDERAL AND STATE
O • ACTIONS tO M BBTI
RESPONSE
STATUS 1
D
• E
D
D
0
D
•ESPOMBEl
MBIIHBD.
**l
A.
03
3
^^
I
"^•»
«j£
O
r™"
£
O>
O
t .
vj
Ul
-«^.
_l
3
G
I
tb
*<
IP
•o
S"
GO
•-*
S
u
^~^
e_
5"
B>
§.
7B
i
St.
0
*
8
a
-------
40674
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1983 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
IS WER-FRL 2421-21
Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List
AQIMCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") is proposing the first
update to the National Priorities List
("NPL") which is promulgated today as
Appendix B of (he National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan ("NCP"). pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Lability
Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") and Executive
Order 12316. CERCLA requires that the
NPL be revised at least annually, and
today's notice proposes the first such
revision.
DATES: Comments may be submitted on
or before November 7.1983.
AOOMS3CS: Comments may be mailed
to Russell H. Wyer. Director. Hazardous
Site Control Division. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response
(WH-548E). Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street. S.W..
Washington. D.C. 20460. The public
docket for the update to the NCP will
contain Hazard Ranking System score
sheets for all sites on the proposed
update, as well as a "Documentation
Record" for each site descnbing the
information used to compute the scores.
The main docket is located in Room S-
32S of Waterside Mall. 401 M Street.
S.W.. Washington. D C . and is available
for viewing from 9 00 a m. to p m..
Monday through Friday, excluding
holidays. Requests for copies of these
documents should be directed to EPA
Headquarters, although the same
documents will be available for viewing
in the EPA Regional Offices. In addition.
the background data relied upon by the
Agency in calculating or evaluating HRS
scores are retained in the Regional
Offices. Any such data in EPA files may
be obtained upon request. An informal
written request, rather than a formal
request under the Freedom of
Information Act. should be the ordinary
procedure for requesting these data
sourcps. Addresses for the Regional
Office dockets are1
Jenifer Arns. Region I. U S EPA Library
|ohn F Kennedy Federal Bldg..
Boston. MA 02203. 617/223-5791
Audrey Thomas. Region II. U S. EPA
Library. 10th Floor. New York. NY
10278. 212/284-2881
Diane McCreary. Region III. U S. EPA
Library. Curtis Building. 8th & Walnut
Streets. Philadelphia. PA 19108. 215/
597-0580
Carolyn Mitchell. Region IV. U.S EPA
Library. 345 Courtland Street NE.. 404/
257-4218
Lou Tilly. Region V. U.S. EPA Library.
230 South Dearborn Street. Chrcago. IL
60604. 512/353-2022
Nita House. Region VI. U S. EPA
Library. First International Building.
1201 Elm Street. Dallas. TX 75270.
214/767-7341
Cornier McKenzie. Region VII. U.S. EPA
Library. Kansas City. MO 64106. 816/
374-3497
Delores Eddy. Region VIII. U.S. EPA
Library 1860 Lincoln Street. Denver.
CO 80295. 303/837-2560
Jean Circiello. Region DC. U.S. EPA
Library. 215 Fremont Street. San
Francisco. CA 94105. 415/974-8078
Julie Sears. Region X. U S. EPA Library.
1200 6th Avenue. Seattle. WA 98101.
206/442-1289.
POM FURTMCR INFORMATION CONTACT:
U Scott Parnsh. Hazardous Site Control
Division. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response IWH-548E).
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street. S.W. Washington. D C. 20460.
Phone (800) 424-9346 (or 382-3000 in the
Washington. D C.. metropolitan area).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION!
Table of Coatrais
I. NPL Update Process and Schedule
11. Conienti of the Proposed Update
III. Additional Criteria for Listing
IV Regulatory Impact Analysis
V Regulatory Flexibility Act Analym
I. NPL Update Process and Schedule
Pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). 4Z U.S.C. 55 9601-9657. EPA
is required to establish, as part of the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) for
responding to releases of hazardous
substances, a National Priorities List
(NPL) of sues of such releases. The NPL
serves as guidance to EPA in setting
priorities among sites for further
investigation and possible response
actions. After proposing over 400 sites
fur inclusion on the NPL on December
30. 1982 (47 FR 58476). EPA has
established a final NPL which is being
published in today s Federal Register
immediately preceding this update
proposal. The preamble to that final list
explains m more detail the purpose of
the NPL. the criteria used to develop the
list and how it will be administered and
revised. The purpose of this notice is to
propose the addition of 133 new sites to
the NPL
CERCLA requires that the I PL be
revised at least once per year, and
today's notice proposes the fi-sl such
revision. EPA believes, howe-er. that it
may be desirable to update the list on a
more frequent basis. Thus, thi Agency
may revise the NPL more often than is
specified in CERCLA. For eac.i revision.
EPA will inform the States of the closing
dates for submission of candidate sites
to EPA. In addition to these periodic
updates. EPA believes it may be
desirable m rare instances to propose
separately the addition of individual
sites on the NPL as the Agency did in
the case of the Times Beach. Missouri.
site.
As with the establishment of the
initial NPL States have the primary
responsibility for selecting and scoring
sites that are condidates for inclusion on
the NPL using the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) and submitting the
candidates to the EPA Regional Offices.
1 he regional Offices then conduct a
quality control review of the States'
candidate sites. After conducting this
review, the EPA Regional Offices subr
condidate sites to EPA Headquarters.
The Regions may include candidate
sites in addition to those submitted by
States. In reviewing these submissions.
EPA Headquarters conducts further
quality assurance audits to ensure
accuracy and consistency among the
various EPA and Slate offices
participating in the sconng.
EPA anticipates that each update
publication will list sites in three
categories: the "Current List:" "Proposed
Additions:" and "Proposed Deletions".
Sites on the "Current List" are those
which have previously been proposed
for listing, either in the initial NPL
process or in any subsequent update
proposal, and for which final scores
have been established based on public
comment and further investigation by
EPA In today's proposal, the "Current
List" consists of the final NPL published
immediately preceding this proposed
update notice. As explained more fully
in the preamble to the final NPL
published today, once a sue appears on
the final "Current List." EPA does not
expect to rpcaicuiate its HRS score
Although EPA cues not plan to consider
additional information on such sites fo'
purposes of rescromg. the Agency
always welcomes information on a su
that may be useful in determining more
precisely the nature of the release and
what response actions mny be
appropriate
-------
Federal RejUtsv / Vol. 46, No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1983 / Proposed Ruiei
40675
"Proposed Addition*" consul of sites
not currently on the NFL that the
Agency it proposing to add to the NPL
The "Proposed Additions" for this
update are those contained in the list
immediately following this preamble
discussion. The Agency i» requesting
public comment on whether it is
appropriate to add these sites to the
final NPL and may recalculate site
scores based on comments received
during the comment penod.
"Prapoied Deletions" will consist of
sites on the current NPL that EPA
proposes to delete because listing of the
site no longer is appropriate. EPA is not
today proposing to delete any sites from
the NPL The Agency will consider
deleting sites on a case by case basis.
according to internal EPA guidance
currently being developed. Deletions
may be based on such circumstances as
the fact thai the site has been cleaned
up by EPA or the responsible party, or a
determination that no fund-financed
cleanup is appropriate. EPA does not
anticipate, however, that deletions will
be based on recalculations of a site's
HRS score. The criteria for deletion
under consideration by EPA are
discussed more fully in the preamble to
the final NPL
ft Contents of the Proposed Update
Each entry on the final NPL as well as
proposed additions and deletions.
contains the name of the facility, the
State and aty or county in which it is
located, and the corresponding EPA
Region. Each site EPA is proposing to
add is placed by score in a group
corresponding to the groups of 50 sites
presented on the final NPL Thus, the
sites in group 1 of the proposed update
have scores that fall within the range of
scores covered by the first 50 sites on
the final NPL Each entry on the
proposed update, as well as those on the-
final NPL is accompanied by one or
more notation* on the status of response
and enforcement activities at the site at
the time the list was prepared or
updated. These status categories are
described briefly below.
Voluntary or Negotiated Response
fV). Sites are included in thu category if
private parties are taking response
actions pursuant lo a consent order or
agreement to which EPA is a party
Voluntary or negotiated cleanup may
include actions taken pursuant to
agreements reached after enforcemem
action had commenced. This category of
response may include remedial
investigations, feasibility studies, and
other preliminary work, as well as
actual cleanup.
. Even I hough response actions qujhfy
ftir notation in (his category only if
sanctioned by a formal agreement, this
is not intended to preclude responsible
parties from taking voluntary response
actions outside of such an agreement.
However, in order for the site to be
deleted, or to be noted in the Voluntary
or Negotiated Response category. EPA
must still sanction the complete cleanup.
If the remedial action is not fully
implemented or is not consistent with
the NCP. the responsible-party may be
subject to an enforcement action.
Therefore, most responsible parries may
find it in their best interest to negotiate
a consent agreement.
Federal and State Response (R). The
Federal and State Response category
includes sites at which EPA or State
agencies have commenced or completed
removal or remedial actions under
CERCLA. including remedial
investigations and feasibility studies
(see NCP section 300.aa|f)(0)- F<»
purposes of this categorization. EPA
considers the response action to have
begun when IP A has obligated funds.
For some of the utes in this category.
remedial investigations and feasibility
studies may be followed by EPA
enforcement actions, at which time the
site status will change to "Federal or
Slate Enforcement."
Federal or State Enforcement (El. This
category includes sites where the United
Slates or the State has filed a civil
complaint or issued an administrative
order. It also includes sites at which a
Federal or State court has mandated
some form of no-consensual response
action following a judicial proceeding. It
may not. however, include all sites at
which preliminary enforcement
activities are underway. A number of
sites that EPA is proposing to add to the
NPL are the subject of enforcement
investigation or have been formally
referred lo the Department of Justice for
enforcement action EPA's policy is not
to release information concerning a
possible enforcement action until a
lawsuit has been filed. Accordingly.
these sites have not been included m the
enforcement category,
Actions to be Determined (D). This
category includes all sites nol listed m
any other category. A wide range of
activities may be in progress for sites in
this category The Agency may be
considering a response action, or may
be conducting an enforcement
investigation. EPA may have referred a
case involving a site lo the Department
of Justice, but no lawsuit has yei been
filed. Investigations may be underway
or needed to determine the source of a
release in areas adjacent lo or near a
Federal facility Responsible parties
rndy be undertaking cleanup operations
that are unknown 10 the Federal or Stale
government, or corrective action may
nol be occurring yet.
EPA requests public comment on each
of the sites it is proposing to add to the
NPL and will accept such comments for
M days following the date of this notice.
A "Documentation Record" and HRS
•conng sheets for all proposed sites are
available for inspection and copying in
the NPL docket located in Washington,
D.C. These documents are also available
in the EPA Regional Offices, as are
background data referred lo in the
Documentation Records and relied on
for sconng. In some instances, where
States calculated site scores and EPA
review and quality control checking did
nol require direct inspection of
background data, these data may be
available only from the Slate that
conducted the original sconng. After
considering the relevant comments
received during the comment penod an d
determining the final score for each
proposed site, the Agency will add lo
the current NPL at the time of the next
update all sites that meet EPA's en ten a
for.listing.
QL Additional Criteria for Listing
The preamble to the proposed NPL (47
FR 58478. December 30,1982) stated that
the more than 400 sites on the proposed
list were included based primarily on
total scares ("migration" or "S," scores}
calculated according lo the HRS. For the
proposed NPL all sites (with the
exception of some sites designated by
States as "top pnonty" sites) scored
28.50 or higher according to the HRS.
EPA has found thai the HRS sconng
factors provide a good estimate of the
relative hazards at sites for purpose of
establishing a list of national priorities
for further investigation and possible
remedial action. As explained in the
preamble to the proposed NPL (47 FR
58479. December 30.1982) and the
preamble to the NCP which discusses
the HRS (47 FR 31187-68. July 16.19821.
the HRS total score used for the NPL n
designed to take into account a standard
set of factors related to risks from
migration of substances through ground
water, surface water, and the air.
Although the HRS also does provide an
approximation of risk from direct
contact with substances and from the
possibility of fire and explosion, these
pathway scores are not considered m
computing the HRS "total score' of a
site (or purposes of listing. Rather.
scores from the direct contact and fire
and explosion pathways are uaed as
guidance in determining the need (or
immediate removal action at a site.
EPA has found, however, that in
certain instances EPA's auihontv to
-------
40678
Fedon) iUfUtar / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thuraday. September 8. 1983 / Proposed Rules
conduct an immediate removal action
may not be sufficient to address
completely the direct contact ruki at a
site, and that remedial action may
therefore be warranted. For example.
where relocation of residents it the
appropriate remedy, the Agency'*
removal authority extend* only to
evacuation of threatened residents.
whereas its remedial authority may
include permanent relocation of those
residents. Although EPA can take
removal actions, including temporary
relocation of residents, irrespective of
whether a site appears on the NPL the
NCP (40 CFR 100.68(al) provides that
remedial actms may be taken only at
sites on (he NPL.
Since the "direct contact" scores are
not included in calculating the HRS total
score for purposes of listing sites on the
NPL some of the sites involving direct
contact to residents where remedial
action, rather than immediate removal
action, appears necessary to address the
problem completely may not receive a
sufficiently high HRS tot*I score to be
listed on the NPL This situation has led
EPA to believe that in limited
circumstances it may be appropriate to
consider other cnlena than simply a
sufficiently high HRS total score for
purposes of hating sites on the NPL to
make them eligible for remedial action.
Quail Run Mobile Manor. Cray
Summit Missouri, is aa example of a
site that presents a significant risk to the
public that may warrant remedial
action, although its HRS total score is
too low for the site to be included on the
NPL During the winter o/1982-1983. the
EPA conducted environmental sampling
at Quail Run as part of its investigation
of a number of sites in the Slate of
Missouri that were potentially
contaminated with dioxin. The
investigation of the Quail Run site
revealed widespread diojun
contamination of yards, roadsides, and
garden jreas. as well a* high
concentrations under the road pavement
and presence in at least one residence.
In the case of Quail Run. EPA believes
lhal a number of factors suggest that it
may be appropriate to consider
including the site on the NPL even
though its HRS total score is less than
28.50 First, based on EPA s sampling.
the Ceniers for Disease Control (CDCJ
on May ll. 1983 issued a public health
advisory for the trailer park. This
advisory was based on the risk to
residents posed by direct contact wuh
the contaminated areas. Second ihe
Federal Emergency Management
Agency determined ihat temporary
relocation of the residents was
nerrssdrv to protect public health.
based on the CDC avisory and its
determination that the possible human
exposure would continue unless the
residents left their homes. Finally, EPA'i
current assessment is that some type of
remedial action—as opposed to an
immediate removal action—may be the
most health-protective and cost-
effective response.
Therefore. EPA is proposing to add
the Quail Run site to the NPL Including
the Quail Run site on the NPL will
permit EPA to consider the broadest
possible range of response actions.
including remedial actions, that will
protect the public health and
environment and provide the most cost-
effective response.
EPA recognizes, however, that the
sole criterion in the NCP for listing sites
on the NPL is a sufficiently high HRS
total score (or designation by a State as
its top priority site) Before EPA includes
the Quail Run site on the NPL therefore.
the Agency intends to amend the NCP to
authorize consideration of hnuted
cntena other than the HRS total score
for purposes of including sites on the
NPL. These alternative criteria would
take into account circumstances such as
those existing at the Quail Run site.
In preparing a proposed amendment
to Ihe NCP. EPA will consider the
advisability of relying in part on health
assessments or advisories such as those
issued by the newly formed Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
•(ATSDR) or special information from the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency. Such information could serve as
the technical basis for an EPA advisory
committee review and subsequent
administrative decision on the relative
risk of the site. A related approach, for
situations where persons at different
locations are affected by the nska of
direct contact from common substances
(such as dioxin). might be to group such
sites by geography or political
subdivision on the NPL For example.
EPA might develop some process
whereby many of the locations in
Missouri involving direct contact risks
from dioxjn could be grouped into a
single listing on the NPL if a suitable
health assessment or advisory had been
issued by an agency iuch as ATSDR
with respect to those locations. Of
course this approach could also apply
to similar dioxin risks in other Stales or
territories.
EPA anticipates, however, lhal any
dliprnaiite criteria it may develop will
.ipplv only 10 a limited number and type
01 sites With rate exception, the HRS
has pioven to be an effective too! for
approximating ihe risk posed by sites.
rind will remain the principal criterion
for listing. EPA invites comments on thp
general issue of considering alternn'.n»
cntena for listing on the NPL and on
approaches such as those discussed
above, as well as on the inclusion of the
Quail Run site.
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis
The EPA has conducted a preliminary
analysis of the economic implications of
today's amendment to the NCP. The
EPA belives that the direction of the
economic effects of this revision is
generally similar to those effects
identified in the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) prepared in 1982 for the
revisions to the NCP pursuant to section
105 of CERCLA.1 Nevertheless. Ihe
Agency intends to go beyond this eariior
characterization of possible effects with
a more extensive analysis of the
combined economic impact of (his
update proposal and other amendments
to the NCP that EPA may propose in the
near future. The analysis will
accompany publication of future major
amendments to the NCP. A more
comprehensive examination, together
with more than 2 years of experience
with the Superfund program, will allow
better estimates of the economic impact
of this and other proposed amendments
In the meantime, the Agency belives the
anticipated economic effects of adding
133 sites to the NPL can be
characterized in terms of the
conclusions of the earlier regulatory
impact analysis.
Costa
The costs associated with revising the
NCP that were estimated in the 1962 RIA
included costs to Slates of meeting coat-
share requirements: coats to industries
and individual firms of financing
remedies at NPL sites as a result either
of enforcement or cost recovery action
or of voluntary response: and
macroeconomtc costs resulting from
effects on industries and State
governments. Each of these types of
costs is discussed below.
Costs to States associated wuh
today's amendment arise from the
statutory State coal-share requirement
of 10 percent of remedial action costs ai
privately-owned sites Using the
assumptions developed in (he 1982 RIA
we can assume (hat 90 percent of Ihe 133
sites proposed for listing in this
amendment will mvulve a 10 percent
State cost share, and 10 percent will
« *• Int • iri»iir4fi'ri H**itt tttir\ Imu«i f 4ii.
h» Rpsuioni 10 Ihe N«i nnm Oil «nd haii
S>'uiunrM Cunimicnrv dun t nu«ry to 19H2.
Ihe jnnlMij i« nvciUule '•« injpi"-imn m thr L S
Fmimnrp»ni«l Pro'ecinn *vfn
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1983 / Proposed Rules 40677
involve a 50 percent coil ihare al
publicly-owned site*. Estimating the
average costs of a remedial action at
$6.5 million, the coit to all States of
undertaking Federal remedial actions at
all 133 sites would be $121 million.
Cost to industry could result from
required financing of remedies at sites
on the NPL under enforcement or cost
recovery action. Firms could also1 be
induced to respond to sites for which
they are responsible as a prudent
business action to avoid possible
enforcement actions and to prevent
adverse publicity if they are linked to
hazardous waste sites that are now
national priority targets. Precise
estimates must await the full analysis to
be conducted: however, the range of
' costs would extend from zero (if none of
the 133 sites is addressed) to a
maximum of $865 million (if the 133 sites
are privately-owned and each remedial
action costs an average of S8.S million).
The EPA cannot identify at this time
which firms may be threatened with
specific portions of response costs. The
act of adding a hazardous waste site to
the NPL does not itself cause firms
responsible for that site to bear these
costs. Instead, listing acts only as ff
potential trigger for subsequent
enforcement, cost recovery, or voluntary
remedial efforts. Moreover, it remains at
EPA's discretion whether or not to
proceed with enforcement actions
against firms which may be adversely
affected by such actions.
Economy-wide effects of this
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 R1A
Benefits
Associated with the costs are
significant potential benefits and cost
offsets. The distributional costs to firms
of financing NPL remedies have
corresponding "benefits" in that each
dollar expended for a response puts
someone to work directly or indirectly
(through purchased materials).
The real benefits associated with
today's amendment come in the form of
increased health and environmental
protection as a result of additional
response actions at hazardous waste
sites. In addition to the potential for
more Federally-financed remedial
actions, expansion of the NPL could
accelerate pnvately-financed. voluntary
cleanup efforts to avoid potential
adverse publicity, torts, and/or
enforcement action. Lasting sites as
national priority targets may also give
States increased support for funding
responses at particular sites.
As a result of the additional NPL
remedies, there will be lower human
exposure to high-risk chemicals, and
higher quality surface water, ground
water, soil, and air. The magnitude of
these benefits is expected to be
significant, although difficult to
estimate. As an example of a rough
calculation, the 1982 RIA estimated that
the population potentially at nsk from
contamination of ground water, soil, and
air would be reduced by approximately
1.8 million. 600.000. and 97.000
respectively, if remdial actions were
taken at 170 NPL sites. Assuming an
average estimate per NPL site of 10.000
people al nsk of exposure to
contaminated ground water, response
actions at the 133 sites to be listed by
this revision could result in a reduced
nsk of exposure to ground water
contamination for up to 1.3 million
people.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980. the Agency has
reviewed the impact of this revision to
the NCP on small entities. The EPA
certifies that the revision will not have i
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
While modifications to the NPL are
considered revisions to the NCP. (hey.
are not typical regulation changes since
the change does not automatically
impose across-the-board costs. As a
consequence, it is hard to predict
effects. The Agency does expect that
certain industries and firms within
industries that have caused a
proportionally high percentage of waste
site problems wiU possibly be
significantly affected by CERCLA
actions. Being included on the NPL will
increase the likelihood that these effects
will occur. The costs, when Imposed to
these affected firms and industries, are
justified because of the public health
and environmental problems they have
caused. Adverse effects are not
expected to affect a substantial number
of small businesses, as a class.
List of Subjects in 40 CFK 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.
PART 300-{ AMENDED!
It is proposed to amend Appendix B of
40 CFR Part 300 by adding the following
sites to the National Priorities List-
-------
JUfLrter / Vol. 4& No. 175 / Thursday. September 8.1983 / Proposed Rulet
n NUimMl PihuKlM U*
BPA
RZG 5T SIT! NAME •
Group 1
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE
STATUS t
03 PA TYSONS DOHP
08 MT EAST HELENA SMELTER
06 TX GENEVA IND06TRIES (FUHRMANN)
02 NJ VIHELAND CHEMICAL CO.
02 NJ FLORENCE LAND RECONTOURING LF
02 NJ SHIELDALLOY CORP.
05 WI OMBGA HILLS NORTH LANDFILL
OS OH UNITED SCRAP LEAD CO.,INC.
UPPER HERION TWP
EAST HELENA
HOUSTON
VINELAND
FLORENCE TOWNSHIP
NEWFIELD BOROUGH
GERMANTOWN
TROY
R
V
V
B
E
E
B
B
FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
I: V • VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
B • FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT} D
• • STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES;
NOTE: GROUP REFERS TO THE NPL GROUP WITH SIMILAR MRS SCORES;
BPA
REG ST
Group 2
SITE NAME *
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE
STATUS t
OS WZ JAMBSVILLE OLD LANDFILL
04 SC INDEPENDENT NAIL CO.
04 SC KALAMA SPECIALTY CHBMI 'ALS
OS WI JANESVILLE ASH BEDS
05 OH MIAMI COUNTY INCINERATOR
05 WI WHBELBR PIT
02 NY HUDSON RIVER PCBS
01 CT OLD SOUTHINGTON LANDFILL
04 MS FLOMOOD •
JANESVILLE
BEAUFORT
BEAUFORT
JANES VILLE
TROY
LA PRAIRIE TOWNSHIP
HUDSON RIVER
SOUTHINGTON V
FLOWOOD
D
0
D
D
D
D
I: V - VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
E - FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT; D
• - STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES;
NOTE: GROUP REFERS TO THE NPL GROUP WITH SIMILAR HRS SCORES;
FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. *«. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1983 / Proposed Rule* 40>7»
EPA
REG ST
Group 3
SITE NAME *
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE
STATUS |
10 ZD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
04 AL CIBA-GEIGY CORP. (MCINTOSH PLANT}
OS MN ST. REGIS PAPER CO.
04 GA HERCULES 009 LANDFILL
OS MN MACGILLIS & GIBBS/BELL & POLE
OS WI MUSKEGO SANITARY LANDFILL
02 NJ VENTRON/VELSICOL
04 SC KOPPERS CO.,INC. (FLORENCE PLANT)
02 NJ NASCOLITE CORP.
05 MN BOISE CASCADE/OMAN/MEDTRONICS
02 NJ DELILAH ROAD
03 PA MILL CREEK DUMP
OS WI SCHMALZ DUMP
08 CO LOWRY LANDFILL
POCATELLO
MCINTOSH
CASS LAKE
BRUNSWICK
NEW BRIGHTON
MUSKEGO
WOODRIDGE BOROUGH
FLORENCE
MILLVTLLE
FRIDLEY
EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP
ERIE
HARRISON
ARAPAHOE COUNTY
R
E
E
E
D
D
0
I: V • VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
E » FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT; D
• . STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES;
NOTE: GROUP REFERS TO THE NPL GROUP WITH SIMILAR HRS SCORES;
FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
ACTIONS TO BB DETERMINED.
EPA
R£G ST
Group 4
SITE NAME •
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE
STATUS »
04 SC WAMCHEM, INC. -
02 NJ CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINERS, INC.
05 WI MASTER DISPOSAL SERVICE LANDFILL
02 NJ W. R. GRACE CO. (WAYNE PLANT)
04 SC LEONARD CHEMICAL CO.,INC.
04 AL STAUFFER CHEN. (COLD CREEK PLANT)
04 GA OLIN CORP. (AREAS 1,2 & 4)
05 OH SOUTH POINT PLANT
03 PA DORNBY ROAD LANDFILL
OS IN NORTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL
09 CA ATLAS ASBESTOS MINE
09 CA COALINGA ASBESTOS MINE
02 NJ EWAN PROPERTY
10 ID PACIFIC HIDE & FUR RECYCLING CO.
OS MN JOSLYN MFG. & SUPPLY CO.
05 MN ARROWHEAD REFINERY CO.
05 WI MOSS-AMERICAN(KERR-MCGEE OIL CO.)
BURTON
BRIDGEPORT
BROOKFIELD
WAYNE TOWNSHIP
ROCK HILL
BUCKS
AUGUSTA
SOUTH POINT
UPPER MACUNGIE TWP
ZIONSVILLE
FRESNO COUNTY
COALINGA
SHAMONG TOWNSHIP
POCATELLO
BROOKLYN CENTER
HERMANTOWN
MILWAUKEE
V
V
E
E
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
0
0
D
D
I: V » VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
E " FEDERAL AND STATE ENTORCEMENT; D
• • STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES;
NOTE: GROUP REFERS TO THE NPL GROUP WITH SIMILAR HRS SCORES;
FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
-------
Fwfaral RafUtar / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1903 / Proposed Rules
EPA
REG ST
SITE NAME
Group 5
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE
STATUS I
01 MA IRON HORSE PARK
OS WI KOHLER CO. LANDFILL
05 IN REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORP.
OS WI LACIER I SANITARY LANDFILL
05 MN UNION SCRAP
02 NJ RADIATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
OS WI ONALASK* MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
05 MN NUTTING TRUCK £ CASTER CO.
02 PR VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY HELLS
05 MI STURGIS MUNICIPAL HELLS
05 MN WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
09 CA SAN GABRIEL AREA 1
09 CA SAN GABRIEL AREA 2
06 TX PIG ROAD
02 PR UPJOHN FACILITY
03 PA HENDERSON ROAD
06 LA PETRO-PROCESSORS
03 PA INDUSTRIAL LANE LANDFILL
03 PA EAST MOUNT ZION
02 NY GENERAL MOTORS-CENT. FOUNDRY DIV.
03 OE OLD BRINE SLUDGE LANDFILL
05 MN WHITTAKER CORP.
BILLERICA
SHEBOYGAN
INDIANAPOLIS
MENOMOREE PALLS
MINNEAPOLIS
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP
ONALASXA
FARIBAOLT
VEGA ALTA
STURGIS
LAKE ELMO
EL MONTE
BALDWIN PARK AREA
NEW WAVERLY
BARCELONETA
UPPER MERION TWP
SCOTLANDVILLE
WILLIAMS TOWNSHIP
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP
MASSENA
DELAWARE CITY
MINNEAPOLIS
D
D
D
D
0
D
0
D
0
0
D
0
0
D
D
11 V - VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
B • FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT; D
* - STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES;
NOTE: GROUP REFERS TO THE NPL GROUP WITH SIMILAR HRS SCORES;
FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
EPA
REG ST
Group 6
SITE NAME *
CITY/COONTY
RESPONSE
STATUS t
01 CT KELLOGG-DEERING WELL FIELD
04 AL OLIN CORP. {MCINTOSH PLANT)
04 FL TRI-CITY OIL CONSERVATIONIST,
05 WI NORTHERN ENGRAVING CO.
01 NH KEARSAGE METALLURGICAL CORP.
04 SC PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING
05 MN MORRIS ARSENIC DUMP
OS MN PERRAM ARSENIC
01 NH SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
05 IN POER FARM
06 TX UNITED CREOSOTING CO.
05 WI CITY DISPOSAL CORP. LANDFILL
02 NJ TABERNACLE DRUM DUMP
02 NJ COOPER ROAD
04 FL CAflOT-KOPPERS
NORWALK
MCINTOSH
INC. TEMPLE TERRACE
SPARTA
CONWAY
DIXI ANNA
MORRIS
PERHAM
MILFORD
HANCOCK COUNTY
CONROE
DUNN
TABERNACLE TWP
VOORHEES TOWNSHIP
GAINESVILLE
V
V
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I: V - VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
E • FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT; D
* - STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES;
NOTE; GROUP REFERS TO THE NPL GROUP WITH SIMILAR HRS SCORES;
FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8.1983 / Proposed Rules
40681
EPA
REG ST
Group?
SITE NAME
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE
STATUS * .
05 MN GENERAL MILLS/HENKEL CORP.
09 CA DEL NORTE PESTICIDE STORAGE
02 NJ DE REWAL CHEMICAL CO.
04 GA MONSANTO CORP. (AUGUSTA PLANT).
01 NH SOUTH MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY WELL
OS WI EAO CLAIRE MUNCIPAL WELL FIELD
04 GA POWERSVILLE
OS MI METAMORA LANDFILL
02 NJ DIAMOND ALKALI CO.
02 PR FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS
05 WI MID-STATE DISPOSAL, INC.,LANDFILL
08 CO BRODERICK WOOD PRODUCTS
02 NJ WOODLAND ROUTE 532 DUMP
05 IN AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICE
05 WI LEMBERGER TRANSPORT & RECYCLING
10 WA OUEEN CITY FARMS
05 WI SCRAP PROCESSING CO., INC.
02 NJ HOPKINS FARM
02 NJ WILSON FARM
06 OK COMPASS INDUSTRIES
09 CA KOPPERS CO.,INC. (OROVILLE PLANT)
03 PA WALSH LANDFILL
02 NJ UPPER DEERPIELD TOWNSHIP SL?
MINNEAPOLIS
CRESCENT CITY
KINGWOOD TOWNSHIP
AUGUSTA
PETERSBOROUGH
EAU CLAIRE CITY
PEACH COUNTY
METAMORA
NEWARK
JOBOS
CLEVELAND TOWNSHIP
DENVER
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP
GRIFFITH1
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP
MAPLE VALLEY
MEDFORD
PLUMSTEAD TOWNSHIP
PLUMSTEAD TOWNSHIP
TULSA
OROVILLE
HONBYBROOK TWP
UPPER DBBRPIELD TWP
R
R
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
I: V • VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
E • FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT; D
• » STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES;
NOTEi GROUP REFERS TO THE NPL :GROUP WITH SIMILAR HRS SCORES;
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 175 / Thursday. September 8. 1983 / Proposed Rules
EPA
REG ST
Group 8
SITE NAME •
CITY/COUNT*
RESPONSE
STATUS *
01 MA SULLIVAN'S LEDGE
05 IN BENNETT STONE QUARRY
04 AL STAUFFBR CHEH. (LE MOYNE PLANT)
04 SC GEIGER (CiM OIL)
05 WI WASTE RESEARCH & RECLAMATION CO.
04 PL PEPPER STEEL & ALLOYS, INC.
05 KN ST. LOUIS RIVER
03 PA BERKS SAND PIT
04 FL HIPPS ROAD LANDFILL
05 WI OCONOMOWOC ELECTROPLATING CO.
08 CO LINCOLN PARR
02 NJ WOODLAND ROUTE 72 DUMP
10 OR UNITED CHROME PRODUCTS, INC.
02 NJ LANDFILL 4 DEVELOPMENT CO.
03 PA TAYLOR BOROUGH DUMP
05 OH POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
05 MI BURROWS SANITATION
10 WA ROSCH PROPERTY
NEW BEDFORD
BLOOM INGTON
AXIS
RANTOULES
EAU CLAIRE
MEDLEY
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
LONGSWAMP TOWNSHIP
DUVAL COUNTY
ASHXPPIN
CANON CITY
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP
CORVALLIS
MOUNT HOLLY
TAYLOR BOROUGH
DAYTON
HARTFORD
ROY
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
f: V - VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
E - FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT; D
* * STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES;
NOTE: GROUP REFERS TO THE NPL GROUP WITH SIMILAR HRS SCORES;
FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
EPA
REG ST
Group 9
SITE NAME *
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE
STATUS *
05
09
09
10
10
06
07
WI
CA
CA
WA
WA
OK'
MO
DELAVAN MUNICIPAL WELL 14
SAN GABRIEL AREA 3
SAN GABRIEL AREA 4
AMERICAN LAKE GARDENS
GREEN ACRES LANDFILL
SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL
QOAIL RUN MOBILE MANOR
DELAVAN
ALHAMSRA
LA PUENTE
TACOMA
SPOKANE COUNTY
SAND SPRINGS
GRAY SUMMIT
R
R
R
D
0
D
D
I: V - VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
E • FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT; 0
• » STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES;
NOTE: GROUP REFERS TO THE NPL GROUP WITH SIMILAR HRS SCORES;
FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
IFKOoe
MJJM COM
-------
19480
Federal Renter / Vol. 49. No. 90 / Tuesday. May 8. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
IOWA TSP—Continued
;. - '
"* TrMTiinsn
Mi m oleum CM Mora* MB el US. "•}"•«» U4
« IE. tm SVMQ
S 23 W. T 78 N « Z4 w T 71 N fl 21 w T SO R 24
W. T 7» H. H a •». T 7» N. fl 14 W. in» T 7« fl U
W.
torn 4 BuMo. Owwwt. aMunaart ml flMiaMi _
T)ttc*imi vd •auMfflparamat SataOty— — —
* DM not
ITMI orm»t
X
Oo»™«
MM
Moonurr
Mnatm
«'
X1
x
X '
x>
X'
x1
X'
CtmXM
l.l«MlB«l
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8*n*> ttwi
ruuon*
UWURB
X
X
X
X.
X.
X.
X.
X.
X.
X.
•EPAC
[FK DM. M-iaa FiM V-M 141 u>|
•njJNOCOOC ISttt » II
40 CFR Part 300
[SWH-fHL 2555-51
t/Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan; National Priorities Ust
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule. .
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") is amending the
National Priorities List ("NFL") which
was promulgated on September 8.1963.
as Appendix B of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substance* Contingency
Plan ("NCP"). pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 ("CZRCLA"] and Executive
Order 12316. CERCLA requires that the
NPL be revised at least annually, and on
September 8.1983. the first update to the
NPL ("proposed NPL1'] was proposed
concurrent with the promulgation of the
final rule. Today's rule amends the NPL
to include San Cabnel Areas 1.1 3. and
four met wen included in the
. 1083 proposed rule.
1984. Under section 305 of CERCLA.
amendments to the NCP cannot take
effect until Congress has had at least 60
"calendar days of continuous session"
from the date of promulgation in which
to review the amended Plan. Since the
actual length of this review period may
be affected by Congressional action, it is
not possible at this time to specify a
date on which this amendment to the
NPL will become effective. Therefore.
EPA will publish a Federal Register
notice at the end of the review penod
announcing the effective date of this
NPL amendment. EPA notes, however.
that the legal effect of a Congressional
veto pursuant to section 303 has been
placed in question by the recent
decision. Immigration and
Naturalization Service v. Chadha. 103 S.
CL 2764 (1983). Nonetheless, the Agency
has decided, as a matter of policy, to
submit NPL amendments for
Congressional review.
POM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Stephen M. Caldwell. Hazardous Site
Control Division. Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (WH-S48-E).
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. D.C. 20460.
(Phone (800) 424-9346 or 382-3000 In the
Washington. D.C. metropolitan ana).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION!
Table of Contents
I. Background of NPL
U. Background of San Cabr.el Area Site*
IIL Addition of San Gabriel Area Sites to N?L
IV. Regulatory Impact
V Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
1. Background of NPL
Pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Lability
Act of 1980. 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657
("CERCLA" or "the Act"), and Executive
Order 12318 (48 FR 42237. August 20.
1981). the Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA" or "the Agency")
promulgated the revised National
Contingency Plan ("NCP"). 40 CFR Part
300. on July 18.1982 (47 FR 31180). The
revised NCP implemented the new
responsibilities and authorities created
by CERCLA to respond to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and
contaminants.
Section 105(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 extant
practicable taking into account the
potential urgency of such action, for the
purpose of taking 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 permanent remedy for a release
(CERCLA Section 101(24)). Criteria for
determining priorities are included in
the Hazard Ranking System ("HRS").
which EPA promulgated as Appendix A
of the NCP (40 CFR Part 300. Appendix
A).
Section 105(8)(B) of CERCLA requires
that these criteria be used to prepare a
list of national priorities among the
known releases or threatened releases
throughout the United States, and that to
the extent practicable at least 400 sites
be designated individually. EPA has
included releases on the NPL where
CERCLA authorizes Federal response to
the release. Under section 104(a) of
CERCLA. this response authority is
quite broad and extends to releases or
threatened releases not only of
designated hazardous substances, but of
any "pollutant or contaminant" which
presents an imminent and substantial
danger to the public health or welfare.
CERCLA require* that this National
Priorities List ("NPL") be included as
part of the NCP. On September 0.1983.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 90 / Tuesday. May 8. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 1948!
the Agency amended the NCP by adding
the NPL as Appendix B. Additional
discussion on the purpose and
development of the NPL and on generic
issues relating to the Hazard Ranking
System (MRS) is included in the
preamble to the NPL promulgated on
September 8.1963. (48 FR 40658).
Section 300.88(a) of the NCP reserves
remedial actions for those releases on
the NPL taken to prevent or mitigate the
migration of hazardous substances into
the environment. The NPL promulgated
on September 8,1983. contains 406 sites
eligible for EPA remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance
Response Trust Fund established by
Section 221 of CERCLA. Inclusion of a
site on the NPL is not necessary for
other types of response actions such as
removal actions or for enforcement
actions.
CERCLA requires the NPL to be
revised at least once per year. The Tint
proposed update was published at the
same time as the final rulemolung on the
NPL and included 133 sites. The four
San Cabnel sites that are now being
added to the NPL were among the 133
sites proposed at that time.
IL Background of San Gabriel Area Sites
The four San Gabriel Area sites were
included in the proposed rulemaking for
the first update of the NPL (48 FR 40674.
September 8.1983]. The four sites are
located in Los Angeles County.
California. Over 400 domestic and
municipal water supply wells are
located in the four areas. EPA has
determined that a release of hazardous
substances into the environment has
occurred. Chlorinated organic
hydrocarbon contamination has been
detected in the ground water at all four
sites. EPA and the State have identified
levels of contamination that pose an
actual or potential threat to public
health and the environment. The Agency
is evaluating the situation to determine
the appropriate response action (e.g.
removal or remedial response) and
expects that remedial response will ba
appropnate given the nature, extent and
concentrations of contamination at the
sites.
EPA has conducted remedial planning
activities consistent with I 300.68 of the
NCP to determine if a remedial action is
justified by the actual or potential threat
posed by the hazardous substances.
Based on these planning activities. EPA
believes that an initial remedial measure
may be appropnate and that EPA should
consider proceeding immediately to
limit exposure or threat of exposure to a
significant public health or
environmental hazard. The initial
remedial measure which is under
consideration would provide alternative
drinking water jupphes to mitigate the
public health threat. In addition. EPA
and the State expect to undertake
additional remedial planning activities
to determine if further remedial actions
are needed to mitigate any continued
public health or environmental effects.
HI. Addition of San Gabriel Area Sites to
NPL
This action being taking today will
add San Gabriel Area sites 1.2. 3. and 4
to the NPL No public comments were
received by EPA. either during or after
the 60-day comment period following
addition of the sites on the proposed
NPL EPA has reviewed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS1 score for each
site and has determined that no
information has been presented during
or after the comment penod that would
justify a change in the MRS scores. The
final scores exceed 28.5. which is the
minimum score required for a site to be
included on the NPL
The decision to add the San Gabnel
sites to the NPL immediately rather than
waiting until rulemaking on the other
129 sites included in the September 8.
1983. proposed rule, is based on the
serious nature of the problem.
Approximately 500.000 people are
potentially affected by consumption of
contaminated ground water. It may be
necessary to take remedial action at the
sites in the near future.
IV. Regulatory Impact
The addition of these four sites to the.
final rulemaking on the NPL does not
meet the Executive Order 12291
definition of the term "major rule."
The purpose of the NPL a primarily 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 in the NFL is
Intended primarily to guide EPA in
determining which sites warrant further
investigation designed to assess the
nature and extent of the public health
and environmental risks associated with
the site and to determine what response
action, if any. may be appropnate.
Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not
establish that EPA necessarily will
undertake response actions. Moreover.
listing does not require any action of
any pnvate party, nor does tt determine
the liability of any parry for the cost of
cleanup at the site.
In addition, although the MRS scor--
used to placed sites on the NFL ma-
helpful to the Agency in deterrninin,
priorities for cleanup and other response
activities among sites on the NFL EPA
does not rely on the scores as the sole
means of determining such priorities, as
discussed below. Neither can the MRS
itself determine the appropnate remedy
for a site. The information collected to
develop HRS scores to choose sites for
the NPL is not sufficient in itself to
determine the appropnate remedy for a
particular site. After a site has been
included on the NFL EPA generally will
rely on further, more detailed studies
conducted at the site to determine what
response, if any, is appropnate.
Decisions on the type and extent of
action to be taken at these sites are
made in accordance with the cntena
contained in Subpart F of the NCP. After
conducting those additional studies.
EPA may conclude that it is not feasible
to conduct response action at some sites
on the NPL because of more pressing
needs at other sites. Given the limited
resources available in the Hazardous
Substance Response Fund, the Agency
must carefully balance the relative
needs for response at the numerous sites
it has studied.
No accurate assessment of the c
remedial action at these four sites
yet been developed by EPA. Howe.
preliminary analyses indicate that EPA
might expend approximately S600.000 at
the sites. It is not expected that even at
Us highest cost, remedial action could
cause an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more. Further, it is not
expected that remedial action could
cause a major increase in costs or
prices, nor could it have significant
advene effects on competition.
employment investment or any other
' cntena of Executive Order 12291.
Rather, beneficial effects may be
anticipated from any actions taken to
supply alternative sources of clean
drinking water.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
After reviewing the cntena for
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act EPA has concluded that
promulgation of this rule will not have a
significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities.
In defining the purpose of the NPL (46
FR 40659. September S. 1983). EPA has
determined that listing does not r
any action of any pnvate party ft.
-------
19482 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 90 / Tuesday. May 8. 1984 / Rules and Regulation
cast of cleanup at the lite. Currently.
EPA and the State of California 'expect
to fund remedial activities at the four
sites. A search for potentially
responsible parties it underway, but
thus far. none have been identified.
Should any potentially responsible
parties be identified,* EPA may seek to
recover any costs of remedial activities
conducted at these four sues. However.
the portion of costs that might be bome
by any identifiable potentially
responsible parties cannot be estimated
at this tune.
Of the businesses and organizations
possibly involved with the San Gabnel
Ana sites, the fraction constituting
small business entities, as defined by
the Small Business Administration
would not be substantial, it is therefore
unlikely that any EPA remedial
activities at these four sites would
significantly affect small business
entities.
List of Subject! ia 40 CFR Port 300
Air pollution control. Chemicals.
Hazardous materials. Intergovernmental
relations. Natural resources. Oil
pollution. Reporting and recordkeepmg
requirement], Superfund. Waste
Treatment and disposal. Water pollution
control. Water supply.
PART 300—[AMENDED!
Appendix B—{Amended]
The National Priorities List which is
Appendix B of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan
(40 FR 40658) ia hereby amended to add
the following sites:
EPA
Oi»/eoufli»
Ok.
C*_
QUCM
at.
M.
C*.
CA.
No.
t v.vewio* 9 NCQOUIM
md SUM A
Cited: May 1. 1984.
WUIUm 0. XuckaUhaua.
Administrator.
[TR Doc. M.IBU FlUd *-7-t* tu u|
tii i irm term saao so a
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part* 73 and 79
[Docket No. 20521; Docket No. 20548; BC
Docket No. 78-239; MM Docket No. 83-48;
HM-36S3; RU-369S; RM-4045; FCC 84-115]
Multiple Ownership of AM, FM, TV, and
Cable TV Stations
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commissions.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action amends 5 j 73.33.
73.240. 73.636. 73.3615. and 78.5O1 of the
Commission'! Rules and FCC Forms 301.
314. 315.316.323 and 32S. This action i»
taken to revise and modernize the rule*
the Commission uses to attribute
ownership interests in broadcast, cable
television and newspaper entities for
purposes of applying its multiple
ownership rules, as Well as the rules
governing the reporting of such
ownership information. This action will
more accurately identify those persons
and entitles with whom the multiple
ownership rules are concerned, greatly
reduce the amount of ownership
information the Commission will require
of licensees, and greatly reduce any
restrictive effects of those rules on
investors.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8. 1984.
ADDRESS Federal Communications
Commission. Washington. D.C 20554.
POM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bruce A. Romano. Mass Media Bureau.
(202) 832-9358.
List of Subject!
47 CFR Part 73
Radio end television broadcasting.
47 CFR Part 78
Cable television.
Report and Order (Proceedings
Terminated)
In lh* matter of corporate ownership
reporting and diictoiun by broadcast
licensees (Docket No. 20321). Amendment of
11 73.33. 73.240 and 73.038 of the
Commission's ruin reining to multiple
ownership of standard. FM and television
broadcast nations {Docket No. 20543).
Amendment of 11 7X33. 71.240.73 63d and
78.501 of tha Comnuf IIOD'I rules relating to-
multiple ownership of AM. FM. and television
stations and CATV lyitema (BC Docket No.
78-239). rMxaminanao of Lhe Commission s
rules and policies regarding the tttribuuoa of
ownership interests in broadcast, cabka
television and newspaper entities (MM
Docket No. 83-48. RM-3433, RM-M83, RM-
4049).
Adopted: March 29.1984.
Released- April 30.1984.
By the Commission: Commission** Rivera
abstaining aad Issuing a statement.
L Introduction
1. The Commission has before it
comments filed by numerous parties In
response to its Notice of Proposed Rule
Making in MM Docket No. 83-16
("Notice 83-48"]. FCC 83-48. released
February IS. 1983. 48 Fed. Reg. 10082
(March 10.1983). and comments and
• pleadings filed in related docketed
proceedings and rule making petitions
as captioned above.' This Report and
Order concludes those proceedings.
comprehensively reviewing and revising
the standards for attributing interests in
broadcast cable television and
newspaper properties insofar as
application of the Commission's various
multiple ownership rules is concerned
and for reporting those interests to the
Commission.'Briefly stated, the specific
changes adopted herein Include:
(1) Raising the beaie ownership
benchmark for attribution to S*
regardless of the size of the licensee
(eliminating the distinction between
"dosely-held" and -widely-held"
licensees);
(2) Raising the attribution benchmark
for "passive" investors to 10%;
(3) Introduction of e "multiplier" In
determining attribution in vertical
ownership chains:
(4] Clarification of the status of non-
voting stock and limited partnership
Interests as non-attnbutable interests:
(S) Clarification of the attribution of
Interest! held In venous lands of trusu
end other fiduciary capacities:
(6) Provision* for the relief from
attribution of officers and directors
whose duties an not related to any
licensee or its operations: and.
1 A lilt of lh* pardn filial comonu la neb. of
maM proceedings ia coataiud la Appendix & A
gtotral itimmacy otlhoM amnesia. «fl at which
hive ban fully caaiidend Mran. i* cBniamvd IB
Appendix A.
• It « Important to rvilerata at tha out** thtl thu
Htson aad Orrftr la not Inttaded ia ilfici la tny
mpcet ih« Cammluioa' i oirmoi molopU
owncnhip ruin UMnucivt* tad don art pra|ndc fJenct tf ftopoMd Kul»
MaMtai in On. Doekit No. Si-ioaa. FCC O-MO,
nl««wd October a IBM. a Fit aMia (October U.
1983). cemcted « FR am (Nmobv C IBSOX
Review o( UM r-t— • — "• i reitonsl eoacanmnaa
of conffol mtrtctioa. wUch UaiH the amuauly of
uy tarn lUdou owmd by a MB«to m&tj, 1* aUo
the eubieei of saathei rule eukiaa praeaedlna,
Nona of Pnpatid Halt MaJUflf m MM OeckM No.
M-ia. PCC OT-I& raiund |aaa«y 17. US4. «» FR
1478 (January & 1S«4(.
-------
Wednesday
July 18,
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 300
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan; Final Rule
-------
29192 FaoVsJ Register / VoL 49, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 18. 198* / Rulaa and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPwt300
National ON and H
Substance* Pollution Contingency
Plan
AoeMCv: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA}.
ACTION: Final rale.
SUMHAIIY: Pursuant to Section
311lc](2](C) of the Clean Water Act and
Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1990,
the Environmental Protection Agency is
promulgating revisions to Subpart H of
the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). 40 CFR Part 300. Today's final
rule amends Subpart H by specifying
testing end data requirements for
inclusion of a dispersant. surface
collecting agent or biological additive
on the NCP Product Schedule. The final
rule also provides that products on this
schedule may be authorized for use on
discharges of oil
emcnvB OATK August 17,1934.
FOR niHTHBH INFORMATION CONTACT:
LM Flaherty. Emergency Response
Division (WH-546/B), Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street. SW.. Washington. D.C. 20460.
Phone 1202] 382-2196.
SUPKEMCNTART INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
L Introduction
A. Background of This Rulamaking
B. Organization of the Final RuJe
IL Summary of Changes From the Proposed
Rule
1U. Major Issue*
A. NCP Product Schedule
B. £PA and Stale Concurrence
C Burning and Sinking Agent*
D. Toxieity and EffectlveneM Tests
tV. Miscellaneous ComiMnU
V. Summary of Supporting Analyse*
A. Classification Under Exacutlve Order
12291
fl. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Certification Why a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis la Not Necessary
I. Introduction
A. Background of This Ruletnaking
Section 3li(cJ(2| of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act ("Clean Water
Act" or "CWA"). 33 U.S.C. 1251 el see..
requires the publication of a National
Contingency Plan ("NCP'!*al includes:
(G) a schedule, prepared la cooperation
with the Stales, identifying (I) disputants
•ad other chemicals, if any. thai may b» used
|g carrying oat the Plan. [ii| the water* in
which tuch dupananti and chemical* may
be used, and (iii) the quantities of such
diipersant or chemical which can be uied
safely in such water*, which schedule shall
provide in the case of any diipersant
chemical, or waters not specifically identified
in such schedule thai the President or his
delegate, nay, on « ca*e-by-eas* basis.
identify (he dispenants and other chemicals
which may be used the waters ia which they
may be used, and the quantities which can be
used safely in such waters * * *
The NCP published pursuant to
Section 311(c|(2) of the CWA included
an Annex X that complied with the
above provision (see. e.g., 38 FR 22887.
21906. August 13.1973). Annex X
specified that except in emergency
situations, chemical agents could not be
used to abate discharge* of oil or
hazardous substances unless the U.S,
Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA"} had been provided with the
technical product data specified in the
Annex and the agents were lifted on
EPA's Product Schedule. Annex X also
specified procedures by which On-Scena
Coordinators ("OSCs") could authorize
the use of such products as well as the
use of burning agents and mechanical
control methods. The use of sinking
agents was prohibited. On the basis of
data submitted pursuant to Annex X. - -
EPA prepared a schedule of 30
dispersants, surface collecting agents,
and biological additives.
Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
("CERCLA11). 42 USC 9601 et sec..
required revision of the NCP to
implement new authorities provided by
CERCLA. Under Executive Order 12318.
the President delegated responsibility
for revising the NGP to EPA. In the July
16.1982 revision of the NCP (47 FR
31160. codified at 40 CFR Part 300). EPA
eliminated Annex X. In place of Annex
X. EPA established a new Subpart H to
implement the provisions of CWA
Section 311(C](2)(G).
As promulgated on July 18.1982.
Subpart H permitted OSCs to authorize
the use of dispenants and other
chemicals on oil discharges if the
dispersants or other chemicals were on
EPA's Product Schedule. The use of any
product not on the Product Schedule
required (he authorization of ihe
Administrator or the Administrator's
designee. These dispersants and other
chemicals were authorized only for use
in responding to oil spills. The rule did
not address the use of dtspersants and
other chemicals for response to
hazardous substance spills.
As initially promulgated. Subpart H
did aot contain a requirement regarding
data submissions for adding chemical*
or biological agents to the Schedule, bi
the preamble to the revised NCP (47 F"
31201). EPA explained that it had
deleted the data submission
requirements pending a detailed review
of the requirements and revision of the
product testing procedures. The Agency
noted that once this review was
completed, it would propose a rule
revising testing procedures and
establishing a process for addiog
dispenants and other chemical agents
to the NCP Product Schedule.
On December 21.1983. EPA published
a-Motice of Proposed Rulamaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register (48 FR
56484) to amend Subpart H. The
proposed rule specified the test datr
needed to add dispersaats, surface
collecting agents, and biological
additives to the NCP Product Schedule.
The proposed rule also prohibited the
use of sinking agents, required stale
concurrence in authorizing the use of a
product listed on the Schedule, and
allowed OSCs to authorize unilaterally
the use of any product when human hie
was endangered.
EPA received fifteen comment letters
in response to the December 21.1983
NPRM. Many of these letters contained
numerous individual comments on lh»
proposals made in the NPRM. In
preparing today's final rule. EPA hi
carefully considered all of the corns*.. -
received and has modified the proposed
rule in several respects.
B. Organization of the Final Rula
Today's final rule amends 40 CFR Part
300 by revising Subpart H and adding
Appendix C. Section 300.81 describes
the purpose and applicabJity of Subpart
H. Section 300.82 defines several key
terms used in the regulation. Section
300.93 provides that EPA shall maintain
a schedule of dispenants and other
chemical or biological products that may
be authorized for use on oil discharges.
called the "NCP Product Schedule."
Section 300.84 sets forth the
procedures by which an OSC may
authorize the use of products listed on
the NCP Product Schedule. The section
specifically notes the circumstances
under which concurrence of the affected
states and the EPA representative to the
Regional Response Team f'RRT') is
necessary. Section 300.85 details the-
data that must be submitted :o have a
dlspersant. surface collecting agent, or
biological additive placed on the
Schedule. Section 300.86 describes '**
procedures for placing a product
Schedule. Section 300.88 also sell
-------
Federal Register / VoL 49; No. 139 / Wednesday. July 18. 198* / Ruiea and Regulations 29193
requirements dmigned to avoid possible
mispresentarlon or misinterpretation of
the placemen! of a product oa the
Schedule, including the wording of a
disclaimer to be used ta product
advertisements or technical literature
referring to placement oa the Schedule.
Lastly, Appendix C details the
methods and types of apparatus to be
used In carrying oat the revised
standard dispersant effectiveness and
toxidty tests. The Appendix also sets
forth the format required for summary
presenlaton of product test data.
R. Summary of Change* From the
Proposed Rule
The final rule promulgated today
generally conforms to the rule as
proposed oa December 21.1983.
However, several changes to the
proposed rule have been made on the
basis of EPA'a analysis of the comments
received.
EPA has changed ( 3C0.8S(c) (8) and
(9). which concern the data submission
requirements for biological additives.
Under the final rule, a person seeking to
have a biological additive included on
the NCP Product Schedule must submit
data concerning the optimum pH.
temperature, and salinity ranges of the
additive as well as the maximum and
minimum pH, temperature, aad salinity
levels above and below which the
effectiveness of a biological additive is
reduced to half its optimum leveL
EPA has revised S 300.B6(e) to require
the use. in all technical literature or
advertisements referring to the
placement of a product on the NCP
Product Schedule, of either a written
disclaimer or EPA's written statement
concerning the effect of listing a product
on the Schedule. The text of the
disclaimer is provided in ! 300.86(e}.
Finally, EPA has revised portions of
Appendix C to describe certain steps of
the effectiveness and toxidty testing
procedures more clearly.
The reasons for these changes are
discussed below. Any additional
changes in the rule mim the proposed
rule are minor and editorial ia nature.
IIL Major Issues
A. NCP Product Schedul*
Under today's rule, Subpart H is
similar to Annex X in that it does not
identify the waters or quantities in
which listed dispersants and chemicals
may safely be used. The wide variability
in waters, weather conditions,
organisms living in the waters, and
types of oil that might be discharged
requires a flexible approach. Thus, the
waters and quantities in which a
dispersant or chemical agent may safely
be used an to be determined in each
case by the OSC on the basis of all
relevant circumstances. The data
requirements for placement of a product
on the NCP Product Schedule are
designed to provide sufficient data for
OSCs to judge whether and in what
quantities a dispersant may safely be
used to control a particular discharge.
The standardized testing procedures set
out in the rule an intended to ensure
that OSCs have comparable data
regarding the effectiveness and toxidty
of different products.
Today's rule requires those seeking
placement of a product on the NCP
Product Schedule to submit technical
data on the product to EPA. Data
on both dispersants and surface
collecting agents must include the
results of the standard dispersant
toxidty last set forth in Appendix C of
today's rule. Data on disperaanU also
must include the results of the standard
dispersant effectiveness test set forth ia
Appendix C. Products already on the
product list that was prepared pursuant
to Annex X of the previous NCP will be
included on the new NCP Product
Schedule. No additional data will be
required at this time for these products.
Existing data on these products are
sufficient to permit OSCs to make
informed decisions about product use.
Commenters supported this preservation
of the existing product list
EPA will review submissions of.
technical product data to ensure that the
data requirements sat out hi 40 CFR
300.85 are satisfied. When these
requirements are satisfied, the product
will be added to the NCP Product
Schedule. Within 60 days of the receipt
of the data. EPA will inform the
submitter in writing whether the product
will be listed on the Schedule.
Inclusion on the Schedule means only
that the data submission requirements
of 40 CFR 30045 have been satisfied.
The OSCs, often in conjunction with
affected states and the EPA RRT
representative, will use submitted data
to decide whether application of a
product on an oil discharge should be
authorized in a particular case. In
addition, the data may be used in
planning performed by the RRT to
prepare for response to oil discharges.
Listing of a product on the NCP Product
Schedule does not mean that the product
is recommended or authorized for use
on an oil discharge.
In addition, placement of a product on
the NCP Product Schedule does not
imply that EPA has confirmed the safety
or effectiveness of the product or in any
other way endorsed the product To
prevent possible misrepresentation or
misinterpretation, all product labeling.
literature, or advertisements that refer to
placement on the Schedule must either
reproduce the entire EPA letter
announcing placement on the Schedule
or Include the disclaimer sat forth in
( 300.88(e). Failure to comply with this
restriction may lead to removal of a
product from the Schedule.
The December 21.1983 NPRM did not
allow for the use of an alternative
disclaimer it required that the EPA
disclaimer letter be reproduced in its
entirety in all product advertisements o-
technical literature that refer to the
Schedule. A commenter suggested that
printing a brief disclaimer would be
sufficient to avoid misrepresentation or
misinterpretation and would cost less
then printing the entire EPA letter. EPA
agrees that a proper alternative
disdaimer would be adequate and has
revised I 300.86(e) to provide for such a
disclaimer. The disclaimer must be
conspicuous and most read as follows:
OisdabMT . .
(PRODUCT NAME] It oa the US.
Environmental Protection Agency's NCP
Product Schedule. This Usting does NOT
mean thai EPA approves, recommends.
licenses, certifies, or authorizes the use of
(product name) on an oil discharge. Thu
listing raaani only (hat data have been
submitted to EPA as required by Subpart H of
the National Contingency Plan. 40 CFR
30085.
One commenter expressed concern
over whether an OSC would be able to
evaluate required test data in an
adequate and timely fashion, suggesting •
that OSCs be provided with in/ormaa'an
complied in a more readily usable form.
The NCP Product Schedule itself is not
intended to include any information on
the usage of dispersant chemicals.
Although the Agency agrees in genera)
with the concept of providing OSCs with
the necessary data in summary table
form, development of such a tabular
matrix is not feasible at this time
because of the numerous factors that an
OSC must consider in determining
whether to use a product on an oil
discharge. For each product currently on
the NCP Product Schedule. EPA has
prepared a product data bulletin in the
format outlined in Section 4.0 of
Appendix C. This bulletin presents
summary information pertaining to the
conditions under which dispersants may
be used in accordance with 5 300.84.
The same commenter also suggested
that dispersants should be clearly
identified for use in salt waters or in
fresh waters. As mentioned above. EPA
has prepared a product data bulletin in
the format outlined in Section 4.0 of
Appendix C. This bulletin includes any
information submitted with regard to the
use of products in fresh or salt water.
-------
23194 Federal Ragbtar / VoL 49. No. 13& / Weoneaoay. jui/ 4».
....-» -------
The final mil published today
require* those seeking placement of a
product on the Schedule To submit '
product test data on wmtar lalinity. (Set
Appendix C. Section 4a)Ia addition,
EPA notes that the data submitted by
some manufacturer* of dlspenants
indicate that several of the products
'currently listed on the Schedule perform'
satisfactorily in both salt.and fresh
waters.
One commenter suggested that
! 300.85 (c)(8](tii) and (c){9)f*i). which
originally required date only on the-
"[o]ptimum pH and temperature range
for the use of microbiai cultures and
enzyme additives, should b* revised to
read "[ojptimura pH. temperature; and
salinity ranges for use of the. additive.
and maximum and minimum pH,
temperature, and salinity level* above
or below which the effectiveness of the*
additive is reduced to- half its optimum
capacity."
EPA agrees that this information will
assist the OSC in determining whether
to use a biological additive listed on the
Schedule and therefore has revised
{ 3008S (c](B)(iii) and (c)(9]{vi)
accordingly.
B. EPA andStata Concurrent*
Section 300.84 of today's rule provides
that an OSC with the concurrence of the
EPA representative to the RRT and the
concurrence of the state(s) with
Jurisdiction over the navigable waters
(as defined in the CWA) polluted by the
oil discharge, may authorize the use of
dispersants. surface collecting agents.
and biological additives listed on me
NCP Product Schedule. The rule
supplements the preexisting
authorization procedure in two areas.
First, if the OSC determines that the use
of a dispersant. surface collecting agent.
or biological additive is necessary to
prevent or substantially reduce a hazard
to human life, and there is insufficient
time to obtain the needed cancuirsnces.
the OSC may unilaterally authorize the
use of any product (including products^
not on the NCP Product Scheduie).In
such instances, the OSC must inform the
EPA RUT representative and the-
affected states of the uae of a product as
soon as possible and must obtain their
concurrence for the continued use of the
product once the threat to human life
has subsided. This provision eliminates
delays in potentially life-threatening
situations, such as spills of highly
flammable petroleum products in
harbors or near inhabited areas.
Second, the rule now explicitly
encourages advance planning. The OSC
is authorized to act without the
concurrence of the EPA representative
to the RRT and the affected slates if
tnese parties have previously approved
a plaa identifying the products that may
be used under the particular
circumstances, faced by the OSC
Neither AanexX of the previous NCP
nor the superseded provisions of
Subpart H required the OSC to obtau.
the concurrence of affected states to
authorize: product use; instead, they
required only "consultation". States.
however, have generally understood the
term "consultation" to mean that their
approval is required before a chemical
agent is used on aa oil discharge, and
most OSCs have sought such approval.
The requirement in today's rule for state
concurrence was developed to bring the:
authorization provisions.in Subpart H.
into conformity with OSC practices and.
state expectations.
EPA received several comments
concerning the requirements for
authorizing the use of chemical or
biological agents. Commenter* generally
supported the authorization
requirements and commended the
clarification of die authorization
procedure.
Several comounters requested that
EPA more clearly identify the waters
where state concurrence is required
before the OSC may authorize the use of
a dispersant, surface collecting agent or
biological additive in response to an oil
discharge.
EPA has revised Subpart H to require; -
in most instances, taal states concur
with an OSCs decision to use
dispenants or other products in the
navigable waters subject to a atata's
jurisdiction. ("Navigable waters" Is used
in the same sense as it ia defined in the
CWA.] EPA believes that precise
demarcation of state jurisdictional limits
consistent with this language should be
made during RRT advance planning
pursuant to i 300.84(e], and the Agency
encourages the inclusion of scch
assessments in these planning activities.
Comments concerning the need for
concurrence varied. One commenter
suggested that appropriate federal
agencies be consulted (in addition to the
relevant states and the EPA
representative on the RRT) prior to the
use of e chemical or biological agent on
an oil discharge. Another commenter
suggested that the use of surface
collecting agents be allowed without the
concurrence of the relevant states and
the EPA RRT representatives. A third
commenter recommended that the use of
chemical or biological agents be allowed
without concurrence where use of such
products is necessary to prevent or
reduce hazards to environmentally
sensitive areas.
EPA does not believe that there is any
reason to exempt surface collecting
agents fromthe. general requirement tor '
state and RRT concurrence. EPA intends
that RRT advance planning under
§ 30L84(e} be- used to address the use of
such agents and other ri»miitg«i» in
environmentally sensitive areas on a
Regional basis. Specifically, the federal
agencies oa the RRT have the
opportunity during the planning
activities to-identify environmentally
sensitive areas within the Region where
the use of particular chemical at
biological agents should be. restricted or
encouraged. In addition. Section
300.B4(e) provides that the RRT may
anticipate and authorize under specific
circumstances the use of specific
chemical or biological agents on the
NCP Schedule. e.g» the use of surface-
collecting agents on spills ia confined
inland waters.
Two commenter* suggested that EPA
strongly-encourage or require the RRTs
to develop detailed "Plans of Action"
under 1 30Ofi4(e}. It la EPA policy for
RRTs to prepare these plans where
appropriate. Many of the RRTs have
completed or are near completion of
such plans for responding to oil
discharges. However. EPA Is not
requiring that such plans be developed.
because it would be difficult and
possibly infeastble to define- the precise
nature, of such plans and ia what
situation they would be appropriate.
Although the Agency does not
promote the uses of products on the
Product Schedule, neither does the
Agency discourage their use under
appropriate circumstances. The Agency
-strongly encourages the RRTs
specifically to address the following in
the regional contingency plans prepared
under { 300.42 of the NCP: the use or
restricted use of the dispersanls, surface
collecting agents, and biological
additives on the NCP Product Schedule;
the timing of the use of particular
chemical or biological agents on the
Schedule (e.s> seasonal restrictions);
whether these products should be used
alone or in conjunction with mechanical
means for cleaning up oil discharges; the
identification of personnel with
knowledge of the proper application of
products on the Schedule: and the
determination of whether, and from
whom, products on the Schedule are •
readily available.
One commenter suggested that
J 300.84(c) be amended by deleting the
parenthetical phrase "including products
not on the NCP Product Schedule". This
change would restrict OSCs to the use of
chemical and biological agents on the
NCP Product Schedule la all cases.
including those involving life-
threatening situations.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 49. No. 139 / Wednesday. July 18. 1984 / RuJea and Regulation* 29195
EPA don not agree with thi*
recommendation. A life-threatening oil
discharge (e.g., spills ofhighly
flammable petroleum praducU in
harbors or near inhabited areas) may
occur at a location where chemical
agenta on the schedule ere not
immediately available. In such a case.
the OSC must have the ability to use
any product that in his professional
judgment would effectively and
expeditiotuly mitigate the threat to
human life. The Agency believes that
the protection of human life Is a primary
consideration in responding to an oil
discharge. Therefore, i 30OM{c) of
today's final regulation remains
unchanged from the proposed rule.
C Burning and-Sinking Agents
Section 300.8* of today's final rule
provides Tor authorization of the use of
burning agents, as did Annex X of the
previous NCP. Although burning agents
will not be listed on the Schedule. OSCs
may authorize their use on a case-by-
ease basis with the concurrence of the
EPA RRT representative and the
appropriate states. The OSC may
authorize the use of burning agents
without obtaining concurrence when
their use is necessary to prevent or
substantially reduce a hazard to human
life.
One commenter suggested that EPA
should require test data on burning
agents similar to the data required for
other chemical and biological agents.
EPA disagrees, for several reasons.
First, burning agents are relatively
common inorganic chemicals that
generally exhibit low toxicity. Data on
toxicity and other relevant parameters
are included in standard references that
are already available to OSCs. To
require test data on burning agents
would be unnecessarily dupiicative and
burdensome for both industry and EPA.
Second, state air pollution control
programs generally regulate the use of
burning agents. Finally, burning agents
are used only rarely. Therefore, today's
final rule includes i 300.84(b) as
proposed) without change.
Sinking agents, however, may not be
used. When applied to oil discharges,
these agents sink floating oil to the
bottom of the oceaa or other body of
water and increase the potential for
adverse effects on benthic organisms
that are vital to the food chain of the
aquatic environment. Annex X of the
previous NCP contained this same
prohibition.
D. Toxicity and Effectiveness Tests
In the December Zl. 19B3 NPRM. EPA
proposed revisions intended to simplify
and reduce the cost of the effectiveness
and toxicity testing procedures
previously required under Annex X. The
Agency is now making these proposed
revisions final. The effectiveness test
will require fewer replications, and the
toxicity test will require fewer test
species, while still assunng that the
OSC will have adequate data available.
These modifications reduce (he cost of
performing these tests by approximately
40 percent
EPA has also proposed revisions (o
portions of Section 2.0 of Appendix C to
clarify the dispersant effectiveness
testing procedures and the methods and
types of apparatus to be employed In
addition, the blank correction
determination and calculation steps
were clarified to facilitate performance
of the effectiveness testing procedure.
EPA will continue to study potential
improvements in the test and the
Agency encourages manufacturers and
suppliers to provide supplementary data
on product performance under
condltions./iot generated by the testing
protocol.
Several commenters supported the
revised testing and data requirements as
a "definite improvement" over those
required under Annex X' commenters
also supported EPA'J continuing
commitment to study potential
improvements in the testing protocol.
Some commenters. however, expressed
concern that the loxicity testing protocol-
was developed over ten years ago, and
they encouraged updating these
procedures. Two of these commenters
distrusted the ability of the testing
protocol to provide sufficient
information regarding the effect of a
product upon a wide range of
environments and organisms.
The\toxicity test set forth in Section
3.0 of Appendix C currently requires the
use olfundutus and Arteaua as test
species. EPA acknowledges that these
species may not be present in alt
environments in which dispenants or
surface collecting agents may be used in
response to an oil discharge, but the
Agency believes that the toxicity data
provided by the test are useful to the
OSC fn judging whether to use a product
on the NCP Product Schedule and are
generally sufficient for that purpose.
Requiring the performance of toxicity
tests on all representative species that
may be affected by use of a product on
the Schedule would impose a severe
burden on the manufacturer and would
provide only marginally better data.
EPA does not believe that it is
appropriate or necessary to impose such
a requirement at this ume. Nonetheless.
EPA will continue to evaluate improved
testing procedures and. where
appropriate, will attempt to revise the
current toxicity. testing requirements to
reflect state-of-the-art developments.
Moreover, the Agency strongly
encourages manufacturers and suppliers
to provide supplementary data on
product toxicity under conditions and on
species not involved in the testing
protocol.1
EPA also strongly encourages each
OSC to leek the assistance of the
Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC)
when responding to an oil discharge. In
general the SSC la the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) in the coastal areas and the
Department of the Interior (DOI) in
inland areas. The SSC may be able to
provide additional environmental
information that will help the OSC
determine whether or not to use a
particular chemical or biological agent
on an oil discharge.
The commenters who were concerned
about the toxicity testing protocol also
suggested that the protocol include
testing for sublethal or chronic effects.
However, once applied, dispersanta and
other chemical agents rapidly dissipate
into the water column, quickly reaching
levels that cannot be detected. In most
cases, therefore, no prolonged exposure
to significant concentrations of
dispenants or other agents will occur.
TV. Other Comments
One commenter suggested that
appropriate federal agencies should
have the opportunity to evaluate non-
confidential information on the toxicity
and composition of chemical and
biological agents in advance of their use.
As the commenter noted, the transfer of
information is complicated by the fact
that some of the information submitted
by manufacturers may be protected
through a claim of confidentiality under
40 CFR Part 2. Subpart R
EPA agrees that providing appropriate
federal and slate agencies with
information on products on the NCP
Product Schedule may significantly
enhance both advance planning
activities and scientific support to the
OSC. It is EPA policy for each OSC to
make available to appropriate federal
and state agencies relevant non-
confidential information for each
chemical and biological agent that may
be used in response actions.
'Tit siulyucil mtihodi provided in Ten
Mtlhodi far Evaluating Solid Wnti' (SW-ftWl
•hould b« uxdL where appropriate, for performing
•ny anilyMi not tfuoRtd ui tht nde. Capita of die
document. nwnlMnd 653-002-41001-4. are available
Inn ttie Supcnnlendrrt of Docimenti. Government
Pnnlmg Office. Washington. O.C 20402. (202) r»-
J23S.
-------
2919* Federal-Regain / VoL 49. No. 139 / Wednesday. July 18. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Product Information claimed as
confidential under 130O8B(c) of the final
rule will be treated in accordance with
the provision* of 40 CFR Part 2. Subpart
B. The Agency will deleft all specific
product formulations- that am
confidential from documents potentially
available to the public, and OSCa will
receive such information separately
from the technical product data
bulletins. To assist the Agency, each
submitter should present all information
that is claimed confidential separately
from non-confidential information and
should dearly mark the former
"Confidential Business Information" in
accordance with 40 CFR 1203. In
addition, all parties who submitted data
under Annex X will be encouraged to
review their prior claims of
confidentiality and determine whether
such claims should remain in effect. If a
manufacturer requests that specific
information remain confidential, the
Agency will continue to hold that
information in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR Part 2. Subpart &
and will distribute it to the OSCa
separately from-the technical product
data bulletins.
EPA would like to emphasize that
claims of confidentiality may restrict the
dissemination of useful product
information to states and other parties
with a role in the authorization and use
of products listed on the Schedule. To
avoid such problems, submitters may
wish to enter into agreements with
particular states or agencies concerning
the handling of confidential information.
One commenier recommended
providing to the OSCs the name.
address, and telephone number of the
person who performed the product
effectiveness and toxictty tests, as well
as the name of the testing laboratory
and the qualifications of its staff.
Information of this nature is provided to
EPA by product manufacturers with
their original data submission, and it ia
kept on file. However, such information
has lunited value, because names.
addresses, phone numbers, and
company staffing frequently change.
Therefore. EPA does not intend to
include this type of information on the
technical product data bulletins, which
are already lengthy.
One commenter recommended that
OSCs be required lo prepare a technical
report on each use of chemical or
biological agents in response to an oil
discharge. The commenter noted that
such report] would then be available for
use in making future decisions
' concerning such agents. EPA agrees that
information on the actual applications of
chemical and bioliogical agents to oil
discharge* ia useful. The Agency
believes, however, that f 30046 of the
NCP. which requires OSCs to prepare
pollution reports, provides an adequate
mechanism for communicating this
information. EPA strongly encourages
the inclusion of such information in
these pollution reports. In addition, the
Agency is currently developing a check
list that OSCs may use in evaluating the
application of particular products to oil
discharges. Such Field reports will
provide valuable assistance to OSCs in
responding to similar discharges.
One commenter stated that because
the OSC is responsible for the selection
of a chemical agent for use in a given
situation, the government must assume
liability for any additional damages
resulting from the OSCs erroneous use.
of a particular chemical agent Because
OSC or government liability for
damages resulting from OSC decisions.
is an issue beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. it is not addressed here.
° V. Summary of Supporting Analyses
A. Classification Under Executive Order
12291
Executive Order 12291 requires that
proposed regulations be classified as
"major" or "son-major" for purposes of
review by the Office of Management
and Budget According to E.0.12291.
major rules are those likely to result in:
(1) An annual effect'on the economy of
SlCO million or more;
(2) A major increase in costs or prices for
consumers. Individual industries, federal.
state, or local government agencies, or
geographic region: or
(3) Significant adverse effects on
compeuuon. employment investment
productivity, innovation, or the ability of
United Stain-bated enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets. '
For several reasons, today's final rule is
not likely 10 have any of these effects.
First the-rule does not mandate or
prohibit any private party conduct
Rather, the rule provides a procedure by
which pnvate parties may place
dispersants and other agents on the NCP
Product Schedule and make them
available for authorized use on oil
discharges. The choice of a
manufacturer or supplier to submit the
information required to place a product
on the Schedule is entirely voluntary,
and the application of the data
requirements is conditioned on that
choice. In addition, because today's rule
provides a listing procedure for new
products that has been unavailable
since the substitution of Subpart H for
Annex X. the rule may be expected to
have a positive economic impact. The
rule also simplifies and reduce* the- cost
of the testing procedures previously
provided under Annex X. thus benefiting
those persons seeking to place new
products on the Schedule. Because
today's final rule is not a major
regulation, no Regulatory Impact
Analysis has been prepared.
This final rule was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
("OMB") for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
from OMB to EPA and EPA's responses
to those comments are available for
public inspection in Room S-321. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street SW.. Washington, D.C. 20480.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
As noted above, today's final rule -
does not impose any regulatory burden
on parties outside of EPA. including any
reporting or information collection
requirements. The rule also simplifies
the standardized testing procedures. The
Agency notes that in practice, the
'voluntary submittal for which the rule
provides will not impose a significant
paperwork burden on manufacturers or
suppliers of dispersants and other
agents, because contract laboratories
frequently handle the preparation of th»
test data. Moreover, given the
importance of comprehensive
' information to the selection of a prod'- "
for use on an oil discharge, any
infoonatton submitted in addition to -
minimum required to place a product on
the Schedule may be expected to
enhance the competitive position of the
product
The conditional information collection
requirements in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980,44 U.S.C 53601 at
seo. This final rule package responds to
OMB and public comments on those
requirements.
C Certification Why a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis Is Not Necessary
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
requires that a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis be performed for ail rules that
are likely to have "significant impact on,
a substantial number of small entities."
EPA certifies that this regulation will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The
Agency believes that small businesses
will constitute only a small percentage
of the total number of businesses
seeking to include their products on the
NCP Product Schedule. The Agency also
believes that the cost of seeking tr
include a product on the Schedule
negligible and will not adversely ab^t
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 139 / Wednesday. July la. iao* /
the financial structures of small
businesses.
Dated June 20. 1964.
\VlUUm a Ruckafahmit.
Administrator.
List of Subjects la 40 OPK Part 300
Chemical*. Hazardous materials.
Hazardocs substance*.
Intergovernmental relations. Natural
resources. Occupational Safety and
Health, Oil pollution. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Supertund.
Wast* treatment and disposal. Water
pollution control. Water supply.
PART 300— [AMENDED]
/•
1 For the-reasons set out in the-
preamble. Part 300. Subpart H of Tide
40. Coda of Federal Regulations, is
amended as sat forth below.
40 CFR Part 300 is amended as
Follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 300
reads as follows:
Authority: See. 105. Pub. L 96-510. 94 Slat.
2764. 42 U.S.C 9601 we. 311(c](2). PubrL 92-
500, a* amended. 86 Slat 865. 33 U.S.C.
1321(c)(2): E.0. 12319. 46 FR 42237: E.0. 11733.
38 FR 21243.
2. In Part 300. { 300.81 ii revised and
} j 300.82. 300.83, 300.84. 300.85. 300.66,
and Appendix C are added to read as
follows:
Subpart H— O»e of Dlipwrsanto and Otlwr
See.
300.B1 General.
MO.BZ Definition*.
300.83 NCP product schedule.
300.84 Authorization of use.
300.85 Data requirements.
30U.BB Addition of products lo schedule.
Subpart H— Us« of Olspersants and
Other Chemicals
J 300J1 QeneraL
(a) Section 311(c)(2)(C) of the Clean
Water Act requires that EPA prepare a
schedule of dispersants and other
chemicals, if any, that may be used in
carrying out the plan. This subpart
makes provisions for such a schedule.
(b) This subpart applies to the
navigable waters of the United States
and adjoining shoreiinas. the waters of
the contiguous zone, and the high seas
beyond the contiguous zone in
connection with activities under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
activities under the Deep Water Port Act
of 1974. or activities that may affect
natural resources belonging lo.
appertaining to. or under the exclusive
management authority of the United
Slates (including resources under the
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1976).
(c) This subpart applies to the use of
any chemical agents or other additives
as hereinafter defined that may be used
to remove or control oil discharges.
{300.82 Deflnitforuk
For the purposes of this subpart:
(a) Chemical agents, in general are
those elements, compounds, or mixtures
that coagulate, disperse, dissolve.
emulsify, foam, neutralize, precipitate.
reduce, solubilize. oxidize, concentrate,
congeal, entrap, fix, make the pollutant
mass more rigid or viscous, or otherwise
facilitate the mitigation of deleterious
effect* or removal of the pollutant from
the water.
(b) Dispenanta are those chemical
agents that emulsify, disperse, or
solubiliza oil into the water column or
promote the surface spreading of oil
slicks to facilitate dispersal of the oil
into the water column.
(c) Surface collecting agents are those
chemical agents that form a surface film
to control the layer thickness of oiL
(b) Biological additives are
microbiological cultures, enzymes, or
nutrient additives that an deliberately
introduced into an oil discharge for the
specific purpose of encouraging
biodegradanon to mitigate the effects of
the discharge.
(e) Burning agents are those additives
that, through physical or chemical
means, improve the combustibility of the
materials to which they are applied.
(f) Sinking agents are those additives
applied to oil discharges to sink floating
pollutants below the water surface.
(%} Navigable water means the water
of the United States, including the
territorial seas. "Territorial seas" means
the beltNaf the seas measured from the
line of ordinary low water along that
portion of the coast which is in direct
contact with the open sea and the line
marking the seaward limit of inland
waters, and extending seaward a
distance of three miles.
$300*3 NCP Product Sctwduta.
(a) Oil Discharges. (1) EPA shall
maintain a schedule of dispersants and
other chemical or biological products
that may be authorized for use on oil
discharges in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 4 300.84. below.
This schedule, called the NCP Product
Schedule, may be obtained from the
Emergency Response Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington. D.C. 20450. Phone (202)
382-2196.
(2) Products may be added to the NCP
Product Schedule by the process
specified in S 300.86.
(b) Hazardous substance Releases,
(Reserved) *
|30tLS4 AuttmrttattOfloluM.
(a) The OSC with the concurrence of
the EPA representative to the RAT and
the concurrence of the Stales with
jurisdiction over the navigable waters
polluted by the oil discharge, may
authorize the use of dispersants. surface
collecting agents, and biological
additives on the oil discharge, provided
that the dispersants, surface collecting
agents, or additives are on the NCP
Product Schedule.
(b) The OSC with the concurrence of
the EPA representative to the RRT and
the concurrence of the Slates with
jurisdiction over the-navigabl» waters
polluted by the oil discharge, may
authorize the use of burning agents on a
case-by-case basis.
(c) The OSC may authorize the u»e of
any dispersant. surface collecting agent.
other chemical agent burning agent or
biological additive {including products
not on the NCP Product Schedule) •
without obtaining the concurrecce-of the
EPA representative to the RRT or the
States with jurisdiction over the
navigable waters polluted by the oil
discharge, when, in the judgment of the-
OSC. the use of the product is necessary
to prevent or substantially reduce a
hazard to human life. The OSC is to
. inform the EPA RRT representative and
the affected Slates of the use of a
product as soon as possible and.
pursuant to the provisions in paragraph
(a) of this section, obtain their
concurrence for its continued use once
the threat to human life has subsided.
(d) Sinking agents shall not be
authorized for application to oil
discharges.
(e) RRTs should consider, as part of
their planning activities, the
appropriateness of using die
dispersants. surface collecting agents, or
biological additives listed on the NCP
Product Schedule, and the
appropriateness of using burning agents.
Regional contingency plans should
address the use of such products in
specific contexts. If the RRT and the
Slates with jurisdiction over the waters
of the area to which a plan applies
approve in advance the use of certain
products as described in the plan, the
OSC may authorize the use of the
products without obtaining the
concurrence of the EPA representative
to the RRT or of the States.
j 300.85 Data requirement*.
(a) Dispersants. (1) Name, brand, or
trademark, if any, under which the
dispersant is sold.
-------
29198 . ' Federal Register / VoL 49. No. 139 / Wednesday. July 18.1964 / Rules and Reyilatiotu
(2) Nam*, address, and telephone
number of the manufacturer, importer.
or vendor.
(3] Name, address.'and telephone
number of primary distributors or sales
outlets.
(4] Special handling and worker
precautions for storage and Bald
application. Maximum and m'"'"mrn
storage temperatures, to include
optimum ranges as well a» temperatures
that will causa phase separations,
chemical changes, or other aiterations to
the effectiveness of the product-
(5] Shelf life.
(6) Recommended application
procedures, concentrations, and
conditions for use depending upon water
salinity, water temperature, types and'
ages of the pollutants, and any other
application restrictions.
(7) DIspersant Toxicity—Use standard
toxicity test methods described to
Appendix C.
(8) Effectiveness—Use standard
effectiveness test methods described In
Appendix C. Manufacturers are also
encouraged to provide data on product
performance under conditions other
than those captured by these tests.
(9] Flash Point—Select appropriate
method from the following: ASTM—D
56-77; ASTM—D 32-7* ASTM—D 93-
77: ASTM—D1310-72; ASTM—0 3278-
78.'
{10) Pour Point—Use ASTM—D 97-
66.'
{11} Viscosity—Use ASTM—D 445-
74.'
(12) Specific Gravity—Use ASTM—D
12S8-67.1
(13) pH-Use ASTM—D 1293-78.'
(14] Dispersing Agent Components.
Itemize by chemical name and
percentage by weight each component
of the total formulation. The percentage*
will include maximum, minimum, and
average weights in order to reflect
quality control variations in
manufacture or formulation. Identify at
least the following major components:
surface active agents; solvents;
additives.
(IS) Heavy Metals. Cyanide, and
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons. Using
standard lest procedure* state the
concentrations or upper limits of the
following materials:
(i) Arsenic, cadmium, chromium.
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, plus
any other metals that may be
reasonably expected to be in the
sample. Atomic absorption methods
should be used and the detailed
analytical methods and sample
preparation shall be fully described.
(ii) Cyanide. Standard colorinutrie
procedures should be used.
(lii) Chlorinated hydrocarbons. Gas
chromatography should be used and the
detailed analytical methods and sample
preparation shall be fully described.
(16) The technical product data
submission shall include the identity of
the laboratory thai performed the
required tests, the qualifications of the
laboratory staff (including professional
biographical information for individuals
responsible for any tests), and
laboratory experience with similar testa.
Laboratories performing toxicity testa
fordispersant toxicity must demonstrate
previous toxicity test experience in
order for their results to be accepted. It
Is the responsibility of the submitter to
select competent anaytical laboratories
based on the guidelines contained
herein. EPA reserves the right to refuse
to accept a submission of technical
product data because of lack of
qualification of the analytical
laboratory, significant variance between
submitted data and any laboratory
confirmation performed by EPA. cr other
circumstances that would result in
inadequate or inaccurate information on
the dispersing agent.
(b) Siafaca Coltectirrg Agents. (1)
Name, brand, or trademark, if asy. ^
under which the dispersar.t is sold.
{2} Nacie. address, and telephone
number of the manufacturer, importer,
or vendor.
(3) Name, address, and telephone
number of primary distributors or aales
outlets.
(4) Special handling and worker
precautions for storage and field
application. Maximum and miaicwun
storage temperatures, to include
optimum ranges as-well as temperatures
that will cause phase separations,
chemical changes, or other alterations to
the effectiveness of the product.
(a) Shelf life.
(6) Recommended application
procedures, concentrations, and
conditions for use depending upon wafer
salinity, water temperature, types and
ages oi the pollutants, and any other
application restrictions.
(7) Toxicify—Use standard toxicity
test methods described in Appendix C.
(81 Flash Point—Select appropriate
method from the following: ASTM—D
56-77; ASTM—0 92-78; ASTM—D 33-
77: ASTM—D 1310-72: ASTM—D 3279-
78.'
11961 Anayal 3osk of ASTM Stanford*
American Society tat Telling «ad Maiertala. 1«4
lUce Slietl Philadelphia. Penniytvinii 19103.
'19ts Annual Book of ASTM Stazdordi.
American Society for Teiunj and SUienili. W
RIM Sttmt Philadelphia. Peniujrlvum* 19)03.
(9) Pour Point—UM ASTM—D 97-68.'
(10) VIseoaity—Use ASTM-0 443-
74.'
(11) Specific Gravity—Use ASTM—0
1298-67.'
(12) pH—Use ASTM—D1238-78.'
(13) Test to Distinguish Between
Surface Collection Agents and Other
Chemical Agents.
' (i) Method Summary—Five (3J
miltiliten of the chemical under test are
mixed with ninety-five (95) miUiliten of
distilled water and allowed to stand
undisturbed for one hour. Then the
volume of the upper phase is determined
to the nearest one (1) miililiter.
(ii) Apparatus.
(A) Mixing Cylinder 100 miililiter
subdivisions and fitted with a glass
stopper.
(B) Pipettes: Volumetric pipette. 5.0'
miliiliter.
(O Timers.
(ill) Procedure—Add 93 milLUlers of
distilled water at 22 *C+3 *C to a 100
milliliter mixing cylinder. To the surface
of the water in the mixing cylinder, add
5.0 nulliliters of the chemical under test.
Insert the stopper and Invert the '
cylinder five (5) times In 10 seconds. Sel
upright for one (1) hour at 22 *C+3 *C
and then measure the chemical layer at
the surface of the water. The major
portions of the chemical added (73
. pewnt) should be at the water surface
as a separate and easily distinguished
layer.
(14) Surface Collecting Agent
Components. Itemize by chemical name
and percentage by weight each
component of the total formulation. The
percentages should include maximum,
minimum, and average weights in order
to reflect quality control variations in
manufacture or formulation. Identify at
least the following major components:
surface active agents; solvents:
additives.
(IS) Heavy Metals. Cyanide, and
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons. Follow
specifications in 3 300.as(a)ll5).
(16) Analytical Laboratory
Requirements for Technical Product
Data. Follow specifications in
"9 300 85[a)(16).
(c) Biological Additives, (t) Nama.
brand, or trademark, if any, under which
the dtspenant is sold.
(2) Name, address, and telephone
number of the manufacturer, importer.
or vendor.
HI Name, address, and telephone
number of primary distributors or sales
outlets.
(4) Special handling and worker
precautions Tor storage and Held
application. Maximum and minimun
storage temperatures.
-------
(S) Shelf We.
(8) Recommended application
procedures, concentrations, and
conditions for use depending upon water
salinity, water temperature, types and
ages of the pollutants, and ay other
application restrictions.
(7) Statements aod supporting data on
the expected effecttvenm of the
additive. Including degradation rates.
the test conditions, and data on
effectiveness.
(S) For microbiological culture*
furnish the following information:
(i) Listing of all microorganisms by
species.
(ii) Percentage of each species in the
composition of the additive.
(ifi) Optimum pR temperature, and
salinity ranges for use of the additive.
and maximum and """tmiim pH.
temperature, and salinity levels above
or below which the effectiveness of the
additive is reduced to half its optimum
capacity.
• (iv) Special nutrient requirements, if
any.
(v) Separate listing of the following.
and test methods for such
determinations: Salmonella, fecal
cohfonn, Shigella. Staphylococcua
Coagulase positive, and Beta Hemorylic
Streptococci.
(9) For enzyme additives furnish the
following information;
(ij Enzyme naoiefs).
(ii) International Union of
Biochemistry (I.U.B.) numbers).
(iii) Source of the enzyme.
(iv) Units.
(v) Specific Activity.
(vi) Optimum pH. temperature, and
salinity ranges for use of the additive,
and maximum and minimum pH.
temperature, and salinity levels above
or below which the effectiveness of the
additive is reduced to half its optimum
capacity.
(viij Enzyme shelf life.
(viii) Enzyme optimum storage
conditions.
(10) Laboratory Requirements far
Technical Product Data. Follow
specifications in i 30O83(a)(lft)~
(d) Earning Agents. EPA does not
require technical product data
I ubmissions for burning agents and does
not include buraing agents OB the NCP
Product Schedule,
J30&M Addition of products tw schedule.
(a) To add a dispersant surface
collecting agent or biological additive to
the NCP Product Schedule, the technical
product data specified in s 30085 must
be submitted to the Emergency
Response Division, US. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street. SW,
Washington. D.C. ZDWatf EPA
determines that the data submitted meet
the relevant requirements. EPA will add
the product to the schedule.
fb) EPA will inform the submitter in
writing; within €0 days of the receipt of
technical product data, of its decision on
adding me product to the schedule-.
fc) The submitter may assert that
certain information in technical product
data submissions Is confidential
business information. EPA will handle
such claims pursuant to the provisions
in 40 CFR Part 2. Subpart B. Such
information must be submitted
separately from non-confidential
information, ctearly identified, and
clearly marked "Confidential Business
Information." If the submitter fails to
make such a claim at the time of
submittal, EPA may make the •
information available to the public
without further notice.
(d) The submitter must notify EPA of
eny changes in the composition or
formulation of the dispenant. surface
collecting agent or biological additive.
On the basis of this data. EPA may
require retesting of the product if the
change is likely to affect the
effectiveness or toxitity of the product
(t} The listing of a product on the NCP
Product Schedule does not constitute
approval of the product To avoid
possible misinterpretation or
misrepresentation, any label,
advertisement or technical literature
that refer* to the placement of the
product on the NCP schedule must either
reproduce in its entirety EPA's written
statement referred to in Subsection (b]«
that the product has been listed on the
schedule, or include the following
disclaimer, which must be conspicuous
aad must be fully reproduced as follows:
DiscUuasf
(PRODUCT NAME] it on the US.
Environmental Prelection Agency's NCP
Product Schedule. Thu listing doe* NOT
at an that EPA approve*, recacnaeods.
lionises, certifies, or authorizes th» use of
[product namt) on an oil discharge. This
listing means only that data have been
subnitiad to EPA as raquued by Subpart H at
the National Conringsncy Plan. 130O8S.
Failure to comply with these restrictions or
any other improper attempt to demo astral*
EPA approval of the product ihall umiutute
ground* for removing &« product from tb»
NCP Product Schedule.
Appendix C to Part SOO-Revised
Standard Dispenant Effectiveness and
Towtity Testa.
Table of Coalnls
1JJ Introduction
10 Revised Standard Diajwrtanl
- Effectiveness Tut
3.0 Revised Standard Dfspenant Toxioty
Test
4.0 Summary Technical Product Test Data
Formal
Refennctt
UsIofHIuatntioDt
Figure Number
1 Test Tank
2 Suggested Hosing System
3 Schematic Diagram of Automatic
Dispensing Plpettt System
-------
UstofTabtea
Tabt* Number
I Synthetic Sea water (EaectiveneM Test)
2 Test OU Characteristic* No. 8 Fuel 01)
3 Preparation of Standards for
Calibration
4 Rec^red Dispersal EtbctiveBeaa Tests
Results
5 Synthetic Sea water fToxidfjr Teat)
B Teal OUaancf eristic* No. 2 Fuel Oil
• 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Scope and Application. Thm
method* apply to "disperaanta." Involving
Subpert H (UM of Disperse/its and Other
Chemical*] ift-40 CFR Part 300 (National OU
and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan). They an revision to the
EPA's Standard Dfspenant Effectiveness and
Toxitity Taati (1J. Note that the toxitity test
ii also used for collecting agenu and other
chemical*
1.2 Definition. Dlspenants are defined a*
those chemical agents that emulsify, disperse.
or solubilized oil into the water column or act
lo further the surface spreading of oil slicks ia
order to facilitate dispersal of oil Into the-
water column,
2.0 Revited Standard Di3p»rxnt
Effectiveness Teat
11 Summary of Method. The test oil (100
ml) is applied to the surface of synthetic
• aeawater contained io e cylindrical tank. The
dispersant (3.5. or 23 ail] is applied lo the oil
in a fine stream, and 3.0 mtcutes are allowed
for the dispersant :o contact the oil The oil
dispenaaf. and seawstar art mixed by
hosing with a pressurized water stream tor
to minute. The contents of the tank are
recirculaled by a pump, and samples am
withdrawn from the rscircolation system
after 10 minutes and after* 2 hours of
recirculation. The amount of oil dispersed le
determined by measuring the absorbanca of
visible light after extraction of the dispersed
oil with chloroform. Each test ia repealed
three tines.
2.2 Apparatus. Tut Tank. Construct the
cylindrical test tank, 24 Inches [BOO ma)
inside diameter by 28 inches (HO mm) high,
of ID-gauge stainless sieel. Install as shown
in Figure 1. the associated piping, valve, and
pump for recirculalion of dispersed oil and
for sample collection.
Coru*vn«» Ci««eil
1.33 HP 1300 a?M 4SOC«M««Mauf
'.tec* 7300
i/r o». ooiM
(To a* Lacmd WKMI
1/r ql T«nk lammt
Figure 1. Test Tank
Oil Containment Cylinder.
atainleM steel containment cylinder 7J
inches (190 mm) in diameter end 9 inches (229
mm] long to contain the oil while the oil
contacts the dispersant Socpend the cylinder
vertically in the center of the1 test tank with
its midpoint 18 inches (409 mm) above the
base of the tank. The design should be such
that the cylinder can be-renoved from the
tank in less than 10 seconda.
Hosing System. Provide a pressurized
hosing system suitable for delivering
synthetic seawater to the oU/dispersant
mixture in the test tank. A suggested hosing
system is shown in Figure i Deliver hosing
water through a hose with a Vi-inch (12.7
mm) inside diameter, which is connected to a
shut-off nozzle with a discharge rip
approximately with a ttt-inch (4.o-mm)
inside diameter [Akron Brass Company. Style
111 shutoff valve with Style 530. Vi i-Lich ap.
or equivelent).
The hosing system must be adjusted to
deliver 15.1 :t0.8 liters/nun at 140 kPa
H.O±Q2 gpm el 20 psig). Measure the flow by
hosing synthetic sea water at 23±l*C into a
calibrated container for the predetermined
tune. Set the proper flow rate by adiusting the
pressure in the pressurized tank or a suitaole
velve in the hose line. The delivery pressure
should be determined by means of a pressure
gauge in the line immediately before the
nozzle.
Corrosion buildup within the nozzle may
change hosing pressure and al'.er test results.
To prevent this, remove and flujh the nozzle
with fresh water at the end of each day's
testa.
-------
Fedanl Rggbtar / VoL 49. No. 139 / Wednesday. July 18,1984 / Rules and Regulations 29201
TABU 2.—Test Ofc-CHwucTtwanca: No. e
PUO.OH
rn
tarn (T)
Careen
!(>**>_
Art ft* «t-
Prim n C*g>
MB. Stat at
*ter 3** «MUW r«
Aknn Bf M Co
5
Own
1 *+•
^ 1X1
k
V«M
I OPOT SAM
NouMSiftoii
MraneiMi
TABLE 3.—PTCPABATKJHW STAWQAPOS MR
CAUBRATION
VaMW» Ot MM* HMOIli
Figure 2. Suggested Hosing System
so.
a* ing/
975
I.7U
. woo
Spectropftotometer. Use s.
spectrophatoraiter iiutable for measurement
al 620 nanometers to determine
photochemically the oil concentration of the
oil/chloroform mixture. A Bausch and Lamb
Speetronic 20 spectrophotometer (or
equivalent) la acceptable for this purpose.
Fiiter,Paper. Use a filter paper suitable for
filtering the oil/chlorofona extract. Whatman
No. 1 filter paper (or equivalent) I* acceptable
far (hit purpose.
Glotstnn. Glassware should consist of V
l(V. 25% 1OX and 500-mi graduated cylinder*;
two l.OOO-ml separately funnels with Teflon
stopcock* 1CV. 100-. and 1,000-ml volumetric
flasks and two 25Q-al £rienmeyer flasks.
i3 /tMjpfit*. Synthtttc Seowater.
Prepare a batch of concentrated synthetic
Mawater ueieg the coraponeoU h»ied in
Table 1. which am added to 379 li ten (100
gal) of tap water having a fcardaMa lew than
SOmg/liter.
Chloroform Raagent Grade.
Sodium Sulfate. Anhydrous Reagent Grade.
Oils. Test the dlipenaot with 100 ml of No.
8 fuel oil thai baa the chaneterltnee given la
Table 2.
2.4 PntMt Preparation. Calibration of
SpKtnphotometir. Prepare • rtock aalutim
by adding UOg of thatnt oil to a LOOO-cl
volumetric flaak. Oiaaolvt the oil 10 about 900
ml of chloroform, then dilute to the mark with
cholorofonn. The resulting concentration of
test oil It 3,500 rag/liter.
Prepare alandard wlulions of No. a fuel oil
by pjpetting 5.10.23. and SO al of the !e»t oJ
slock solution into 10-ml volumetnc flaska.
Dilute each flask to the mark with
chloroform. The concentration of teat oil in
each flask Is given in Table 3:
TABLE t.—SYNTHETIC SCAWATW
(EFFECTIVENESS TEST)
Srt-
ugcvaHA-
«J.
rw«
Core**.
ni*'[k«/
IDUW)
ua
09M
O.IW
•II11* IM aew nun m»* ur*4 IBOM
• mud b* nwK tar nw el oyuanoimv
DMWMA • pviBMd
«l «« n 371 tun <1
tun <100 9*kt 91 a* -MUT.
DetenniiMr the absorbance ol the stock
solution and the diluted aliquots al a
wavelength of 620 nanometers. If a Bautch
and tomb SpectremcZO ipsctrephotonieter la
ued. the M-lncb (12.7-msi) cell la
recommended. Plot the calibration curve for
the teal oil as cog/liter of test oU vows
absorbance.
• Mczsunmant of Specific Gravity oflhs
Tat Oil* and Dispenant. Equilibrate
samples of the test oil and dispenant al
23±l'C
Weigh two dry 10>mJ volumetric flasks on a
balance capable of weighing to ±1 tag or
better. Add enough test oJ to one flask and
enough dispenant to the second flask to fiU
then to the mark. Retveigh each flask. Tie
density of the oil and ditpenant i*
Weight of test oil or dispenaat (g)
volume of the flask (ml)
1710
US
uot
OI4O
i3 Ditptnaat Effectiveness Teit
Pncadan. Th» diipenant effee&veaess test
procedures an as follows in steps I-1&
1. Add M±l liters (10x0.25 gai) ol the
•eawaier concentrate lo lae tnt tank. D>lol»
the concentrate to a depth of 1020.23 iodte*
(410±3 aun) with hot end cold water is the
proper amounts tn bong the tempenture of
the diluted sea water to 23±i* C. Adjust the
pH of the Mawater to «.0i0.1 with
concentrated HCl or NaOH. The talinity of
the water ihould be 2M»±0.:3 parts per
thousand (ppt).
i Insert the oil containment cylinder uilo
the test tank. Position the cylinder is the
canter of the tank with its midpoint 18±O25
Inches (*10±S nun) above the base of the
tank.
X Select wne of the fallowing graduated
cy tinder*, a 3-. 10-, or 23-mJ graduated
cylinder, aa appropriate for addition of the
djspersaal and a lOOml graduated cylinder
for addition of the lest oil.
4. Fill the 100-ml graduated cylinder with
100 ml of the test oil. Drain the Cylinder for
3.0 minutes. Weigh ihe drained cylinder and
record the weight Calculate the weight of 100
ml of test oil (weight (g) - density (g/ml) x
volume (tnl)l and add this amount of test oil
to the drained cylinder. Record the weight of
the cylinder and oil
Note.—The precision of the effectiveness
test ia increased substantially if exactly the
same weight of test oil or dupersenl Is added
for each test The purpose of Step 4 is (o
determine the amount of tett oil or dispenant
-------
that will b* left ia tha graduated cylinder
after the addition,
5. Slowly and gently add the 100 ml of th*
teat oil from the graduated cylinder directly
onto tha water surface within tha center of
tha oil containment cylinder. Mow* that
graduated cylinder to • cucaiar motion to
distribute the? oil uniformly o*v the surface.
Je cartful tint oil it not loat Mow thv
containment cylinder and thai oil doe* not
•plash, drip onto, or contact the containment
cylinder wall above the waterliue during
application
Allow tha oil to drain from m* graduated
cylinder for 34 minutes.
Weigh tha drained graduated cylinder.
Calculate the weight of oil •ctually added to •
the te*t tank. Check the weight to be> aim that
imo ± 09 ml of test oil wae added to the
test tank.
ft. Fill either the 5-. 10-. or 25-ml graduated
cylinder with X10. or 25 mi of dispenant
respectively. Drain it tar 10 aiaulM and
weigh the drained cylinder. Calculate the
weight of 3, la or 25 ml of diipenaat
required [weight (g) - density (g/ml) x
volume (mJJJ and add thia amount of
disperMnl to the drained cylinder. Recced the
weight of tha cylinder end diaper-wot
7. From the graduated cylinder gently edd
the dlspenant at 23±1*C onto the oil mtmcm
within the containment cylinder. Move the..
graduated cylinder in a circular oobon to
distribute the dupenant uniformly over the
surface. Carefully apply the dispersaat onto
the oil surface only and not through the oil
surface or o&to the containment cylinder
walla. Allow the dispersant to drain-from the
graduated cylinder for 3.0 ninutes.
Weigh the drained graduated cylinder.
Calculate the weight of dispersant added to
the tMt tank. Check the weight to be sure that
the correct volume of iitsp«nant ± 3
. percent was added to lh« lest tank.
8. Activate the hoeing system, adjust nozzle
pressure to 140 kPa. and apply a stream of
synthetic seswatrr at 23*l'C to the oil/
dispersant mixture wtth:n the coetammunt
cylinder. Immediately lift the cylinder oil the
way out above the water surface, and
simultaneously hose off any c.I adhering to
the cylinder's inner surface. Remove the
cylinder completely and con&iue to hose and
Agitate Ihs oil/dupersant mixture for a total
hosing period of 1.0 mmuts. The How rate of
hosing nonle must be 15.1 ±O* liien/mln at
MO kPa (4.0±0.2 gpm at 20 psig).
Nole^-
-------
Federal Register / Vok 49. No. 139 / Wednesday. July 18. 1984 / Rule* and Regulations 292U3
(weight of teat oil)
(1334 liter synthetic seawatet)
me weight of the teat oil should bt «cpn*Md The percent of oJl dispersed i* then:
in milligrams. «o that resulting C«» will be la.
ma/liter.
(C»-OBG-DBQ
Percent dispersed- —— — X100*
23 Raport of til* EffactivmesM Ttst
Reiultt. Based on ICO ml of oil datennine the
percent dispersion of the teal oil caused by X
10, and 23 ml of dispersant («) alter 10
minutes redrculaUon ("Initial dispersion")
and (b) a/tar 2 hours recirculatioa ("final
dispersion'*|.
Oetenniae the mean of at least three
replicate tests for each of the three dispersant
dosages. If the percent dispart ion value found
TABLE 4
(after the UKminut* radrcnlaUoB period only)
for any of the three rjplieate tests varies from -
the mean value by more than ±6 percent.
discard (hat result aad run another replicate.
For each test oil. using percent dispersion
as the ordinals and dispenanl dosage (ml) a»
the abscissa, plot two curves on one chart
one for "initial dispersion" and the other for
"final dispersion.'' Draw the graphs by
plotting mean percent dispersion valuee for
each of the dispenanl dosages-of 3.1ft and
29 ml and connecting the corresponding data
points for each sampling time (10 minutes or 2
hours) with straight lines. From the -Initial
dispersion" graph, determine the dispersaat
dosage (ml) causing SO percent dispersion.
From the- "final dispersion" graph, determine
the dispersant dosage (ml) causing 25 percent
dispersion.
Report the data In the format given in
Table*.
REQUIRED DISPERSANT EFFECTIVENESS TESTS RESULTS
Initial Dispersion
(10 minutes)
Volume
Dispersant
Cml)
Final Dispersion
(2 hours)
Percent
Dispersion for
Replicate Number
1 •
2 -
3 -
Mean Percent
Dispersion
Percent
Dispersion for
Replicate Number
1 -
2 -
3 •
Mean Percent
Diapersi6n
10
1 -
2 -
3 -
1 •
2 -
3 •
25
1 -
2 -
3 -
Dosage- (ml) causing 50 percent
dispersion (from "initial dis-
persion" graph) ^^ ml.
1 -
2 -
3 -
Dosage (ml) causing 25 percent
dispersion (from "final dis-
persion" graph)
ml.
2.9 Comments on Rivisioi* to Dap»nat>l
Efftctivmtst Ttstt. The comments discussed
here refer only to these revision* to the
dupenant effectiveness test described by
McCarthy et aL (1).
Addition to Tett Oil end Ktptetanl
Rewick et al. (2). (3). found that the method
described in the revised method for adding
the same amount of test oil and dispertant
significantly improved the precision of the
test. The percent standard deviation of the '
initial and final amount of oil dispersed wee
determined for dispersant C E. and F using
the method described m McCarthy el at (1).
The data for dispersants A. & end 0 were
obtained using the weighing method for the
oil and dispenanl described in the revised
procedure. The everage percent standard
deviation was reduced from 41,8 percent lo
4.8 percent for No. B fuel oil Additional
testing of dispersanta on EPA's NCP Product
Schedule recently has been initiated to
determine the precision of the Revised
Standard Dispenaat Effectiveness Teat
Procedures.
Inclusion of the Oil Blank. Rewick et si (21
found that the optical density of the oil blank
was significantly hfgher than the dupersant
blank. Including an oil blank increased the
accuracy of the test because it corrects for
the light absorption of the weter-solubls
components of the fuel (amount of test oil
dispersed Into the water column in the
absence ol a dispersaot is low).
Disptnonl-to-Oil Ratio. The maximum
effectiveness of many dispersaats occurs st
dispersant*to-oil (O/O) ratio* of less than 0.10
or 0-25 (10 or 23 ml dispersant] (see Figure 1.
Rewick et si (3)). Furthermore, the •
manufacturer's recommended application
rates are usually less than D/O-0.10. and
the actual application rates in a real spill may
be less than a O/O « 0.10 ipecifically when
applied by aircraft. Therefore, the revised
-------
29204- raoanu lurgiauw / »w-
method specifies testing the- dispanaata at D/
o-ojn. aio, and oji
3.0 Revfud Standard Dispfneat Tajudtjr
Tstt
3.1 5«mmrx0/M0 I feel olUJone
and In «1.10 mixture of dispenaot to oil To
aid la comparing mult* from assays
performed by different workers, reference
toxicity lefts an conducted using dodeeyl
sodium tulfata at a reference toxicant. The
test length is 99 houn for Fundulia and 48
houn IwArtamia. LCSOs are calculated
based on mortality date at the eod of the
exposure period (for method of calculation.
•ee section 3.8 below).
U Selection and Preparation of test
MateraJs. Tut Oiyaaaaa. Ftuidvlus
heteroclittu. Obtain teal fish from e single
source for each series of toxicxry tests. Report
any known unusual condition to which fish
wen exposed before use (e.g.. pesticides or
chemotherapeutic agents]: avoid if possible.
Use small fiio 2J to 3.8 en (I to 1.5 inches) in
length ud weighing about l gran. Tbe
longest Individual fish should be 10 more
thdn 1.5 runes the length of the smallest
Acclimate test nsh to a temperature of
20*1*0. a pH oi 10*0 2. and 20 ± 2ppt
salinity for 10 to 14 days before using them
for the tcxieity tests. Eliminate groups of fish
having more than 20 percent mortality during
(he first 43 hours, and acre than five percent
thereafter. Curing accltoation, feed all
species a balanced die*. Dry, pelleted.
caTirnertrialiy *vailabl« fishfood containing
30 percent to 43 percent protein a
satisfactory. Tha pellet? should be easily
convunuMe by the test fish. Feed the fish
Iwice daily to satfofiorv fau! not for 24 hours
before or during the bioassay test. Use only
those or33ius."W ttial feed actively and
appear to be healthy Discard any fish injured
or dropped wh:'e hap.dlbg.
Arterria Satina. To ensure uniformity of
Artsmia (bnr.e shrimp), use eggs from the San
Francisco flay area Since the ejgs of Artemia
rr.ay be kept duiccated for long periods in a
viable state. requ»-?d numbers of the
organism can be sec<.red at any time for use
in (he bioassay teals through the use of
proper hatching procedures.
A rectangular tray (plastic, glass, or
enamel} having 200 square inches of bottom
surface is suitable for hatching Artemia eggs.
Divide this tray into two parta by a partition
L'-at extends from the top down to about 1.9
to 1.3 cm (0.73 (o 0.1 inch) from the bottom.
This partition may be of any opaque.
biologically inert material (a pasteboard-
strip, sealed with parafRa wrapping, is
sal'sfertary). Raise one end of the my about
1 27 en (0 5 rah) and ao*d 3 liters of the
synthetic seawater forsiulalion (see Table 5J.
Siread 0 S gram of Anerria eggs in tr.e
shallow «r.d of Lie tray Cover tins tnd of the
(rjy wiih a piece of cardboard to keep the
eigt in darkness until hatching is compile.
A'.out 20 houn after the eggs hatch, direct a
narrow bean of l:g!" across the uncovered
portion of the fray. Since brine shnmp are
pjioiotaetic they will sum beneath the
paration into Ihe Illuminated end of the
dumber and congregate in the beam of light
The Artemia concentrated in the beam of
light can be easily collected with the use- of a
collecting pipette or siphon connected to a 30»
en (12-inch] rubber tube and mouthpiece.
Transfer them to a beaker containing a small
amount of the artificial seaweter.
An alternative method for hatching
Aftaaifa eggs is to us* a separator funnel A
iraall air line ie placed In the botton of the
funnel and air is bubbled at a rate sufficient
to keep the egg* from settling to the bottom. •
After the egge hatch, the air line la removed
and the newly hatched aaupui will settle to
Ihe bottom of the funnel where they can be
drawn off without disturbing the empty egg
cases, which will have floated to tha surface.
Preparation of Experimented Water.
Because large quantities of dilution water
will be used in these testa, formulate the
experimental water in large batches to ensure
uniformity and constant conditions for the
various tests. To prevent contamination,
prepare and store the experimental water in
inert container! of suitable size.
Synthetic Seamier formation. To prepare
standard seawater. mix technical-grade salta
with 000 liters of distilled or demineralized
water in the order and quantities listed in
Table 5. These ingredients must be added in
the order listed and each ingredient must ba .
dissolved before another is addaoVSur
constantly after each addition durmg
preparation untl dissolution is complete.
Add distilled or demineraiizri water to
make up to 1,000 liter*. The pH should now
be 8.0 ± 0-2. To attain the dasired salinity of
20 ± 1 ppi dilute again with distilled or
demineralized water at time o! use.
3.3 Sampling and Storage of Ta!~
Materials. Toxicity tests are performed with
No. 2 fuel oil having the characterises
defined in Table & Store oil used .a toxicity
tests in sealed containers to pfveit the loaf
of volatile* and other changes, for esie in
handling and use. it Is recommended that
1.000-ml glass containers, be us^d. To ensure
comparable results in the bifj»ay tests, use
oils packaged and sealed at the source.
Dispose o'Cunused oil In each open container
on completion of dosirg to prevent t:s use at
a later date when it nay have icst some of its
volatile components. Run all tests m a
bioassay series with oil from the same
container and with organisms Erom the same
group collected or secured Erom the same
source.
TABLE 5—SVWHETK: SeA*ATE*
fTanciymi)
TAMX&—Tj9TO>.O««Mcrem9)Tici: No. 2
KJO.
Mgd. «HXJ-
i »
130
670
4M3
7339
j.seso
31304
UeSCO
110
04
A* Kxt
la OOS l.lcrt of wilir. M dncnted !n
U!L
•3.4 Central Test Condition* and
Procedam for Toxicity Testa Tenperatur*.
For theee toxiciry testa, use test solutions "-
with temperatures of 20 ± 1'C.
Disiolved Oxyyen and Aeration. Funduliu.
Because oila and diaptnaata contain toxic
volatile materials, and becauK -ie loxlaty of
some water-soluble fracttona of oil aad
degradation products are changed by
oxidation, special care must be need in the
oxygenatian of test solutions. A 2 liter .
volume of solution a used 1st the Fuaduliu
test Initiate aeration to provide dissolved
oxygen (DO)) and mixing alter tha fish an
added. The BO content of test solutions ems!
not drop below 4 ppm. Aerate at a rale of 100
± 15 bubbles per minute supplied from a 1-rnl
serojogical pipette. At this rate and with the
*prt?cr weight of fish. DO concentration
should remain slightly sbote 4 ppm over e
hour prnod. Take OO messuRaents daily.
Aftiiruo. Achieve sufficient DO by
ensuring the surface ana to volume ratio of
the test solution exposed is large enough.
Oxygen content should remain high
throughout the test because of At small
quantity of test sobstances added ar.d the
lovr oxygen demand of organises in each
dish.
CtMfr-j.'s. With each fish or Adamta test or
each serue of simultaneous lasts of different
solutions, perform e concurrent control tsst m
exactly the tame manner as the other tests
and uncler the conditions prescribed or
•elected far those tests. Use the diluent water
alone as the medium in which ihe controls
are held. There must be no more than 10
percent mortality among the controls during
the eours* of any valid (?sr.
Rftere.ict Ttieieent To lid in comparing
results from rcju perforasd by different
woTAnn and to de'ecl changes in the
car.i':lior of the test organism* tha! might
lead to afferent results, perform reference
laMCiry ttsts with reagent grade dodecyl
sodium sutfdte (OSS) in addition to tiia usual
ecntfil tests. Prepare a stocV. solution of DSS
im."'2diateiy bdiore use by adding 1 gram of
CSS ?er 500 ml of lest water solution. Use
explc-atory tests before the full scale tests
are b»gun to determine the amount at
reference standard to be used in each o!
five d.fferent conc-nSa'.ions.
-------
NumbfT of Oigaaitau* For tht toaddty tttl
procedures using Fundalta. place) two E*h in
each Jar. For tha toxidty ta*» osing Artenia
place 20 larvae in each container.
naittftro/Orgaaitatf. Transfer fbndutoi
inm tha acclimatising aquaria to tha tnt
containers only wltt emaU-aeafc dig arts of
•oft material, ud da not cMt the net OB any
dry surface. Da not hold fiafc «* of the water
longer than necessary. Discard any specimen
accidentally dropped at otherwise
mishandled daring transfer.
Artema can be conveniently handled and
transferred with a anall pipalt* connected to-
B Sfran (12-inch] length of rubber tubing and
mouthpiece or with a Pasteur pipette
equipped with a unall rubber squeeze bulb.
To have tha necessary Artamm ready Cot tha
Study, trainfar 20 Artem/a apiaoa into-smalt
beaker* containing 20 ml of artificial
•eawatar. Hold these batch** of Arteaua>
unlU they an 24 hour* oldr at that time, plec*
thaia i» iha respective aanea of teal
coRcaatrationa tat up to (ha toxicify beat,
To avoid large fluctuation* la tha metabolic
ml* ol oiaanj*ma and iba fa«iliag of tea
•aluUona with matafaoiic warn pcod«ct* aad
usaataa food, do not Ia«d oigaaiiou dormji
tail*.
' Test Duntion ontfO6sarra
will be on ih* bottom of the last disband can
be readily seen against the black background.
Also March the top of tfa* liquid for Aittoiia
trapped there by surface, tension, boose.
caution when determining death of tha
animal*. Occasionally, an animal appears
dead, but closer observation show* slight
movement of an appendage or a periodic
spasm of its enure body. For this test.
ummals exhibiting any movement when
touched with a needle are considered alive.
Account for all test animals to ensure
accuracy since some Arttmia may
disintegrate. Consider individuals not .
accounted for as dead.
At th* end of 48 hours of exposure,
terminate the Artsmio assay and datarauna
the LCM value*
Physical aad Oifatical Datermiratiuu.
AuHfuAia. Determine the temperature.DO.
and pH of the teat solutions before tha fish
an added and at 2*-, 72-. and 96-hour
exposure interval*. It ia otcessary to take
measurements from only one ol the replicate*
of each of the toxicant sen**.
Artemta. Determine iha temperature. DO.
and pH of the test solutions before the nauplii
are added and at the 48-hour exposure
interval Measure DO and pH ia only one of
the replicates of each of the toxicant sane*.
Testing Laboratory. An ordinary heated or
air-conditioned laboratory room with
thermortaiie. control*- suitable for mainlainina
tha preaciibed-taal temperature* generally
will suffice B conduct the-toxkhy testa.
Whara*emb*aat temperature* cannot be
controlled to 30 ±l*C uae water bath* with •
the necessary temperature control*.
Test Container!. For hah test*, use 4-liter
glass jars measuring approximately OS em
In height. 15 OB in diameter and 11 em ia
diameter at the mouth. The far* are to have
screw top lids, lined with Teflon. In
conducting tha test add to each of the jua 2
tiers of tha synthetic sea water formula lion
aerated to saturation with DO. To add the 2
liler* easily and accurately, use a Miter-
capacity, automatic dispensing pipette
(Figures).
A • Inflow from Urge Holding Reservoir
8 • Overflow from Other Un>(* in Sen*!
C » Inflow to Other Uruat
Figure 3. Schematic Diagram.of Automatic Dispensing Pipejtt* System
Pot the Artemia test*. u*o Carolina culture
dish** (or their equivalent) having
dimensions approximately &9 cm by 3.8 on
(3J by 1.4 incaee*.
Process ail required glassware before each
test. Immerse in normal hexane for 10
minutes. Follow ihis with a thorough rinse
with hot tap water, three hot detergent
scrubs, en additional hot tap-waier rln»e. and
ihree nnse» wtth disnlled water. Oven or air
dry the glassware in a reasonably dust-free
atmosphere.
3.S Preparation of Teal Concentration*.
Fundolia. Place the test jars containing 2
hten of synthetic seawater on a reciprocal
shaker. The shaker platform should be
adapted to held firmly six of the toxicity tnt
Jan. Add the deiired amount of the
petroleum product under test directly to each
lest jar. Dispense the appropriate amount of
toxicant into the jars with a pipette. Tightly
cap the lest jars and shake for 5 minutes at
approximately 313 to 333 2-crn (a?5-mch}
strokes per ir.uiule to a reciprocal shaker or
-------
29206 Federal Reyatet / Vol. 49. No. 139 / Wednesday. July 18. 1984 / Rulea and Regal a BOM
•t approximately ISO to MO rpm on orbital
shaken. At tt« completion of abakin*
remov* th* tut from th* smUcsr to •
constanMemparatura wtttr bath ot room.
remove the lid* tiki w*t*r quality
mesturemeat*. add two tut Bah, u4 inJtUt*
aeration.
Artemia. To prepare Ittl solutions for
disperaents and oiJ/dUpanaat mixture*.
blend or mix tha t«t solution* with an
electric binder having: ipe«di of laOOO tpra
or less,* stainless-steel catting assembly uid
• 1-liter borosilicate \u. To minimize
foaming, blend at ipeede below 10.000 rpm,
For the dJaperaant lest solution, add 590 ml
of 111* synthetic *eaw»ler ID th» jar, than with
the u*e of a gas-light calibrated gla*e syringe
with a Teflon-tipped plunger, add O35 ml of
tha dlspenani and mix for 3 seconds.
For tie oil le*t solution, add 330 ml of the
synthetic seawaler to the far. theo with the
u»a of » gaa-tlght calibrated glaaa ayriag*
equipped with a Teflon-tipped plunger. atM
OJ3 ml of the oil and mi* for 3 aaconda.
For the oil/dispersant mixtun. add 550 ml
of the synthetic seawater to the mixing jar.
While the blender is in operation, add 0.5 ml
oi tha ail under study with the uie of
calibre led •yringe with Teflon-tipped plunger
and then OJJS ml of tha dispersant aa
indicated above. Blend 'or 3 Mcortdi after
addition of diapersanl These Additions
provide teat solution* of the dispersant. oil
and the oil/dispenani mixture al
concentration* of 1.000 ppm.
Immediately after the test solutions an
prepared, draw up the necessary amount of
(eat aolutton with a gaa-tight Teflon-tipped
glaia syringe of appropriate lite aod
dispense into each of the five containers In
each aeries. If the series of five
concentrations to be tested are 10.13 32. SO,
and ICO ppm, the amount of the test solution
in the order of the concentration* listed
above would be as follows: UL 1.8.3.2, 5.3.
and t(U ml
Each tiir.a a syringe is to be filled for
dispensing to the series of test containers,
stun the mixer and withdraw th* desired
amount in the appropriate synnge while the
mixer is in operation. Turn off immediately
after the sample is taken to limit the loss of
volatile*.
Use exploratory tests before the full-scale
test is set up to determine the concentration
of toxicant to be used ia each of the five
different concentration*. After adding the
required amounlrof liquid bring the volume
in each of tha test containers ap la 40 ml w«h
the artificial seawater. To aware kavp+tg
each of tha series separate; designate on the
lid of each container th* data, the material
under test, and its concentration.
When the desired concentration* are
prepared, gMMly release into each, dish tha 30
test Artemia (previously transferred into 20
ml of medium). This provides a volume of 100
ml in each test chamber. A pair of standard
cover glass forceps with flat, bent ends is an
. ideal tool for handling sr.d tipping the small
beaker without nsk of contaminating tha
mediu.-a.
After adding the test animals, incubate tha
test dukes at SO ± 1'C for 48 hours.
Recommended lighting is 2.000 lumens/ra*
(200 ft-c) of diffused, constant, fluorescent
illumination coming from beneath lie cultara
dishes during Incubation. Because Artomia
an phoratactic, bottom lighting should keep
than from direct contact wttta the- oil thai
sometimes layers OB top.
Wash the biendar thoroughly after as* and
repeat tha above procedures for each serie*
of tests. Wash the blender as follows: rinse •
with normal hexano. poor a strong solution of
laboratory detergent into the blender to cover
tha blades, fill the container to about half of
Its volume with hot tap water, operate tha
biendar lor about 30 aeconda at high speed,
remove and rinse twice with hot tap walar,
mixing each rinse for 5 second* at high speed,
and then rmse twice with distilled water.
mixing each rinse for I seconds at high speed.
3.6 Calculating ami Reporting. At lie end
of th* teat period, tha toxidty testa an
terminated and the LCSO values an
determined.
Calculation*. The LCSO ta tha concentration
hfttml to SO parceflt 01 mv iesrt popva'onsv It
can be calculated as an Interpolated value
based on percentages of organisms surviving
at two or more concentrations, al which las*
than half and more than half survived. Tba
LCSO can be estimated with the aid of .
computer programs or graphic techniques (log
paper). The 95 percent confidence interval*
for the *f*tt> estimate should also be
determined.
Repotting. Tha test diipcrsant and oil and
their source and storage are described in thai
toxicity test report. Note any observed
changes in the experimental water or the test
solutions. Also includa &• species of 5»h
used: the sources, size, and condition of the
fish; data of any known treatment of the fislt ,
for disease or infestation with parasites
before their use: and any observations on th*
Csh behavior at regular interval* during tests.
la addition to the calculated LCSO values,
other data necessary for interpretation (e.g.
DO, pH other physical parameters, and the
percent survival at (he end of each day of
exposure at each concentration of toxicant)
should be reported.
3.7 Summary of Procedures.
Fundultu:
1. Prepare adequate'stock* of the.
appropriate standard dilution water.
Z. Add t liters of £e standard dilution
water to the 4-liler test [an. Each teat
consist* of S aeplicates of each of 5
concentrations of the test material a control
tents of S dishes, and a standard reference
series of S different concentrations for • total
of U dishes. Simultaneous partoraanca of
tujueily test*) on the oil di*p*r»ant and oil/
disparsant mixture requires a total of 103
dishes.
3. Add the determined amount (quarter
points on the log scale) of test material to the
appropriate jars. Preliminary tests wiU be
necessary to define th* range of defimnve
test concentrations.
4. Cap th* Jars (ighily with the Teflon-lined
screw caps and shake for S minxes al 315 to
333 2-cm [0.73-ir.ch) strokes per minute oa e
reciprocal shaker.
4. Remove the jars from the shaker, lake
water quality data, and add two acclimated
fish par jar.
6. Aerate wlih 100±13 bubbles per minute
through a 1-ral jerological pipette.
7.Ob**jmandr*
mortalities, watar
quality, and behavioral change* each at
hours.
ft. After W hours, terminate th* test and
' calculate LCSO value* and corresponding
confidejic* ^r*f*T-
Afteau'ttf
1. Initial* the procedure for hatching thai
Artentfa in sufficient itme (approximately ta
hours) before th* toxicity test I* to b»
conducted so that 24-hcur-old larva* an
available.
2. With tha us* of a small pipeit*. transfer
taAfWaiia into small Waken, each
containing 20 ml of tha proper synthetic .
seawatar.
X To prepare the teat stock dlsperaant and
oil aolutton*, add 350 mi of th* arOfidal
seawatar to the prescribed blender Jar. By
mean* of a gas-tight glass tyring* with *
Teflon-tipped plunger, add OJ5 ml of th*
dispenant (or oil) and mix at 10,000 rpm fbr S
second*. To prepare th* teat stock oil/
dlspersanl mixture, add HO ml of th*
standard seawater to th* blender jar. While
tha blender is-in operation (10.000 rpm), add
0.9 ml of th* oil then 048 ml of the dlwmant
with the «M of a calibrated syring* with a •
Telfon-tipped plunger. Blend for S Moond*
after adding m* dispersanL One mi of mow
stock solution* added to th* 100 mi of
standard seawater la th* teat container*
yields a concentration of 10 ppa dispersest,
ail or oil/dUpersant combination (th* lest
will b* in • ratio of 1 part dispersanl to 10
part* of oil).
4. Each test consists of S replications of
• etch of 5 concentrations of tht malarial
under study, a control s*rie* of 5 dishes,'
a standard reference series of 3 different
concentrations. % total o( U dish**.
Simultaneous performance of toxidty testa OB
th* oil diapersaoL and oil/disparsant mtxtur*
requires a total of 109 dishes. Immediately
after preparing tb» test solution oi th*
dispenaat or oil/dispenani solution, and
using an appropriately sUad syringe, draw up
in* necessary amount of test solution and
dispense into each of th* fiv* container* in
each series.
Each tim* • syrtng* is to b* filled for
dispensing to the series of test containers.
start th* mixer and withdraw th* desired
amount la th* appropriate syringe whil* th*
mixer is In operation. Turn mixer off
immediately after the sampl* la taken to limit
tha las* of volatile*. After adding th* required
amount of the lest oil/dispersanl or
dispenenl mixture, bring the volume of liquid
fn each of th* lest containers up to 80 ml with
th* artificial seawster.
When the desired concentration* have
b«n prepared, gently release into each dish
the 20 nauplii previously transferred into 20
ml of medium. This provides a volume of 100
mi in each test chamber. Use a pair of
standard cover glaie forceps for handling and
lipping the small beaker.
S. Wash the blender as prescribed for each
series of test*.
a. Incubate th* test dishes et 20 ±t*C for
48 hour* with the prescribed lighting.
7. Terminate the experiment after 41
observe and record (he mortalitivs. *UL
-------
Federal
determine tat LCSO* and correspondina.
* purpoM of tbi» format la ID i
standard and convenient presentation
j technical product tat data required by
the U.S. Environmental Pratacta Agency
(EPA) Maim a product may b« addad to
EPA's NCP Product Sdwdul* tbat may b»
used fa carrying out the National OU tad
Hazardous Substance* Pollution Contingency
Flan. This format, however, la not to preclude
the tubmJMiaa of all (hi laboratory data used
to develop the data summarized in thi*
formal. Sufficient data ihould to presented
oo both the effectiveness and loxiciry test* to
enable EPA to evaluate tat adequacy of the
summarised data.
A summary of the technical product last
data should be •ubmittod in the following
format The numbered headings ihould b«
used la all submission*. The subheading*
indicate the kinds ol information to be
(applied. The Hated subheadings, however.
are not exhaustive: additional relevant
ioformatioo should be reported when
necessary. Aa noted some subheading* may
apply only to particular types of agent*.
L Nam, Brand, or Trademark:
n. Name. Addrnt. onrf Tflfpfiona filuaibrr
of Manufaetarar
IE. Name. Addnst. aad T«/«pAane>
Numben of Primary Distributor*
IV. Specrc/ Handling and Woristr
Precautions for Sloragf and Field
Application
1. Ftemmability.
2. Ventilation.
3. Skin and eye contact protective dothing;
treatment in case of contact.
4. Maximum and mmimnm slorago
temperatures; optimum storage temperature
range: temperatures of phase separation* and'
chemical chanjes.
Vt flacom/nenrfed Application Proeodur*.
I. Application method.
t Concentration, application rale (e.g,
gallon* of dispersaat per ton of oil).
1 Condition* to use: water salinity, water
temperature, type* and age* of pollutants.
Vitfa). ToMiuty (Diiptrmntt ondSurfm
Collecting Aprta}:
Aim
IfiWfeomt
-4*4*.
-•Mr
SriMOAiw SfncmeHsu TEST WIT* Ma a
FUS.OH.
Vek*nt(n*
MM|10m«tr
Ootagt causiflg 50 percent dlipenioa (from
iainal dUperwon graph) 1* ——ml.
Dosage causing 25 percent diipenion [from
initial diem n*i r-ir-tk
1 If the MtmttM cUuns ti«l the le/ormaiioa
pitnaied undif this tubhniung i> cnnfldrolUi uw
[n/cmuuoo ibauld b* tubouiltd on • Moaral*
tfaett of ptpei dMiir Utxlid aceordini to the
subheading u4 vnctM "Confldenoii Infamutiai.
-------
87370 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 185 f Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Thi« regulation, therefore, does not
require • regulatory flexibility analyst*.
Thii action ii exempt from review .
under Executive Order 12281.
VT Lilt of Subject! la 40 CFR Put 2*1
Hazardous material!. Wast*
treatment and disposal. Recycling.
Dated: September 12.1984.
Jack W. McCraw,
Acting Attiilant Administrator.
PARTZO-T. AMENDED)
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. 40 CFR Part 261 is amended
as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 2S1
read as follows:
Authority: Sea. 1000.2002(8). 3001. and
3002 of the Solid Waste Dispoul Act ••
•mended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, u amended [42 U.S.C.
6905.6912.6921. and 6922].
2. Section 261.31 hi amended by
adding the following introductory text
.before the table to read as follows:
f 261.31 Hazardous wactM from noo>
specific aourcra
The following solid wastes are listed
hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources unless they are excluded under
|{ 260.20 and 260.22 and listed in
Appendix XI.
• • • • • •
3. Section 261.32 is amended by
adding the following introductory text
before the table to read as follows:
raste*fn
icifle
1261.32 Hazardous
aouron
The following solid wastes are listed
hazardous wastes from specific sources
unless they are excluded under
IS 26O20 and 280.22 and listed in
Appendix DC.
• • • • •
4. Section 281J3 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read aa
follows:
I261J3 Discarded commercial chemical
product*. off-«p«e
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 165 / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 37071
Carolyn MilcbeU. RegioafV. ILS. EPA
library. 14S Courlland Street NE. Atlanta.
CA 303BS. 404/Sn-«2n:
Lou TiUy. Region V. VS. EPA library. BO
Son* Dearbon Sbvat. Chngo, Laom.
3120B9-2D22;
Nita House. Regie* VL133. EPA Ubnuy.
First International Building. 12m Elm
Street Dallas. TX 75*70. 214/767-7341:
Connie McKenae. Region VD. VS. EPA
library. 324 East llth Street Kansas City.
MO 64186. BIB/374-3497:
Delates Eddy. Region VTJL US. EPA library.
1860 Lincoln Street Deovec CO 8029S. 303/
844-2560;
Jean Cinaello. Region DC. US. EPA Library.
21S Freemont Street San Francisco. CA
94105.415/974-8079;
Julie Sears. Region X U.S. EPA Library. 1200
8th Avenoe. Seattle. WA 98101.208/442- •
1289.
TOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT:
C Scott Fairish, Hazardous Site Control
Division. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (WH-548-E).
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street SW. Washingtoa DC 20460.
Phone (BOO) 424-9348 {or 382-3000 In the
Washington. DC, metropolitan area).
SUPPLEMENT AAV INFORMATION:
Table of Coetaoia
I—Introduction
n—Purpose of the NPL
m—ImptanentBtum
IV—Process for Establishing and Updating
(he List
V—Contents of the NPL
VI—Eligibility of Sites
VTJ—Changes from the Proposed NPL
Vin—Updates and Deletions
DC—Regulatory Impact Analysis
X—Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysts
L Introduction
Pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980.42 U.S.C. 0801-9657
("CERCLA" or "the Act"), and Executive
Order 12318 (40 FR 42237. August 20.
1881). the Environmental Protection
Agency {"EPA" or "the Agency")
promulgated the revised National
Contingency Plan ("NCP"). 40 CFR Part
300. on July 18.1982 (47 FR 31180). Those
amendments to the NCP implemented
responsibilities and authorities created
by CERCLA to respond to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and
contaminants.
Section 105(8)(A) of CERCLA requires
that the NCP 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 action uvoives cleanup er
other actions that are taken in response
to emergency conditions er on a short*
tana ar 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}). Criteria for
determining priorities an Included in
the Hazard Ranking System ("HRS"}<
which EPA promulgated as Appendix A
of the NCP (47 FR 31Z19. July 16,1982).
Section 105(S)(B] of CERCLA requires
that these criteria be used to prepare a
list of national priorities among the
known releases or threatened releases
throughout the United States, and that to
the extent practicable at least 400 sites
be designated individually on this
National Priorities List (NPL). Section
10S(8)(B] also requires that .the list of
priorities be revised at least annually.
EPA has included on the NPL releases
and threatened releases not only of
designated hazardous substances, but of
any "pollutant -or contaminant" which
presents an imminent and substantial
danger to the public health or welfare.
CERCLA requires that the NPL be
included as part of the NCP. On
September B. 1983. EPA amended the
NCP by adding the NPL consisting of
406 sites, as Appendix B. On that same
day, EPA proposed to amend Appendix
B to add an additional 133 sites to the
NPL. Of that number, four sites (San
Gabriel Sites 1,2.3 and 4) have already
been added to the NPL on May 8. 1984.
Today, the Agency is revising Appendix
B by adding 128 sites to the NPL The
discussion below may cefer to "releases
or threatened releases" simply as
"releases.-"facilities." or "sites."
IL Purpose' of (he 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. 96-848.96(h Cong. 2d. Sess.
60(1980)):
The priority lists serve primarily
informational purposes, identifying for the
Slates sod the public those facilities and sites
or other releases which appear to warrant
remedial actions. Inclusion of a facility or site
on the list does not In lUalf 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
pcBson. Subsequent government action In (he
fonn of remedial action* or enforcement
actions will be necessary in order to do so.
and these actions will be attended by all
appropriate procedural safeguards.
The purpose of the NPL therefore, is
primarily to serve as on Informational
tool for use by EPA in identifying sites
thai appear to present a significant nsk
to public health «r the environment The
Initial identification ef • site on the NPL -
Is intended primarily la guide EPA in
determining whtch sites warrant further
investigation jn order to assess the
nature and extent of the public health
and emrironmnlal risks associated with
the site and to determine what response
action, if any. may be appropriate.
Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not
establish that EPA necessarily will
undertake response actions. Moreover.
listing does not require any action of
any private party, nor does it determine
the Lability of any party for the cost of
cleanup at the site.
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 among sites on the NPL EPA
does not rely on the scores as the sole
means of determining such priorities, as
discussed below. Neither can the HRS
itself determine the appropriate remedy
for a site. The information collected to
develop HRS scares to choose sites for
the NPL is not sufficient in itself to
determine the appropriate remedy for a
particular site. After a site has been
included on the NPL EPA generally will
rely on further, more detailed studies
conducted at the aite to determine what
response, if any. is appropriate.
Decisions on the type and extent of
'action to be taken at these sites are
made in accordance with the criteria
contained in Sobpart F of the NCP. After
conducting these additional studies EPA
may conclude that it is not desirable to
conduct response action at some sites
on the NPL because of more pressing
needs at other sites. Given the limited
resources available in the Hazardous
Substance Response 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 no
action is needed at a site because the
site does not present a significant threat
lo public health, welfare or the
environment.
ID. Implementation
EPA's policy is to pursue cleanup of
hazardous waste sites using all
appropriate response and/or
enforcement actions which are available
to the Agency. Publication of sites on
the NPL will serve as notice 10 any
potentially responsible party that the
Agency may initiate Fund-financed
response action. The Agency will decide
on a site-by-site basis whether to take
enforcement action or to proceed
directly with Fund-financed response
-------
37U72 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 185 / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
actions and teek recovery of response
costa after cleanup. To the extent
feasible, once sites are listed on the NPL
EPA will determine high priority
candidates for Fund-financed response
actio.i and enforcement action through
Slate or Federal initiative. The
determinations will take into account
which approach is more likely to
accomplish cleanup of the site while
using the Fund's limited resources aa
efficiently as possible.
In many situations, it is difficult to
determine whether private party
response through enforcement measures
of Fund-financed response and cost
recovery will be the more effective
approach in securing site cleanup until
studies have been completed indicating
the extent of the problem and
alternative response actions.
Accordingly, the Agency plans to
proceed with remedial investigations
and feasibility studies at sites as quickly
as possible. (See the NCP. 40 CFR 300.68.
and the preamble. 47 FR 31180. July IB.
1962. for a more detailed discussion of
remedial investigations and feasibility
studies.)
Funding of response actions for sites
will not necessarily take place in order
of the sites' ranking on the NPL EPA
does Intend in most cases to set
priorities for remedial investigations and
feasibility studies largely on the basis of
relative position on the list and the
States' priorities simply because at this
early stage these may be the only
sources of information regarding the
risks presented by a site. Funding for the
design and construction of remedial
measures is less likely, however, to be
done according to relative position on
the list. State assurances that cost '
sharing and other State responsibilities
will be met are prerequisites for
construction of remedial measures.
Taking those factors into account EPA
will base priorities for design and
construction on Impacts on public health.
and the environment as indicated by
the MRS scores and other available
information, and on a case-by-case
evaluation of economic, engineering.
and environmental considerations.
Revisions to the NPL such as today's
rulemaking will tend to result in moving
some*previously listed sites to a lower
position on the NPL If EPA has initiated
remedial action such as a remedial
investigation or feasibility study at a
site, the Agency does not intend to
cease such actions in order to determine
whether a subsequently listed site
should have a higher priority for
funding. Rather, the Agency will
continue funding remedial actions once
they have been initiated regardless of
whether higher scoring sites are later
added to the NPL
The NPL does not determine priorities
for removal actions; EPA may take
removal actions at any site, whether
listed or not that meets the criteria of
I { 300.65-300.87 of the NCP. Likewise.
EPA may take enforcement actions
under applicable statutes against
responsible parties regardless of
whether the site is listed on the NPL,
although the focus of EPA's enforcement
actions will be on NPL sites.
IV. Process for Establishing the NPL
Section 105(8) of the CERCLA
contemplates that the States will
identify the majority of candidate sites
for the NPL according to EPA criteria.
although EPA also has independent
authority to consider sites for listing. For
that reason, most of the sites on the NPL
were evaluated by the States in
accordance with the MRS and submitted
to EPA. In some cases, however. EPA
Regional Offices, independent of these
State efforts, scored other sites using the
HRS. For all sites considered for this
update of the NPL Including those
scored by the States. EPA reviewed the
HRS evaluations and conducted quality
assurance audits. These audits are
intended to ensure accuracy and
consistency in HRS scoring among the
various EPA and Slate offices.
On September 8,1983, EPA proposed
the first revision to the NPL in the
Federal Register (48 FR 40674). Of the
133 sites proposed. 131 had received
HRS scores of 26.50 or higher one site
was designated by the State as its top
priority and. according to CERCLA.
must be included among the top 100
sites: and one site was proposed fur
listing on the basis of a future NCP
amendment which will delineate
additional criteria for listing sites on the
NPL The cutoff score of 28.50 points
was the same cutoff chosen for the
initial NPL (see 47 FR 58476. December
30.1982. and 48 FR 40658. September 8,
1983). The cutoff score was selected
because it would yield an initial NPL of
at least 400 sites as suggested by
CERCLA. not because of any
determination that sites scoring less
than 28.50 did not present a significant
risk to human health, welfare or the
environment.
The public comment period on the
proposed rule ended November 8.1983.
EPA considered all comments received
by March 30.1964. Based on the
comments received on the September 8.
1983. proposed rule, as well as further
investigation by EPA and the States.
EPA recalculated the HRS scores for
Individual sites where appropriate.
EPA's response to 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—
1984." This document is available for
review in the EPA dockets in
Washington. DC and the Regional
Offices.
One commenter disagreed with EPA's
approach for selecting sites for the NPL
update. The commenter was concerned
over the lack of a permanent and
consistent rationale for the NPL cutoff
score of 28.50. The commenter said that
the threshold should be based on risk.
not on the need to include a specified
number of sites. The commenter
suggested that EPA should begin to
address this issue for long-range
planning purposes in Its implementation
of CERCLA. The commenter expressed
concern that EPA and others may
"erroneously assume there is an
automatic need to continually replenish
the list" The commenter said that if
sites posing minimal or non-existent
risks continue to be added to the NPL
the public could be misled about the
nature of the risks, and unnecessary
demands could be placed on public and
private resources.
In response. EPA selected the 28.50
•core for the initial NPL because it
would yield a list of at least 400 sites a'
required in section 105(8)(B) of CERCl
The decision to retain the 28.50 cutoff
score for the first update was based on
the absence of any scientific evidence of
an alternative HRS threshold score. EPA
has not made a determination that sites
scoring less than 28.50 do not present a
significant risk to human health.
welfare, or the environment
The HRS was designed to use
information such as that collected
during a site inspection in order to allow
EPA to include sites which have not
been extensively investigated. As stated
in the Preamble to the NCP (47 FR -
31188), the requirements of section
105(8)(A) of CERCLA to list national
priorities would not be met if EPA
waited until extensive information has
been generated for all releases.
Consequently, the HRS does not
measure absolute risks associated with
a site. EPA believes that such a risk
assessment would require significantly
greater time and funds than are
presently required for placing a site on
the NPL The HRS does distinguish
relative risks among sites and does
identify sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare,
or the environment
A much more detailed investigation
conducted following a site's listing on
the NPL Decisions on the type and
-------
i. is
-------
37074 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No-. 185 / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
explicitly excludes some substances
from the definition of release. In
addition, as a matter of policy. EPA may
choose not to respond to certain types of
releases under CERCLA because
existing regulatory or other authority
under other Federal statutes provides
for an appropriate response. Where such
other authorities exist and the Federal
government can undertake or enforce
cleanup pursuant to a particular
established program, listing on the NPL
to determine the priority or need for
response under CERCLA may not be
appropriate. EPA has therefore chosen
not to consider certain types of sites for
the NPL even though CERCLA may
provide authority to respond. If.
however, the Agency later determines
that sites not listed as a matter of policy
are not being properly responded to, the
Agency will consider listing them on the
NPL
This section discusses the comments
received on these categories of releases
and the Agency's decisions with respect
to including them on the NPL.
Releases of Radioactive Materials
~ Section 101 (22) of CERCLA excludes
several types of releases of radioactive
materials from the statutory definition of
"release." These releases are therefore
not eligible for CERCLA response
actions or inclusion on the NPL The
exclusions apply to the following: (1)
Releases of source, by-product or
special nuclear material from a nuclear
incident if these releases are subject to
financial protection requirements under
section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act:
and (2) any release of source, by-
product, or special nuclear material from
any processing site designated under the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). Accordingly.
such radioactive releases have not been
considered eligible for the NPL As a
policy matter. EPA has also chosen not
to list releases of source, by-product, or
special nuclear material from any
facility with a current license issued by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). on the grounds that the NRC has
full authority to require cleanup of
releases from such facilities. Formerly
licensed facilities whose licenses no
longer are in effect will, however, be
considered for listing.
Some commenters took issue with
EPA's position on releases of
radioactive materials in presenting the
following arguments: (1) EPA should not
include facilities on the NPL that hold a
current license issued by a State
pursuant to a delegation of authority
from the NRC pursuant tolection 274 of
the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021):
[2) EPA should not include sites
containing radioactive materials on the
NPL because other Federal authorities,
•uch as UMTRCA, provide adequate
authority to control releases from such
sites; and (3) MRS scores do not
accurately reflect the real hazards
presented by radioactive sites especially
• when the releases are within radiation
limits established by NRC pursuant to
the Atomic Energy Act. These comments
reiterate points made when the first NPL
was published. EPA's response (48 FR
30661. September 8, 1983] remains
unchanged. Regarding the points that
facilities regulated by States should not
be included on the NPL one commenter
laid that EPA is incorrect as to the
control exercised by the NRC in such
agreement Slates and that such State
controls are adequate. EPA on the other
hand believes that if such controls are
adequate, then the sites will not have
sufficiently high HRS scores to warrant
including them.
Releases From Federal Facilities
CERCLA section lll(e)(3) prohibits
use of the Fund for remedial actions at
Federally owned facilities. EPA has not
listed any sites where the release clearly
resulted solely from a Federal facility.
regardless of whether contamination
remains on-site or has migrated off-site.
EPA did, however, consider eligible for
inclusion on the NPL Rites where it was
unclear whether the Federal facility was
the sole source of contamination based
on the rationale that if some other
source were also responsible. EPA might
be authorized to respond. In these
situations, the off-site contaminated
area associated with this type of release
was considered eligible for inclusion.
Sites previously, but not currently,
owned by the Federal government were
also considered eligible. Finally, sites
not owned by the Federal government
but where the Federal government may
have contributed to a release were also
eligible.
EPA chose not to list releases coming
solely from Federal facilities because
EPA lacks response authority and
because Executive Order 12316 (46 FR
42237. August 20.1981) assigns the
responsibility for cleanup of these sites
to the responsible Federal agency. EPA
incorporated this position into the NCP,
at § 300.66(e)(2) (47 FR 31215. July IB.
1982). However, after further
consideration of this policy, the Agency
concluded that it may be useful for
informational purposes to include
Federal facility sites on the NPL and will
propose a future amendment to the NCP
to permit the Agency to do so. EPA
intends to consider Federal facilities in
the next update proposal.
Indians Lands
Sites on Indian lands are currently
eligible for inclusion on the NPL EPA is
developing a discovery and
investigation program for evaluating
potential sites on Indian lands. The
Agency urges commenters to submit
information on any sites which they feel
may need to be evaluated for future
updates to the NPL
RCRA Sites
As stated in EPA's previous NPL
rulemaking (48 FR 40658. September 8.
1983). both CERCLA and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
contain authorities applicable to
hazardous waste facilities. These
authorities overlap for certain sites.
Accordingly, where a site consists only
of regulated units of a RCRA facility
operating pursuant to a permit or
imtenm status, it will not be included on
the NPL but will instead be addressed
under the authorities of RCRA except as
provided in the paragraph that follows.
The Land Disposal Regulations under
RCRA (40 CFR Parts 122. 260. 264. and
265) gives EPA and the States authority
to control active sites through a broad
program which includes monitoring,
compliance inspections, penalties for
violations, and requirements for
postclosure plans and financial
responsibility. RCRA regulations require
a contingency plan for each facility. The
regulations also contain ground water
protection standards (40 CFR Part 264
Subpart F) that cover detection
monitoring, compliance monitoring (if
ground water impacts are identified)
and corrective action for releases within
the boundaries.
These monitoring and corrective
action standards apply to all "regulated
units" of RCRA facilities, i.e.. any part of
the waste treatment, storage, or disposal
operation within the boundaries of the
facility that accepted waste after
January 26.1983, the effective date of
the Land Disposal Regulations (47 FR
32349. July 26.1982). Even if the unit
ceases operation after this time. EPA
has the authority to require it to obtain a
permit, and the monitoring and
corrective action requirements could
therefore be enforced by this
mechanism. Given this alternative
authority to ensure cleanup, regulated
units of RCRA facilities generally are
not included on the NPL If the facility is
abandoned or lacks sufficient resources
and the RCRA corrective action
requirements cannot be enforced. EPA
will consider listing the site on the NPL
for possible response under CERCLA.
This policy is applicable not only to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 185 / Friday. September 21. 19B4- / Rules and Regulations 37075
•ites subject to EPA-administered •• -
hazardous waste programs but also to .
•itei in States that administer programs
approved by EPA. In the latter instance.
close Federal control Is ensured by the
comprehensiveness of the program
elements required of all State programs
along with EPA's authority to enforce
State program requirements directly if .
the State fails to do so. EPA does,
however, consider eligible for listing 00
the NPL those RCRA facilities where a
significant portion of the release
appears to come from "non-regulated
units" of the facility (that is, portions
thai ceased operation prior to January
28.1983).
Releases of Mining Wastes
Some commentere expressed their
views that CERCLA does not authorize
EPA to respond to releases of mining
wastes and. therefore, sites involving
' mining wastes should not be included on
the NPL The commenters argued that it
is unclear if CERCLA was intended to •
address the type of waste problem.
characterized by low concentrations
• and large volumes, associated with
mining waste. The commenter believed
the HRS is not an appropriate tool to
estimate the risk to health and the
environment presented by mining waste
sites. Finally, the commenters stated
that the mining waste sites are generally
In rural areas, so that no sizable target
populations are affected.
These comments also were received
during the previous rulemaking and
EPA's response to these comments (46
FR 40663. September 8,1983) remains
unchanged. Some commenters raised a
new issue related the EPA's authorities
to respond to mining sites: that is.
certain sites do not pose imminent
hazards, thus, should not have been
included on the NPL or are not eligible.
EPA believes that if the substance
involved at a site is a "hazardous
•ubslance." the Agency can respond to
any release, or any threatened release.
without any need to determine that a
threshold level of hazard is present
With respect to pollutants or
contaminants, EPA does not agree that
response authority is limited to releases
that pose an imminent and substantial
danger. Section 104(a)(l)(B) of CERCLA
clearly states that response is
authorized for any release that "may"
present an imminent and substantial
danger, and is not limited to those that
actually do present such danger. More
importantly, response is authorized not
only for releases, but for any
"substantial threat of release." As one
example, the East Helena site in
Montana presents at least a substantial
threat of release, as indicated by the
fact that its MRS score was based on the
potential for a release, which resulted in
a score high enough to place it on the
NPU
Regarding the issue of whether the
HRS is appropriate for evaluating
mining sites, one commenter elaborated
on the point that HRS does not uae
Information on the concentrations of the
substances Involved and that mineral
substances do not pose the same risks
as man-made chemicals. In response,
the commenters have presented no
information that would support a
contention that concentrations of
hazardous substances in discharges
from mining sites are lower than from
other types of sites or are too low to
cause problems. The toxicity values
specified in the HRS instructions.
including those for mineral substances,
are derived from standard references in
the field of toxicology. Concentrations at
which various health effects occur are
the basis for assigning toxicity values to
various mineral substances. The fact
that these standard texts assign the
highest toxicity values to some mineral
substances contradicts the position set
forth by the commenter. Furthermore.
EPA believes thai there is ample
evidence that the concentrations and
amounts of pollutants and contaminants
discharged by mining sites can and do
have a significant impact on public
health and the environment. As the
commenter pointed out mining sites
tend to generate extremly large
quantities of wastes. Thus, even if the
concentration of hazardous substances
in the wastes are low. as the commenler
contends, the total quantities of
substances available to be discharged
into the environment are high. Finally.
as the commenter's own studies
demonitrate, the two most important
factors in determining whether a mining
site is included on the NPL are whether
the site is known to be discharging into
the environment and the size of and
distance to the potentially affected
populations. EPA believes that these are
reasonable factors to use in assessing
sites.
Sites Which May Be Cleaned Up by
Responsible Parties
Some commenters said that EPA
should not include on the NPL those
sites associated with known active
waste sources with identified
responsible parties because such listing
misrepresents the amount of Fund
money required for response actions
and may give an unduly negative
impression with respect to ongoing
cleanup activities. One commenter
suggested deleting from the NPL sites
undergoing such cleanups. Another
commenter said that EPA should not
include on the NPL those sites where the
responsible parties are "acting
appropriately." Other commenters said
that EPA should not have included
certain sites on'the NPL because
responsible parties had concluded
agreements with State agencies or the
Federal government providing for
response actions.
In developing the policy on eligibility
for the NPL EPA considered several
alternatives for excluding sites where
private parties might be performing
cleanup. The Agency decided, however,
that making such exclusions was not the
best approach, taking into account the
purpose of the NPL as stated in the
legislative history of CERCLA. the
objectives of protecting public health
and the environment, and the need to
administer the program consistently.
The NPL is primarily for informational
purposes-(Report of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works. Senate
Report No. 96-648,96th Cong.. 2d Sess.
60 (1980)}. The Agency believes that
even where a site is undergoing
response actions, interested parties such
as neighbonng residents may need to
.know about the threats posed by that
site relative to other sites. In addition.
the Agency believes that including sites
on the NPL until appropriate cleanup
actions have been completed will
provide more incentives for early and
effective actions than the alternatives
such as excluding sites where
responsible parties have agreed to begin
cleanup. Another consideration is that
the comprehensiveness and
effectiveness of such agreements will
vary considerably among States, and in
some cases agreements may not be
completely consistent with the
standards of the NCP. Excluding sites on
the basis of the financial resources of
responsible parties may establish a dual
standard that is unfair to small
businesses. Furthermore, some
financially viable responsible parties
have refused to undertake response
actions. Finally, excluding sites on the
basis of financial resources of
potentially responsible parties would
necessitate identification of those
parties and comparison of their
resources with potential cleanup costs
before listing them on the NPL which
EPA believes would significantly
increase the costs of the NPL and
seriously delay its implementation.
Accordingly, consistent with previous
Agency policy. EPA has decided not to
exclude any sites based on the financial
resources of responsible parties or their
willingness to respond to releases.
-------
37U76 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 185 / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Sites Which Are Difficult to Address
One commenter said that "unbounded
or unmanageable cites, nich as well
fields" should not be included on the
NPL In response. EPA believes that
unless a remedial investigation and
feasibility study has been completed at
a site. It is not possible to specify
whether a site presents a manageable
problem. Furthermore, at many of those
sites where commonly applied remedial
actions are infeasible. some response "
actions short of waste removal or source
controls, e-g.. providing alternative
water supplies, may be appropriate.
EPA believes that the technologies for
response actions have been developing
rapidly; a response which was mfeasrble
in the past may become feasible in the
near future. Finally, with the case
specifically mentioned. wcUfieldfl.-the
Agency has generally found the need for
CERCLA response particularly acute
since this generally involves
contamination of public water supplies.
Hence. EPA has not attempted to
exclude sites which are especially
difficult to address through current
response technologies.
Noncontiguous Facilities
Section 104(d](4) of CERCLA
authorizes the Federal government to
treat two or more noncontiguous
facilities as one for purposes of
response, if such facilities are
reasonably related on the basis of
geography or their potential threat to
public health, welfare, or the
environment. As previously stated (48
FR 85058. September 8.1983). for
purposes of the NPL, EPA has decided
that in most cases such sites should be
scored and listed individually because
the MRS scores more accurately reflect
the conditions at the sites if each is
scored individually. In other cases.
however, the nature of the operation
that created the sites and. possibly, the
nature of the appropriate response may
indicate that two geographically
separate properties should be treated as
one site for purposes of listing. EPA has
done so for some sites previously listed
separately on the NPL '
Factors relevant to such a
determination may include whether the
two pr more areas were operated as
parts-of a single unit. Another factor io
whether contamination from the two or
more sites is threatening the same part
of an aquifer or surface water body.
Finally. EPA will also consider the
distance between the noncontiguous
sites and whether the target population
(i.e.. within 3 miles] is essentially the
same or substantially overlapping for
the sites.
One commenter. Governor Bond of
Missouri, submitted the 33 known dioxin
sites in that State as a single site on the
NPL Using characteristics from various
sites, he assigned a single HRS score to
the 33 sites. Governor Bond maintained
that the dioxm was produced by a single
waste generator and that the sites had a
common method of disposal According
to the Governor, by treating the sites
individually EPA has complicated
negotiations for health studies.
development of coat recovery suits, and
the State's accounting procedures.
EPA carefully considered the
Governor's proposal and, taking into
account the factors discussed above.
decided that his reasons did not warrant
consolidating the 33 sites into a single
site. The sites are dispersed over a wide
area of the State and affect different
target populations. The 33 sites
generally comprised different disposal
operations rather than parts of the same
facility. Many of the 33 sites would not
individually score high enough to be on
Jhe NPL and. thus, the overall score for
the 33 sites would be misleading. EPA
has also concluded that listing the 33
sites as a single site on the NPL is not a
prerequisite for developing a
consolidated response strategy for the
Missouri dioxin sites. Many of these
sites may qualify for Fund-financed
removal actions. The Agency is
currently evaluating ways of
coordinating possible response
strategies at these sites to alleviate the
problems which Governor Bond has
identified.
Another commenter expressed the
view that any grouping of noncontiguous
sites would be inappropriate. EPA
disagrees. In some instances the
property boundaries or other factors
commonly used to define a site may not
be very useful or reasonable for
determining if a problem involves one
site or several One example is the
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek site in
Missouri where dioxin contaminated
„ soils were used as fill in several yarda in
* a residentiai neighborhood. Even though
the contaminated areas are not
contiguous and the properties involved
have several different owners, the
Agency determined that the site was
really a single operation, that the same
target populations might be affected.
and that there is no logic to support
treating the various areas as separate
sites. Given die many factors involved
in making such determinations and the
differing importance that each factor
may take on in various situations, the
Agency must weigh each situation
Individually to determine if
noncontiguous disposal areas are a
single site or several.
Where EPA determines, based on th'
above considerations, that two or mon
noncontiguous locations are most
logically considered as a single site.
they will appear as a single site on the
NPL While the listing suggests
prospective response actions, it does not
prescribe them; EPA may decide that
response efforts should be distinct and
separate for the two locations. Also.
EPA may decide to respond to several
sites listed separately on the NPL with a
single response if it appears cost-
affective to do so.
Scoring of Air Releases
A comment was received concerning
how past air releases are scored.
Language in the preamble to the final
NCP caused a commenter on the Bayoi
Sorrell. Louisiana site to question
whether past air releases may properly
be included in a site's HRS score. This
Issue is discussed in detail in the
"Support Document for the revised
National Priorities L'st—1984" for the
Bayou Sorrell site. However, the main
points of this issue are presented in the
following discussion.
EPA believes that past air releases are
included in a site's HRS score. The HRS
stipulates that a site is to be scored for
an air release if data "show levels of
contaminants at or in the vicinity of ih.
facility that significantly exceed
backgroundjevels. regardless of the
frequency of the occurrence (47 FR
31236). According to the HRS as
established in the NCP revisions,
therefore, the single evidence of an air
release such as that which occurred at
Bayou SorrelL requires that the lite be
scored as having an observed release to
air. This approach to scoring has been
clarified by EPA'a stated policy that
sites are to be scored on the basis of
conditions existing before any remedial
measures were performed. This policy
was clearly stated at the time of
promulgation of the NCP revisions (47
FR 31188). and EPA considers it to be
firmly established as pan of the HRS. In
addition, the Agency has attempted to
clarify further the reasons for this policy
in subsequent statements (48 FR 40664-
5).
Several considerations underlie (he
policy. Actions by States to conduct or
enforce cleanup might be discouraged if
partial cleanup of a site could reduce the
score such that the site would not be
eligible for the NPL
Another concern is that responsible
parties might be encouraged to condu
minimal, incomplete cleanup actions at
sites that might reduce the HRS score
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. IBS / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 37077
but fail to remedy the problems
completely. For example, a site may
present problems in all three routes-
ground water, surface water, and air,
and only the air route is remedied. In
such a situation, because the partial " •
cleanup could leave significant health
threats unaddressed, the site would not
be scored on the basis of the latest
conditions, but rather on the basis of
conditions existing prior to the remedy
of the air route (48 FR 40664).
A third consideration is that the MRS
was designed according to the
reasonable approximations of risk that
could be derived from certain basic
conditions at a site as they existed prior
to any cleanup actions. Where the data
on a site reflect conditions after some
cleanup actions, the assumptions upon
which the HRS was designed may no
longer be appropriate, and the score
would not represent an approximation
of risk that is accurate or consistent
with scores for other sites. All three of
these considerations are explained in
detail in the preamble to the initial NFL
(48 FR 40664-5).
Another consideration is that the level
of scrutiny provided by the HRS and the
NPL listing process, while sufficient to
provide a general approximation of risks
and comparison among sites, is not
sufficiently detailed to evaluate the
adequacy of cleanup actions. The HRS
was designed to take into account as
many factors regarding the condition of
sites and the risk they present as can be
considered simply and for many sites
across the country. It does not take into
account factors that the Agency believes
would require sophisticated data or
analysis. In developing the HRS, EPA
considered evidence that a release
above background has occurred is
relatively easily determined. However, -
the Agency determined that evidence as
to whether past cleanup actions are
sufficient to have eliminated the release
and potential for future releases is much
more difficult to obtain and evaluate.
and therefore chose not to include
consideration of this factor in the HRS.
Likewise, the Agency decided not to
require evidence of frequency and
continuation of a release, as explained
in the promulgation of the HRS (47 FR
31188). To do otherwise would render
the tyPL process unnecessarily
expensive and time-consuming, which
would divert funds from-cleanup
activities and impede the progress of the
program. EPA recognizes that these
considerations are very relevant to
determining the risks presented by a site
and the remedies, if any. that should be
conducted. Factors of this type.
however, are intended to be evaluated
after the NPL listing process has
identified a limited number of sites as
potential problems. Having taken this
approach in the HRS, EPA must apply it
consistently to individual sites.
A conunenter on the Bayou Sorrell,
Louisiana site cited preamble language
which states that "air releases must
currently exist, must be measured, and
must not be caused by disturbances
from investigations" (47 FR 31189). EPA
believes that the conunenter took this
language out of context. Read in context.
it in no way contradicts the Agency's
policies of scoring on the basis of a
single observation and scoring on the
basis of conditions existing before any
cleanup actions.
The portion of the preamble (47 FR
31189] containing this language was
written in response to comments arguing
that the HRS should provide for scoring
for the potential of a release, rather than
only scoring when an actual release is
observed. The HRS does score for :
potential releases in the ground water
and surface water routes if no actual
release has been observed. For the air
route, however. EPA believed that
evidence of the potential for an air
release could not be easily established
and would be too tenuous a possibility
to warrant taking it into account.
Therefore, in order to calculate any
•core at aO for the air route, an actual
release must be observed. By stating
that air releases must "currently exist"
EPA was attempting to explain that the
release must have actually occurred,
rather than being merely a potentiality.
This interpretation is consistent with the
actual HRS instructions, which require
"data that show levels of a contaminant
at or in the vicinity of the facility that
significantly exceed background levels,
regardless of the frequency of
occurrence" (47 FR 3123B).
Any other interpretation of this
language would be illogical. If the word
"current" were to be interpreted as
meaning "today," then an observed
release to air would have to be
continually updated and redocumented.
This would not only entail considerable
expense but would also allow the
assignment of an observed release to the
air to be negated by a removal or
remedial action. The Agency has
consistently scored sites on the basis of
conditions before removal or remedial
actions, as explained in 48 FR 40664.
VII. Changes From the Proposed NPL
The Agency received a total of 128
comments on the proposed NPL update.
Of these. 112 comments pertained to 50
of the proposed sites. The remainder of
the comments addressed sites that were
not proposed or generic or technical
issues that were not site specific.
General comments on the NPL are
addressed throughout this preamble.
Significant comments regarding specific
sites are addressed in the "Support
Document for the Revised National
Priorities List-il984." A number of the
site-specific comments addressed
similar issues, and EPA's rationale for
addressing those issues is presented in
this section. Many of the issues raised in
comments are the same as those raised
previously and discussed in the previous
final rulemaking on the NPL (48 FR
40658. September 8.1983). The Agency's
positions on these issues remains
unchanged.
Waste Quantity
A number of commenters said that the
waste quantity values assigned under
the HRS were too high because EPA had
included the non-hazardous constituents
of the hazardous substances in
calculating the quantity of waste located
at the facility. Commenters raised
similar issues when the first NPL was
published (48 FR 40658. September 8.
1983), and EPA's response remains
unchanged.
Consideration of Flow Gradients
In some instances commenters
maintained that, based upon their
conclusions regarding prospective
movement of contaminants in ground
waters, the values assigned by EPA to
population served by ground water are
too high. The commenters said that EPA
should only count the population using
those wells which they believed would
be affected by the releases. As was the
case with the waste quantity-issue, this
issue was addressed and resolved when
the NPL was first promulgated (48 FR
40658). The rationale for the Agency's
approach is hither discussed in the
preamble to the NCP (47 FR 31190-91.
July 16,1982) and is equally applicable
now. The HRS specifies that all the
population using the aquifer of concern
within 3 miles of the facility should be
included in the calculations of
population served by ground water. The
Agency's approach is based on the
difficulty of predicting precisely the
movements of ground water based on
the limited amount of data consistently
available at the time of HRS scoring.
Furthermore, in establishing the rating
scales, the Agency took into account the
fact that most wells within 3 miles
would not be affected. If EPA were to
establish rating scales based only on the
populations that have been or are
certain to be affected, the scales would
have assigned high values for much
smaller populations then those specified
-------
'37078 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. IBS / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rulea and Regulations
in the current HRS. Another
consideration is that population using
the aquifer is • measure of the value of
the ground water to Ihe local population.
Thus, even if EPA determines at a
specific lite that currently operating
wells will not be affected, taking current
water use into account is important
because it allows the Agency to
indirectly estimate the potential uses of
the resource.
Scoring on the Basis of Current
Conditions
Many commented felt that EPA
should take current conditions into
account when scoring sites where
response actions have reduced the
hazards posed by the site. For the
ground water, surface water, and air
pathways, EPA scored sites for inclusion
in the NPL based on the hazards that
existed before any response actions
were initiated. This policy was
explained in the preamble to the final
revisions to the NCP (47 FR 31187. July
16,1982). At that*time the Agency
explained that public agencies might
have been discouraged from taking early
•response if such actions could lower the
HRS score and prevent a site from being
included on the NPL Another reason.
stated in the Preamble to the NCP. ia
that EPA does not want to encourage
. incomplete tolulions that might leave
significant health threats unaddressed.
EPA is also concerned that if a site ia
rescored taking the response actions
into account, the drop in score that may
result might not reflect a commensurate
reduction in the level of risk presented
by a site. EPA has elaborated on this
rationale in the Preamble to the previous
NPL final rule (48 FR 40658, September
6,1983), and the Agency's position
remains unchanged.
Where response actions have already
been initiated by private parties or
another agency, listing such sites will
enable EPA to evaluate the need for a
more complete response. Inclusion on
the NPL therefore does not reflect a
judgment that-responsible parties are
Tailing to address the problems. The
Agency believes, therefore, that (his
approach is appropriate, and consistent
with the purpose of the NPL as stated in
the legislative history of CERCLA.
This policy is also relevant to
evaluating the waste management
practices at a facility Tor the purpose of
assigning a score for the "containment"
factor as a part of the "Route
Characteristics" score Tor a site. Some
eommenlers said the EPA should have
considered corrective actions at sites in
assigning containment values. In
response, the containment values were
designed to allow EPA to evaluate the
likelihood of a release occurring in light
of the measures taken to prevent such •
release (e$., infiltration controls
designed to prevent leechale
generation). If such controls are not
operational until some time after
disposal then the likelihood of a release
is high, and subsequent installation of
the controls does not alter that fact
Thus, ia scoring the containment factor
EPA has considered only those waste
management practices that clearly have
been applied ia a timely manner.
Small Observed Release
Some commenters maintained that
EPA incorrectly assigned values for
observed releases to ground-waters
because the measured concentrations of
the substances involved were below the
regulatory limits specified under the
Safe Drinking Water Act or other
Federal and Slate laws. Their comments
reiterate comments made when the first
NPL was published. EPA's response (48
FR 40658. September & 1983) remains
unchanged.
Some commenters submitted data.
showing lower concentrations of
contaminants in the environment than
EPA or the States had found in previous
analyses: in some instances the data
indicated the absence of any
contaminants al the lime of sampling.
These con\m«\t«8 suggested that EPA
had erred in assigning an observed
release. In all such instances EPA
carefully reviewed the original EPA or
State data as well as that furnished by
the commenters. In those cases where
EPA determined that the original data
substantiating the observed releases
were valid, EPA assigned values based
on thai data even if subsequent
sampling failed to delect the same
contanuoan(s. Such ajo approach is
consistent with the HRS and recognizes
that many releases vary in
concentration through time or occur
sporadically. Thus, negative results
during one or more sampling intervals
cannot refute a finding, when based on
valid sampling and analyses, that an
observed release has occurred.
Several commenters questioned the
validity of the sampling and analytical
data used to establish observed
releases, particularly in instances where
the amount of contaminant detected in a
sample is near the detection limit of the
appropriate analytical method. As
staled in Ihe HAS (47 FR 31224). the
standard requirement for establishing an
observed release is that the measured
concentration of a contaminant in a
sample must be significantly higher than
background concentrations of the
contaminant in other samples from (he
site. The methodologies used to
establish background levels and to
determine significantly higher
concentrations are explained below in
response to these comments.
Io oasea in which a specific
contaminant is not detected in some site
samples, the background level of that
contaminant is assumed to be some
unknown value less than the detection
limit. Any measurable quantity of
contaminant in the site samples is
considered significantly higher than the
background and provides the basis for
scoring an observed release. The
validity of these assumptions is
supported by the statistical analysis
used to establish detection limits for the
analytical methodology.
In situations in which a specific
contaminant Is delected in all site
samples, an observed release ia
sometimes more difficult to determine
than in the case where the substance is
not detected in background samples.
Generally, there are insufficient
numbers of samples from a site to apply
conventional statistical tests for
significance. The scorer must often rely
on inspection of the data to evaluate
whether an observed release has
occurred. If the data cluster into a group
of high values and a group of lower
values, particularly if the high values are
attributed to sampling locations that
appear to be downgradient of a site, an
observed release is confirmed. If the
analytical results from only one
sampling location are significantly
higher than from all other locations, an
observed release has also ocurred.
However, if the contaminant
concentrations are similar among
background and monitoring wells within
a 10 to 20 percent range, for example.
EPA generally cannot state conclusively
that an observed release has occurred.
In addition, low concentrations [e.g.,
less than 10 parts per billion) of
phthalates and other substances very
commonly found in ground water are
examined very carefully along with any
other evidence that might tend to
corroborate or disprove that a release
has occurred.
Summary of Score Changes
For the 133 sites proposed on
September 8.1983. a total of 14 HRS
scores changed on the basis of the
Agency's reviews of comments and
other information (Table 1). For 12 sitea.
the changes had no effect on hating;
however, some of these changes
resulted in the site being placed in
different groups. For two sites, final HRS
scores were below 28.50 and the Biles
will not be included on the NPL at this
time. For IOUT sites, the Agency is still
considering the comments received.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 185 / Friday, September 21. 19B4 / Rules and Regulations 37079
TABU 1.—HRS SCORE CHANGES
la addition, on September 8.1983. EPA
deferred rulemaking on a total of seven
•iles that bad been included in the first
proposed rule for the NPU December 30.
1982 (47 FR 58476). Those sites are listed
below along with the originally
proposed scares and the final scores.
On Wittr Stcc* .
40BZ
381*
B.M
H7T
zau
MM
no
3S4S
Proposed NPL Sites with Scores
Below 28.50. The following sites will not
be included on the NPL because the
final HRS scorn are below 28.50:
Stale and Site Name
Arizona—IGngman Airport Industrial Area
(profXMed 12/30/82).
Delaware—Old Bnne Sludge Landfill.
Michigan—Uttlefleld Towiuhip Dump
{proposed 12/30/52).
Washington—Roach Property.
Sites Still Under Consideration. In the
case of the following sites, EPA was
unable to reach a final decision on
listing in time for this publication:
Stale and Site Name
Georgia—din Corpora boa (Are«t 1.2. * 4).
Missouri—Quail Run Mobile Manor.
Oklahoma—Sand Springs.
Texat—Pig Road.
Regarding Quail Run Mobile Manor, the
site does not meet (he criteria currently
specified in the NCP for including a site
i on the NPL. The Agency does, however.
intend to modify the NO* in such a way
that Quail Run and other similar sites
will qualify for the NPL Regarding: the
Sand Springs and Olin Corporation
(Areas 1.2. * 4) sites, EPA has
determined that the HRS scoring
documents for these sites, on which the
September 8.1983. Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (48 FR 40874] was based.
were not in the public docket and were
not available to the public during the 60-
day comment period for this rule. Thus.
EPA it seeking further public comment
on these sites for a period of 80 days
following publication of this notice.
Interested parties may inspect the HRS
scoring documents for these sites in the
EPA Headquarters or Region IV (Olin
Corporation) and Region VI (Sand
Springs) dockets. In the case of Pig Road
site, the Agency has determined that
further sampling and laboratory analysis
will be necessary to determine the
appropriate HRS scores. Interested
persons may obtain copies of that
sampling and analysis data when it
becomes available by notifying the EPA
Region VI docket of their intent to
provide further comments on thai site.
EPA will announce deadlines for
comments on the Pig Road site in a later
notice. EPA will continue to evaluate
these sites and announce its decisions in
subsequent NPL rulemaking.
Name Revision
In some instances EPA has
determined that the names of sites
should be revised to more accurately
reflect the location or nature of the
problem. Those name revisions are
listed below:
• Tirti LMV wt
Cm
Onwt
In addition, the name of me Toms River
Chemical, New Jersey site promulgated
on September 8. 1983 (48 FR 40674] has
been changed to the Ciba-Geigy
Corporation site.
Additional Criteria for Listing
In the September 8.1983. proposed
rule to update the NPL (48 FR 40674}.
EPA invited comments on the general
issue of alternative criteria for selecting
sites for the NPL in addition to the HRS
and Slate's top priority designations.
EPA has concluded that at some sites
remedial actions may be the only
adequate response, but that these sites
will not score sufficiently high to be
included on the NPL That can occur
where the type of problem (e.g- direct
contact), is usually addressed through
removal actions, and thus the HRS total
score does not reflect the associated •
risks. EPA cited Quail Run Mobile
Manor, in Gray Summit. Missouri, as an
example and included thai site in the
proposed update to the NPL EPA
intends to propose an amendment to the
NCP to authorize consideration of
additional criteria.
Several commenters addressed the
Issue of additional criteria One
expressed interest in the specifics of the
proposed amendment and suggested
that it include a clear statement of goals
and an explanation of where emergency
and removal authority will "prove
' inadequate." The commenter also
suggested that criteria (or extraordinary
listings require "a demonstration for
each proposed site that remedial action.
as opposed to other types of response
action, ia necessary and an actual health
threat beyond come threshold exists."
Another commenter stated that EPA's
invitation to provide comments on
additional criteria for listing "belies the
Agency's assertion that the HRS is
effective in approximating risks and
nisei die questions as to the overall
validity of the HRS/MITRE model in
assessing risks at any site." The same
commenter suggested that the additional
criteria be the subject of a detailed
separate nobce of proposed rulemaking.
so that the overall effectiveness of the
HRS can be examined.
-------
37080 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 185 / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
f ••^•^^i^Mi^^^^M^^pBMi^^a^MMa^»»^»a^M^a»a^^^^M^^^Mi^M^a^^»^^Ma^^^^^*^™^^""^^^*^**^»»»»M*^™i^"^^^^**"^^
In response, EPA does intend to
publish a separate notice of proposed
.rulemaking revising the NCP to
incorporate additional criteria for
listing. EPA is developing such a notice.
and the comments received so far have
been useful for defining the issues.
When that rule is proposed. EPA will
seek further public comment on the
additional criteria. The full scope of that
proposed revision has not been
determined. EPA disagrees with the
commenter's assertion that inviting
comment on the additional criteria
raises questions regarding the validity of
using the MRS to assess risks at any site.
Since EPA is still working on revising
the NCP and establishing additional
criteria for listing, the Agency will not at
this time complete rulemaking on Quail
Run. which was included in the
September 6. 1983, proposed rule.
Updates (Additions and Deletions)
to the NPL
CERCLA requires that the NPL be
revised or updated at least once per
year. The Agency plans to identify.
consider, and propose additional sites
for NPL updates as it has in the past
Slates have the primary responsibility
for identifying sites, computing MRS
scores, and providing that information to
EPA. EPA Regional Offices may assist in
investigation, sampling, monitoring, and
scoring, and may in some cases consider
candidate sites on their own initiative.
In advance of each update publication.
EPA will notify the States of the closing
dates for submission of proposed
additions (or deletions, as discussed
below) to EPA. EPA will exercise
quality control and quality assurance to
verify the accuracy and consistency of
scoring. The Agency will then propose
the new sites that appear to meet the
criteria for listing and solicit public
comment on the proposal. Based on
comments, and any further review by
EPA. the Agency will determine final
•cores and in the next update
publication will include on the final NPL
any sites that score high enough for
listing.
In addition to these periodic updates.
EPA believes it may be appropriate in
rare instances to add sites to the NPL
individually as in the case of the Times
Beach site in Missouri.
One commenter said that EPA should
clarify whether it will follow notice and
comment rulemaking procedures in
future updates. The commenter said that
such ruJemaking might have a
substantial impact on private parties
and that EPA should adhere to the
Administrative Procedures Act. In
response. EPA intends to continue
leeking public comment pnor to final
ruJemaking on the NPL updates as long
as most response actions are not
significantly delayed as a result. The
Agency reserves the right to depart from
that general approach should a situation
.require expedited rulemaking.
Deletion of Sites •
There is no specific statutory
requirement that the NPL be revised to
delete sites. However. EPA has decided
• to consider deleting sites to provide
incentives for cleanup to private parties
and public agencies. Furthermore.
deleting sites allows the Agency to give
notice that the sites have been cleaned .
up and gives the public an opportunity
to comment on those actions. EPA does
not consider this policy to be binding.
and may revise it to provide for deletion
of sites based on other factors in
appropriate cases.
EPA will consider deleting sites at
• which any of the following criteria have
been met:
(1) EPA. in consultation with the
State, has determined that responsible
parties have completed all appropriate
response actions.
(2) EPA. in consultation with the
State, has determined that all
appropriate Fund-financed response
actions have been completed and that
no further cleanup by responsible
parties is appropriate.
(3) Based on a remedial investigation.
EPA in consultation with the State has
determined that the facility poses no
significant threat to public health.
welfare, or the environment and.
therefore, construction of remedial
measures is not appropriate.
Although there are not any deletions
Included in this rulemaking. EPA intends
to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking and solicit public comments
on rulemaking actions to delete sites in
future updates. EPA is considering some
alternative approaches, but for now the
Agency will follow the procedures
specified in the guidance memorandum.
"Interim Procedures for Deleting Sites
from the National Priorities List." March
27.1964. This document is available in
the EPA dockets (see addresses section
of this announcement).
Rescoring Sites .
EPA expects that updates to the NPL
will be solely for the purposes of adding
sites to or deleting sites from the NPL
The current EPA position, which will
serve as guidance for individual listing
and deletion decisions, is that EPA wUl
not rescore sites that previously had
been placed on the NPL
Several commenters presented
suggestions to the contrary Some
recommended that EPA revise MRS
scores periodically to reflect the results
of cleanup activities, and suggested
deleting any site whose MRS score
dropped below the cutoff. Other
commenters pointed out that new data
gathered on a sitejnight alter previous
assumptions in scoring, and suggested
continual rescoring to reflect any new
data for purposes of adjusting a site's
position on the list or deleting it if the
score fell below the cutoff.
Another commenter suggested that
EPA reevaluate all MRS scores.
preferably after a thorough site
investigation. The commenter said that
this process would help assure that sites
most in need of remedy would be
identified and that the process would
allow the deletion of sites placed on the
list due to scoring based on incorrect
facts.
EPA believes that the current
approach of scoring by EPA or the
States, EPA quality assurance review.
public comment on the scoring, and EPA
review of the comments provides
adequate safeguards against incorrect
site scores. EPA's experience to date
indicates that very few scores, if any.
would be lowered sufficiently to remove
sites from the NPL if EPA were to do as
the commenter suggests. On the other
hand, many site scores would increase
somewhat if the commenters' approach
were followed. Moreover, the
alternative recommended by the
commenter would significantly increase
the time and resources needed to
develop the NPL
EPA believes that a number of
important factors support its current
position that site on the final NPL should
not be rescored for future updates. With
respect to sites where response actions
have been takea the MRS was not
designed to reflect completeness of
cleanup, and therefore should not be
used as a tool for deleting sites from the
list or altering their relative ranking
based on response actions. If response
actions were taken into account in
•coring, the lower MRS score that results
might not reflect a commensurate
reduction in the endangerment
presented by the site. The result might
be to delete sites where cleanups have
not been completed, thereby removing
incentives for further response and
giving incentives for selecting cleanups
primarily designed to result in score
reductions as opposed to nsk
reductions.
In addition to the foregoing reasons.
other considerations justify the current
position not to rescore sites after final
listing. These considerations apply not
only to cleanup situations but also to
situations where a score might be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 185 / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 37031
affected by new information about a site
or by detection of an error in the original
calculations. The process established by
EPA for developing the NPL is
comprehensive, involving initial scoring,
public proposal, consideration of public
comment re-examination of data and
scores, final score calculation, and
Inclusion on the final NPL Given this
level of scrutiny, and the time and
expense involved in scoring sites, EPA
finds it necessary to rely upon the
Interested public to identify factors
pertinent to HRS score in a timely
manner. EPA believes that it is
appropriate to conside'r inclusion of a
site on the final NPL to end the scoring
process.
Furthermore, as described in Part D of
this preamble, the purpose of the NPL is
primarily informational, to serve as a
tool for EPA to identify sites that appear
to present a significant risk to public
health or the environment, for purposes
of deciding which sites to investigate
fully and determine what response, tf
any. is appropriate. EPA believes that it
is most consistent with that statutory
purpose to cease the costly and time-
consuming efforts of site scoring once a
site is on the NPL Rather than spend the
limited resources of the Fund on
rescoring. the Agency prefers to use all
available resources to clean up sites.
EPA recognizes that the NPL process
cannot be perfect, and it is possible that
errors exist or that new data will alter
previous assumptions. Once the initial
scoring effort is complete, however, the
focus of EPA activity must be on
investigating sites in detail and
determining the appropriate response.
New data or errors can be considered in
that process. Since HRS scores alone do
not determine the priorities for actual
response actions, any new data or •
revealed errors indicating that a site is
either more or less of a problem than
reflected in the HRS score will be taken
into account and the priority for
response adjusted accordingly. If the
new information indicates that the site
does not present a significant threat to
health, welfare, or the environment, the
site may meet one of the EPA criteria for
deletion regardless of any original or
revised HRS score.
In conclusion. EPA does not currently
plan to rescore sites once they have
been included on the final NPL because:
(1) The HRS was not designed to reflect
reductions in hazard resulting from
cleanup: (2) EPA does not want to create
the incentive for incomplete cleanup
actions: (3) the Fund must be conserved
and focused on further investigation and
cleanup: (4) the NPL serves as a guide to
EPA and does not determine liability or
the need for response: and (5) any new
information can be used to adjust
response priorities or to delete a site
without recalculating the HRS score.
Actual decisions on the appropriate
treatment of individual sites, however.
will be made on a case-by-case basis.
with consideration of this policy and
any other appropriate factors.
DC. Regulatory Impact Analysis
The cost of cleanup actions that may
be taken at sites are not directly
attributable to listing on the NPL as
explained below, and therefore the
Agency has determined that this
rulemaking is not a "major" regulation
under Executive Order 12291. The EPA
has conducted a preliminary analysis of
the economic implications of today's
amendment to the NCP. The EPA
believes that the kind of the economic
effects associated with this revision are
generally similar to those effects
identified in the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) prepared in 1982 for the
revisions to the NCP pursuant to section
105 of CERCLA. The Agency believes
the anticipated economic effects related
to adding 128 sites to the NPL can be
characterized in terms of the
conclusions of the earlier regulatory
impact analysis. At proposal the
Agency noted that a more extensive
analysis of the economic impacts of the
NCP would be prepared in the future
and would accompany publication of
future major amendments to the NCP.
The Agency expects to propose major
amendments to the NCP and a more
comprehensive economic analysis will
be made available for comment at that
time.
Cost*
The EPA has determined that this
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 response action, nor does it
require any action by a private party or
determine their 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 listing rulemaking.
The major events that follow the
listing of a Site on the NPL are a
responsible party search and a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS)
which determines whether response
actions will be undertaken at a s:te
Design and construction of the selected
remedial alternative follow completion
of the Rl/FS, and operation and
maintenance (O&M) activities may
continue after construction has been
completed.
Costs associated with responsible
party searches are generally borne by
EPA. Responsible parties may bear
some or all the costs of the Rl/FS.
design and construction, and O&M. or ,
the costs may be shared by EPA and the
States on a 90%: 10% basis (50%:50% in
the case of state-owned sites].
Additionally, States assume all costs for
O&M activities after the first year at
sites involving fund-financed remedial.
actions.
Rough estimates of the average total
per-site and total costs associated with
each of the above activities are
presented below. At this time 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
successfulness of cost recovery actions
where such actions are brought.
Rl/FS
pflu) ti 10 pet oi
e* O*M few M jwrai
ssooooo
440000
7200000
MOOD
4 100000
•1*48 US DoMra.
Sau«ci OEPH
i t^syt tar •vj^w
Costs to States associated with
today's amendment anse Erora the
statutory State cost-share requirement
of (1) 10 percent of remedial
implementation (remedial action and
IRM) and O&M costs at privately-owned
sites, and (2) 50 percent of the remedial
planning (Rl/FS and remedial design).
remedial implementation and O&M
costs at publicly-owned sites. Using the
assumptions developed in the 1982 RIA.
we can assume that 90 percent of the 128
sites added to the NPL in this
amendment will be privately-owned and
10 percent will be publicly-owned.
Therefore, using the budget projections
presented above, the cost to States of
undertaking Federal remedial actions at
all 128 sites would be $212 million.
The act of adding a hazardous waste
site to the NPL does not necessarily
cause firms responsible for the site to
bear costs. Nonetheless, listing may
induce firms to clean up the sites
voluntarily, or it may act as a potential
trigger for subsequent enforcement or
cost recovery actions. Such actions may
impose costs on firms, but the decisions
to take such actions are discretionary.
and made on a case-by-case basis.
-------
37082 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 185 / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Consequently, precise estimates of these
effects cannot be made. EPA does not
believe that every site will be cleaned
up by a responsible party. EPA cannot
project at this time which firms or
industry sectors will bear specific
portions of response costs, but the
Agency considers such factors as: The
volume and nature of the wastes
contributed: the strength of the evidence
linking the wastes at the site to the
parties; ability to pay, inequities and
aggravating circumstances; and other
factors when deciding whether and how
to proceed against potentially
responsible parties.
Economy-wide effects of this
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 R1A.
Benefits
The real benefits associated with
today's amendment come in the form of
increased health and environmental
protection as a result of increased public
awareness of potertlial hazards and the
additional response actions at
hazardous waste sites. In addition to the
potential for more Federally-financed
remedial actions, expansion of the NPL
ould accelerate privately-financed.
. voluntary cleanup efforts to avoid
potential adverse publicity, torts, and/or
enforcement action. Listing sites as
national priority targets may also give
States increased support for funding
responses at particular sites.
As a result of the additional NPL
remedies, there will be lower human
exposure to high risk chemicals, and'
higher quality surface water, ground
water, soil, and air. The magnitude of
these benefits is expected to be
significant although difficult to estimate
in advance of completing the RI/FS at
these sites.
Associated with the costs are
significant potential benefits and cost
offsets. The distributional costs to firms
of financing NPL remedies have
corresponding "benefits" in that each
dollar expended for a response puts
someone to work directly or indirectly
(through purchased materials].
X. 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
jurisdiction, and non-profit
organizations.
While modifications to the NPL are
considered revisions to the NCP. they
are not typical regulatory changes since
the revisions do not automatically
impose costs. The listing of sitea on the
NPL does not in itself require any action
of 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
inclusion on the NPL could increase the
likelihood that adverse impacts to
responsible parties (in the form of clean-
up costs) will occur, but EPA cannot
identify the potentially affected
businesses at this tune nor estimate a
number of businesses affected. In
addition, we cannot define what is
"small" for the wide variety of
potentially affected firms.
The Agency does expect that certain
industries and small 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
the impacts from the listing of these 128
sites, or the NPL as a whole, to have a
significant economic impact on small
business as a whole when they are
considered as a nation-wide group.
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 not only the firm's
contribution to the problem, but also the
firm's ability to pay. The impacts (from
cost-recovery) on small gove;-nments
and non-profit 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.
PART 300—(AMENDED)
Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300 is
amended by adding the following sites
to the National Priorities List:
Dated. September 11.1984
Alvin L Aim.
Acting Administrator.
KLUMQ COM «w-se-n
-------
CROUP 1
IP*
BANN RtO 11
»» 01 P*
79 (M "I
ll D6 '«
HI O? NJ
n 02 NJ
*9 0» Wl
BIT! ttJUOT *
Tyoont Due*
(ait Helena (It*
eilV/COUMV
Upper Merlon Twp
la*| llaline
Geneva IndutirUt/lvJintann (nergy Hautton
Vlneland Chtalcal Co.. Inc.
Shioidilloy Coip.
OMga Hlllt North landfill
Viniiind
Ho»(leid Borough
Coraintovn
BISPONSt
BIA1US 1
I
« 1
V
R 1
O
BANK
IP*
•1C tf
CROUP 1
tm MM •
CITY/COUN1V
RISPOBSC
&1AIUS f
HOC DAI MO SIATf KrSPOMill
ACIIONS ID Bt OtllBNINLO.
1OB 0? NV Hudton River PCBl
111 «l Cl Old Soutfilogton landfill
I?? 10 10 Union Pacific Ri11 road Co.
I74i Oil AL . Clba-Calgy Corp. IMclntoin Plant|
DO lib UN It. Begll Paper Co.
Ill 0* CA Herculel 009 landfill
la* 0} Ml Huikogo Senliary landfill
1*0 02 NJ Vaniron/Veiilcol
Hudtan Biver
Beuinlngien
Pocitaila
Mclnioth
tin like
truniwlck
Nulkego
Wood Ridge Borough
B 1
0
0
0
0
f; V • vmOHIAKY OK M COt I All 0 BCSrClliC| •
f . (tOIBAl AND SIAIf (NlmclNIHI; 0
• . itAiis1 oisiCNAiia iOP pBioMiir sitrs.
•Oil: CROUP HllIRS 10 INI NK. GROUP MI1H 1IHILAR HRS ICOftd.
f: v • VOLUNIAKV en NtcoiiAfro RrsroNSt; «
I • IIOIRAL ANO SIAIC CNIOHCIHrnl; 0
• • siAtis1 BCSICHAICO IDP miomi* sun.
KOI 11 CROUP BCFUS 10 IHl HPL CROUP KHH BIHILM H«« MORIS.
AND 11AII
ACI IONS 10 B( OI1CHHIN1U.
o?
r
•"•
<§.
CROUP f
CAOUP BJ
RANk
„
Al
Al
At
•f
(PA
B(G tt
OS OH
OS Wl
0 alAlfS* DISICNAUO 10P rniOKIIV SI US.
MICr CROUP RlllRS IO IMC N'L &KOUP HUM SIMILAR HNS SCORIi.
1C
til 02 NJ
111 OS MM
I6S 02 NJ
164 01 PA
til 01 VI
100 05 CO
101 US
IOB OH
10* 02 -
190 US Wl
19? O2 NJ
19* O2
100 OH
Kappari c*.. Ine IHorenc* Plant)
Nitcollte Carp.
(win Property
Bolie Catcede/Ontn/Medtrenlci
Do I Hah Road
Ml 11 Croak uuep
Sena*! I BUBO
lovry Landfill
. . HicCinla * Clbot/oell luabor
SC Waacnea, Inc.
Chaalcal leiain lenk llnei. Inc.
Hetter Oltputil Service landfill
floranca land Hecontourlng If
H. B. Crace t Co. (wayne Plant I
Leonard CDealcil Co.. Inc.
NJ
SC
Her
HlllvlMo
Sniaong lovnihlp
Irldiey
Igg HirMr lovnihlp
Irle
narrlion
Aropanoo County
New Bnghtun
Burton
Bridgeport
BrooM i*ld
floranc* lowninlp
Weyno lovnlhlp
Bock HIM
V R
V B
V - VOLUNIABV OB N(COIIAI(0 RfSfOWK;
I • II 01 HAL ADO SIA1( I NIOKCIHINI ;
BIA1IS* DISIGNAIID inf rBlOHIIV SlUi ...
CROUP BIIIM 10 IMC NKl CROUP .I1H IIHIIAB MRS SCOR(S.
B • «B"*l *"° -J'SIIf in
0 • ACIIONS IO Bt OlMRMINIO.
f
2
a.
<
cr
nj
ro
5*
IB
a
a.
a
oo
O
ca
-------
CROUP »
•ANK
70«
212
7 IS
770
721
21*
?m
IPA
•1C SI
O*. AL
OS OH
01 PA
OS IN
09 CA
1)9 CA
US NN
OS HN
Slit NAM •
Steuffer Chea (Told Creek Plant)
South Point Plant
Dnrney Road Landfill
Northalde Sanitary Ltndfll 1. .Ine
At lea Aibeatoa Mine
Coal Inge Aioettoi Mine
Joalyn Hanufacturlng b Supply Co.
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
CIIV/COUNIV
Buefca
South Point
Upper Macunglo Iwp
Jiontvl Me
Ireano County
Coalinqa
Brooklyn Center
lleraentown
RfSPONSt
SIAIUS 1
O
O
•
C .
0
o
f
•
I: V • VOIUNIARV OR NfCOIIAim IKSPONSt; R • flOCRAL ANO SIAII RfSPONSI;
I • trOIRAl AND SIAII INfllRriMINI; 0 • ACIIONS 10 at DIIIRNINIO.
• • SIAIIS' OISICNAIIO IOP PRIORI IT SllfS.
NOIt: CROUP RCIIRS IO IHC NPL CROUP MUM SIMILAR MRS SCORCS.
CROUP 6
RANK
7S1
7S6
76O
767
7bl
76B
769
2(1
til
219
7«r>
2BB
796
fPA
RIG
01
OS
US
OS
u?
0)
OS
IO
02
OS
US
DP
VI
06
01
SI
HA
Ul
Ul
MN
NJ
PA
Wl
ID
PH
HI
NNJ
PR
PA
IA
PA
Slit NAM •
Iran Horae Perk
toliiar Co. landfill
leuer 1 Sanitary landfill
Union Scrap
Rxliailon technology. Inc.
Induiirlel lane
Oniieaka Municipal landfill
Pacific Hid* k fur Recycling Co.
Vege All* Public Supply Mat It
Siurglt Pkihicipal well!
We thing ton County Landfill
Upjohn 1 acuity
Henderion Road
Peiro-Procettnra
tail Mount lion
CIIV/COUNIV
•Illerlc*
Kohler
Nonoaonea falle
Hinniiapol It
Rockaway lownahlp
Ml II lea* tovnahlp
Onalevka
Pncatel lo
V*qe Alia
Slurgit
lake f lae
He reel one i e
Upper Men on Iwp
bcoilendvllle
Sprlngeittbury Iwp
•fSPONSf
SIAIUS f
I
t
t
• t
•
V
•
V • f
•
D
0
O
O
O
«• v • voiumMv oa aicoiiAiro nrspONSt; R • IIDIRAL ARO SIAU RISPTINSI;
* I . IIOIRAl ANO SIAII INIORCIMINI; 0 • ACIIONS IO BC OIICRNINIU
e . SIAIIS1 OISICNAIIO IOP PRIUIIIIV SIIIS. „_.,.
NOIf. CROUP RlflRS 10 lilt RPl CROUP WIIH SIMILAR NRB SCORfS.
• ANK
101
m
116
170
171
111
IIS
116
111
JXO
lua
tPA '
• 1C ST
O? NV
OS HN
Ol Cl
U« AL
0"» IL
OS Wl
01 NN
01 SC
OS Ml
0'< MN
OS MN
I: v •
I •
CHDUr I
tilt NAM •
General Hoion (Cenl foundry OIV|
Mtiitiaker Carp
kclloqq-Deenng Well field
Olln Corp. IHclntotn planll
Irl-Cny oil Contervat lonlat. Inc
Northern Ingraving Co.
Haanargo Hotel lurglcal Corp.
Paiaeito wood freiervlng
Clare Uater Supply
Morrla Araemc Ouap
Perhaa Araenlc Site
VOLUNIARV ON NfCOIIAIfD RrSPONSt;
ffOIRAI ANO SIAII INIORCIHINI:
MSPONSI
CIIV/COUNIV SIAIUS f
Hetaane •
Hinneapolll O
Norwalk V • C
Mcintoth o
laapa •
Sparie 0
Conway V C
Omlannt 0
Clare V
Morn a •
Partita R
• • ffOIRAL ANO SIAIC MfSPONSt:
O • ACIIONS 10 at OCICNHINfO.
• - SIAIIS' OrSICNAIfO IOP PRIORIIV SllfS.
•ANN
IS*.
167
161
16S
1JO
III
117
116
mo
169
190
192
191
191
196
400
NOIt:
IPA
•1C SI
OS MN
01 NN
0» IN
04 III
OS Wl
Of NJ
Of NJ
UK IL
O6 OK
OS MN
0» CA
(If NJ
OH CA
Ol NH
01 Ml
0* OA
0» Ml
Ol V •
CROUP RCtlRS 10 IHC NPL CROUP WIIH
GROUP •
Silt NAMl •
Nutting Truck k Ceatar Co.
Savage Municipal Meier Supply
Paer farm
United Creoaotlng Co.
City Dlapotal Corp. Landfill
libirnicle Orua Ouap
Cooper Read
Caoot/Koppari
Coupeat induiirloa |Avery Drive)
Caneial Ml I le/iionkel Corp.
Oal Marie Petticidu Storage
Oe Reval Clii-alcil Co.
Nontanio Corp. (Auquita Plant |
South Municipal uater Supply well
fau Claire Municipal Mail field
Povorevlllo Site
Metaaore Landfill
VOLUNIARV OR NfCOIIAIIO •ISPONlfl
t • liniHAL AND MAII INIOIICIHINI:
• • SIAIIS' OISICNAIIO IOP r-RIORIlr SIIIS.
NOIt:
CROUP RtflRS 10 IHC NPL CROUP WIIH
SIMILAR MRS SCORtS.
mspONSc
CIIV/COUNIV SIAIUS t
farlbault V D
Milford 0'
Hancock County •
Conroe •
Dunn O
tabernacle Iwp I
Voorheea lownahlp 0
Caineavllla •
lull* • R
Minnaapoila V
Creacent City •
elngwood lownahlp 0
Auqutta 0
Ptieroorough 0
leu Claire O
Peach County 0
Meiaaora 0
II • rtOIRAl ANU SIAII RISPONSI;
O • ALIIONS IU 81 OtIIRHIHtO.
SIMILAR MRS SCORIS.
1
•n
a.
3.
90
u*
8
JL
CO
n^t
0
s
^"»»
*fl
3.
D
"
to
n
'O
CD*
g
ff
\j
n
B
U
2
30
Jo"
la
D
3
O.
50
ID
5T
5'
CO
-------
caour •
•AMR
•01
•111
k(J6
• 09
• 10
• U
• Ik
»22
• 10
• II
• 11
duo
• 10
I PA
•1C
01
02
01
02
01
na
02
01
06
01
10
01
02
01
02
09
IT
Ml
NJ
Ml
PR
Wl
CO
NJ
IN
LA
Ml
MA
Ml
NJ
III
•J
CA
•ITC HANI •
Wh! tint II Municipal Milt
Olieand Alkali Co.
C lecirevelce
Fiber! Public Supply Wei It
Mid-Slit* Oltponi. inc. Landfill
Brodarlck Mood Product!
Wucdland Route 912 Due*
A*«ricen Cheolcal Servlco, Inc.
Beyou Sorrel 1
laabergar Irantport ft Recycling
Queen City la rail
Scrap frocaiung Co.. Inc.
Hopklnt larai
Rainy lir llndlanapollt Flint)
Milton Fare)
Repperi CO..IM. |Orovllle Plant)
CITV/COUNIV
Whitehall
Newark
Buchanan
joboi
Cleveland Townihlp
Denver
Woodland Townihlp
Griffith
•ayou Sorroll
Franklin lownthlp
Mtplo valley
Medford
PiuAttaad lownthlp
Indiana pol li
Pluuttead lownihlp
Orovlllo
RCSPOHSt
SIAIUS f
v *
ft
•
ft
V
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t»A
MM MIC IT
CROU* t
I •. v • VOIUNIARV on HICOIIAKO RCSPONSC; • * »i of HAL AND SIAIC •ISPONSCI
I • riOIIIAL AND SIAIC INIORCIHINIi 0 • AC I IONS 10 •( OtIIHMIIKO.
• • siAiis1 oisicNAiio tor PRIORIIV sins.
•oil: CUM* mil** 10 w NPL GROUP MI IN SIMILAR HRI SCMCS.
CROUP to
•AMR
•12
• 11
• 19
er lean) Kerr-McCee Oil Co. )
Miate Reiatrch • ReclaMtlon Co.
Si. louli River Sue
Berk! Sand Pit
Hlppa Hoed Landfill
Pepper Steal ft Alloyt. Inc.
Oconoeowoc electroplating Co. InC
Powel 1 Road Landfill
L incoln Perk
wood lend Route T2 Ouaip
untied ChroM Product •, Inc.
lay lor Borough Ouap
Cl TV/COUNIV
Moneybrook Townthlp
Mount llolly
Upper Oaarnald Iwp
Celveri City
New Bedford
• looeilngion
A.It
•antowloi
Ml Iwaukee
leu Clelr*
St. Louli County
longtwaop luwfikhlp
Ouva 1 County
Mad ley
Aihlppln
Day ion
Canon City
Woodland lownihlp
Curve 1 lit
lay lor Borough
RCSPONSC
SIAIUS I
.
C
V C
(
I
t
R
R
R
C
t
R
R
0
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
tilt MANI •
•CI1V/COUMIV
HflPOHSC
SIAIUS I
I 0? HJ
* 01 UC
1 01 PA
4 02 RJ
9 01 MA
6 02 NJ
1 02 NV
• 0? IA
9 01 DC
10 02 NJ
II 01 MA
12 02 NJ
11 01 Nl
U 01 MA
II 01 NJ
16 01 KM
U 01 MN
IB 06 AR
19 01 Nil
20 OB SO
21 06 Nl
22 06 IN
II 01 NH
»• 01 Nl
21 01 PA
26 01 PA
21 06 IN
2B 01 OH
29 06 Nl
JO O6 IN
II Ok AL
12 09 CA
11 01 HC
]• 06 IN
.!•> 0? NJ
16 oa co
ir 06 IN
IB 01 NA
19 Ul MN
•U 02 NJ
, k I O2 NJ
•2 OH IL'
• I 01 MN
•4 02 NV
»•> 02 NJ
•6 Ok fl
iii oa NI
•B 10 WA
•9 01 Wl
M Ok
llpprl LtndMII
lybouta Corner tendril I •
•ruin Lagoon
H*l*n Krtoar lintfrill
Indutirl-PieB
Prlco landfill •
Pollution Abeuoent Sorvlc** •
LlBounty Silo
Any Creek Land'! 1 1
CPS/Mitflton Induttrlet
Nyinzi Chenlcil Mitt*
IL
•irlln • Isrre
•ilrd ft McCuIro
tono Pin* Lindflll
&OMT two rih Sinltiry Lindflll
IMC Corp. Ifrldloy PliniJ
Vartic, Inc.
Male tnvlronMntal Sorvlot
Mhltovood Creek •
Silver Bow Creek
r ranch. Ltd.
SylvotlO' •
liquid Olepoialf Inc.
lytont Duaip
McAdoo Aitoclatai •
Ho I CO Inc. •
Arcanuaj Iron ft Motol
Ian Halene Site
Slkai Oitpoial Pill
Irlana/lannettaa Rlvar
Sirlngrollow •
Mcmn Co.
Cryttal Cheat Ml Co.
Brldfoport Renial • Oil Sorvlcoi
Sand Creek inauiirial
Geneva Induairlea/runraann fner^y
M. R. Crac* ft Co. I Ac I on Plant)
Hal My lar (Si. Lou It Park Pianil
Burnt fly Bog
Vinoland Chealcal Co.. Inc.
Schuylklll rleull Corp.
New Brlghlon/Ardun Mill*
Old Bainpago landrill
Shioldalloy Corp.
Reavat SI Calvanlrlng Corp.
Anaconda Co. Saeliar
Mattarn Procottlng Co.. Inc.
Oaaga Hlllt North Landfill
Aaorlcin Creoioto Uorkt
PIloan y
New Cattlo County
Bruin Oorough
Maniua lewnihlp
Mdburrr y
Pleoantvlll*
Oiwago
Chariot City V
New CeilID County
Old Bndg* lowntnlp,
Athlind
Cloucattar Townthlp
Swam Croak v
Mo Ibrook
ireehold lewnihlp
Soaertworih
frldlay V
Jacktenvlllo V
Ipplng
Mhliawood V
Si I Oov/Daer Lodge
Crotby
Nathua
Ullca
Upper Merlon Iwp
McAdoo Borough
la Narnua •
Oarhe County
tail He lent
Croiby
llMiiona/Morgan V
Clen Avon Height!
Criy
llaut tan
Bridgeport
tconerce City
Houiton
Acton V
it. luult Park
Marlboro lownthlp
Vlnolind V
Plant city
kew Brighton
Oytier Bay V
Nawfieid Borough
I tape
Anaconda V
Kant V
Ceruntown
Penticola R
I
I
, 0
o
03
i?
2
Q.
01
•a
I
er
m
AND SIAir RCSPONSC:
ACI IONS IO •[ OLIIHNIN10.
J V - VOLUNIARV OR NfCOIIAIfO RMPONSI; R
t • MOIRAl AND 51*11 INIORCIMINI. 0
• • SIAIIS' OlSlbNAIIO IOP PHIORIIV SllfS.
NOIIl CROUP RlllRS 10 I HI HPL CMOUP Ml IH SIHILAN IIHS SCORIS.
CROUP II
/I V • VOIUNIARV M NICOf IATCO RISPONSC; II • HOI HAL AND SIAIt RfSPONStl
I • fCOlRAL AND SIAIC INIORCIMINI; 0 • AC I IONS IO BC OIIIRHINIO.
• • SIAIIS' OCSIbNAllO IOP PRIOHIIV SlltS.
RANK
in?
1/9
11*
Ml
CPA
RIO Sf
Ol Ml
01 Ml
IO MA
IO MA
sue RAMC •
Burrow! Sinliillon
Oaitvan Municipal Moll fk
American like Cerdonl
Creentcret Landfill
CltV/COUNIV
Hartford
Oelavtn
Spokane county
RISPOMSC
SIAIUS 1
C
0
0
re
U
B>
a
CL
Dl
C.
o
a
U
riOIRAL AND SIAIC KfSPONH;
ACIIONS 10 BI OIUHNINIU.
/. V • VOIUNIARV OR NICOIIAIIO RISPONSC. R
L i IIUIRAl ANII SIAII INIUMCI1INI; 0
• • SIAIIV DISICNAIIU IOP PHIUHIIV SHIS.
NOIt. CNOUP RIIIHS 10 Illl NPL CROUP WIIM SIMILAR HIS SCORIS.
bi
-------
k*NK
11
17
M
}<•
11
16
ir
19
19
to
61
It
«1
e«
61
64
ei
t»
61
10
11
u
n
Ik
11
16
It
11
J9
to
II
12
• 1
e»
«1
16
tl
IB
t«
90
91
92
91
»»
9»
94
91
9«
99
100
(PA
me
02
02
Oi
Oi
06
or
02
01
Oi
to
0*
0»
Pi
u*
n
0*
01
u*
02
09
01
01
02
01
01
01
06
01
OH
01
»
ON
OB
111
MJ
Ml
Wl
UA
«C
K
Ml
n
OH
n.
Ml
At
H»
CA
•J
CO
IU
Ml
HI
HA
LA
DH
»C
Cl
CO
u
•M
VI
uv
HO
MO
II
VA
IA
A/
AS
IN
»»
NC
CU
HI
Ul
•s
cn
IITI MM •
C«Itar
Cold Co. it OJI Corp.
Mn»l*r »I|
lurion Intl Airport Ar»»
Ml«« ft«tcr> o»kiap«*nt
Iran HountOn Mine
txlcntlflo ctwalot Pr««kt»l«9
Ctlirornii Cuich
D'lap«rl« Property
Cretlai Oaunty Lindflll •
flelllo lira •
new ledro>« 11 ta •
014 Inger Oil fteMnory •
Ch««-D»n« •
smoi I luff Hoed •
Liurol fkrk, Inc. •
iwriluli lendflll •
OuiDoerd nerlne Corf. •
Soui h Vi 1 lay •
fine Sir««t Cenel •
wett vlrgmn Ordnenac •
III levin* III* •
Artenle Irlo.loe Site •
Kb w«it*i •
Hiiiliewt (l*ctra*ltl Ing •
Aiae« Corp. •
Haunnln view HOBII* Mej«i •
Itautl*" fer« •
Norm Hollywood OIMB •
A 1. l.ylor |Ve*l
n frelrl* lowntrilp
lucton
Brinl
RMdlttf
Cerietedt
t»idv! II*
H»l It on towrehlp
si. Louie
Coventry
NPV Mdrere)
D*rm
Htmt lion
Coluokle
mu«tiuck Borough
Boulder County
Wiukeltn
*ibuqu«n)u*
Burl ln«,lon
mint ri**eent
Illiivlli*
aouthein*r« M O.
ficlfle Iniet l*rr
KitooK* county
Council Biuffe
ClttM
A**ricea Mooe
Heapni*
Brooke
210 Hll*» of RoodB
Cue*
I>ovm4
Kkt L*k* city
Arkeneee Clif
Hirlenee
HI IK
ilAI
•
-V
y *
•
•
V
•
«
•
V
V B
B
•
•
»
«.
v n
R
V K
V B
P.
B
•
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B.
•
*
•
V
1
II
DMS[
Ul f
t
f
C
C
c
I
c
c
0
0
0
•
0
O
D
0
MM*- ma *T tin KAMI
IOI 01
102 01
toi oi
10k M
I OS 01
106 01
101 10
101 02
109 02
110 M
111. 10.
112 01
111' 01
Ilk 02
111 0»
116 10
III 02
II* OH
II* 01
Ok
121 O2
10
*J
CA
WA
PA
Cl
•r
A/
5!
Vo*MfUDu«* -.
A k » lUiorlel Baeulalnf. tno.
Ooufteeovlll* Oli|Mlll
irylouity fin
Kopporo boM . . .
Piywtitn Her«or/C«nnon rnann*)
tun*** Hilt Mlntf* • MojiBl
Hurt
Human Blv*r Kit N • '
Only*re*I Oil •r*euot«|Cn**> 01 vr.
•JUroJBi 0*n*«*>l Corp. • - .•
,CM ley, BOIUH 1*£a*tt OurnMI
Oitiom* UAdrill -'
'OI4 lou|hlno,te* U**flll
tjroeeei iMtnit •. ,
pjlnotMnlkj BVWMJB LiMrill
..Tet*a>n* ton Cnta*
•llnaleir Botln*
.gtkdtf*
a0*«?»iar| |'U
NJilekartufn .
St. r«*l / ,'
PiyfjfHth '
lMti*rvlll« '
Mifeooj Blv«r '
[ell •WM'faPdJ-
Mir .llnaleir BoCIMrv
Ai. M««rey fnaln*«rlM
HI lel*o*IMr« LkiMflll
tarvto»«.
•
121 01
i3i 01
119 02
110 01
III 02
112 an
111 0«
Ilk 01
111 01
116 02
111 0»
III Ok
119 01
ma 01
mi an
mt o«
mi 01
Pi
uiuur-KiMriinf ««iv»ry
UtuewMl Un< A flnvil
fb
II.
HI 4on (Nlatilitn)
•ueMit keclonef
Lav* Ctnol
f leMr-Cela
Plaiwqr Seru) M,
IprlngfUld Tawnifil*
Hremce Ien4rill
turtle Marietta; tadyceo. I no
)>
-------
GROUP
•AM
1)1
142
1)1
i4»
14*
146
141
14*
149
160
161
162
161
16*
164
166
161
168
169
110
III
II?
Ill
II*
ll»
116
111
tit
119
160
161
162
161
I6«
164
166
161
188
189
190
191
192
191
19*
194
I9«
191
198
199
100
IP'
•u
M
01
02
06
0}
04
02
04
02
04
02
01
02
02
04
Ol
0*
02
01
0«
04
02
04
02
02
09
06
01
0>
06
04
02
01
02
01
02
01
0*
0?
04
01
02
01
01
02
9>
64
02
02
0<4
I
1 If
K
NJ
NJ
Ol
Ml
MN
NJ
OH
NJ
Ml
•J
PA
NJ
• V
NN
m
fi
NJ
PA
U
M(
NJ
Ml
NJ
•J
CA
LA
11
Ml
CO
MH
NJ
MA
NJ
IN
NY
It
SC
NJ
Ml
HI
NJ
Rl
MA
NJ
VA
OH
NJ
NJ
1C
• Iff HAM •. .
Repperi Co.. Inc flloronc* •lint)
Maywood Cheated Go.
Nucollio Corp.
Hirdaga/Crln*r
Rote lownihip Duap
Mute Olipoial laglrNMrlng
Kln-Buc Landfill
Bowere Landfill
Clba-Colgy Corp.
Buttervorih /7'llfwjflll
American Cyanaald Co.
Ha leva landfill
lw*n property
Bltavla landfill
Bali* Caicaae/Onan/Hedtronlci
I»"R. Inc.
NV. 48th Street Landfill
Delilah Road
Mill Crook Ouap
Slaty-Second Street Ouep
CBN landfill
rxiaitac/Aaroiytieat
Sena* If Ouap
ling Properly
Sherkay landfill
Selae treating Co.
Ciev* Kebor
vaitlcoi cnaalcal |llllnole|
lar lek*
lowry landfill
NicClllli • Cltabi/Boll linear
Caabe II II North Landfill
Aa-Solvo. Inc.
COOK fere)
voitlcol Cheo (Hardeaan County |
York Ol 1 Co
Stpp Bitlery Selvage
u«atn*a. inc.
Ciieaical leiun lank lino*. Inc.
Hitter Oltpoial Service landfill
Ooephe ultpoial Site (Hollldiy)
liorence land Necontourlng Lf
Oivlt liquid Wllle
Cnarlai-Ceorge Reclamation Lf
Ring of Pruiil*
Chilean Creak
Naete Chealcel
M. R Grace ft Co. (Wayne Pl*nl|
Cne>lcil Lantrol
Leonard Cneelcal Co.. Inc.
ClfV/COUNrv
liorence
NayMwd/NoclMlIB Pk
Mlllvlll*
Crlnar
P.oie lownahlp
Andaver
Idlion Townthlp
Clrclevllle
loot Mlver
Crand Kapldi
Bound Brook
Norm Mhltehall Twp
Shaaong lownihlp
Bativia
Irldley
North Sol thfle Id
Hlaieih
199 Mirbor lewnihlp
trie
laopa
Utlca
franklin to rough
Marrlaon
Paabarion lownihlp
Parilppeny Iroy HI*
aoioa
Sorrento
Nariliall
Mancelon* Townthlp
Arapahoo County
New Brighton
Mount Olive Iwp
Oariaouih
Piuaiteatf lownthlp
loone
Ho ira
Couondal*
Aurion
Bridgaport
Brookf (old
Johnien Count |r
•lorenco lownihlp
talinflold
fyngibo rough
Minnow lownthlp
York County
Jllaa
Wayne Townthlp
(llribatn
Dock Mill
nrs»
flAI
V
V
V
p.
N
N.
N
N
R
•
•
P.
V
II
V N
N
II
N
•
H
H
H
N
N
M
M
H
ONI
IIS
1
|
I
I
|
f
t
I
|
c
(
(
i
c
c
f
c
c
t
c
c
I
c
t
o
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
11 V • VOlUHlaiV ON NfCOflAlfO NfSPONSfJ B - ffOIRAL AND SIAIf DrSrONSf;
C • IIOIRAL ANU SIAIC INIORClnlNI. 0 • ACIIONS 10 1C OIICNNINLO.
• • 6IAIIS' OISICNAIID IOP PRIORHV Sltli.
RANK
201
202
201
20*
204
20*
201
208
209
210
211
212
211
21k
211
216
211
216
219
270
271
272
221
274
27*
271
176
279
210
211
212
211
fl*
214
216
211
218
219
2*0
2*2
2*1
?•))
2*6
2*1
2*6
2*9
2>0
IP*
RIG
04
0»
Ol
0«
04
01
02
01
0*
04
04
04
OH
01
04
0*
09
02
06
n»
09
U*
Of
02
02
01
04
01
06
01
0*
02
09
0?
O*
07
O*
OS
08
01
or
O6
04
O7
OP
09
09
01
on
02
ST
ON
Ml
Cl
AL
MN
PA
NV
01
IN
IN
IN
OH
IL
PA
IN
II
A/
NJ
AR
CA
CA
IL
NV
NJ
NJ
PA
OH
Cl
CO
MA
• V
NV
CA
NV
IL
NV
11
MN
CO
IL
M
Ml
MN
HJ
HJ
CA
CA
NH
11
NJ
f ; V •
f •
* m
BIJ
.
• Ill PMNt •
Allied Chealcal ft Ironion Cofco
Verona Mall Held
Beacon Height* Landfill
Snuffer Chea (Cold Cr**k Monti
Burlington Northern (Bralnord)
Malvern ICC
facet fnierprltet, Ino.
0*1 a wire Sand e Cr*v*l landfill
Murray-Ohio Ouap
Invlrochea Corp.
MOCO 1
South Point Plant
Coieatn-Ivant Mood ProMrvInf Go.
Do may Road Landfill
Nortnlldo Sanitary Lendflll. Ino
florid* Steal Corp.
Lltcnrieid Airport Are*
Spanc* fana
Mid-South Mood Product*
Atlal Aibeitot Mine
foiling! Atbeito* Nina
Brown Mood Proionlng
Part Waihlngten Landfill
Coebe III) South landfill
jis landfill
Centre County Bapane
lloldl Brook
Solvenii Recovery Bervlco
Woodbury Clue leal Co.
Nocoaonco Pond
Oiitiar Brickyard
Baaapo landfill
Coitt Mood Pretorvliuj
Mercury Banning. Inc.*
Moillngiworth Sold*rlat« Terminal
Oleen wall f laid
Vertol Spill
Joaiyn Manufacturing ft Supply CO.
Denver Madiua Bite
lower Cnoalcal Co.
Syntee feelllty
Ml II town Reiervolr Sediment*
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
pijak farm
Syncon Retina
Liquid Cold Oil Corp.
Purity Oil Sale*. Ino.
llnkhaa Carag*
Alpha Chealcal Corp.
Bog Creek farm
VOIUNIARV OR NICOIIAIfD RCSPONSC| R
ICOIRAL AND SIAII CNIORCfMINI; 0
HIS1 OCBICNAIfO IOP PRIOMIIV BITCB.
Cl TV/COUNT V
Ironion
Binie Crook
Beacon fell*
Buck*
Bralnerd/Baiitor
Malvarn
llmlro
New Ceil I* County
Lawronceburg
llontvlll*
Gary
South Point
WMlihoui*
Upper Haciinglo Tvp
liontvilie
Indlantown
Coodyea r/Avondo lo
Piuaatead lownthlp
M«n*
Iretno County
Coiling*
llvp oak
Port Washington
Chatter lownihlp
JaMtburg/S. Brniwg
Bute Collage Bore
Alhiabulo
Southlngton
Coanrce City
waiibo rough
watt Point
Raaapo
Ukiah
Coionlo
fort laud*rd*la
Olean
Nlaal
Bfuukiyn Cantor
Oanvar
Cioraont
Verone
Hi II town
Heraaniown
Piuattaad townthlp
South naarny
Richmond
Malaga
Londonderry
Cal loway
Howell lownthlp
• flOIRAL AND 8IAIC
RfSPONSt
SIAIUS f
y
R C
0
o
V
V C
V M [
• C
0
n
1
0
p K
R
H C
0
0
V C
V-
•
II C
c
II
V C
V
c
c
0
V
c
c
V I
c
0
"
NISPONSCl
a ACMONS 10 BC DIURNINIO.
*H
0?
s.
1
J5
>•>•
s*
n
•*
^»B»1
Q
£L
t) ~
fa
, a
oat*
p
^^
*fj
3.
Q.
01
*^s
s
^•f
n
1-
ro
M
J-*
(D
09
s
""**
3d
E.
ro
la
S
o.
•ya
t
c.
CD
-------
CROUP t
RAN«
7SI
ft?
2M
7SS
7Sb»
7SI
7^8
7^9
760
761
761
?r.S
766
76*
769
2»0
211
212
211
2IS
216
211
2 IB
219
780
782
?8*J
78S
7A6
7nr
789
790
791
797
791
79*J
79S
796
791
79B
799
100
IPA
me
01
[in
01
01
OS
OS
01
01
02
OS
OS
os
02
02
OS
10
01
OS
02
02
OS
10
01
02
02
02
OS
OS
09
09
09
10
OS
OS
0?
09
01
10
06
0?
07
01
OS
01
0)
On
01
01
01
SI
MI
IL
MA
PA
IN
Ul
MA
MA
NJ
Ul
Ml
MN
NJ
NJ
IN
MN
UA
PA
Ul
NJ
NJ
IN
ID
IA
NJ
N*
PR
Ml
NN
A/
CA
CA
MA
IL
IL
PR
CA
PA
UA
LA
PR
PR
HD
Ml
NJ
PA
IN
NJ
PA
MA
Bill HANI a
Sico lannory Wait* Pin
flckettvlll* Hold Lindflll
Iron Nan* rirk
Paiaercon fine HI*
Reai'i landfill |Bioo*lnglon|
kohlar Co. lindfi II
Sflraila Chealcal Corp.
Went CAM
Cheatal. Inc.
lauer I Sanlllry landfill
Peiotkey Municipal Moll 11*1*
Union Scrip
Radiation technology, Ino.
lilr Liwn Wall Hold
Main Street well Halt
Lahlli lir/ntnkito Slta
Iikewood Slta
Indntiriel lino
Onuaiki Mun.clpil landfill
Monroe lownthip Lindflll
Rockiwiy Borough wall 11*14
Wayn* Ultti Ol 1
Piciric Nlde • Fur Recycling Co.
Oat Molrwt ICC
Baichwood/B*rkloy Mall*
veil*! Ull*r Supply W*ll »•»
Vagi Alt* Public Supply Willl
Slurgli Hun ic leal Ulllt
Wtinlngion County tindflll
Indlin Bind Wain Area
Sin Cibrial valley |Ara* II
Sin Cibrlel Valley (Are* 7|
Coa Biy, Near inure/ llde Mill
HSill* dectrlc utllltllt
Croii Brotheri Pill (Peaorok*)
Upjohn licilliy
HcCo 1 1
nenderion Road
Colbert landfill
Pei'O-Procaitor*
Iron tin Crick
narclloneta lindrill
Sana, Crival B SI on*
Spartan Ctiaalcil Co.
Roibllng Steal Co.
litl Hount i«on
Aajnlcoia Ouap
Vlnelind Sine School
Interprlta Avinu*
C rove land kttlll
RISPONSI
CIIV/COUNIV SIAIUS f
SICO
Jickionvl
Billerlci
Pilaanon
N
II*
1
0
0
1
a looking ion V [
lamer
inweil
woburn
PltCltlWI
Henoaonee
Peiotkry
Ninneipot
Rnckiwty
1 • i r t iwn
liknari
lent n ier
1 ike wood
D
R r
i
y
run
u
lownthip
V
V
1
1 I
B
I
(
f
I
1
C
WIIHiat Towfithlp R
oniiitki
Monro* lo
Rockewiy
Coluabl*
POCItallO
Dai MOID*
wntnip
lownlhlp
City
i
Berkley lownlhlp
Vfttll
«««• Alt!
Slurgli
lake (lew
Scoitidiii/liaoa
li Homo
Bildxin P
ark Araa
Plarc* County
taSi i la
Pembroke
lownlhlp
Barcaioneta V
f ul lanon
Upper Mar
Colbert
Ion Twp
Scot landvl lie V
Rio Abajo
florid! A
Ilklon
Wyoalng
1 loranc*
Sp r i n^e 1 1
Cliat tanoo
ruar*
D
I
0
C
C
c
D
D
C
C
C
D
D
H
i
tbury Iwp
»•
Vlnnland
Pnliadeiphl*
Crovaland
a
D
V . VOIUNIAflV ON HICOIIAIIO IIISPONSCj * • rtOIRAL ANO SIAII MSrONJC;
t • 110?!" IN" S?i?I iSlMClMINI. 0 • ACIION3 111 BC UlllSMINIO.
• IIAICS* OISICNAIID IOP PMIONIIV Sill*.
RANR
lot
1U2
101
in*
IDS
106
101
10B
1119
110
111
112
111
ll»
JIS
116
111
1 IB
119
170
171
J?2
1/1
. 17.ll
i?s
176
171
178
179
IJO
111
112
111
ll«
116
111
118
119
r*o
1*1
1*7
1*1
1*S
1*1
1*8
1*9
ISO
IPA
RIG
0?
O*
or
01
07
02
02
02
OS
06
01
01
OS
os
o»
Ol
01
07
OH
OH
OS
02
02
0*
OS
os
on
OS
ul
10
OS
01
os
01
01
Ok
OS
III
ul
OS
OS
us
OS
os
02
OS
10
OS
OS
02
SI
NV
sc
MO
PA
NJ
NJ
NJ
RJ
IN
AN
Rl
MO
Ml
NN
HN
Cl
MA
NV
IL
AL
Ml
Ml
NJ
II*
AN
OH
IL
ON
PA
UA
Ul
MA
Ml
PA
NN
SC
III
PA
Ut
NN
IN
IL
Ml
HI
NJ
HI
WA
HN
Ml
NJ
It V •
I
• a
m
uHour T
lilt NAME •
General Motori ICatit laundry 01*1
SC.ROI Olxiani
luibrlght landfltl
Pretque III!
Ui II leal Property
Renore, Inc. 1
llen/er 6 Schtrer K-Ray Co.
Herculat. inc. (Clbbitovn Pllnt)
Ninth Avenue Ouap
Curlay Pit
Patorton/Purllin, Inc.
llaet Beech Site
With Ring laundry
Uhltiakar Corp.
NL Induitriet/lirieorp/Coldan
k*llogg-O*erlng Wall Hold
Cannon engineering Corp. (CCC)
Nlegara Couity Rafuta
Sherwood Kulcal Induttrlai
Ol In Corp. I He Intoih Plant)
SoutPiweil Ollawa County Landfill
Kentucky Avenue Well field
Atbottoi Ouap
Kt'S LAN! LANDMLL
frit Induttriet
lull! lindrill
Irl-Clty oil Contervitlonltt. Ino
Cethoeton lindrill
Lard-Shape Landfill
IMC Corp. (Vahiae Plt|
Northern fngravlng Co.
PSC Detourcet
foreii witta Produetl
Drake Cheaicil
kaeritrga Metallurgical Corp.
Palaetio Wood Pretervlng
Clare water Supply
liaoertown PCP
New Came Spill
Morrli Artanic Ouap
liki Sindy JO (NaN Lindflll I
Johnt-Hinvll lo Corp.
Cliia Central
NOVICO Induiirlil
Jackton lownthip lindrill
HIL Avenue Ltndllll
kilter Alualnua) mad Workl
Perniai Artanic Sue
Ctiirl*volii Municlpil Hall
Monigoocry lownihip Noutlng Dev
VOIUN1ARY OR NtCOtlAICO RISPONSI; R
ICOIRAL AND SIAIC (NIONCIM1NI; D
CltV/COUNIV StAIUs"
Me ttena R
Cayce R (
SpringfloK o
(rla o
ilvainton R
Idlion lownirifp o
Biyvlna ', o
Clbbitown '
Gary y f
fdaondton B
Llncoin/CueAorlinal V I
llaai latch R
Piiatint Plalna twp 0
M 1 nnaapo III 0
St. touli Park V
Norvalk V R t
Bridg«wit*r R t
Whaairiald 0
Del and D
Nclnioth 0
Perk lownthlp C
Hortehead* R '
Nlllingion R
LCHIISVILLC R C
Ualnui Rldg* V t
Jack ton lownihip 0
laaipa R
franklin lawnihlp R t
Olrard lownihip t
ViklM V
Spirit D
Pelaar V
Oilwllle R
Lock Haven R
Conway V t
0 1 » i inn* 0
Clara y
Maverrord •
New Cm lo County 0
Morrli II
Gary R
Uaukagin V R C
uyoalng lownihip 0
leaperinco I
Jickion lownihip t
Othieao lownihip V I
Maid V
Per ha* •
ChirlavOlN R
Montgoaary lowntMp D
• ICOCMAL AND 9IA1C RISPONSII
• AC 1 IONS 10 BC OIHIIHINIO.
SIAHS1 OISICNAUO IOP PRIORI IV SHIS.
i
*PJ
£
2
a
c.
^A
n
<3
8'
sr
a
•^
^^
^*4
Q1
•— «
J,.
0
y
o
^
^.^
M*
jP
3.
Q.
D
^F
tafl
A
•o
p«t>
IV
cr
ro
INJ
_
^
£
#>
•*•
e^
S"
ca
D)
O.
ro
1.
D>
cr.
o
a
-------
RANK
If A
RIG SI
CROuf I
• ITC NAM ••
CITV/COUNIT
RrsfONsr
SIAIUS f
RANK
142
J)l
}•>%
J}J
146
141
148
149
16O
161
Ib2
161
16k
164
16*
161
168
169
110
111
112
111
Ilk
lit
1(0
HT
KB
119
160
HI
1S2
1S1
16k
166
1ST
ins
1S9
190
191
192
191
19k
194
196
19 r
196
199
•00
02
02
02
04
02
06
01
us
Ok
01
Ok
01
04
OS
06
OB
02
01
02
OS
02
02
01
01
01
Ok
02
01
01
06
02
02
01
01
04
os
OS
01
09
02
02
Ok
01
01
06
OS
OS
0*
04
04
NJ
NV
NT
Mil
NJ
III
f*.
NT
WV
fA
IL
NH
IN
Nl
IN
WV
NJ
NH1
Mr
Wl
NJ
NJ
NO
CT
WV
fL
NJ
fA
fA
OK
NJ
NV
NH
WV
MN
UH
OH
• S
CA
NJ
NJ
CA
NH
rif
AR
OH
Wl
GA
Nl
Ml
Rocky Hill Municipal Well
Browner well Meld
vettal weter Supply Well l-l
Mutt Ing Iruck k Caller Co.
U S. Radluo Corp.
Highland* Acid fit
Ratln Oltpotal
Llbby Ground Water Conlsalnollon
Newport Quip
Hoyart Landfill
farraoore Surplus
Savage Municipal Water Supply
foor ferej
Hrdbluo, Indultrlei
United Craototlng Co.
Banter/Union faclfie lie Iroallnf
Sayrevllle Landfill
Dover Municipal landfill
Liidiow Sand k Gravel
City Oltpotal Corp. Landfill
labernaclo Drue) Ouop
Cooper Road
MinKer/sioui/Reaulne Creek
Vaworthl wane lagoon
Leetown fetHclde
Labot/MOppara
Ivor Phillip* leasing
wade IABNI
lackawanna Rafu*a
Coopaii litdutirlaa (A very Drive)
Mannhelo Ateniia Duap
fulton Tonalnala
Auburn Road Landfill
Mko Cheolcel. Ino.
General Hiilt/Nankol Corp.
Laikln/fnpler Oil Co.
Did Nl II
Juhnt' Sludge fond
Dal None roiilcide Storage
Do Revel Cnoejicel Co.
Swopa Oil k cnealcal Co.
Nontanto Corp. (Augueta plant)
South Nunlolpil Water Supply Wsll
Wlnihrop landfill
Caell llndiey
lanaivllle well field
lau Claire Nunlolpel Mell field
fowertvllle Site
Orand Iravarie Overall Supply Co.
Hetaenra Lindflll
Rocky Mill Borough
futnae) County
Voital
lariiiault
Orange
Highland!
Jerronon Borough
Llbby
Newport
laglavllle
Mount flaatant
NH ford
Hancock County
Oteoda
Conroe
leraale
• Sayravllle
Dover
Ciayvlllo
Ouiiti '
• •barnacle Iwp.
Voortiaes lovninll
Imperial 1
Canterbury
Leetown
Calnatvllle
Old Bridge lownihlp
Che • tor
Old forge borough
luiia
Col loway lownihlp
f ul ton
Londonderry
Hiiro
Hlnneapolli
Jarferton lownthlp
Rock Creek
Wichita
Cratcant City
Rlngwond lownihlp
fenniauken
AuMutta
Peterborough
Wlntnrop
Newport
2ane*vMIB
lau Claire
Patch County
CrelllckvlllB
Netaeare
R
R
V
R
R
R
R
p^
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
V
R
R
V
R
V R
R
I
E
I
t
C
f
C
c
c
c
c
f
D
a
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
O
D
D
0
IfA
RCG It
CROUP I
•III NANC •
CITV/COUNTr
•tSPONSC
SIAIUS f
kOI
•02
kOI
•t)k
•06
•01
•08
•09
kio
kit
• 12
kll
kik
k is
ki6
kil
kIB
ki9
k?0
•71
k?2
•71
•7k
• 74
• 76
4?6
»?9
• IO
• II
• 12
• 11
klk
kIS
• 16
kll
kIB
• 19
•to
• hi
•U2
kill
k»t
•J**4
•HI
•kij9
k40
0)
OS
02
OS
04
02
OS
OS
os
OS
OS
06
02
OS
01
07
01
04
02
1)4
01
06
OS
07
Oil
10
01
ns
us
10
OS
06
04
04
02
Ol
lit
(ll
04
Of
01
0)
01
0}
07
o?
02
04
01
09
Nl
NN
'NJ
Nl
Nl
PR
IN
OH
Wl
CO
OH
III
NJ
IR
VI
NV
VA
IL
NV
Nl
CA
LA
Nl
NJ
KV
WA
Wl
OH
Nl
WA
Wl
NN
HI
HI
NJ
Rl
IN
HI
IK
NJ
fA
Ik
fA
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
Nl
WV
CA
Whitehall Municipal welts
South Andovar Site
Dlaoond Alkali Co.
Kentwood landMII
E 1 oc t rovo 1 co
Tlberi Public Supply Halle
Marlon |Brigg| Ouop
frlitlne. Inc.
Mid-State Oltpotel. Ino. Landfill
Broderlck Wood Product*
Buckeye Reclamation
Blo-lcology Sy»io«*. Inc.
Wood lend Route 412 Ouop
MM r lean cnoolcal service. Ino.
Old Springfield Landfill
Solvent Savon
U S. lltanluo
Caletburg/Koppore Co.
Hooker (Hyde fark)
SfA independent Landfill
HCHj Brakaa
Bayou Sorrel 1
Ouell e Gerdner landfill
1 1 1 la f roptrty
Dliller farai
Harbor It land (load)
Liobargar Iraniport k Recycling
I.H Srhllllng landfill
Cllff/Uow Ou«p
Queen City farai*
Scrap ffocaitlng Co.. Inc.
Nooeitake Mining Co.
Maion County Landfill '
Ceoetery Ouop
Hopkini farai
Staalna Nllla. Ino.
Rellly lar (Indianapolis Mont)
flnolle't Salvage Yard
Harm Ifariey Street)
Wilton laro
Old City of York Landfill
Byron Salvage Yard
Stanley Mailer
Irlodotn froperty
looerin Oii/Chaoplon choalcali
Hyere froperty
fepe field
Ottlneka Ground Water Coniaei
Tollantbae Site
lopperi Co. .Inc. lOrovllle flam)
Whltehill
Andover
Newark
•ontwood
Buchanan
Jobot
Marlon
Reading
Cleveland lownihlp
Denver.
St Clalrivllle
Grand fralrle
Woodland lownihlp
Griffith
Springfield
llnrklaen
flnay River
Ca lotburg
Niagara fall.
Mutkegon Heights
Clove rdalo
Bayou Sorrell
Oal ton lownthlp
fvethne) lownahlp
jofforton bounty
Seettle
franklin lownihlp
Haejiiion lownihlp
Hirquetie
Maple valley
Bedford
Milan
fare narquetto Iwp
Roie Center
fiMMead Townihlp
North Sail infield
Imlianapol II
Wathburn
Heution
fluattaad lownihlp
Seven Valley*
Byron
Ring of fruttla
Upper freehold Iwp
Morg anvil la
franklin lownthlp
Boontdn
Otlinekf
follantaeo
Orovlllo
V R
p.
N
R
R
R
R
R
V
R
R
R
R
R
V
V
ft
B
t)
v
R
R
R
C
c
c
C
(
C
I
c
c
c
t
I
I
1
D
0
p
o
D
0
0
D
0
0
0
D
0
[
*! V • VOIUHIARV ON NICOIIAirO NrSfONSt; P..
I • flOlnAl ANu Sl»ll IKIOHCININI, D
0 • alAUS1 OlSICNAIIO lOf fRIORII' SlltS.
ItOtRAL AND STAII fCSPONSl)
AC11 ONI 10 BC OlIIRNIHIO.
o
-------
HANK
CPA
MIO If
G-OUP
• ITC
citv/couNiv
SIAIUS I
RANK
tPA
mo
GROUP it
•lit Miir •
cirv/couRiy
BISrONSC
8IAIUS |
•11
4}1
kid
•j*>6
4SJ
fcSd
4S9
460
46?
464
464
466
461*
•168
469
4 10
mi
N M
HI*
4 f &
4H
415
419
4BA
48?
48)
464
4B%
486
•IBS
4B9
LI 90
49?
L.A%
494
49*
4196
491
499
100
01
01
0?
02
06
02
Ok
04
Ok
01
Ok
01
01
02
Oi
Ok
Ok
02
Ok
Oi
01
10
01
01
ok
01
01
01
Ok
Ok
01
Oi
01
01
01
01
oa
14
U2
01
02
02
OI
10
01
01
01
01
Ok
01
Ml
PA
NJ
NJ
NH
NV
IN
Ml
MV
PA
RV
Ml
MA
PR
IN
IL
AL
NJ
SC
Wl
Wl
OR
MN
Ml
SC
PA
Ml
IL
IL
IL
MC
Wl
Ml
PA
OH
Ml
CO
IN
PR
ON
NJ
PR
PA
OR
Ml
Ml
PA
OC
IN
OM
U.B. Avlee
Wai in landfill
landfill k Development Ce.
Upper Oeerfleld lownahlp lit
Al k Sf |CIOVI||
American Inoraoatel Co.
lewlaburg Duep
McGraw Idlaon Corp.
Alrco
Natal Bankt
B f. Goodrich
Organic Chealcelt. Ino.
Sui I Ivan'a lalge
Juncoi Landfill
Bannelt Stone Quarry
Munliport landfill
Stauffer Cnee lie Moyne Pltni)
Mai Dallia landfill
Celger 1C k M OI 1 1
Moii-AMrlcan(korr-NcCet) Oil Co. I
watte Reiearch k Aac legation Co.
Could, Inc.
St. Loult River turn
Auto Ion Cheelcela, Ino.
Carol awn. Inc.
Berki Sand Pit
Sparta Landfill
AIM! Soiveni-lMorrliioMi Plant!
Hippa Road landfill
Pepper Steel k Al loya. Ing.
O'Connor Co.
OconuMwoe electroplating Co. Inc
Raaouiten't Ouap
Waatllne Site
Powell Road landfill
• lonla City landfill
Lincoln Park
wadteb Interprlaet. Inc.
Cl Wiring Devlcel
New lye* landfill
woodland Route It Oueai
RCA Del Canbe
Brodheed Creak
United CliroM Product!. Inc.
Anderaon Development Co.
Shlawaaaee River
layior aorouon Ouap
Harvey k knoll Orua. Inc.
Callaway Pill
BIB D Caepground
Howard lawnthlp
Meneybrook lownihlp
Mount Molly
Upper Deer field Iwp
Ciovlt
South Cairo
lewliburo,
Albion
Calvert City
Philadelphia
Calverl C|ly
Crtndvl I le
Raw Bedford
Juncoi
liaoalngton
north Miael
A>ll
Aibury Perk
Rantowlet
Milwaukee
[au Claire
Portland
St. loult County
ktlaeia/oo
lort lawn
longiwaop lownahlp
Sparta lownahlp
Morrlatown
Du»el County
Mealey
Auauate
Ailuppln
Creen Oak townahlp
wain In*
Dayton
lonla
Canon City
Lebanon
Juina Diet
•aw lyaie
woodland lownahlp
Barceloneie
Stitiudiburi
Cor vail la
Adrian
Novell
laylor Borough
Nlrkwood
Gall away
Rlngavill*
n
V
V
i
V
V R
V
B
B
R
B
R
R
R
R
M
V
•
B
B
R
N
B
C
f
1
I
C
C
f
t
C
C
t
C
f
C
C
I
C
C
I
0
0
0
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0
Ml 01 DC Wildcat landfill
Ml 01 Ml Burrowa Sanitation
Ml OI rA Bleunikl landfill
»0« OI 01 Delaware City rvC Plant
Ml 01 MO Ileeitone Road
M6 02 NV Hooker | I0?nd Stract I
Ml 01 DC NFM Cattle Steel
MS O6 M United Nuclear Corp.
M9 O6 AN Induatrlal watte Control
110 . 09 GA Conor Chae>ical Work!
ill &t AL Perdldo Ground Water Contoe)
III 0? HV Marathon Battery Carp-
Ill 01 PA lohlgh fiecirlc k Inglnoorlnf. Co.
JU Oi OH Skinner Landfill
II* o« MC cneetronlca. inc.
516 or MO Shonandoah Sublet
ill 06 LA Bayou Bonfouca
418 OI VA Saiiwine wine Olipeaaf rondt
919 01 M Hloberion Site
420 01 MO Mlddletowo Road Ounp
121 10 WA rattlclde Lab |vaklauj|
122 Oi IN Leaon lane Landfill
121 10 ID .Arrcoe) (Ore»ler Cnierprleoa)
l?k 01 rA flicner • Porter Co.
121 09 CA Jlbuooo) Jiirk.urd
126 OI HJ A. 0. Polyaar
121 02 NJ Dover Municipal Well *
126 Of NJ Rockawey lownihlp Wei la
129 Oi Wl Oelavan Municipal Well ft
410 09 CA San CiDrlal valley I Area II
ill 09 CA Sin Gabriel valley (Are* M
412 10 WA American lake Cardant
ill 10 WA Creenacrea landfill
ilk. 06 IN triable Cheeieel Co.
ill 02 ajj PJP Landfill
i!6 OI >A Crel« fare) Oria*
ilf 01 PA voorioen faro
ilt Oi IL Belvlderej Municipal Landfill
Dover •
Hertrorel |
weat Cain 1o«nthl» II
Delaware City V
Cumberland M f
Niagara fall* I
New Ceatie County 0
Church Nock • I
lorl Seilih II t
Hoopa H
Perdldo 0
Cold Spring* •
Old forge Borough • C
Weat Cheater D
Swannanoe 0
MutcnwMIIII C
SI Ida 1 1 •
Saltvlll* , •
•loberton Borough 0
Annapollt • E
Taklae 0
Biooaington M
Ralhdruk 0
Weromaier W
Secraoonto II
Sparte lownahlp (
Dover lownahlp . •
•ockaway •
Oelavan 0
Ainiebra M
Le Puente) *
tacoiia V
Spokane County 0
I
i
Bridge City
Jeraey Cliy
Parker
Upper Seucon lw»
Bulvlilere
11 V - VOIUNIAP.V ON NfCOIIAIIO NCSPONSI; N e ffOLNAL AND SIAlC NISPONStl
I . flOIRAL AND SIAII INfORCIMlNIi D • ACIIONS 10 Bt OIIIRHINIO.
• e SIAItS' OISICNAItO IOP PRIORI IV SI II*.
s
3!
CO
•3
*•*>
n
B
rr
re
It
V . VOIUNIARV ON NICOf lAKO RfSPONSC; • - FfDIRAL AND •1A>(
t - IIOIRAL AND SIAII INIORCIMdll: 0 • ACI IONS 10 BC OtlfRMINCU.
> IIAHS' OlSICNAUD I0> fRIORHV SlltS.
(TH Doe. la-xro niad e-JO-ot. • u am)
MUMQ COM eMO-iO-e
m
u>
0
o.
•IP
1.
o
(7.
O
-------
Monday
October 15, 1984
Part HI
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 300
Amendment to National OH and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan:
The National Priorities List; Proposed
Rule
-------
40320 Federal Register / Vol. 49. N'o. 200 ) Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rjies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
LOSWER-fRL-M90-«l
Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan: The National Priorities List
AGENCY: E.-niron-nentai PT,'ec:nn
Ah'enc;..
ACTION: Proposed rule
SUMMARY: Tie Environmental Proiejtion
Age-.cy ( EPA ) is prooosing the second
LpJjie to the Sdtiunal Priorities L:t
( \PL") The NPL is Appendix 8 to the
Vat.unai Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plj.i (• NCP"). which EPA
pnmu:iid:fd pursaant to sec'ion 1C3 of
tr.e Cc-ior'tipr-jive Environmental
Re-spur.: •' mper.aation. and Liability
Act 01 '..+)I CERCLA' ] and Execute e
Order i:jlo CERCLA requires that the
NPL be reused at 'eas: annually, and
tods-, > notice proposes the second such
re1, lion
DATES: Ci)"irerts may be submitted on
or before Decerr.o^r 14. 1964.
ADDRESSES: Co.T.niems may be mailed
'o Russs! H. V\>.;r. Director. Hazardous
Site Control D.vnion (NPL Staff). Office
of E-m»'«"cy and Remedial Response
(V\H-34v,E! Er.-..ror.T.ental Prc'ec".on
Avjency 411 M S-reet. SW . Wash.ngton.
u C. :C460. Tfce public docket for the
update -a :he NPL will cc,-.:ain Hazard
Rj.-sk r,f Sys.'em (HRS| score sheets for
a;l i es on this proposed update, as well
is a Dcru.TiP"ta!ion Record" for each
s.'e ile-~: b -g T.e information used to
<-.': -EL'e -h» scores. The main public
ai:c> ". .3 Iscaieii 1.1 Room S-025 of
Wa-prs .ie Mc!l. 401 M St:eet. SW..
Washms'on. D C. 20460. and is available
f-r -. vw.ng frcn 9 M a m to 4 00 p m..
Vonday "yoc.-gh F.-dav excludirg
t.w 'ijjys Racists for copies of
dixiif.enia -n tre doodt should be
direc'ed to EPA Heaaq-Mr'ers. although
the sarre documents will be available
for vew.r.; m the EPA Regional Offices.
In addition, the background data relied
upon by the Agency ui calculating or
evaluating MRS scores an retained only
in the Regional Offices. Such data in
EPA files may be obtained upon request.
An informal written request, rather than
a formal request under the Freedom of
Information Act. should be the ordinary
procedure for requesting these data
sources Addresses for the Regional
Office dockets are:
Peg Nelson. Region I. U S. EPA Library.
John F Kennedy Federal Bldg..
Bosion. MA 02203. 817/223-5791
Audrey Thomas. Region II. U S. EPA
Library. 28 Federal Plaza. 10th Floor.
New York, NY 10278. 212/264-2861
Diane VfcCreary. Region III. U 5. EPA
Library. Curtis Building. 6th & Walnut
Streets. Philadelphia. PA 19106. 21S/
597-0580
Carolyn Mitchell. Region IV. U.S EPA
Library. 345 CouiiUnd Street. NE.
Atlanta. GA 30365. 404/881^1216
Lou Tilly. Region V. U S, EPA Library
230 South Dearborn Street. Chicago. EL
50604. 312/353-2022
Nita House. Region \ I. U S. EPA
Library. First International Building.
i:oi Elm Street. Da,las, TX 75270.
:i4/767-7341
Connie McKenzie. Region VII. U S. EPA
Library. 324 East ll;h Street. Kansas
City. MO 64106. 818/374-3497
Delores Eddy. Region VIII. U S. EPA
Library. 1860 Lincoln Street. Denver.
CO 80295. 303/837-2560
lean Circiello. Region IX. U S. EPA
Library. 215 Fremont Street. San
Ftancisco. CA 94105. 415 37J-3076
Julie Sears. Region X. U S. EPA Library.
1200 6th Avenue. Seartle. WA 98101.
206/442-1289
FOR PUMTMER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph R. Cearo, Jr. Hazardous Site
Control Division. Ofrice of Emergency
and Remedial Response (WH-546-E).
Environmental Protec'-.on A;ency. 401 M
Street. SW. Washington. D C. 20460.
Phone (800) 424-9346 (or 362-3000 in the
Washington. D C. mefropolitan area).
SUPtUMCMTAAV INFORMATION:
TabU of Content!
I Ir.uoducnon
U Purpose of die S7L
in NPL Update Process and Schedule
IV Content* of Che Proposed Second VPL
Update
V Deleting Sites from the NPL
VI Eligibility
VII Regulatory Impact Anjk s.s
VUI Regulatory Flexitiliti Act Ana'. ;ts
I. Introduction
Pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Er.virormeniaJ
Response. Compensation, and LabiLry
Act of I960. 42 U S.C. 9601-9657
(-CERCLA" or "the Act'). and Executive
Order 12318 (48 FR 42237. August 20.
19811. the Environmental Protection
Agency {"EPA" or the 'Agency")
promulgated the revised National
Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 CFR Part
300. on July 16.1962 (47 FR 31160). Those
amendments to the NCP implement the
responsibilities and authorities created
by CERCLA to respond to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and
contaminants.
Section 105{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 ir.io accou.-.t the
potential urgency of such ac:;on. fir {he
purpose of tak:.-.$ rernov. al ac-:on
Removal action iruoKes clear.:) ur
other actions that are tdksT • ••>,?•>-5 j
to emerger.cy contii;;ors or<> • * „-. ::-
term or tt\Tipcrar> bds.s ICc- CLA
Section 101 C3|| Remedial , -o- •*- ;,
to be long-term m r.jure a.-.-: -• . •. .;s
response actions vvhi^n are r -so r-t
with a permanent re-ripjv :".,r i ,-e.ej ?
(CERCLA Section lOHMjj C: >.-..! ful-
determining pnorries are i.-c!^dj-J .n
the Hazard Ranking Ss seer, i hRS ).
which EPA promulgated as Appe-.c.x A
of the NCP [47 FR 31219. |nK ;*. 10^,
Section 105(8)18) of CERCLA :»•:•..:"$
that these criteria be used to ofu.-e *
list of national pnon-ies ar-.cr.^ -.-;
known releases orthreatc.^ja .-•>' -.ics
throughout the United States, i-^ TJI -j
the extent practicable at lea?,: i' 0 vn
be designated individuals C!I?CL\
requires that this National Pr.'\ • -i L.it
{"NPL") be included as pan ct • -- SC?
Today, the Agency is proc--j - i -s
addition of 238 sites to the \FL.
EPA i* proposing to inclw.-- *r. the
NPL sites at which there are • -ave
been releases or threatere'j • ases of
designated hazardous 9ubs;ances or of
any "pollutant or contami-jr.: T'-.e
discussion below may refer •; •••.^da.>
or threatened releases" SI.TIO.;. as
"releases.""facilities.'or '$.W '
(I. Purpose of the NPL
The primary purpose of the NPL u
stated in the legislative history of
CERCLA (Report of the Comautee an
Environment and Public Works. Se-d'e
Report No. 96-648. 96ih Cona :u Sess
60(1980)]:
T>.e priority us;s sen.e ?r - j--v
informai'.onaI ourposei id*n-.-'. -3 :r -e
Sldvs anj 'he PLOI c'.r.ose fat .1 -s j.-j ,. -i
or /'"er -erases ».•„:.-. ipse^r -o * j.--i.->
•e—.sJiai liters Irc!'-S'ur. .• i ji •. or 5.-e
on ;.".e lui Jnes "oi .p. ;seif •-!*««• i
ludijs'ne''.! 01 the ac'iv ?s ci :.j J'A--- ;r
operjtor -t Jues no: -eqvire 1.L.05^ T-'-M.-.J j
inij.erane any action nor doe? ii aJsun
liability to dnv per?on 5u:ie^_«r'
government ac:ion ,n :hs f^rm j: -eTdJ.j!
actions or eniorcernent act-Qrj « ,! :e
necessary m order 10 do so. jrd •'•pse dc::o--s
will be attended ay all appropr^'e
procedural safeguards
The purpose of the NPL therefore, is
pnmanly to serve as an mfomat.cr.al
tool for use by EPA in identif*.ng ai-es
that appear to present a significant ruk
to public health or the environment The
initial identification of a site on the \T'
is intended pnmanly to guide EPA -n
determining which sites warrant f-jr:Su.
investigation designed to assess :he
nature and extent of (he public hea.t'n
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
40321
and environmental risks associated with
>e ute and to determine what CERCLA-
nanced remedial action(s). if any. may
oe appropriate Inclusion of a ute on the
N'PL 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 or of actions
brought pursuant to section l07(a|(4)(B)
ofCERCLA.
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 among sites on the NPL EPA
does not rely on the scores as the sole
means of determining such priorities, as
discussed below Neither can the HRS
itself determine the appropriate remedy
for a site The information collected to
develoo HRS scores to select sites for
the NPL 13 not sufficient in itself to
determine the appropriate remedy for a
particular site After a site has been
included on the NPL EPA generally will
rely on further more detailed studies
conducted at the sue to determine what
response, if any. is appropriate. These
tudies wll uke into account, among
,ther things response actions mat have
ieen taken by potential responsible
par'ies or others Decisions on "le t>pe
and extent of action to be t-tKen at these
sites are made in accordu-.ee w:th the
crvtena contained in Subpart F of the
NCP After conducting these additional
studies. EPA may conclude •na' it is not
desirable to conduct response dction at
some sues on the NPL because of more
pressing needs at other sites Cn en the
li.Titied resources available in (he
Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund established under CERCLA. the
Agency must carefully balance :he
relative needs for response d! "he
numerous sites it has studied A'.so. it is
possible that EPA w\JI conclude after
further analysis that no action ia needed
at a site because the site does not
present a significant threat to public
health, welfare or the environment.
III. NPL L'pdale Preceu and Schedule
Pursuant to section 105(8)(B) of
CERCLA. 42 USC. 9805(8](8|. EPA is
required to establish, as part of the NCP
for responding to releases of hazardous
substances, a NPL of sites of such
releases. The principal purpose of this
nonce is to propose the addition of 238
new sites to the NPL which have HRS
scores of 28.50 or above, in addition, the
"inal NPL (49 PR 37070. September 21.
1984) is included to indicate the
appropriate status codes for response
aad cleanup activities at these sites.
These codes are explained in greater
detail in section IV of this notice
CERCLA requires that the NPL be
reused at least once per year
Accordingly. EPA added 128 sites to the
final NPL on September 21.1964 (49 FR
37070). The maionty (123) of those sites
were proposed on September 8.1993 (48
FR 40674) as the first upaate to the NPL
Today s notice proposes the second
such revision, which the Agency expects
to promuUte within one year of this
announcement For each NPL rei ision.
EPA informs the States of the closing
daies for submission of candidate sites
to EPA. In addition :o these periodic
updates. EPA believes it may be
desirable in rsre instances because of
urgency and needed corrective action, to
propose separately 'he addition of
ind:v.:dudl sites on the NPL as it aid in
the case of the Times Beach. Missouri.
(48 FR 9311. March 4 1983)
As with the establishment of the
initial NPL and subsequent revisions to
the NPL. States have 'he primary
responsibility for selecting and scoring
sues that are candidates for inclusion on
the NPL using the HRS (Apoendix A to
sne NCP 47 FR 3UC3 pjiy 16. 1982| and
submitting the canoiddta Sites to the
EPA Regional Officps I11"" Regional
Offices then core;-i_' j c -d. '\ cr.ntrol
review of the Sta'es cj"C..:u'e s :es
Af:er cor.ducr.rg t.-is ••_••..ow :re EP-\
Regional Offices s^b;r.,t Ca.-.j:djie s ;«
to EPA Headqud.-ers The Segiocs rr.av
include candidate s :e*> n jdc.'ion 'o
those submitted o> St-i^s In :»\.eA!-g
these submissions EPA Hc-i»iqui-ers
conducts further quaii'y jssurarce
audits to ensure accuracy ar.rl
consistency among the ur-.o is EF ^ and
Slate offices partic'pci'T.a o the current NPL ail
sues that meat EPA s criteria for 'isr.ng
>ie sues v*ith HRS scores at or above
28 50 or those designated as a State s
top priority sue)
IV. Contents of the Proposed Second
NPL Update
Each entry on tne proonsed second
N'PL update contains tne name of 'he
facility the State and citv or county in
which it is loca'ed. and 'he
corresponding EPA Region Edth s.'e
EPA is proposing to add is placed by
score in a group cor*escop.dina 'o 'he
groups of 50 sites preserved wthm the
final NPL (49 FR 37070 September 21.
1984) Thus, the sites in group 1 r 'he
proposed update nave scores '~d> 'dil
within the range of scores cove-*'.: ^
the first 50 sites on :he final NPL. Ejch
entry on this prooosed jpdate dfiJ at
sites already on the NPL is accompanied
by one or more notatior.s referencing ihe
status of response and cleanup jc::vi;:es
at the site at the time this list ••<• Js
prepared. This site status and cleanup
information are described briefly below
- p'-.e past EPA ca'egor-zed •>*e N'PL
.- oased on the type of response Jt
T site .F^rui-financed. enforcement
or vot-ir'arv action| This second
upda"; .vilt expand the prior
••aarzai.on svstem in two ways.
:: Fess-i1 enforcement dc'-ons are
' •jcraratsa t'ror Slate enforcement
a'Z- o-.s Seci.-d. 'he status of sue
c.earua ^:':K es is designated by three
ne-.v c.c..-1 D status codes EPA is
"' .- •; Ts j.eanLp s'atus codes to
-e-' -v i -»s wnere signir.t:dn.! •esaon'tp
!•. . • .sna"on
•C'i ,-i rg ac*jdl site cleanup activities
The foilou.r.g response categories are
-"••'fl 'o UPS j.iate :he type of response
•.-cier'.v jv One or more categories may
d-jp!> *o eacn site.
I \ji*r:sr. or Negotiated Response
'•'' Sites are included in this category if
prujie parties have stanea or
ccrrpleted '•esponse actions pursuant to
settlement agreements or consent
decrees >o wnch EPA or the State is a
party This category includes privately-
nnar.ced remedial planning, removal
dct-.ons. :n:iidi remedial measures and/
or remedial actions.
-------
/ Vai. 41. No. 208 t Monday. October 13, 1984 / Prapoted Rale*
Th« federal ead/
r Skra> OatntmsH (R). Cletmp Status Codas
category
Slate at
completed mpooM i
include removal •cJusu.. nan
enforcement remedial ftaniBg. initial
remedial measures, and/or vanadial
actioiu under CERCLA {NCP.
§ 300.66(fH>) 47 FR 31H7. July 1& 1962).
For purpose* of assigning a category, the
response action commences when EPA
obligates funds.
Federal Enforcement (F). This
category includes sites where the United
States haa filed a civil complaint
(including cos! recovery action*) or
issued an administrative order. It also
include* sites at which a Federal court
haa mandated some form of response
action following a ludtcial proceeding.
All sites at which enforcaneat-lead
remedial investigation* and feasibility
studies are underway are also included
in thu category.
A number of utea on the NPL are the
subiect of investigation* or have been
referred to the Department of Justice for
possible enforcement action. EPA s
policy is not to release information
concerning a possible enforcement
action until a lawsuit haj been filed
Accoxdingiy. these sites an not included
in this category, but are included under
"Category to be Determined."
Slate Enforcement (S}. Thu category
includes iitn where a State baa filed a
civil complaint or issued an
administrative order. It also indodes
si tea at which a Slate court haa
mandated some form of responae action
following a ludiaal proceeding. Sites)
where State enforcement-lead remedial
investigations and feasibility studies) an
underway are also included in this
category.
It is assumed that State-policy
precludes the release of informs DOT
concerning possible enforcement
until such action haa ben formally
taken. Accordingly, ata* ••fetid to
possible State legal action an not
included in this category, ban* an
included
Determined."
Category to be Determined. (DL Tma
category include* aH nass) not based m
any other category. A wide range of
activities) oay be m pragma «t sitaa tat
this category. EPA or a SUM may be
evaluating the type of reapoaae action to
undertaka. or an enforcement caae may
be ^Lft^^r oonaia^araliasi. HaaDooaibla
paroa* may be laBdertaaug ekaonp
action that an aoi covered by a
• an admmtitradva
EPA has decided to indicate the states
of Fmtd-Rnaneed or pitrate party
cleanup activities underway or
completed at proposed NPL sites. Fund-
financed response activities which are
coded include: significant removal
action*, inibal remedial measures.
source control remedial actions, and
offaite remedial actions. The status of
cleanup activities conducted by
responsible parties under a consent
decree, court order, or an administrative
order also is coded. Remedial planning
activities or engineering studies do not
receive a cleanup status code.
Many sites listed on the NPL are
cleaned up in stages or "operable units."
For purposes of cleanup status coding.
an operable unit is a discrete action
taken as part of the entire site cleanup
that significantly decreases or
eliminates a release, threat of release, or
pathway of exposure. One or more
operable units may be necessary to
complete the cleanup of a hazardous
waste site. Operable anils may include
removal acnons taken to stabilize
deteriorating site conditions, initial
remedial measures, and remedial
actions. A simple removal action
(constructing fences, or berma or
lowering free-board) that does not
eliminate a significant release, threat of
release, or pathway of exposure is not
considered an operable unit for
purposes of cleanup status coding.
The following cleanup status codas
(and definitions) an used to designate
the status of cleanup activities at
proposed sites on the NPL Only one
code la necessary to denote the status of
actual cleanup activity at each site since
the codes an mutually exclusive.
Implementation Activities An
Underway for Oat or Man Operable
UaitM (I). Field work is in progress at the
site for implementation of one or more
removal or mnuidlaj operable units, but
no operable outs an completed.
Implementation Activities for One or
More (But Not All] Operable UaiU Are
Completed. Implementation Activities
May be Underway for Additional
Operable Units (Of. Held work baa been
completed for an* or more operable
unit** but additional sita rtit
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
40323
"deletion category" for ihe NPL This
category will be explicitly denoted as
containing sites at which tfae Agency
has determined that one or more of the
deletion criteria described above have
been satisfied. However, these sites
would not actually be deleted from the
S'PL Once the NCP modifications are
promulgated, the Agency will be able to
delete a site from the NPL and spend
ddditional Fund monies if conditions
warrant.
The Agency is interested in the public
reaction to these deletion procedures
Specifically, the Agency is interested in
(1) The desirability of maintaining the
Federal Register notice and comment
procedures for deletions that are
currently used for placing sites on the
NPL. and (2) the desirability of
continuing to print, on a separate list.
the names of sues deleted from the NPL
at the time of each update. The Agency
believes thai including the names of
deleted sites on the NPL may provide
important information to the public on
the final disposition of these sites and
may result in favorable publicity for
parties who have cleaned up sites on the
NPL
VI. Eligibility
CERGLA restricts EPA's authority to
respond to certain categories of releases
and expressly excludes some
substances from (he definition of
release. In addition, as a matter of
policy . EPA may or may not choose to
respond to certain types of releases
because other Federal agencies have
adequate authority to respond. This
section discusses (he inclusion of such
releases on the NPL
Releases from Federal Facility Sues
CERCLA section lll(e](3) prohibits
use of the Funds for remedial actions at
Federally owned facilities. Previously.
EPA did not list any sites on the NPL
where the release resulted solely from a
Federal facility, regardless of whether
contamination remained onsite or had
migrated ofsite. EPA incorporated this
position into the NCP (section
300.58(e)(2). 47 FR 3121S. July 18.1962):
an also in Che promulgation of the first
NPL (48 FR 40662. September 8. 1983).
Public comments received from
previously proposed NPL
announcements suggested including
Federal facilities, and the Agency now
believes that it is appropriate to include
Federal facility sites on the NPL when
such facilities meet the cntena for
inclusion. Federal facility sites will be
listed when the HRS scores an equal to
or above 28.50 so as to focus public
attention and appropriate resources on
the most senous sites, even though they
are not eligible for Fund-financed
remedial action.
For this update. Federal sites will be
presented in a separate NPL section
with Federal site displayed in scoring
groups equivalent to the groups shown
in the non-Federal NPL As discussed in
.48 FR 40662. September 8.1984. EPA
previously has listed sites that formerly
were owned by the Federal government.
and non-Federally owned sites where
the Federal government may have
contributed to a release. EPA intends to
continue (his policy by listing such sue
on the non-Federal NPL The Federal
facility section of the NPL will only
contain sues where the release appears
to result solely from a Federal facility.
regardless of whether contamination
remained on site or has migrated offsite.
Response categories and cleanup
status codes also will be assigned for
Federal facility sites, and these will be
essentially the same categories and
codes used for non-Federal sites. A
Federal agency response at a Federal
facility site will be indicated by the (R)
category When the (R) category does
not apply to a Federal facility site, other
Federal agency activities at that sue.
such as evaluating the appropriate
response to undertake, will be indicated
by the (0] category Cleanup codes will
be assigned to Federal facility sites in
;he same manner as they are to non-
Federal sites.
EPA is prepanng a proposed
amendment in section 300.66(e]{2) of the
NCP to allow the listing of Federal
facility sites on the NPL For this
proposal. EPA scored those Federal
facilities identified by Federal agencies
and the States as NPL candidates where
sufficient information existed to apply
the HRS. However. EPA does not intend
to promulgate any of the sites proposed
today until such time as the NCP
amendment is final. In the meantime the
Agency is continuing work with Federal
agencies to investigate potential
problem Federal sites and to implement
corrective measures at Federal sites.
Releases of Pesticides Registered Under
the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and
Rodenttcide Act (FIFRAl
This proposal includes six sites in
South Central Oahu. Hawaii, where
parts of the basal aquifer have been
contaminated by pesticides including
ethylene aibromide (EDB).
dibromochloropropane (TJBCP). and
tnchloropropane (TCP), a likely
contaminant of the pesticide D-D (which
contains 1.2-dichloropane. 1.3-
dichloropene and related C3
compounds). These pesticides are all
soil fumigants that have been used as
nematocides in Oahu pineapple fields.
All were registered under F1FRA at the
time of their use in Oahu. We do not
believe these pesticides are being used
in Hawaii any longer EDB's soil
Fumigation use has been cancelled, and
EPA has proposed to cancel the sole
remaining use of DBCP (pineapples) in
the United Slates. D-D is no longer being
produced, although it is still Federally
registered. The most likely source of the
contamination by DBCP and TCP was
their use as pesticides, although it is less
clear that the contamination by EDB
resulted solely from its agricultural use
These six sites are the first such sites
proposed to be added to the NPL on ihe
basis of releases which appear to
originate from the application of
pesticides. Insecticides and similar
products are used extensively
throughout the United States. The
application of the HRS to public and
private ground water systems
throughout the country could possibly
result in the listing of additional similar
sites in a number of other States. At this
time, however, the Agency has little
data from which to predict the number
of similar problems or the degree of nsk
posed by them, compared with the nsks
posed by other identified sites.
EPA is concerned that listing these
sites may set important precedents with
currently unknown implications for the
future direction of CERCLA. As
CERCLA's scope is broad. EPA wants to
insure that Us efforts under CERCLA are
focused on the most significant nsks and
on problems that cannot be adequately
addressed under EPA's other statutory
authorities. Therefore, the Agency is
interested in public comment for
consideration in evaluating what
alternative statutory tools or other
approaches are most appropriate for
dealing with these problems. Other
approaches on which EPA wants to
receive comment are those which would
assure that only sites posing significant
problems are included on the NPL. EPA
plans to consider these issues. If the
Agency decides that problems arising
from pesticide use are better addressed
outside the frame-work of CERCLA. it
may decide as a matter of policy not to
list the sites on the NPL
EPA is planning a monitoring survey
to evaluate the frequency and seventy
of contamination of ground water by
pesticides. In addition, the Agency has
initiated a special data call-in under
FTFRA to evaluate the potential for
ground water contamination of many
pesticides. Pending the results of these
information gathering efforts, the extent
of this problem is not fully understood.
EPA has the authority to include sites
on the NPL where contamination from
-------
Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1964 / Proposed Rules
pesticide application has occurred (or
has tht potential la occur). The
definition of "releas*" n section 101(22)
of CERCLA it very broad: and whereas
it excludes the "normal application of a
fertilizer.'* it does dot contain a similar
exclusion for the application of
pesticides. Additional review of
CERCLA gives no suggestion that EPA
authority lo list such pesncide sites on
the NPL or to take response action is
limited. Section 107(i) limits EPA's
ability to recover costs from releases
associated with pesticide use. but
CERCLA does not contain a similar
limitation on EPA's ability to respond.
Thus, there is no statutory restriction on
the use of money from the CERCLA
Trust Fund to clean up sites where
public health or the environment has
been threatened as a result of the
application of pesticides. At the same
time the Agency is not obliged to
exercise response authority whenever a
site is included on the NPL
There are several legal authorities by
which the hazards associated with
contamination of ground water by
pesticide use can be addressed:
CERCLA enforcement actions and some
CERCLA response actions, as well as
actions under other laws, do not depend
on a site s placement on the NPL. For
example. FTFRA provides authority to
require manufacturers to submit test
results with which the Agency can
.evaluate hazards, including health
effects and environmental fate and
transport F1FRA also provides authority
to limit or prohibit uae of pesticides
when the risk associated with use
outweigh the benefits of use. Under the
Safe Drinking Water Act EPA can issue
health advisories or specify maximum
contaminant limits in public water
systems.
CERCLA authorizes Fund-financed
response actions such as cleaning up
acquifers or providing alternate drinking
water supplies. Certain response action*
taken with CERCLA trust fund money.
however, are authorized only where a
site has been listed on the NPL. While
listing a site on the NPL a necessary to
take these actions, it does not require
them. After a site has been included on
the NPL EPA generally will rely on
further, more detailed studies conducted
at the site to determine what response, if
any. is appropriate. The authority to
compel pnvate responsible partita to
abate or clean up releases of pollutants
and contaminants provided by CERCLA
is not limited to sites listed on the NPL
Releases From Sites Having Interim
Status or Permits Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Ac: (RCRA)
As stated in EPA's first NPL final
rulemakmg (48 FR 406M. Septpmber 8.
1983). both CERCLA and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
contain authorities applicable :o
hazardous waste facilities These
authorities overlap for certain sites EPA
is adhering to its established policy that.
where a site consists only of 'regulated
units" of a RCRA facility operating
pursuant to a permit or interim status it
will not be included on the NPL but. >o
the extent possible, instead will be
addressed under the authorities of
RCRA. The RCRA Land Disposal
Regulations (40 CFR Parts 122. 260. 264.
and 265) give EPA authority to control
actives sites through a broad program
which includes monitoring, compliance
mspecnons. penalties for violations, and
requirements for post-closure plans and
financial responsibility.
RCRA regulations require a
contingency plan for each facility The
regulations also contain ground water
protection standards (40 CFR Pan 264.
Subpart F] that cover detection
monitoring, compliance monitoring (if
groundwater impacts are identified) and
corrective action for releases within the
site boundaries. These monitoring and
corrective action standards apply to all
"regulated units' of RCRA facilities, i.e
any part of the waste treatment, storage
or disposal operation within the
boundanes of the facility that accepted
waste after January 26.1983. the
effective date of the Land Disposal
Regulations (47 FR 32349. July 26.1982).
Even if the unit ceases operation after
this time. EPA has the authority to
require it to obtain a permit, and ire
monitoring and corrective action
requirements could therefore be
enforced by this mechanism.
Given thia authority to ensure cleanup
of regulated units of RCRA facilit.es.
such facilities generally are not included
on the NPL If the facility is abandoned
or lacks sufficient resources and the
RCRA corrective action requirements
cannot be enforced, however. EPA will
consider bating the site on the NPL for
possible response under CERCLA. This
policy is applicable not only to sites
subject to EPA-admimstered hazardous
waste programs but also to sites in
Stales that administer programs
approved by EPA. Even in the latter
instance, close Federal control la
ensured by the comprehenaivenes of the
program elements required of all State
programs coupled with EPA's authority
to enforce State program requirements
directly if the State fails to do so. EPA
dues, however, consider eligible for
listing on the NPL those RCRA facilities
at which a significant portion of the
release appears to come from 'ncr.-
rpgulated uni's" of ;he fac.!:;y, :hai .s.
portions of the facility that cea»eii
operation pnor to January .16. 1943
Hnwe\er. per.d'r.g ame-iamei's 'o
RCRA wouid extend RCRA |ur sc.c'i'jn
to rpleases from non-regulated J".. a at
regulated fdcii.'se* Therefore f -"e
will consid°r Todify-g ••• eva;
policy of inducing such iites on •''
di that time.
VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
The costs of cleanup actions :hai rr.av
be taken at sites are net direcilv
attributable to listing on the \PL -is
explained below and therefore 'he
Agency has determined that ttm
rulemakir.g is not a "maior1 -PS.' i-i:n
under Executive Order l.'Sl T'-p EPA
has conducted a preliminary a"j -.MI of
the economic imolica'ions jf '';<-'.,•. i
proposed amendment to the NC? T'-e
EPA believes that tne kind of ev. -.om.c
effects associated with ;his re% »on are
generally similar to those erV's
identified in the rpguU:orv -?-.&
analysis (RIA) prepared r. ' f.z for 'i-e
revisions »o the NCP pursuant to sprr on
105 of CERCLA. The Agenrv b^1 -.PS
\e .-tnticipated economic e.fec's -n .i:»u
o prooosmg the addiron of ?M s '"s 'o
•ie NPL can be charac'.enzpa .n '"TS .">f
•he conclusions of the earlier regulator.
•mpact analysis At that time the
Agjnry .-.ofid that a more ex'ensr. e
Analysis cf the economic moac:s of the
N.CP wo'jld be prepared 'n -u.e future
and wouid accjrrpdn1. p'lbi.c^'icn if
future rraior amendments "o :he NCP
The Agency expects to ar-sose T.aior
jrr.eniiireRU :o the NC? .a -J-e : jture
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 13. 1984 / Proposed Rules 40325
to the Office of Management and Budget
'OMB) for review
The maior events (hat follow the
i-oposed listing of a site on the NPL are
a responsible party search and a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) which determines
whe-her response actions will be
unJe"aken at a site Design and
construction of the selected -emedial
a'terr.ative follow completion ot the RI/
FS and operation and maintenance
(OiM) activities ma\ continue after
construction nas been completed.
C 'sis associated with responsible
?a;:y sedrcnes are initially borne by
EPA Responsible parties may bear
SO.TB or ail 'he cos's of 'he RI/ FS.
oesizn and construction, and O*M. or
'tie costs mav be shared by EPA and the
S'*:es on a *« 10% basis "(50«5.5(W in
the case of State-owned sites)
AcJdinondilv Sia'es assume all cos's for
Oa.M actiMi.es af'er ihe f;rs( vear at
sites involving Fund-financed remedial
actions
Rciigh estimates of the average per-
site and total cos's associated with each
o! the aoove dctmties are presented
beiow At MIS rtrre EPA is unable to
predict what portions of ihe total costs
«.ii; be borne b> responsible oarties.
since 'he distnoution ot costs depends
nn the extent of voluntary and
'gonated response and the
jccessfulness of cost recovery actions
here such actions are brought.
Hum con
MM 000
iBMl tl 1QS 01 VIM
i 'f*X
'200 WO
30 X»
sou--' 7E
tt 5 "we*
C. rvdtelv -owned sites, and (2) SO percent
>f the remedial planning (Rl/FS and
•"medial design) remedial
mplementat:on and O*M costi at State
>r locally-owned sites. Using the
issumptions developed in the 1982 RJA.
ve can assume that 90 percent of the 208
ion-Federal sites proposed to be added
o the \PL m this amendment will be
>n\ veiv-owned and 10 percent will be
jtate or 'ocally-owned Therefore, using
•e budget protections presented above..
ie cost :o States of undertaking Federal
"medial actions at all 206 non-Federal
• es would be $344 million.
The act of listing a hazardous waste
site on the final NPL does not
necessarily cause firms responsible for
the site to bear costs. Nonetheless, a
listing may induce firms to clean up the
sites voluntarily, or it may act as a
potential trigger for subsequent
enforcement or cost recovery actions
Such actions may impose costs on firms.
but the decisions to take such actions
are discretionary, and made on a case-
by-case basis. Consequently, precise
estimates of these effects cannot oe
made EPA does not b«te to the
parties, ab-'itv to pay ard other factors
when deciding * nether and how to
proceed against potential!) 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 Slates.
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 R1A
Benefits
The real benefits associated with
today's proposed amendment come in
the form of increased health and
environmental protection as a result cf'
increased public awareness of potential
hazards and the additional response
actions at hazardous waste sites In
addition to the potential for mure
Federally-financed remedial actions
this proposed expansion of the N'PL
could accelerate privately-financed.
voluntary cleanup efforts to avoid
potential adverse publicity private
lawsuits, and/or Federal ur State
enforcement actions
A» a result ot the additional NPL
remedies, there will be tower iiiunan
exposure to high risk chemicals, and
higher quality surface water ground
water soil, and air The magnitude of
these benefits m expected to be
significant, although difficult to estimate
in advance of completing the RI/FS at
these particular sites
Associated with the costs of remedial
actions are significant potential benefits
and cost offsets The distributional costs
to firms of financing \PL remedies have
corresponding 'benefits ' in that Funds
expended fora response generates
employment, directly or indirectly
(through purchased materials)
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of I960
requires EPA to review the impacts of
'his act.on on sma'l entities, or certify
that the action will not have a
sigr.r":canr impac: 01 a si.ostan"*
numoer of irpall e"it:"es 8v s.Tnii
entmes 'he Act ref-rs ,o i-d.:
businesses small rneTms-.tj'
jurisdictions dnd non--pr •: i
orsd-.iza'ior.s
'.Vhiie orL-or;sed rr.cii/cd' ^r,s ' T.I»
NPL are considered :?v iS.^ns :o i-f
NCP 'hev are r.ot 'v;-ai --su.a1- -v
changes since the --visions do 101
automatically impose -osts The
prooosed .istmg of si'es on the V.PL uocs
not in itself require arv scron or ,rv.
private party nor does t determire '-.e
liability of any pary for -he -:ost -t"
cleanup at the site Firths' n j
identifiable groups ar» a/pi. rj ,, >
whoie As d cjnse'Tj'T'-P '<•-,- • i
predict impacts on a,:;, jrn .~ . •. • •,
proposed inclusion on 'he NPL • > i1 ;
increase the likelihood thjt ,^1 &-^-*
impacts to responsible pnr-ies < - "e
form of clean-up costs' * .1 occur rv.it
EPA cannot •dennfy the potentin'lv
affected ousiiesses i' •-.•5 'ime -.•.'
estimate a number of ouv-.??';-'?
affected In addition we cannot ae'.ne
what is small 'or rn* wde ^dr.??v nf
- -»ntiaily affectea srrQ1! cn:::,^»
luse smaii "nines '~.ai r vjic ^e
-r.ted bv this rulemamng would come
-i any industrial sector and couid
jde Bovern;nenr;ii '-nits • is ict
•. ^iblf to ^rncuidtc n meanm^tui
_-• ninon jf >mni: <•"•:; es
The Ajer.'rv does ^xoprt i!-a' -p--iin
mdustnes ana 'inns -*ur.:n 'ndustries
that rid'.p r^sed a ^r"Gor>.')ndte:v r. jn
perce''1 ije of wasia >/s aroo ^TS -TjiJ
oe ii-j——i.i"-'-/ IT-'-PG -vCERCL^
-I'fCni Movv-'.T F.r \ t.i-5 -li> •ifZf'
•Sp '.Tis-ii.ts from •-* :r-.oo"-j ..-'IPS j;
these 213 sues or IPP N.P1 ^s i • .-.r/e po
na1." -t iij"it.: -vervi en STO I aovernmer/s
and ion-prof i irga'- za'ions vvouic 3?
de'emmea on a simi'dr caie n\- .ise
oasis
List of Subjects in 40 CFK Part 300
Air D0llu;;on cor.fol Cher.icais
Hazaraous materials rn'er^ovepr..T.en'd!
-------
40326 Federal Register ; Vol 49 No -00 Monday Oc^ber 15. 1964 / Proposed
.._..
relations. Natural resources. Oil PART 300-{ AMENDED I V™* Oc-ober i :q*»
pollulion. Reporting and recordkeepm? William D Ruckelshauj.
requirements. Suoerfund. Waste " " proposed to amend Appendix B of v/r;,
treatment and disposal. Water pollution « CFR Part 300 by adding the following
control. Water supply. sites to the National Priorities Ls;
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
E?A S:S?:SSE ::::••..
RC ST SITE NAME CITY/CCIATY CATSCCPY: ST.\~J
08 LT Sharon Sceel (licvale Smelcar) M^dvale
C3 LT Portland Cemsr.c (Kiln Dust 2 S 3) 5dic Lake City
It: V = VOLUNTARY CR NEGOTIATED RE5?-:N5E, R = FiZiRAL AND STATE SESPO'-SE,
F = FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT; S = STATE ENTCSCEV. >-i~- :r;;"-r
F = FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT; S = STATE EN"?.31.'E'7,
D = ACTICNS TO 2E EETISMINEO.
I = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERWAY, CNE CR MCRE :?ExA = LE '-NITS;
0 = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETED, OTHERS "AY :l .NIESU
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR ALL OPERA3IE LNITS.
MO COM mo ig •
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
40927
RG ST SITE NAM!
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
GROUP 3
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE CLEANUP
CATEGORY.') STATUS <§
10 *A Midway Landfill
06 TX Bailey Waste Disposal
05 MI Thermo-Chem, Inc.
:9 CA Van Waters S Rogers, Inc.
05 MN Pine Bend/Crosby American Lf
0>* [A Chemplex Co.
Q- \C N'C State U (Lot 36, Farm Unit 01)
Kent
Bridge City
Muskegon
San Jose
Dakota County
Clincon/Camanche
Raleigh
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
it. V = VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
F = FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT; S = STATE ENFORCEMENT;
D = ACTIONS TO 3E DETERMINED.
3 I = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERWAY, ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS;
0 = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETED, OTHERS MAY BE UNDERWAY;
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED' FOR ALL OPERABLE UNITS.
ST SITE SAME
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
GROUP 4
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE
CLEANUP
STATUS 3
05 GH General Electric(Coshocton Plant)
02 NY Liberty Industrial Finishing
06 TX Brio Refining Co., Inc.
02 NJ Glen Ridge Radium Site
C2 NJ Montclair/West Orange Radium Site
C* NC Celar.esefShelby Fiber Operations)
05 IN International Minerals (E. Plant)
05 MI Motor Wheel, Inc.
06 TX Stewco, Inc.
05 OH Alsco Anaconda
02 VY Johnstown City Landfill
03 PA Hunters town Road
02 NY Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer Corp
07 NE Lindsay Manufacturing Co.
09 CA Operating Industries, Inc. Lf
Oi FL Pratt & Whitney Air/United Tech.
08 CO Eagle Mine
Coshocton
Farmingdale
Fnendswood
Glen Ridge
Montclair/W Orange
Shelby
Terre Haute
Lansing
Waskom
Gnadenhucten
Town of Johnstown
Straban Township
Hicksville
Lindsay
Monterey Park
Vest Palm Beach
Minturn/Redci if f
R
R
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
S
S
0
0
V = VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE;
F = FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT,
D = ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
R = FEDERAL AND STATE RES
S = STATE ENFORCEMENT,
I = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERWAY. CNE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS;
0 = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETED, OTHERS MAY 3E UNDERWAY;
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR ALL OPERABLE UNITS.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49 No. 200 / Mondav. October 15 1964 / Prooosed
NATIONAL PSIORITIES UPDATE LIST
GROUP 5
F?A RIoPCNS: riZ.V-V?
RG ST SITE NAME CITY/COUNTY CATEGCR'v 5T.-.7.S 1
•V MO Lee Cha-tnal
J5 MI Torch l-.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 49. No 200 / Vlonday. October 15."1984 / Proposed Rules 40329
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
GROUP 6
RESPONSE C1Z.-M?
RG ST SITE VAME CITY/COUNTY CATEGORY* STATUS ?
10 WA Quendall Terminal Rer.con D
05 IV Fore Wayne Reduce ion Dump Fort Wayne D
C3 IL Pagel's Pit Rockford D
C3 MD Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc Harmans V S
O"' V-'E Hastings Ground Wacer Contamin Hastings D
05 MN Rummer Sanitary Landfill Semidji R
09 HI Mililani Wells Oahu D
09 CA Monolithic Memories, Inc. Sunnyvale D
06 TX Odessa Chromium ! I E.I Du Pone (Montague Plant)
Slices con
Ka lama zoo
Brush Prairie
Sunnyvale
May brook
Fresno
Mar.jssas
Oahu
Cahu
Hemps tead
Houston
Qdhu
Furley
West Chicago
DuPage County
Roseville
Houston
Eau Claire
Liber -yvi He
Bozeman
St Charles
M i ndom
Wesc Chicago
Granice Cicy
Montague
D
D
0
D
D
D
0
0
0
D
D
S
D
D
S
0
3
R
0
V ~ I
D
0
V F S
0
V = VOLISTARY CR \EGDTIATED RESPONSE,
F = FEDERAL ENFCRCEMENT;
0 = ACTIONS T: =E DET
R = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
S = STATE ENFCRCE.MENT;
i I = IMPLEMENTATION1 ACTIVITY UNDERWAY. ONE CR MORE .:-I^.-.:LI '.MTS,
0 = ONF OR "ORE OPERABLE LNITS COMPLETED. OTHERS V1.\\ 3E -V.CZR'«.AY.
C = IMPLEMENTATION1 ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR ALL GPESA3LE .N'.TS
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
40331
EPA
5G ST SITE SAME
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
GROUP 8
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE CLIAV.?
CATECCRY-J STATES
09
,-S
•^ *»
<, «
05
C9
07
07
05
09
03
02
02
." 1
w ••
C5
06
73
05
03
03
;3
02
"f,
09
^ t
fl
•
CA
NC
NJ
MI
CA
MO
NE
MI
CA
PA
SY
SY
NY
MI
TX
NT
IN
FA
PA
Vt »
NY
CA
CA
NY
1 •
V
F
D
•
Advanced Micro 2e<-ices. Ir.c.
Bypass 601 Ground Water Certain.
Cir.r.aminson Grcvir.d Water Cor.ta.-ri
Lenat.ee Disposal Service, Inc Lf
Raytheon Corp.
Solid State Cir-iu^ts , Ir.c
Waverly Ground Water Ccr.tanin
Michigan Dispc^dl ^Cark Sc Lf)
Fairchild Camera (S San Jose Pit)
Br^un's Battery Breaking
SMS Instruments, Inc
Byron Barrel S Dru.-n
Anchor Chemicals
Waste Mjr.i^-e-.t-Mich (Holland)
Nortn Cavalcace Street
3ur! irgton N'crtr.ern (.Sobers Plant)
Neal's Cunp CScer.cer)
«es: inghouse Elev=;cr Co Plant
Middletc'-n Air Field
•"'d"i""e Works Disposal Ara^s
Er.dicott Village Well Field
National Semiconductor Corp
San Ferr.ar.do Valley (Area -)
Suffers Village Well Field
= VCLL'NTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE
= FIIESAL ENF SCINENT,
= ACTIONS TO E CETERMINED.
= I-'PlE'i-NTAT 3N ACTIVITY LN'DERWAY
S'-nryvaLe
Concord
C ir.na^ir.son Tounsh
Adrian
Mountain View
Republ ic
Waverly
Kalamazoo
South San Jcse
Shoemakersville
Deer Park
Byron
Hicksville
Holland
Houston
Sotners
Spencer
Gettysburg
Middletcur.
Morgantcwn
Village of E.-iicci
Santa Clara
Los Angeles
Village of Sufferr
; R = FEDERAL AND
S = STATE :^T!3C
pvc ^*3 \mpr "2r3i
5
D
ip 0
0
D
R S
D
0
D
R
3
R
3
D
D
D
F 3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
S~ATE RESPONSE;
1-INT,
si: .NITS,
r
i
C
I
0
I
0
= M -3 "C3E CPESABLE CMTS COMPLETED. IT-Z/* ' A 3E .N:Z?-.*II
= IMPLZ.MENTATION ACTI\ ITY COMPLETED FOR ALL :?E=A31E :.MTS
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
EPA
RG ST SITE NAME
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
GROUP 9
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE CLEANUP
CATEGORY/* STAT'JS 3
03 VA Avtex Fibers, Inc.
02 NY Katonah Municipal Veil
09 HI Waipio Heights Wells II
04 IN American Creosoce Viorks, Inc.
05 IL Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treat Plant)
02 MY Preferred Plating Carp.
08 UT Monticello Rad Contaminated Props
01 MA Salem Acres
04 FL Davidson Lumber Co.
09 CA J.H. Baxter Co.
10 VA Mica Landfill
02 NY Clothier Disposal
03 PA Ambler Asbestos Piles
03 VA L.A. Clarice & Son
05 IL Sheffield (U.S. Ecology, Inc.)
09 CA Beckman Instruments (Porterville)
05 MI Lacks Industries, Inc.
03 MD Southern Maryland Wood Treating
04 FL Dubose Oil Products Co.
09 CA Lorentz Barrel i Dr-^m Co.
03 PA Modern Sanitation Landfill
05 MI North Bronson Industrial Area
09 CA Montrose Chemical Corp.
10 VA Northwest Transformer
08 IT Olson/Neihart Reservoir
02 NY North Sea Municipal Landfill
09 CA Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
05 Ml South Macomb Disposal (Lf 9 & 9A)
Front Royal
Town cf Bedford
Oahu
Jackson
Vest Chicago
Farmir.gdale
Mont ice Ilo
Salem
South Miami
Weed
Mica
Tcwn of Granby
Ambler
Spocsylvinia County
Sheffield
Porterville
Grar.d Rapids
Hollywood
Car.tor.rT.ent
San Jose
Lower 'mr.dsc: 7*.
Bronson
Tcrrance
tverson
Vasatch County
Nor-h Sea
Oroville
Macomb Towr.s'r .3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
S
s
D
D
R F S
S
D
D
D
D
S
S
D
D
D
D
D
V = VOLUNTARY CR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE;
F = FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT;
D = ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
R = 7i:iR.-L -1*
S = STATE iN
(§: I = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERWAY. ONE CR MORE :?E3ASL£ IMTS;
0 = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UMTS COMPLETED, OTHERS V!AY 3E '.\DESUAY.
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR ALL OPS3A3LZ IN ITS.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
40333
EPA
RG ST SITE NAME
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
GROUP 10
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE CLEANUP
CATEGORY?* STATUS 2
:s
o:
o:
09
05
C'
c:
o:
o:
c:
Cl
03
o:
c:
c-
C'
05
Oo
o:
V'N
NY
NY
CA
°N
KS
N'J
NY
S'J
SY
MA
CH
NY
NY
KY
:
-------
40334
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
F.PA
RG ST SITE NAME
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
GROUP 10 (CON'T)
CITY/COINTY
RESPONSE CLEAN1:.?
CATE3GRY..- STA715 J
08 MT Mouat Industries
02 NY Claremont Polychemical
07 [A Vogel Paint & Wax Co.
05 MN Kurc Manufacturing Co.
06 TX Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana Pit)
05 MN Agate Lake Scrapyard
05 MI Avenue "E" Ground Water Contamin
C2 SJ Jame Fine Chemical
05 MN Koch Refining Co./N-Ren Corp.
07 IA U.S. Nameplate Co.
05 WI Fadrowski Drum Disposal
09 CA Zoecon Corp/Rhone • Poulenc , Ir.c
06 AR Midland Products
02 NY BEC Trucking
02 NY Sobintech, Inc./Sat lonal Pipe Co
Columbus
Old Bethpage
Orange City
Fridley
Texarkana
Fairview Township
Traverse Ci:y
Bound Brook
Pine Send
Mount Vernon
Frank Lin
Bast Palo Alto
Ola/3irta
Toun o: Vestal
Toun of vestal
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
0
D
V = VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE.
F = FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT.
D = ACTIONS TO 3E DETERMINED
R = FEDERAL. \ND STATE RESPrN5o,
s = ST;TZ • r"RCEMENT.
I = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY LNDLRWAY. ONE OR %:3RE JPE? LE LN'ITS,
0 = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETED. OTHERS "AY : .NDERWAY.
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR ALL CPERABLF.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 49. No 200 / Monday. October t5. 1984 / Proposed Rules
40335
EPA
RG ST SITE S'AME
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
GROUP 11
CITY/COIVTY
RESPONSE CLEANL?
CA7EJCRY. STAT'.S '
:3 \A Rhinehart Tire Fire Du.-rp
01 MA Haverhill Municipal Landfill
C2 NY CoUsvxlle Municipal Landfill
09 CA Firestone T^re (.Sdlir.jj Plant)
05 IN MIDCO II
03 *'D K'j.id S Lombard Street Dri.-ns
10 WA Silver Mountain Mine
06 T\ Petro-Che-iiical (TjrtLe 3a>ou)
05 OH Republic Steel Corp Quarry
09 CA Hewlett Packard
01 MA Shpack Lar.dfill
Qi FL Moncco Researcn Products, Inc.
01 MA No n. cod PC 3s
01 NH Coakley Lard*. 11
09 CA I3M Corp (San Jose Plant)
"' MO Nort.i-U Drive Well Cor.tir. :nat :cn
1C V..A Norths^de Ld.-.cfill
Co TX Pesses Che.-ical Co.
07 ".0 3e« Cee 'tar.uiict^r ing Ca
TOTAL SITES LISTED ::3
»;• V = VOLLNTARY CR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE
F = FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT,
D = ACTIONS TO 3E DETERMINED.
: i = I"?LE.MENTAT;CN- ACTIVITY UNDERWAY
Frederick County V R
r!»\.erh:ll
Tcwn of CoUs\ '. le
Sal ir.as
Gary R
Balti.rore R
Loom is
Lioerty County
Elyria
?ato Alto
N'orton/Attleboro
KolL Lster
N'orvood R
North Hampton
San Jose
Springfield R
Spclore
Fort Worth
Maiden
. R = FEDERAL AND oTATE
s = STATE ENFORCEMENT,
. ONE OR MORE vIFEX.oLE ».N
^ «
r j
3
D
D
F [
0
D
D
D
D
D
S
S
D
*
D
D
0
SESPCNSE;
ITS
ONE OR MCRE OPERABLE UMTS COMPLETED, CTHERS MAY =E ^ ";V...\Y
:"FLE::ENTAT:CN- ACTIVITY CTTLETED FCH ALL OPES-HLE IN ITS
-------
Federal Regular / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rates
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
FEDERAL SITES
GROUP I
EPA RESPONSE CLEANUP
RG ST SITE NAME CITY,CCLSTY CATEGORY-'* ST.VT.S
CS CO Rocky Flats ?'. ;.-.c .".3XE1 Colian R
05 ;i Ss.igano'Crab Crchari V-R HSDO!) CartervilLe R
V = '.CLUVTARY OR NEGOTIATES RESPONSE. R = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
F = FEDERAL ENFCRCE"ENT, S = STATE ENFORCEMENT,
D = ACTION'S TO 3E DETEST :
1 : = IVI?LEMENTAT::S ACT:.:TY L%.:ER«AY. C'.E OR ^CRE OPERABLE '.NITS,
o = OSE :R VCIE CTERASI: LMTS COMPLETED. OT-ERS -AY as USSER
C = [".-LEMENTATICN ACTT'. I7Y C:" = i:TED r"R ALL C?iRA2LE LNITS
_ RES POSSE CLEANUP
S3 5. SITE NAME :.T: •;'.x.~ CATErCRY-- 3TATV5
"i T*.' lilan Army Arr.nur.it isr. ?ljr.= w:lj.i R
CS -0 Rcc
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday, October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules 40337
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
FEDERAL SITES
GROUP 3
EPA RESPONSE CLEANUP
RG ST SITE NAME CITY/COUNTY CATEGORY,'/ S7A71S
07 MO Weldon Spring Quarry (ISDGE/ARMY) St. Charles County R
0& AL Annis ton Army Depot (S£ Ind Area) Anniston R
0-* GA Robins Air Force Base Houston County R
V a VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
F = FEDERAL EN'FORCEMENT; S = STATE ENFORCEMENT;
D = ACTICN5 TO BE DETERMINED.
I = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERWAY, ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS;
0 = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UMTS COMPLETED, OTHERS MAY 8E UNCEKVAY;
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED~FOS" ALL OPERABLE UNITS.
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
FEDERAL SITES-
GROUP " 4
EPA RESPONSE CLEANUP
RG ST SITE SAME CITY/COUNTY CATEGORY/* STATIS
07 VE Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plane Hall County R 0
08 IT Kill Air Force Base Ogden R 0
tf: V = VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R = FEDERAL AND STATI RESPONSE,
F = FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT; S a STATE ENFORCEMENT;
D = ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
@: I = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERLAY, ONE OR MORE CPERA3LE (AITS;
0 = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETED, OTHERS MAY BE UNDERWAY;
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR ALL OPERABLE tJMTS,.-".- »/
-------
46338
Federal Register / Vol 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
FEZERAL SITES
GROLP 5
EPA RESPONSE CLI.iV.?
RG ST SITE NAME CITY/COUNTY CATECCRYtf STARS a
08 IT Ogden Defense 3e?ot Cgden R
09 CA Sacramento Army Cepoc 5acra.-ner.ro R
01 *E 8 r-r.su ick Naval Air S'.acicn Brunswick. R
10 WA McChord AF3 (Uash Rd-k/Trea-.r.enc) Tacoraa R
»• V = VOLLNTARY OR NESCTIATED RESPONSE, R = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
F = f-.2l?.AL ENFORCEMENT. S = STATE ENFORCEMENT;
D = ACTIONS TO 2E DETER" IMD
••a- I = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIM7Y V.NCESWAY, ONE OR MORE OPERABLE LNITS;
0 = ONE OR «ORE .IPERA3LE LNITS COMPLETED. OTHERS MAY BE LSDERV.AY;
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACT!'. I TV CCV?L£"D F"R ALL OPERABLE UNITS
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
FE3E3AL SITES
GROUP 6
EPA RESPONSE CLEANUP
RG ST SITE NAME CITY/COUNTY CATEGORY^ STATUS J
10 WA Fort Lewis (Landfill NO 5) Tacoma D
09 CA Laurence Live more lao i.'.SDOE) Livermore S
09 CA Sharpe Army Depot Lachrop R
G5 IL Savanna Army Depoc Activity Savanna R
/* V = VOLUNTARY :* M3CTIATED RESPONSE; R = FEDERAL ANT) STATE RESPONSE;
F - FEDERAL t.N.-CACi'-.ENT, S = STATS ENFORCEMENT,
D = ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
!$ I = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY LNQERUAY. ONE OR MORE OPERABLE LNITS,
0 = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UMTS COMPLETED, OTHERS MAY BE UNDERWAY.
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR ALL OPERABLE UNITS
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 4ft No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules 40339
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
FEDERAL SITES
GROUP 7
r?A RESPONSE CLEANUP
RG ST SITE NAME CITY/COUNTY CATEGORY;* STATJS |
06 TX Air Force Plant 'H (Gen Dynaaics) Fort Worth R
09 CA Norton Air Force Base San Sarr.ardiro R
03 UT Tooele Army Depot (N'orth Area) Tooele R
if. V = VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
F = FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT; S = STATE ENFORCEMENT;
D = ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
2 I = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERWAY, ONE CR MORE OPERABLE UNITS;
0 = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETED, OTHERS MAY 3E UNDERWAY-,
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR ALL OPERABLE UNITS.
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
FEDERAL SITES
GRCUP 8
£?A RESPONSE CLEANUP
RG'ST SITE NAME CITY/COUNTY CATEGORY* STATUS
09 CA Castle Air Force 3ase Merced '. R
G: NJ Fort Dix (Landfill Site) Trenton R
02 NJ Naval Veapor.s Stat Earle (Site A) Colts Neck R
Oi AL Alabama Amy Ammunition Plant Childersburg R
03 21 2over Air Force Base Dover D
;;• V = VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE:
F = FEDERAL ENFSRCE.MENT, _ S = STATE E\r:^C:v'ZNT,
D = ACTICNS 73 BE DETERMINED.
2:1= IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERWAY, ONE CR MORE OPERABLE LNITS;
C = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UMTS COMPLETED, OTHERS MAY BE UNDERWAY,
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR ALL OPERABLE v-MTS.
-------
4Q340 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1964 / Proposed Rules
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
FEDERAL SITES
GROUP 9
RESPONSE CLEANS?
RG ST SITE NAME CITY/COUNTY CATE3CRYI* STATUS
03 PA Letterkenny Army Depot (SE Area) Chambersburg R
02 NY Griffiss Atr Force Base Rome R
03 VA Defense General Supply Censer Chesterfield County R
#: V = VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
F = FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT; 3 = STATE ENFORCEMENT;
D = ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
-------
F«deol Rajuter / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday, October IS. 1964 / Proposed Ruica
4SM1
EPA
RG ST SITE NAME
NATIONAL PRIORITIES UPDATE LIST
FEDERAL SITES
GROUP 11
CITY/COL'NTY
RESPONSE CLEANUP
CATEGORY STATUS 3
06 LA Louisiana Army Ammunition Plane DoyLine
10 WA Bangor Ordnance Disposal Bremerton
09 CA father AFB (ACiW Disposal Site) Sacramento
R
R
R
TOTAL SITES LISTED: 36
i; ^ = VOLUNTARY OR VEGOTIATED RESPONSE; S = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
F = FEDERAL EVFCRCEMENT, S = STATE ENFORCEMENT;
D = ACTION'S TO BE DETERMINED.
?• I = IMPLEMENTATION1 ACTIVITY UNDERWAY, ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS;
0 = ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETED, OTHERS MAY BE UNDERUAY;
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR ALL OPERABLE UNITS.
The following list of final NPL (49 PR 37070 September 21, 1984)
indicates the appropriate status codes for response and cleanup
activities at these sites.
-------
40342
Federal Reguler / Vol. 49. No, 280 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST FINAL
EPA
RANK REG ST SITE NAXE «
!
2
3
14
5
6
/
a
9
IU
1 1
1 ^
1 J
114
15
,'6
U
13
2')
21
22
21
2u
25
26
2;
23
29
5U
) l
J?
11
Jli
15
J6
i;
18
J1*
UU
Ul
U2
(i i
(j U
U S
<46
(I/
<4H
'i 9
50
•
*
02
0]
OJ
02
01
(12
02
07
0]
(•2
01
C-2
05
01
1)2
01
i;5
06
(11
'•a
06
i)6
01
05
01
01
Oh
05
oa
06
uu
09
Ul
06
f'2
ca
(J6
01
"r>
u«J
02
UU
1)5
U2
02
UU
oa
10
u5
UU
NJ Lipari LaodTi i 1
OE Tybouts Corner Landfill *
PA Bruin Lagoon
NJ He'en Kramer La nun n
MA induStri-Piex
NJ Price i.mdf i i i •
NY Pollution Aca:emenc 5ervn.es •
IA LaBouncy Si ce
OE Army Creek Landfill
NJ GPS/Madison industries
MA Nyan;a cricmicai was-." 3nmu
NJ Gens Lunaf i i i
Ml Berl m fc Farro
MA 83 I rd * HcClM fi
NJ Lone Pine uandM i i
NH Somerswortn Sanitary L.-tniJfiM
MN FMC Corp (Fr.dley Hlaric)
AR vertac. inc.
NH Koefe Environmental Sftrvice*
SO w^iiewood Creek •
MT Si i «cr Bow Creek
TX Frencn. Ltd
Mil Sylvester •
Ml Liquid Ui sposa i . int.
PA Tysons Dump
PA MCAOOO Associates •
TX MO ico inc. •
OH A rear mm Iron & Mccal
Mr East iii-14'i.i Si te
rx Si HCS Oi suo'.a i Pi tr>
AL Tri.in.i/ run. icssett fti»«r
CA Sir i nijfc Mo- *
ME MtK in CO .
TX Crystal Chemical Co
NJ Bridgeport Hcncal i Oil S..fv«;ft
CO Sand Creek industrial
rx Geneva I noust r >os/f ufirm^nn tncioy
MA W R Cr.lce i CO 1 Ac ton I'l.int)
MN ltd. My far (Sc Inms Pnrk fiitif)
NJ Uiiriit T ly uoq
NJ Vioclsnd Cnumicai Co.. inc.
FL ScHuyikiii Metais Corp,
MN No* Or ignton/Araun HI Us
NY aid Occ'ipage Landfill
NJ Shieida I loy Corp.
FL Reeves SE Galvanizing Corp.
MT Anaconda Co. SoiQitcr
WA western Processing Co . Inc.
Wl Omegfl Mills North Ldttdfilf
FL American Creosote worxj
i
SITES • CROUP 1
ftEM"jNSE CLEANUP
CITY/COUNTY CATECORVJ STATUS f
Pitman H F
Nfw Castie County v R F
Brn i n Ro rouqn n
Mdncud fuwns'iio H
wnourn / ^
P lf» "i^nt « i i m B /
ONWI.JJO t f
entries i cy v F S
NC.* Cae,t e f-.Linty ' t
Old flr.-i'j<» 'own'.fiiu •>
A VI 1 ,11 .1 •*
t> i Oiicesti; r i ownsh io K
S-a rn ( roek , >i i i
iin i arnr.i- ( c
Fr'.e'iQ'ij rcjwnsniti K
•^ny K F
•l •',! i.,< l( ^
i;cn.a f F
Uni.ii' r MI. i i UM f wu K
Mo'"iioti I'.cjroiigri i;
Lil "jrgi.i; i.
LMI ke (.DH'IC./ K F
trfSl III; 1 L'!ifl
Cr'isDy u f
L TiL S '.!" • ,'M.il l|,lll / ! F
Cien A /mi iCi'J'ils l< F
T.r.iy K >
HOi'StUn R F
Hri •igcrnn t •<
C£jinincr(.n C i (./
IIIIHSCOII H t
". ton v F
• l lOitis P»r* K F S
"••I 1 1 DOI U lOwll" u K S
Vine land 0
Plant Ci Ly 0
Ncv BrigntO'i «
Oyiter Uny / S
Newfieid Boroi'g'i u
Tampa 0
AflilCO'ICI
\
0
0
u
1
o
()
u
Ij
I)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
40343
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST FtNAL SITES - CROUP 2
RANK REG ST SITE NAME • CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE CLEANUP
CATEGORY* STATUS €
51
52
53
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
6U
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
7U
75
76
77
79
79
80
81
82
83
SO
86
87
1 88
VI
91
92
93
yu
95
94
9/
98
99
•
H \
4
02
02
05
05
06
07
02
05
05
10
0<4
D5
05
UU
05
09
02
09
02
08
02
U5
Ul
01
06
00
uitf Stitree C'lf-'l *
WV WOSl Virginia O'dnnnrc •
MO £i 1 i svi i IB Si ie •
NO Arsemc frio*ide Sif1 *
TT PCO wnstus •
VA M.iiUn.'-S 1 ii-rtrop la t ing *
1 A Ai Ji! < Lin u . *
Al Mountain View MuO i 1 0 HomuS *
AS Tapul mid farm •
TN Nurtn Mullyvood Dump •
HY A.L. F.lylor (Valley Of O'UOIS) •
NC PCS Sp • i i s •
CU Oriiot LiindFi 1 1 •
MS Flowoud "site *
ur Rose P.irfc siudgc Pit •
KS Arkansas City Dump •
CM PLB Wiii t'Hoose *
STAFfS' OtSIONAlEO fOP PRIOHIFY SITES.
= VOLUNIAR< OR NEGOriATEO RESPONSE; R
= ft Of HAL ENrOHCtNF.NT; S
= ACTIONS TO BE OETERMINEO.
s IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERWAY. ONE
' 0 = ONE OR MODE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETED.
C
= IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR
Fa i rfieid
South Glen Fans
Seymour
T roy
Ottawa County
Cherokee County
Brick Townsmp
Cad i M AC
j mesv i i ie
Vancouver
Beaufort
Beaufort
Janesv i i ie
Oavie
Troy
Miami
La Pr.ii fie Township
TdCSOn
Brant
Redding
Carl si3Ui
Les of RIMOS
Ouan
F lowuoO
Sal l LJHI; City
Arkansas City
Ma r i JIM s
i FFuERAi. ANU S:A^E H
- STATE LNfOHCCMl Nf .
OR MORE OPERABLE UN l
OTHfrfS "«AY BE UMCJERW
ALL OPERABLE UNI rs.
R S
V
V R F
R
R
0
R
D
R
0
s
0
D
F
D
0
R
R
R
S
R
V R F S
H S
V R F S
R
V R F S
V H F
V S
W F S
H F
V
V
R
R
hi
R
M F
R F
R
R S
R F
H F
D
V
H
R
t i<*ONSE.
rs.
A ' :
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
c
0
1
c
c
-------
/ Vol. 49. No 200-/ Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
•M^A^H
RAN*
1U1
102
10]
1(15
11)6
IO 7
U>8
109
10
l i
1 ^
1 3
id
1 5
16
l 7
05
UJ
nu
'JU
05
r"j
02
•i'j
(V»
.ir>
U3
Oi»
0*4
U5
'-.5
02
01
U8
(12
OU
01
>»
: ST
MN
IL
PA
NJ
MN
MA
10
NY
NJ
CA
WA
PA
CT
NY
AZ
OR
NY
AL
Ml
FL
NJ
i 3
NJ
AL
FL
a
NU
Ml
NJ
MN
NJ
FL
CA
Ml
CH
NY
IN
FL
Ml
PA
NC
fL
Ml
Wl
NY
PA
CO
•NI
. FL
Rl
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST FINAL
SI fE NAME •
Oakdaie Dump
A ft F Material Reclaiming, me
Oougi ass>' l»C3s
Un r.e "..i Mil Pi-Ofliie ts( Cnem Oiv)
Aerojet j."ierai Cury
Com Bay. Souin Idcc.ua Channel
OSDOrnti L.lt'Or • l I
Old Souin.ngion Ldnaf'M
Syosset LJf'Oi'i l "
Ninetei?"tn A*«!'mP Ljr.jfiM
tf»iert>ne -an Clu^j
Si nc ' rt i r °ef i ner^
MowOray Lnqineer.rg Co
Soiegeoerq L^nor.ii
Mijmi Oru'n Services
Pe icn ' i rin-i
union Pi-ifii' RuiirnxQ i.a
Souti 3''''is. n> L."MM i i i
C'Cii-Cj •!/ C^'O. (Mcinto^n Pi*1*!)
h js»-y
w.uiconfij Sane i Lra/t.". j'irif i t i
WniLGri'"N»* .7. 1 ^'ti
M« rcu i e : )' ~) L inoi i i i
Ve IS. <.i)i •;.• fin- ja l ! Mil." igan |
Suram. r N,-> ' i 5iai
LT/e L." .1 i
F • sner-',,d i o
Ptoiiee' 'ifl'.o v.'o
"(If . • , ' V ' '1 ' ,->i-»M • U OM">|>
'• i .in . „ i 1 .1 O 1 • l '
Marc i Mf i .ec '.*. S'.icyecti. • "c
^ei'-ouO Cro<» LJ"0 ' > i i •
Muol-er ( •> if i>j l
L iort.1'1'1 Oi "no
Centra . ' . ;, -i;-..ai Cree*
ven: • .»• .•»!«. o i
I i/ i or •• j iO k.ir.cf i II
wesce-n DJHU A C^^vei
SITES - CROUP 3
RESPONSE CIEAHUP
CITY/COUNTY CATEGORY STaTus «
Oa 'dfl i e F
Creenno V ^ F S 0
00119 i *ss ^ i i • e >*
HII| souro gn P
S* p . i i\
u rn*i i J
P'>mouLi '/ P j o
Smt» i te'v i i i • 1
».:0son J i .. ' f*
Ei-iC Lii!. ' ri r"i -1 S
f- mi 'o i T"jo»a i
1 n.jma ° f 0
r. i : . » { , r t , j
So i' '.t • > nt •. i 0
O-.^tar 3»/ 0
("•fiHf ' •>
A 1 0 .1 ". / 1
«.« . i > > , . . e / H
f. "esnv ' • P •* 0
>". rt:-n f i - Tr«..^ri 3 •"*
wl «iT). K 0
Pi -.1 ».1li'. J i - iS 'I
*. itei ' •> 0
- • . .'i K . s. . •• / i
**C " L3 ,T '">
. i i(i j op
-v - j -.: i »
» • • i, SCf < / ° F S 0
D.» « iu i ' .-• s'< o ** 0
?P.TI -.:.,. n 5 0
'. . ^5 L l • " 0
& i • •!.. o.i rtp '.i ijn i
-' \ , i.t .j ><
•'r i- •....« -J
-. t I J i . • / F S 0
: .1 .--r ,.•>! i ' .-) ,- 3 3
S ,,;.-, ...' S •< f i -)
LJf-ui-fi ' F
•^ i rr i pg fjn P S
..i vi S0i.' .J H
.Jin Clio ' ;wnsP 0
fTM r i ct t J 0
^S 1 1 «n,)J . f
c i ' -T . i ;/ I c
"..-,!•!»(; 0 J
N • » ',
i.nro S-. <• " :s
Wi).T3 H . 1 • J 3o r , rt i »
Se''f'ier / • j
fl-.rr i I i v • ' • J ' i )
V
.*
'OP PSiQPiTY SITES
R *
. S =
0 = ACTIONS. TO flE jt'LMMiNEO
I = IMfLtMtNTAI.ON ACTIVITY WNDtR\-AY. DN£ OK
o = ONE OR MORE OPERAOLE UNITS COMPLETEO, OTHERS MAV BE un::f
C = IMPLEMENfAriON ACTIVITY CUMPLf. T£0 FOR ALL OPEPA8LE wN i r i
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed RuJga
40345
EPA
RANK REG ST SITE NAME •
PRIORITIES LIST FINAL SITES - CROUP <4
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE CLEANUP
CATEGORY* STATUS €
,5,
152
151
1 5U
I5S
IS'1
1 "3Q
159
160
161
162
163
I6<4
165
166
lii?
169
1 70
1 ' 1
1 72
171
1 72
ur>
112
05
02
03
02
02
05
01
UK
Ul
L"4
115
02
05
02
02
(19
»6
u5
u5
HB
no
u2
0>
02
U'l
02
OH
(III
1 '«'
ur>
o-
02
i'i 1
01
G2
u!
u5
U2
I1 2
• ,14
- 5
V
F
0
1
0
c
SC Koppers Co.. ire (Florence Plant)
NJ Mayvood Chemical Co.
NJ Nascoi i te Corp.
OK Hardage/Criner
Ml Rose Township Dump
MN waste Disposal Enqineermq
NJ Kin-BuC LAnUfi 1 1
OH Bowers i mar i i i
NJ C i Dd-Ce >qy Corp.
Ml Butterwortn 42 Ldfidfiil
NJ American Cyar.jmid Co.
PA Heieva uanjr i i i
NJ Ewan Property
NY Batav ia lanufi i i
MM Bo i ie C<« iCinJe/Onan/MuU C ron i cs
Rl L4RR. me.
FL xw 5din Street Landfill
NJ oe i i dfi 1 1
NJ Mei.i i lec/Aerosystems
wi Schma 1 1 0^nq Co.
LA Cleve RtfOijr
IL veisicol Cnemicai (Illinois)
Ml Tar Lake
CO LOwry L.mjf i 1 1
MN M.icCiMis Ic CiDos/Ueii Lumoer
NJ Comne fill North lamiriii
MA Po-Sfllvt!. inc.
NJ Ciiose f.irm
IN VBISH.JI (.rmrn (ii.irUi.-man County)
NY YOf K Oi 1 CO
FL S.i po Battery Salvage
SC w.unLi'fm. inc.
HI 11 1 1 i- 1 4i.ul 1 .ink L I III b . 1 >•>
WI M.lilLM Ui-.UUS.il bUlviLC 1 KidTl 1 1
KS 0'ieuhe Oispos.il Site (HoiiiOay)
MJ Floieni;e land Recoo ton ring LF
Rl U.lvis LI-IMKJ W.I sto
MA Lh«»r los-f.eorge Rec laniat ion Lf
NJ King ot° Prussia
VA CM i SIMM Ci eek
0>l No,? SO LhOffliCal
NJ w R. Cmi-e h (.0 (woyne Plant)
NJ CheniCJi i^untroi
SC Leona«-e ima
Sorronr.o V
Marsn.i i i
M.mccionn (nwnship
A rj pa hou County V
New Briyiaon
Mount Ol i ve Twp
D.irt.nuuth
Plums tend Township
Toune
MOi ra
Cottonja ie
rim ton
id Migi.-port
Dmukrieid
Johnson County
Florence Townsi p
Sm 1 1 1 r i e i j
Tynqsooraugn
Wins low Township
voi k County
SJ loin
W.iyne Township
E 1 i JaDdtn
ROC* Hill
= FIOERAL AND bTAIL RLSfC
- STATE ENFORCE.^fNf ;
OR. MORE OPERAfll E UNITS.
01 HERS MAY BE UHOLRWAY;
ALL OPERABLE UNI TS.
S
l
R
F
R
R F
R F 0
R
f
S
H
0
S 1
S
R
R
R 0
R
R
R
0
o
R
S
« 0
D
0
R
S
R
R F i
R F 0
0
R F 0
R l
D
0
0
0
R
R S
R F 0
0
R
0
R 0
R S 0
S 0
^NS £ t
-------
/ VoL 4a No. 200 / Monday. October !5. 1964 / Proposed Rules
EPA
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST FIUAC SITES'- CROUP 5
RANK REG ST SITE NAHC •
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE CLEANUP
CATEGORY* STATUS 9
201
202
203
20H
205
206
20 /
2'ifl
21)9
21U
211
212
213
2m
215
216
2U
218
219
220
221
222
223
2?U
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
2)1
23U
235
236
237
238
239
2HU
2*4 1
2«I2
2U3
2) te Coi lege Boro
Ash till) LI 1 A
Somhington v
Commerce Ci ty
westbo rough
West Point
RiimapO V
UK i an
Co ion i e
Fort Lauderdaie
Olean v
Mi ami
Brooklyn Center
i jo nver
Ciermont
verona V
Mi I i town
Herman town
Pi urns lead Township
South Ku.irny
Richmond
Ma laga
Londonderry
Ga i i ova y
Howe i I Townsn i p
R F
R F S
P"
D
F S'
\ 0
R
S
R F S
R F
D
s'
R
F
0
f
R
F
0
0
F
0
R
S
S
0
R
R
R F
S
D
D
R
R
F S
R
R F
F
R
R
R
R
S
K
« S
D
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
G
= FEDERAL »NO STAIt RESPONSE.
= STATE ENFORCEMENT.
OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS.
OTHERS MAY Be UNOCHWAf;
ALL OPERABLE UNI TS
-------
Fvdnai Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 13. 1984 / Proposed Rules 40347
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST FINAL SITES - CHOUP 6
EPA RESPONSE ClFAMUP
RANK
231
25 J
Z'jn
255
25 /
t"(fl
2V)
":(, i
is'i
26'i
t'h'j
206
267
260
2/0
2/1
.' if'
2/3
2/U
2/6
2 / /
2/8
2/9
ran
282
?3U
£?8rj
286
28/
2*8
^llj,!
291
.•">!
.")ii
t!')'i
J96
2v/
i?V'J
Jl»U
•
If
9:
RCC ST SITE IWW •
01 ME S.ico Tannery waste Pus
U'i FL Pickettvitle Ruad Landfill
(H MA iron Horse Park
oj HA Psimerton fine Pile
05 IN Noa 1 ' s Landfill | Dioomingion)
u5 wi Konier LD lamjMM
01 MA Si ire Sim Clicm.Cdl Corp
U 1 MA We H S O«H
U2 NJ Cnenisoi. irn-.
l)r; wi Laner I S.initary lamJfiii
ll'j Ml PetOSkey Municipal Wt- 1 1 FiOld
1)5 MN Union Si rny
U2 NJ Radiation Tccnnoloqy. inc.
U2 NJ Fair Lawn we i i Field
n5 IN Mrfin Street well Fipid
O'j MN Leni 1 1 1 er/M.inkaio Site
10 WA Lakewood St te
i>3 PA industrial i a) CA S.i n O.itirioi vaiifty (Area 1|
09 CA S.tn O.i Or, el Valley (Area 2)
ID WA Cum Bay. Near bnore/fidc Flats
o*} U La S.i HO Ciei.tr ic utilities
n5 1L Cross Uiutiirrs Pail (Puraorokc)
\\f PK Uojuiin t jc i i i ty
li<; CA McCO 1 1
03 PA iit.-ndi.'rson Ko.id
Ml WA ( ii 1 In i 1 1 .null . 1 1
i)6 IA Huti u-l'i occiiurs
02 I'R F rontura Creek
u2 PR RaruRiOMei.,1 landfill
D) Ml) S.md, Crs.ui 4 Stu'ie
()5 Ml Siiart-in Chemical Co.
n2 NJ RoPOimq Steel Co.
U) I'A C.ist Muunt Jion
1)14 IN Ammiul.i Utimo
O>,l. a
(Muni uc (uwnsh i p
Hoi.kaw.iy Tuwnsnip
(.ii i umoi ii C i ty
POC.I tu i 10
l)Gs Monies
lit rk i uy Townsh i p
vesta l
VIMM Al ta
Stnrq i s
1 .1 k c 1 1 mo
ScoitstM ie/ Tempo
fi Monic
BdiJtfKi Park Area
Pierce county
i ,1-iH 1 1 e
Pcn.Orot'e Tuwnsnip
tl.i rue loneta
FU i i or ton
'Vnu r M« r i on 1 -
i ,,i ucrt
Si IK land vi lie V
Rio Atiajo
Florida Afuera
F i kton
wyonn nq
FUJI ente
SpringeitsDury Twp
C'ldttanooqa
^ i no i 3 nd
Pn > i aife i pn i a
Cru^und V
R
a
R
F
F S
0
R 5
F
S
0
F
S
S
D
R
R S
F
0
S
U
H S
R F
F
R
S
n
0
s
F
R
R
R
R
R
D
R F
0
R
F
0
0
K
0
R
R
0
0
K S
H S
0
0
1
0
1
u
0
1
1
0
1
0
FtuE'AL AND S:A:E RESPONSE.
STATE ENFORCEMENT;
OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS:
OTHERS MAY BE UNDERWAY.
ALL OPERABLE UNI TS.
-------
40948
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 200 / Monday. October 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
RANK
301
302
303
31)4
3UO
J06
JO 7
3U8
]n4
i 10
] 1 1
3 i 2
3 1 i
JIU
316
31 7
318
319
}
3?l
322
J? 3
32'i
j? '
JVJ
3'H
3'i2
3«3
JliU
3116
3'i7
SU9
350
•
H:
S:
NATIONAL" PR,bR,T,ESL,STT.tNA:L^,TE>-;G«OUP 7 ..^^ ^^
REG ST SITE NAME • lMC 1 TV/COUNTY . CATEGORY! STATUS «
02 NY General Motors (Ce.nt Foundry Oiv)
UU SC SCROI Oixiana
07 MO Fui bright Landfi 1 I
03 PA Presgue isie
02 NJ wiinams Property
02 NJ Renora. inc.
uj5 IN Nintn Avenue Dump
06 AR Gii r ley Pit
UI Rl Peterson/Puritan, inc.
07 MO T Kites Be ic>> Si te
US Ml wash King Laundry
05 MN whutaher Corp.
05 MN NL industries/Taracorp/Coiaen
Oi Cf KCI logg-Ueering wen Fieio
(il MA Cannon Engineering Corp. ((.EC)
!><> NY Niagara County Refuse
Qii FL bhcrwood Medical industries
uu AI Oiin Corp (Mcincosh Plant)
llO Ml Southwest Ottawa County l.liiflfjM
112 NY kcnlnnky AvCni'C Well F.tfld
U^ NJ ASUPStuS Dump
014 KY loo's L.me Landfiji
116 Alt Frit industries i
<)'; OH Fill t i Lflndf i 1 1
(Hi FL Iri -City Oil Const.1 rv* t ion i st . me
U5 OH CosMocton Landfill - -
113 PA Loid-Shupe Land! ill
10 WA IMC Curp. ( Yak HIM Pit)
05 Wl Nnrthi-rn Cngr.iv ing Co.
ui MA PSC Resoiuces i
115 MI Foiost WrfStft Products"
UJ PA Orakc Cliffnit.il
•>1 NH Ken rsa rtji: Hrt.iilurgic.il Corp.
u/4 bC P .11 met to wund Pii-sci ving
05 MI C late w.i 10 r Supply
d] PA M,i vcr town PCP
1)3 1)1 Ni w (..ISL 1C Su i M
ll'j MN Mori 14 AiSCiiiC UU.NII
O'j IN Lake S.inOy Jo ( MiM Landfill)
05 IL Junns-M.inv i I le Corp.
.05 MI Ciiem Centra i
05 Ml' NO^ILU industry's
02 NJ jacKson Township landfill
u5 MI KiL Avenue L.mdiiM r
in WA Ka i SIT Ai'iminum MoaJ work*
i)5 MN Pern.im Arsenic Site
|J5 MI Chjrievnix Municipal well
u2 NJ Montgomery Township Housing Ocv
= STATES' OCSiCNATH) TOP PRIORITY SITES.
V = \OiiJNlARy OR NFCOTiATEO RESPONSE; R
F = FrOlDAL LNFOHCIMENI; S
0 = ACTION* 10 BF OETLKMINED. •
1 = IMPLEMENTATION ACT 1 V I<[Y ,-UNOERWAY, ONE
0 - ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETEU.
C = IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED F.OR
Mas sena -' ' ' f
Cayce- • -- -R- £-S — _0
Soringfieid 0
r - „ 'li n
Erie u
Sv.a mton ( ' R ''
Cdison Township . 0 -K
Bayvi lie . ' ' 0
Cibostown 0
c^y v ' •
Cumonilsun v R F 0
L i nco in/Lumoer I and ._ 0
T imes Uejcn R . '" 0
Pleasant Plains T«P , S
MI nneapo i i s " S
St LOUIS Park, . 0
NO rwa f k R
Br idgewaicr . R S '
wneatfield . 0
Del and '. 0
Mcmtosh . , ' • . -0
f.irk 1 own ship S
norsiM"1 1 li R
M i i I i in) tun F
1 on i Sv i MO F
walnut Ridqc v F I
j.ickson fownslnp R
Tainua " f 0
f rjnKi m .Tuwnsfnp ' F
Girard township V S 1
vnk i ma 0
f _
Sp.irta , 0
Palmer S I
Oil svi i ie « F i
LOCK ll.ivon R F 0
Conway _ ' S'
0 1 x i.inn.i ' 0
C i a re 0
M.I vori ord R
•i. w Cast ie Count,/ ' ' 0
Murris Rj
CJ( y H '
waiikeO'in ^ ^
Wyuinnig Townsliip S
Temperance F
Jackson Township 0
Osntcmo rownsriip 0
Mc.id ' v 0
ferham u' '
Cha rievo i < R i
Montgomery fownshij .-4
= FEOERAi AND S'AIE -".SP'JNSE.
= STATE ENFORCCMCNI.
OR MORE OPERABLE U'H.'S-
OTHERS MAY BE UNOEPwAv
ALL OP.ERABLE UNI rs.
-------
Federal Reyntet I Voi. 49. So. 200 / Monday. October IS. 1964 / Prepeaed Ra*e«
40349
__^^—— '
NdKK
(r, 1
> * l
J'x*
J'| i
i','1
J''''
I'-ll
J *' '
j ' t
lo l
It ,•
:
.','
>
i| *
II 1
" i
. r,
ji,
M /
il2
,!(j
n'l
i)l
'i 1
.-6
5
'.'Hi
•I")
• ')
sr
«j
NV
NY
NJ
r <
f A
Mf
h ^
i'A
1 1
Nil
M f
1 <
lif
N J
Nil
(<•/
M 1
n i
x/
t r
.V
1 1
^A
!>A
On
N*
SH
MM
DM
Oil
«J
NJ
Nil
M£
SR
Ort
U"
1. A
Ml
Ml
NATIONAL PM10KITIES LIST riMAL
SUE lUHf •
nui>y il'll Mun 1 1. 1 p'i I Well
Hrevst«r wei i f >eid
Vfst.il >i.it.er Supply vie i ) l-i
Vi.Ct i "«l 1 'IK k s t.«Sl«r Co.
US1' ill 'i'"1 t <" I),
K, i|! 1 mils Al. ''I 1*' t
1 » OC / ' ' '1* < il W.I IT* <" OMltrTin i tlrt t * Of*
,V .1 IIP '. "l.!"!'
p*t'/r ' s 1 n ill • l '
.'rt'ra r.- i.uDl"1*
^nv.i'iu HiniirioHl *,ncr joggly
TuH r ^ M »n
.11 iDil.Hii i full • [.rn •>
M'II ii'il l icfisntis't) V i»
!i.i . iei /iiii-un r-.icific lie ireatj"<<
" «y TV i > ic ' mof i 1 l
Oliver Kin. i u iu.i 1 I I'.iH ' ' 1
Liidll1^ ^n«j & Cr,i<«€t
t i '. / Ui «noso i ldi. nuii's Drum 0\iwp '
( , d(i."- K1 ill
Ta'orU Tw«iB°nn'oc-»C''eek
1 1.( lu^-i fust iC'Ue
(•.tl'' I'll. II 1^1 LC I.M1M)
1 .lv ».IH HUM KOI MSP
Ct4.ft| (ss i rijii^ ^ r i f < (A*cry O^ivc)
,M.i'K.n<*i.n AVI-IIIH: Ui"»o '
Tin 1C i lerinmAI S
&>itjiirii Huid kAnJItil
F its C''IT.C.II , «ic.
Cb ur.11 Mi I 1 s/MOIiki'l Corp.
I >.IC>'P S<'P0'/ W0I 1
w. mtirf.g l rt/i(Jp" i 1 I
C"C il 1 • i!3''y
/.v !•<./. i .i! -e< 1 1 .fcl J
(1.1 ( i'-» N..nicipdi vl
P&ttf '"E^Li ' UHQ'f
vtintliroo
NevpO r t
^iinestf i f ie
f Ju CIA i ra
P'.MCM Ciiinuy
Cre i < i cvv , i i tf
wetaiWii
RESPONSE CLEANUP
CATECOAVI STATUS «
„
R
R
H
R
R
R
R
V R
R
V
A
ft
R
R
R
K
R
R
V
R
R
V
V R
V
"
ft
V
*
D
0
0
F
0
S
F
a
0
a
0
r
0
s
s
a
f S
F
0
0
S
F
S
f
F
F
0
S
F
0
a
0
0
0
0
c
0
a
0
a
0
i
0
o
1
1
1
«WJ
• , SUMS' v i «iJ.rO IOP PRlORil* SUES.
t v a v(?> u'i '•'* !« Hf'-OliAfEO RESPONSE: R =
0 = ACt'UNS UJ bt 'DC
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. Mo 200 /'Monday Omber 15 1984 / Proposed Rules
EPA
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST FINAL SITES - CPOUP 9
RANK REG ST SITE NAME •
CITY/COUNTY
RESPONSE CLEANUP
CATEGORY! STATUS
001
U03
uou
I4U6
DMA
UllJ
141 1
(413
UI14
1416
1417
14)8
1419
(420
1421
H22
123
(425
l4?6
U27
U28
U29
1430
1431
U32
U 1 J
U3<4
UJ5
UJ6
U3I
U38
IK4U
Utll
i|'i3
14144
UU5
(4(16
14 u 8
U'l9
U50
I:
I?"
05 MI Whitehall Municipal weiis
05 MN South Andnver Site
02 NJ Dianond Alkali Co
05 MI Kentwood landfill
05 MI Electrovoice
02 PR Fibers Public Supply wens
05 IN Marion (Or.irjq) Oump
u5 On Pristine, inc.
05 wi Mid-State Oispos.H. me. L^ndFiii
08 CO Broderick wood Products
1)5 OH Buckeye n.-i: i amj t .on
06 IX BiO-£coioi)y Systems, me
02 NJ woodland Route 5)2 Oumo
05 IN American crwmica l Service, me.
01 Vf Old Sprnnjf ieid Landfill
02 NY Solvent Savers
03 VA U.S. T i t.i n mm
05 iL C.aiosbiiig/Koppers Co.
1)2 NY Hooker (HyOe Park)
05 Ml SCA inupuunocnt Landfill
09 CA MCM Hr.ikes
06 LA B.i you Sorrel 1
05 Ml Quell it Gardner Landfill
02
04
10
05
n5
05
10
05
u6
05
05
02
01
1)5
ill
nr>
u J
OJ
05
03
02
02
U2
02
05
U3
09
V
F
D
0
C
NJ E 1 1 i S Property
KY Oistier Farm
WA Harbor island (lead)
WI LCfflbcrgcr Transport *• Hrcyc 1 i ng
OH E.H. Schilling Landfill
Ml Cl i f f/Ui/w Dump
WA Queen Ci ty farms
wi Scrap Pioccssmq Co . mo.
NM Homest.ike.Miniiiy Co.
Ml Mason County landfill
Ml Cemetery Dump
NJ Hopkins Farm
Ri Stamina MI i rs. me.
IN Rciliy lar (Indianapolis Plant)
ME Pi no no's Salvaqr Yaril
IX n.iriit ( i .1 1 i >>y bui'ui)
NJ Wi i «.OM 1 .1 nn
PA Old Cny of York landfill
IL Byron Salvage va'd
PA Stanley dossier
NJ FriCdmjn Property
NJ ifflperi.il 0 1 I XCMiifflp i on Chemicals
NJ Myers Property
NJ Pepe Field
Ml Ossnu.-ke Ground water Con tan
WV Fol lansbnu bi te
CA hoppers Co .me (Oroviiie Plant)
STAlfS1 OFSlf.NATH) TOP PRIORITY SITES.
= VOLUNTARY OR NtCOTlATED RESPONSE; R
= FIOERAL [NtOKCLMCNf; S
= ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
* IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERWAY. ONE
- ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETED.
= IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR
wh i tena l 1 K
Anuover 0
Newark V
kuntw'juJ 0
JOOOS 0
Marion 0
Rc-idmq f
Cieveiam] Township R
Denver R
St . Cld i rsvi III! 0
Cr.md Pra i r ie R
woodUiKj Townsnip 0
Griffitn 0
Spri riijf ie< d V R F
Lirickiaen D
Pmoy River F S
GaiCSbnrg 0
Niagara I a I I s V F S
Muskcgon neignts D
Cioverdaie S
Ra,ou Sorrel i F
Oa i ton Townsiiiu D
Evushjm Township R
Jefferson County R F
SCJttIC U
Frnnklui Townsfnp 0
Hamilton Townslnp 0
Ma rune tie F
Maple va i ley F
Mi.'ilford S
Mi Ian V F
Pure M.irquettO Fwp 0
Rusu Cuntcr R
Piiunste.iJ TowiiOno 0
Nurtn Smi infiei R
ind i an.ipoi i S F
w.iifiburn R
iiuiiston V
HiumsteaU Towiiii j 0
Seven va l leys 0
fiyron R
king of Prussia F
upper Fruotioid T*p R
Morgan vi Me 0
Frank) in Township R
Boonton R
Ossinekc 0
Fo I lansbuii F
Orovi lie S
= FTUERAL AND STAfC I'LSPONSE.
: STATE ENFURCCMLNI .
OR-MORE OPERABLE UNITS;
OTHERS MAY BE UNUF.PWAY;
ALL OPERABLE UNI TS.
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
-------
fedaral Register/- VoL 49. No. 200 /-Monday.:October 15.1964 / ProppedRBJCT
40W1
NArrONAL PRIORIT.ES L.ST F.NAL SITES • CROUP ,0 ^^ ^^
RANK
Mil
U5U
U',6
'•5 f
u^s
,','
'10 I
U62
n -.'i
IK. i
U',6
ttol
no;
U .' 1
•l/ 1
ti 7 2
u/ j
i, -j,
u » */
U/6
n//
'i /Q
utjn
!.8I
1' 8 It
liC5
ii8/>
U8 /
:
4:
REG ST SITE NAME •
05
0 J
u2
U2
06
02
OU
05
UU
1)1
V J
nu
05
ui
02
U5
IIU
OU
UU
U5
U5
iU
(.'5
00
UU
0 J
n5
i)5
OU
111
u5
05
OJ
05
U5
08
115
1-2
U5
02
02
OJ
10
05
05
OJ
OJ
OU
U5
v
F
0
1
0
C
Ml U.S. AVI ex
PA waish LandFi i i
NJ Landfill %. Development Co.
NJ Upper Dee-fieid fownship Sir
NM AT fc SF (ClOvi S)
NY American Thermostat Co.
TN LewiSDi.r'j Dump
Ml McCriw Ed i son Corp.
HV Ai rco
PA Meta i B.n.ks
KY B.F. Coodricn
Ml Organic Cnemicd i s. inc.
MA Sun ivan1 s Ledge
PR Juncos Landfi 1 I
IN Bennett btone Qu.irry
FL Muni spot t Land) i i I
AL Stauffer Cncm 1 Le Moyne Plant)
NJ M*T Dei i sa LandTi i i
SC Cciger ( C ft M Oi i )
Wl Moss-Air.ericjn( kerr-Mi Gee Oil Co.)
wi waste Research i Rt-ciam.it ion Co.
OR Could, inc.
MN St. LOinS River Site
Ml Auto ion Cnc'ffli f3 I s. inc.
SC Carol awn. Inc.
PA Berks Sand Pit
MI Sparta l andf i ' i
IL ACME Solvent (Mornstown Plant)
FL Hipps Ko.id L"itofiii
Fi Pepper Sieei * Alloys, me.
Mt O'Connor Co
wi Oconomovoc Electroplating Co. 1 nc
Ml Rasmussen's Dump
PA west 1 me Si te
OH PoweM Ru.id Landfill
Ml lonid Ci ty LanUfi 1 1
CO Lincoln P. irk
IN wedjeO Interpn ses. me
PR CC Wiring OC-VICBS
OH Nuw tyinu Landfill
NJ Woodland Route 12 Dump
PR RCA Del Car i be
PA QroJhfrid Creek
OR united Chrome Products, inc.
Ml Anderson Development Co.
Ml Shiawassee River
PA Taylor Borough Dump
OE Harvey It *nott Drum, inc.
TN Cal Uw.iy Pi ts
OH Big 0 C.nTipy round
STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES.
VOLUNTARY UK NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT; S
ACTIONS 10 b£ OETEKMINfO.
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY UNDERWAY. ONE
ONE OR MORE OPERABLE UNITS COMPLETED.
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED FOR
CITY/COUNTY CATEGORY* STATUS 9
Howard Township * S
Honeybrook Township R
Mount HOI ly S
upper Oeerfieid Twp
C 1 Ov is V F
South Cai ro V
Lewi sourg
Albion V
Cat vert Ci ty
Phi ladeiphia v F
Caivert City
Grand vi l ie
New Bedford R
*t f
JuncOS V F
Bioommg ton S
North Miami
AXIS
Asbury Park V R
RnntOwl cs
MI iwankee
Eiiu C la i re
Portland V
St. Luu is Count/
na i ofliaioo "
fort Lawn R F
Long swamp Township R
Sparta township S
Mornsiown R
Ouv.il County
Medley , R F
Augusta
ASM i pp i n
Green 0
-------
/ Vol. «. No. 200 /-Monday, October 15.1984'/ Proposed Roles
""NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST' FINAL. SITES- CROUP n ocean.cr
rpA «, . - , RESPONSE CLEANUP
RANK REG ST SITE**** CITY/COUNTY ' 'OrECORYf STATUS 0
501 U3
502 05
503 03
504 03
505 03
506 02
507 01
508 06
5U9 06
510 09
511 UK
512 02
513 03
5 "4 05
515 OH
5<6 07
517 06
518 03
519 03
520 U3
521 10
522 05
523 10
52U 03
525 09
526 02
527 02
'528 U2
529 U5
530 l>9
531 09
532 ID
533 10
53U 06
535 02
536 U3
53/ (>3
538 05
TOTAL SI
OE wi idcat Landfi 1 1
Ni Burrows Sanitation
PA Bioseriiki Land/i 1 1
OE Delaware CityPVC Pi me
MO Limestone Road
NY Hooker ( iu?nd Street)
DE New Castle Steel
NW united Nuclear Corp.
AR industrial waste Control
CA Conor Chemical works
AL Perdido Ground water Contaa
NY Marathon Battery Corp.
PA Lehigli Electric ft Engineering Co.
Oil Skinner Landfi 1 1
NC Ghent ronics. inc.
MO Shenanduan Stables
LA Bayou Bonfouca
VA Saitvii.ie Wds'te Disposal. Ponds
PA kimberton Site
MO Middle town Road Dump
WA Pusticide Lab (Yaknim)
IN Lemon Lane Landfi 1 1
ID Arrcom (Orexicr Enterprises)
PA Fischer ft Porter Co.
CA Jibboom' Junkyard
N.I A. 0. Polymer
NJ Dove r Mun i c i pa I we 1 1 H
NJ Rockaway Township wells
wi Oc 1.1 van Municipal well 1H
CA San Gabriel Valley (Area 3)
CA San C.ibncl Valley (Area U)
WA American Lake Caidcns
WA Gri-uii.icrus Landfill
TX Tnanqie Chcnica 1, Co.
NJ PJP landl i I 1
PA Craig F.iriq Drum
PA Voortman Farn
IL Belvidore Municipal Landfill
TES LISTED: 533
Dover.
Hartford
west Cain Township
Delaware Ci ty V
Cumberland
Niagara F.a 1 i s V
.Now Cast re County
"church Rock
Fort Smith
Hooua
Pe rili do
Cold Springs
Old Forge Borougn
west Chester
Swannarioa
MOSCOW >Ml IIS V
Si idei i
S.iftvi lie.
Kimbertgn Borough
AnfMpO 1 i S
Yak i ma
B I unm inij ton
Raihorinn
Wjrininsior V
Sacramento
Sparta; Township
Dover 'Township
Rockawfiy - V
Ouiavan
Alh.iinbra
La I'uudic
la coma V
Suukanu County
Bridge -Ci.ty
Jet sey Ci ty
Parker
Upper Saucon Twp
iioividore'
F
F
R
F S
F
F
R
R
R F
F
R
R
"*
R
R S
R
F
R
R
It'
R F
S
R
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
D
0
0
D
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
• » STATFS' UtSlC.NAIff) IOP HRIURIIY SI US.
1: V =
F a
D -
9: I =
0 =
C =
VOLUNTARY OK NEGOTIATED RESPONSE; R
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT; • S
ACIIONS to BE OFTERMINEO.
IMIM EMENIAHON AC1IVITY UNDERWAY. ONE
ONF OR MORE OPERAUlE UNMS COMPMTfO.
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY COMPLETED »0ft
= FFUEIML ANO SIATF RESPONSE;
» STATE ENFORCEMENT;
OR MORE OPf RARt E UNMS.
01 HERS MAY BE UNOEHWAY;
ALL OPCKAULE UNI TS.
(PR Doc «4-aen» Filed 10-12-M 1«J 401)
------- |