National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 53, 64976-64983 [2010-26461]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
64976
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
finalized. Most of the impoundments
that have been assessed have a ‘‘high’’ or
‘‘significant’’ hazard potential rating. As
mentioned above, the hazard potential
rating is not related to the stability of
these impoundments, but to the
potential for harm should the
impoundment fail. For example, a
‘‘significant’’ hazard potential rating
means impoundment failure can cause
economic loss, environmental damage,
or damage to infrastructure.
The assessment reports being placed
into the docket have been completed by
contractors who are experts in the area
of dam integrity, reflect the best
professional judgment of the
engineering firm, and are signed and
stamped by a professional engineer who
is licensed in the state in which the
impoundment is located. The reports
are based on a visual assessment of the
site, interviews with site personnel, and
the review of geotechnical reports and
studies related to the design,
construction and operation of these
impoundments, if available. The
engineering firms also reviewed past
state/federal inspections of the
impoundments. EPA’s contractors were
not authorized to conduct any physical
drilling, coring or sampling while on
site; however, they did review studies
which may have included such
information. Also, the contractors were
asked to rate the impoundments as
‘‘satisfactory,’’ ‘‘fair,’’ ‘‘poor,’’ or
‘‘unsatisfactory,’’ terms commonly used
in the field of dam safety. Only
impoundments rated as ‘‘unsatisfactory’’
pose immediate safety threats. None of
the impoundments assessed so far have
received an ‘‘unsatisfactory’’ rating.
Impoundment ratings noted in the
reports should be taken in the proper
context, since a unit may be found to be
structurally sound, while it may receive
a ‘‘fair’’ or ‘‘poor’’ rating based on other
factors such as lack of information.
These condition ratings are different
than the hazard potential ratings
described above because they are related
to the stability of the individual
impoundment as assessed through a
field inspection and available
information on the impoundment.
Draft copies of these reports have
been reviewed by the facilities and the
states for factual accuracy and their
comments on the draft reports have also
been placed in the docket and posted to
EPA’s Web site. EPA continues to
review the reports and the technical
recommendations, and is working with
the facilities to ensure that the
recommendations are implemented.
EPA has provided a copy of the final
report to each facility and has requested
that the facility implement the
recommendations in the reports and
develop plans for taking action. The
action plans that have been completed
also have been placed in the docket
along with the draft assessment reports,
comments on the draft reports, and the
final assessment reports. (Note: These
reports and action plans have been
posted on EPA’s Web site since they
have been received by the Agency.
Thus, these reports and action plans
have already been publicly available.)
Additional action plans will be posted
to EPA’s Web site as they become
available (but in the absence of further
EPA action, will not be considered part
of the rulemaking record). Should
facilities fail to take sufficient measures,
EPA will take additional action, if the
circumstances warrant, and will be
devoting special attention to those
facilities receiving a ‘‘poor’’ or
‘‘unsatisfactory’’ rating.
Some companies have claimed that
certain information they have provided
to EPA related to their coal ash
impoundments is CBI. While EPA
reviews these claims, the information
that is claimed as CBI is redacted
(removed) from the coal ash reports. If
these claims are accepted by EPA, the
information will remain redacted. If
EPA denies these claims, the
information will be made publicly
available and posted to EPA’s Web site.
C. Conclusion
The Agency solicits comments on this
information, including the extent to
which both the CCR surface
impoundment information collection
request responses and assessment
materials on the structural integrity of
these impoundments should be factored
into EPA’s final rule on the Disposal of
Coal Combustion Residuals from
Electric Utilities.
Dated: October 13, 2010.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2010–26657 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0634, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2010–0636, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–
0638, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0639, EPA–
HQ–SFUND–2010–0640, EPA–HQ–SFUND–
2010–0641, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0643,
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0645, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2010–0646, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–
0647; FRL–9216–1]
RIN 2050–AD75
National Priorities List, Proposed Rule
No. 53
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
requires that the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list
of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United
States. The National Priorities List
(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is
intended primarily to guide the
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining
which sites warrant further
investigation. These further
investigations will allow EPA to assess
the nature and extent of public health
and environmental risks associated with
the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may
be appropriate. This rule proposes to
add nine sites to the General Superfund
section of the NPL. This rule also
withdraws one site from proposal to the
General Superfund section of the NPL.
SUMMARY:
Comments regarding any of these
proposed listings must be submitted
(postmarked) on or before December 20,
2010.
DATES:
Identify the appropriate
Docket Number from the table below.
ADDRESSES:
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE:
Site name
City/County, State
GBF, Inc., Dump .................................................................
Armstrong World Industries ................................................
Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume ................................
Antioch, CA .....................................................
Macon, GA ......................................................
Elkton, MD .......................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:39 Oct 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0647
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0640
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0639
21OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
64977
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE:—Continued
City/County, State
Washington County Lead District—Furnace Creek ............
Horton Iron and Metal .........................................................
Mansfield Trail Dump ..........................................................
Milford Contaminated Aquifer .............................................
Cabo Rojo Ground Water Contamination ...........................
Hormigas Ground Water Plume ..........................................
West County Road 112 Ground Water ...............................
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Site name
Caledonia, MO ................................................
Wilmington, NC ...............................................
Byram Township, NJ .......................................
Milford, OH ......................................................
Cabo Rojo, PR ................................................
Caguas, PR .....................................................
Midland, TX .....................................................
Submit your comments, identified by
the appropriate Docket number, by one
of the following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov.
• Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles
or tapes) to Docket Coordinator,
Headquarters; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket
Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.;
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery or Express Mail:
Send comments (no facsimiles or tapes)
to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West,
Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays).
Instructions: Direct your comments to
the appropriate Docket number (see
table above). EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public Docket without change and
may be made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system; that
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public Docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:39 Oct 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional Docket addresses
and further details on their contents, see
section II, ‘‘Public Review/Public
Comment,’’ of the Supplementary
Information portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852,
e-mail: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site
Assessment and Remedy Decisions
Branch, Assessment and Remediation
Division, Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology
Innovation (mail code 5204P), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; or the
Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424–
9346 or (703) 412–9810 in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
B. What is the NCP?
C. What is the national priorities list
(NPL)?
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of
sites?
G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
H. May EPA delete portions of sites from
the NPL as they are cleaned up?
I. What is the construction completion list
(CCL)?
J. What is the sitewide ready for
anticipated use measure?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant to
this proposed rule?
B. How do I access the documents?
C. What documents are available for public
review at the headquarters docket?
D. What documents are available for public
review at the regional dockets?
E. How do I submit my comments?
F. What happens to my comments?
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0646
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0641
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0634
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0643
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0638
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0636
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0645
G. What should I consider when preparing
my comments?
H. May I submit comments after the public
comment period is over?
I. May I view public comments submitted
by others?
J. May I submit comments regarding sites
not currently proposed to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the
NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
1. What is Executive Order 12866?
2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive
Order 12866 review?
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act
apply to this proposed rule?
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
2. How has EPA complied with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act?
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA)?
2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
1. What is Executive Order 13132?
2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to
this proposed rule?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
1. What is Executive Order 13175?
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to
this proposed rule?
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
1. What is Executive Order 13045?
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to
this proposed rule?
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
1. What is Executive Order 13211?
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to
this proposed rule?
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
1. What is the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act?
2. Does the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act apply to this
proposed rule?
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
64978
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
1. What is Executive Order 12898?
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to
this proposed rule?
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
In 1980, Congress enacted the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675 (‘‘CERCLA’’ or
‘‘the Act’’), in response to the dangers of
uncontrolled releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances, and
releases or substantial threats of releases
into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an
imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. CERCLA was
amended on October 17, 1986, by the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public
Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.
B. What is the NCP?
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
To implement CERCLA, EPA
promulgated the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’), 40 CFR part
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180),
pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and
Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237,
August 20, 1981). The NCP sets
guidelines and procedures for
responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, or
releases or substantial threats of releases
into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an
imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. EPA has
revised the NCP on several occasions.
The most recent comprehensive revision
was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
As required under section
105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ‘‘criteria for determining
priorities among releases or threatened
releases throughout the United States
for the purpose of taking remedial
action and, to the extent practicable
taking into account the potential
urgency of such action, for the purpose
of taking removal action.’’ ‘‘Removal’’
actions are defined broadly and include
a wide range of actions taken to study,
clean up, prevent or otherwise address
releases and threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
C. What is the National Priorities List
(NPL)?
The NPL is a list of national priorities
among the known or threatened releases
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United
States. The list, which is appendix B of
the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:39 Oct 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA,
as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B)
defines the NPL as a list of ‘‘releases’’
and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and
requires that the NPL be revised at least
annually. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide EPA in determining
which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and
extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a
release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is
only of limited significance, however, as
it does not assign liability to any party
or to the owner of any specific property.
Also, placing a site on the NPL does not
mean that any remedial or removal
action necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL
includes two sections, one of sites that
are generally evaluated and cleaned up
by EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund
Section’’), and one of sites that are
owned or operated by other Federal
agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities
Section’’). With respect to sites in the
Federal Facilities Section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other
Federal agencies. Under Executive
Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29,
1987) and CERCLA section 120, each
Federal agency is responsible for
carrying out most response actions at
facilities under its own jurisdiction,
custody, or control, although EPA is
responsible for preparing a Hazard
Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’) score and
determining whether the facility is
placed on the NPL.
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
There are three mechanisms for
placing sites on the NPL for possible
remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c)
of the NCP): (1) A site may be included
on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high
on the HRS, which EPA promulgated as
appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part
300). The HRS serves as a screening tool
to evaluate the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants to pose a
threat to human health or the
environment. On December 14, 1990 (55
FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions
to the HRS partly in response to
CERCLA section 105(c), added by
SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: Ground water, surface water,
soil exposure, and air. As a matter of
Agency policy, those sites that score
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible
for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
9605(a)(8)(B), each State may designate
a single site as its top priority to be
listed on the NPL, without any HRS
score. This provision of CERCLA
requires that, to the extent practicable,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the NPL include one facility designated
by each State as the greatest danger to
public health, welfare, or the
environment among known facilities in
the State. This mechanism for listing is
set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism
for listing, included in the NCP at 40
CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites
to be listed without any HRS score, if all
of the following conditions are met:
• The Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the
U.S. Public Health Service has issued a
health advisory that recommends
dissociation of individuals from the
release.
• EPA determines that the release
poses a significant threat to public
health.
• EPA anticipates that it will be more
cost-effective to use its remedial
authority than to use its removal
authority to respond to the release.
EPA promulgated an original NPL of
406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR
40658) and generally has updated it at
least annually.
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
A site may undergo remedial action
financed by the Trust Fund established
under CERCLA (commonly referred to
as the ‘‘Superfund’’) only after it is
placed on the NPL, as provided in the
NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1).
(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those
‘‘consistent with permanent remedy,
taken instead of or in addition to
removal actions * * *.’’ 42 U.S.C.
9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR
300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL
‘‘does not imply that monies will be
expended.’’ EPA may pursue other
appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action
under CERCLA and other laws.
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries
of sites?
The NPL does not describe releases in
precise geographical terms; it would be
neither feasible nor consistent with the
limited purpose of the NPL (to identify
releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the
precise nature and extent of the site are
typically not known at the time of
listing.
Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is
broadly defined to include any area
where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come
to be located’’ (CERCLA section 101(9)),
the listing process itself is not intended
to define or reflect the boundaries of
such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a
site) upon which the NPL placement
was based will, to some extent, describe
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL
site would include all releases evaluated
as part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach
generally used to describe the relevant
release(s) is to delineate a geographical
area (usually the area within an
installation or plant boundaries) and
identify the site by reference to that
area. However, the NPL site is not
necessarily coextensive with the
boundaries of the installation or plant,
and the boundaries of the installation or
plant are not necessarily the
‘‘boundaries’’ of the site. Rather, the site
consists of all contaminated areas
within the area used to identify the site,
as well as any other location where that
contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic
terms are often used to designate the site
(e.g., the ‘‘Jones Co. plant site’’) in terms
of the property owned by a particular
party, the site, properly understood, is
not limited to that property (e.g., it may
extend beyond the property due to
contaminant migration), and conversely
may not occupy the full extent of the
property (e.g., where there are
uncontaminated parts of the identified
property, they may not be, strictly
speaking, part of the ‘‘site’’). The ‘‘site’’
is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property
that may give the site its name, and the
name itself should not be read to imply
that this site is coextensive with the
entire area within the property
boundary of the installation or plant. In
addition, the site name is merely used
to help identify the geographic location
of the contamination and is not meant
to constitute any determination of
liability at a site. For example, the name
‘‘Jones Co. plant site,’’ does not imply
that the Jones company is responsible
for the contamination located on the
plant site.
EPA regulations provide that the
Remedial Investigation (‘‘RI’’) ‘‘is a
process undertaken * * * to determine
the nature and extent of the problem
presented by the release’’ as more
information is developed on site
contamination, and which is generally
performed in an interactive fashion with
the Feasibility Study (‘‘FS’’) (40 CFR
300.5). During the RI/FS process, the
release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as
more is learned about the source(s) and
the migration of the contamination.
However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an
evaluation of the threat posed and
therefore the boundaries of the release
need not be exactly defined. Moreover,
it generally is impossible to discover the
full extent of where the contamination
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:39 Oct 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
‘‘has come to be located’’ before all
necessary studies and remedial work are
completed at a site. Indeed, the known
boundaries of the contamination can be
expected to change over time. Thus, in
most cases, it may be impossible to
describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted above, NPL listing
does not assign liability to any party or
to the owner of any specific property.
Thus, if a party does not believe it is
liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting
information to the Agency at any time
after it receives notice it is a potentially
responsible party.
For these reasons, the NPL need not
be amended as further research reveals
more information about the location of
the contamination or release.
G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
EPA may delete sites from the NPL
where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as
explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides
that EPA shall consult with states on
proposed deletions and shall consider
whether any of the following criteria
have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Superfundfinanced response has been
implemented and no further response
action is required; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has
shown the release poses no significant
threat to public health or the
environment, and taking of remedial
measures is not appropriate.
H. May EPA delete portions of sites from
the NPL as they are cleaned up?
In November 1995, EPA initiated a
policy to delete portions of NPL sites
where cleanup is complete (60 FR
55465, November 1, 1995). Total site
cleanup may take many years, while
portions of the site may have been
cleaned up and made available for
productive use.
I. What is the construction completion
list (CCL)?
EPA also has developed an NPL
construction completion list (‘‘CCL’’) to
simplify its system of categorizing sites
and to better communicate the
successful completion of cleanup
activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993).
Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no
legal significance.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1)
Any necessary physical construction is
complete, whether or not final cleanup
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64979
levels or other requirements have been
achieved; (2) EPA has determined that
the response action should be limited to
measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional
controls); or (3) the site qualifies for
deletion from the NPL. For the most upto-date information on the CCL, see
EPA’s Internet site at https://
www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/
ccl.htm.
J. What is the sitewide ready for
anticipated use measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated
Use measure (formerly called Sitewide
Ready-for-Reuse) represents important
Superfund accomplishments and the
measure reflects the high priority EPA
places on considering anticipated future
land use as part of our remedy selection
process. See Guidance for Implementing
the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure,
May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0–36. This
measure applies to final and deleted
sites where construction is complete, all
cleanup goals have been achieved, and
all institutional or other controls are in
place. EPA has been successful on many
occasions in carrying out remedial
actions that ensure protectiveness of
human health and the environment,
including current and future land users,
in a manner that allows contaminated
properties to be restored to
environmental and economic vitality.
For further information, please go to
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/recycle/tools/.
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant
to this proposed rule?
Yes, documents that form the basis for
EPA’s evaluation and scoring of the sites
in this proposed rule are contained in
public Dockets located both at EPA
Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in
the Regional offices. These documents
are also available by electronic access at
https://www.regulations.gov (see
instructions in the ADDRESSES section
above).
B. How do I access the documents?
You may view the documents, by
appointment only, in the Headquarters
or the Regional Dockets after the
publication of this proposed rule. The
hours of operation for the Headquarters
Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday excluding
Federal holidays. Please contact the
Regional Dockets for hours.
The following is the contact
information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator,
Headquarters; U.S. Environmental
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
64980
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket
Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.;
EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC
20004; 202/566–0276. (Please note this
is a visiting address only. Mail
comments to EPA Headquarters as
detailed at the beginning of this
preamble.)
The contact information for the
Regional Dockets is as follows:
Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA,
NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
Records and Information Center,
Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023;
617/918–1417.
Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY,
PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4344.
Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3
(DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode
3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814–5364.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL,
GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Mail code 9T25,
Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562–8862.
Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN,
MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SMR–7J,
Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604;
312/353–5821.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM,
OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX
75202–2733; 214/665–7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS,
MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas
City, KS 66101; 913/551–7335.
Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT,
ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B,
Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312–6484.
Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI,
NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD–9–1,
San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972–
3219.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR,
WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mailcode ECL–112, Seattle, WA 98101;
206/463–1349.
You may also request copies from
EPA Headquarters or the Regional
Dockets. An informal request, rather
than a formal written request under the
Freedom of Information Act, should be
the ordinary procedure for obtaining
copies of any of these documents. Please
note that due to the difficulty of
reproducing oversized maps, oversized
maps may be viewed only in-person;
since EPA dockets are not equipped to
either copy and mail out such maps or
scan them and send them out
electronically.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:39 Oct 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
You may use the Docket at https://
www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters Docket
(see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section above). Please note
that there are differences between the
Headquarters Docket and the Regional
Dockets and those differences are
outlined below.
C. What documents are available for
public review at the headquarters
docket?
The Headquarters Docket for this
proposed rule contains the following for
the sites proposed in this rule: HRS
score sheets; Documentation Records
describing the information used to
compute the score; information for any
sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or EPA listing policies;
and a list of documents referenced in
the Documentation Record.
D. What documents are available for
public review at the regional dockets?
The Regional Dockets for this
proposed rule contain all of the
information in the Headquarters Docket
plus the actual reference documents
containing the data principally relied
upon and cited by EPA in calculating or
evaluating the HRS score for the sites.
These reference documents are available
only in the Regional Dockets.
E. How do I submit my comments?
Comments must be submitted to EPA
Headquarters as detailed at the
beginning of this preamble in the
ADDRESSES section. Please note that the
mailing addresses differ according to
method of delivery. There are two
different addresses that depend on
whether comments are sent by express
mail or by postal mail.
F. What happens to my comments?
EPA considers all comments received
during the comment period. Significant
comments are typically addressed in a
support document that EPA will publish
concurrently with the Federal Register
document if, and when, the site is listed
on the NPL.
G. What should I consider when
preparing my comments?
Comments that include complex or
voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS
scoring, should point out the specific
information that EPA should consider
and how it affects individual HRS factor
values or other listing criteria
(Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas,
849 F.2d 1516 (DC Cir. 1988)). EPA will
not address voluminous comments that
are not referenced to the HRS or other
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
listing criteria. EPA will not address
comments unless they indicate which
component of the HRS documentation
record or what particular point in EPA’s
stated eligibility criteria is at issue.
H. May I submit comments after the
public comment period is over?
Generally, EPA will not respond to
late comments. EPA can only guarantee
that it will consider those comments
postmarked by the close of the formal
comment period. EPA has a policy of
generally not delaying a final listing
decision solely to accommodate
consideration of late comments.
I. May I view public comments
submitted by others?
During the comment period,
comments are placed in the
Headquarters Docket and are available
to the public on an ‘‘as received’’ basis.
A complete set of comments will be
available for viewing in the Regional
Dockets approximately one week after
the formal comment period closes.
All public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public
viewing in the electronic public Docket
at https://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Once in the public
Dockets system, select ‘‘search,’’ then
key in the appropriate Docket ID
number.
J. May I submit comments regarding
sites not currently proposed to the NPL?
In certain instances, interested parties
have written to EPA concerning sites
that were not at that time proposed to
the NPL. If those sites are later proposed
to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate,
resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal
comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the
period of formal proposal and comment
will not generally be included in the
Docket.
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
In today’s proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to add nine sites to the
General Superfund section of the NPL.
All of the sites in this proposed
rulemaking are being proposed based on
HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites
are presented in the tables below.
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
64981
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State
Site name
GA .................................
MD ................................
MO ................................
NC .................................
NJ ..................................
OH .................................
PR .................................
PR .................................
TX .................................
Armstrong World Industries .............................................................................................................
Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume .............................................................................................
Washington County Lead District—Furnace Creek .........................................................................
Horton Iron and Metal ......................................................................................................................
Mansfield Trail Dump .......................................................................................................................
Milford Contaminated Aquifer ..........................................................................................................
Cabo Rojo Ground Water Contamination ........................................................................................
Hormigas Ground Water Plume ......................................................................................................
West County Road 112 Ground Water ...........................................................................................
B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to
the NPL
EPA is withdrawing the proposal to
add the GBF, Inc. Dump site in Antioch,
California, to the NPL, because the
California Department of Toxic
Substances Control has been, and will
continue to be, the lead agency
overseeing the site cleanup pursuant to
a California consent order. Cleanup is
progressing successfully and no further
EPA actions are necessary. The
proposed rule can be found at 57 FR
4824 (February 7, 1992). Refer to the
Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–SFUND–
2010–0647 for supporting
documentation regarding this action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1. What is Executive Order 12866?
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency
must determine whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:39 Oct 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
City/county
Macon.
Elkton.
Caledonia.
Wilmington.
Byram Township.
Milford.
Cabo Rojo.
Caguas.
Midland.
2. Is this proposed rule subject to
Executive Order 12866 review?
No. The listing of sites on the NPL
does not impose any obligations on any
entities. The listing does not set
standards or a regulatory regime and
imposes no liability or costs. Any
liability under CERCLA exists
irrespective of whether a site is listed.
It has been determined that this action
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What is the Paperwork Reduction
Act?
According to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
that requires OMB approval under the
PRA, unless it has been approved by
OMB and displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations, after
initial display in the preamble of the
final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility
Act?
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996) whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of an agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement
of the factual basis for certifying that a
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act
Apply to this proposed rule?
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has
determined that the PRA does not apply
because this rule does not contain any
information collection requirements that
require approval of the OMB.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. How has EPA complied with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act?
This proposed rule listing sites on the
NPL, if promulgated, would not impose
any obligations on any group, including
small entities. This proposed rule, if
promulgated, also would establish no
standards or requirements that any
small entity must meet, and would
impose no direct costs on any small
entity. Whether an entity, small or
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
64982
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
otherwise, is liable for response costs for
a release of hazardous substances
depends on whether that entity is liable
under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the
site is listed on the NPL through this
rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not impose any
requirements on any small entities. For
the foregoing reasons, I certify that this
proposed rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1. What is the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA)?
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result
in expenditures by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any one year. Before EPA
promulgates a rule where a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the
UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:39 Oct 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed
rule?
This proposed rule does not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any one year. Proposing a site on the
NPL does not itself impose any costs.
Proposal does not mean that EPA
necessarily will undertake remedial
action. Nor does proposal require any
action by a private party or determine
liability for response costs. Costs that
arise out of site responses result from
site-specific decisions regarding what
actions to take, not directly from the act
of proposing a site to be placed on the
NPL. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 202 and 205 of
UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. As is
mentioned above, site proposal does not
impose any costs and would not require
any action of a small government.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
1. What is Executive Order 13132?
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to
this proposed rule?
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it does
not contain any requirements applicable
to States or other levels of government.
Thus, the requirements of the Executive
Order do not apply to this proposed
rule.
EPA believes, however, that this
proposed rule may be of significant
interest to State governments. In the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State
and local governments, EPA therefore
consulted with State officials and/or
representatives of State governments
early in the process of developing the
rule to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development.
All sites included in this proposed rule
were referred to EPA by States for
listing. For all sites in this rule, EPA
received letters of support either from
the Governor or a State official who was
delegated the authority by the Governor
to speak on their behalf regarding NPL
listing decisions.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
1. What is Executive Order 13175?
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to
this proposed rule?
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. Proposing a site to the
NPL does not impose any costs on a
tribe or require a tribe to take remedial
action. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
1. What is Executive Order 13045?
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to
this proposed rule?
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not
an economically significant rule as
defined by Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have
reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
proposed rule present a
disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
1. What is Executive Order 13211?
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)) requires Federal agencies to
prepare a ‘‘Statement of Energy Effects’’
when undertaking certain regulatory
actions. A Statement of Energy Effects
describes the adverse effects of a
‘‘significant energy action’’ on energy
supply, distribution and use, reasonable
alternatives to the action, and the
expected effects of the alternatives on
energy supply, distribution and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to
this proposed rule?
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
This action is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, because it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy impacts because proposing a site
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:39 Oct 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
to the NPL does not require an entity to
conduct any action that would require
energy use, let alone that which would
significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, or usage. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
1. What Is the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
2. Does the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act apply to
this proposed rule?
No. This proposed rulemaking does
not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use
of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
1. What Is Executive Order 12898?
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
64983
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to
this rule?
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. As this rule does not
impose any enforceable duty upon
State, tribal or local governments, this
rule will neither increase nor decrease
environmental protection.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
substances, Hazardous waste,
Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Oil pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: October 14, 2010.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2010–26461 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64976-64983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26461]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0634, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0636, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-
0638, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0639, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0640, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2010-0641, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0643, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0645, EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2010-0646, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0647; FRL-9216-1]
RIN 2050-AD75
National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 53
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires that
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public
health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add nine sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. This rule also withdraws one site from
proposal to the General Superfund section of the NPL.
DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before December 20, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate Docket Number from the table below.
Docket Identification Numbers by Site:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/County, State Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBF, Inc., Dump.................... Antioch, CA............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0647
Armstrong World Industries......... Macon, GA.............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0640
Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume.. Elkton, MD............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0639
[[Page 64977]]
Washington County Lead District-- Caledonia, MO.......... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0646
Furnace Creek.
Horton Iron and Metal.............. Wilmington, NC......... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0641
Mansfield Trail Dump............... Byram Township, NJ..... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0634
Milford Contaminated Aquifer....... Milford, OH............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0643
Cabo Rojo Ground Water Cabo Rojo, PR.......... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0638
Contamination.
Hormigas Ground Water Plume........ Caguas, PR............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0636
West County Road 112 Ground Water.. Midland, TX............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0645
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket number,
by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov.
Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA
Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.;
Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays).
Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate Docket number
(see table above). EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public Docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system; that means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public Docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional Docket addresses and further
details on their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/Public
Comment,'' of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, e-
mail: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (mail code 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
B. What is the NCP?
C. What is the national priorities list (NPL)?
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
H. May EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
I. What is the construction completion list (CCL)?
J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
B. How do I access the documents?
C. What documents are available for public review at the
headquarters docket?
D. What documents are available for public review at the
regional dockets?
E. How do I submit my comments?
F. What happens to my comments?
G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is
over?
I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
1. What is Executive Order 12866?
2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866
review?
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
1. What is Executive Order 13132?
2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
1. What is Executive Order 13175?
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
1. What is Executive Order 13045?
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
1. What is Executive Order 13211?
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
apply to this proposed rule?
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
[[Page 64978]]
1. What is Executive Order 12898?
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this proposed rule?
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.
B. What is the NCP?
To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR part
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and
Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of
releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or
welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent
comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix
B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list
of ``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires
that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance,
however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner
of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean
that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the ``General
Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or operated by
other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities Section''). With
respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive
Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each
Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at
facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although
EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (``HRS'')
score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The
HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a
threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR
51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to
CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a
matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the
HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B),
each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed
on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires
that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility
designated by each State as the greatest danger to public health,
welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State. This
mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score,
if all of the following conditions are met:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to
the release.
EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions *
* *.'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' EPA
may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases,
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe
[[Page 64979]]
the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all
releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
EPA regulations provide that the Remedial Investigation (``RI'')
``is a process undertaken * * * to determine the nature and extent of
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.
G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.
H. May EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned
up?
In November 1995, EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL
sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total
site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have
been cleaned up and made available for productive use.
I. What is the construction completion list (CCL)?
EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.
J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority EPA places
on considering anticipated future land use as part of our remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment, including current and future land users, in a manner that
allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and
economic vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/tools/.
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring
of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public Dockets
located both at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in the Regional
offices. These documents are also available by electronic access at
https://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the ADDRESSES section
above).
B. How do I access the documents?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal
holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours.
The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental
[[Page 64980]]
Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.;
EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note
this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as
detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:
Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress
Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417.
Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S.
EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103;
215/814-5364.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S.
EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Mail code 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8862.
Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA,
Records Center, Superfund Division SMR-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/353-5821.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-
7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6484.
Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD-9-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-
3219.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional
Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request
under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure
for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to
the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may be
viewed only in-person; since EPA dockets are not equipped to either
copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out
electronically.
You may use the Docket at https://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section above). Please note that there are differences
between the Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those
differences are outlined below.
C. What documents are available for public review at the headquarters
docket?
The Headquarters Docket for this proposed rule contains the
following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets;
Documentation Records describing the information used to compute the
score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents
referenced in the Documentation Record.
D. What documents are available for public review at the regional
dockets?
The Regional Dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the
information in the Headquarters Docket plus the actual reference
documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA
in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These
reference documents are available only in the Regional Dockets.
E. How do I submit my comments?
Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the
beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that
the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are
two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by
express mail or by postal mail.
F. What happens to my comments?
EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if,
and when, the site is listed on the NPL.
G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (DC Cir. 1988)). EPA will
not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or
other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they
indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.
H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?
Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only
guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close
of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of generally not
delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration
of late comments.
I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
Docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional
Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public
Docket at https://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Once in the public Dockets system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate Docket ID number.
J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the
NPL?
In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the Docket.
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add nine sites to the
General Superfund section of the NPL. All of the sites in this proposed
rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.
The sites are presented in the tables below.
[[Page 64981]]
General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA...................................... Armstrong World Industries...... Macon.
MD...................................... Dwyer Property Ground Water Elkton.
Plume.
MO...................................... Washington County Lead District-- Caledonia.
Furnace Creek.
NC...................................... Horton Iron and Metal........... Wilmington.
NJ...................................... Mansfield Trail Dump............ Byram Township.
OH...................................... Milford Contaminated Aquifer.... Milford.
PR...................................... Cabo Rojo Ground Water Cabo Rojo.
Contamination.
PR...................................... Hormigas Ground Water Plume..... Caguas.
TX...................................... West County Road 112 Ground Midland.
Water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
EPA is withdrawing the proposal to add the GBF, Inc. Dump site in
Antioch, California, to the NPL, because the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control has been, and will continue to be, the lead
agency overseeing the site cleanup pursuant to a California consent
order. Cleanup is progressing successfully and no further EPA actions
are necessary. The proposed rule can be found at 57 FR 4824 (February
7, 1992). Refer to the Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0647 for
supporting documentation regarding this action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
1. What is Executive Order 12866?
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to this proposed rule?
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does
not contain any information collection requirements that require
approval of the OMB.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would
not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This
proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or
requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no
direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or
[[Page 64982]]
otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous
substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA
107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is
listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities.
For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. Proposing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs.
Proposal does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial
action. Nor does proposal require any action by a private party or
determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site
responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to
take, not directly from the act of proposing a site to be placed on the
NPL. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202
and 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned
above, site proposal does not impose any costs and would not require
any action of a small government.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
1. What is Executive Order 13132?
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it does not contain any
requirements applicable to States or other levels of government. Thus,
the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed
rule.
EPA believes, however, that this proposed rule may be of
significant interest to State governments. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications
between EPA and State and local governments, EPA therefore consulted
with State officials and/or representatives of State governments early
in the process of developing the rule to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development. All sites included in this
proposed rule were referred to EPA by States for listing. For all sites
in this rule, EPA received letters of support either from the Governor
or a State official who was delegated the authority by the Governor to
speak on their behalf regarding NPL listing decisions.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
1. What is Executive Order 13175?
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Proposing a site to the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
1. What is Executive Order 13045?
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of
[[Page 64983]]
the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule
present a disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Usage
1. What is Executive Order 13211?
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR
28355 (May 22, 2001)) requires Federal agencies to prepare a
``Statement of Energy Effects'' when undertaking certain regulatory
actions. A Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of
a ``significant energy action'' on energy supply, distribution and use,
reasonable alternatives to the action, and the expected effects of the
alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy impacts because proposing a site to the NPL does not require an
entity to conduct any action that would require energy use, let alone
that which would significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or
usage. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to
this proposed rule?
No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
1. What Is Executive Order 12898?
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this rule?
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon
State, tribal or local governments, this rule will neither increase nor
decrease environmental protection.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: October 14, 2010.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2010-26461 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
