National Priorities List, 15972-15978 [2015-06728]

Download as PDF 15972 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 79 FR 60985). In our rulemaking that was finalized on October 9, 2014 we overlooked an opportunity to act on a portion of the June 12, 2009 SIP submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution and visibility protection. Because New Mexico has a fully approved Regional Haze SIP and Visibility Transport SIP, we propose to approve this portion of the June 12, 2009 SIP submittal and find that New Mexico meets the CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility protection requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS V. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the August 27, 2013 and March 12, 2014, infrastructure SIP submissions from New Mexico, which address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 O3 and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the following infrastructure elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As discussed in applicable sections of this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing action on section 110(a)(2)(I)— Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D, nor on the visibility protection portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Based upon review of the state’s infrastructure SIP submissions and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in these submissions or referenced in New Mexico’s SIP, EPA believes that New Mexico has the infrastructure in place to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 2008 O3 and 2010 NO2 NAAQS are implemented in the state. We are also proposing to approve the visibility protection portion of the June 12, 2009 SIP submittal and find that the New Mexico Visibility SIP meets the CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. VI. Incorporation by Reference In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.4, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the New Mexico SIP regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulation.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:24 Mar 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR3821, January 21, 2011); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Visibility. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: March 13, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2015–06932 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0136, 0137, 0138, 0139, 0140 and 0141; FRL 9924–31–OSWER] National Priorities List Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 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 the 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 six sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. SUMMARY: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before May 26, 2015. DATES: Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below. ADDRESSES: E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM 26MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15973 DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE City/county, state Estech General Chemical Company ........................................................ Colonial Creosote ..................................................................................... BJAT LLC ................................................................................................. Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant ....................... Main Street Ground Water Plume ............................................................ Grain Handling Facility at Freeman .......................................................... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Site name Calumet City, IL .............................. Bogalusa, LA .................................. Franklin, MA ................................... Columbia Falls, MT ........................ Burnet, TX ...................................... Freeman, WA ................................. 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. • Email: https://superfund.docket@ epa.gov. • Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; (Mailcode 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., William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only 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). The 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 email. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system; that means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov your email 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, the EPA VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Mar 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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, email: jeng.terry@epa.gov Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 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 the 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? K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing? 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? PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0136. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0137. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0138. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0139. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0140. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0141. 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 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 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, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM 26MRP1 15974 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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. The 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 the 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 the 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Mar 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 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 the 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 the 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), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, 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. • The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health. • The 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. The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually. PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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’’ (40 CFR 300.5). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL ‘‘does not imply that monies will be expended.’’ The 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 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 E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM 26MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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. The 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? The 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Mar 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 that the 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 the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up? In November 1995, the 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)? The 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) the 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 the 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 the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-forReuse 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 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 15975 controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, 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/pdf/sitewide_a.pdf K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing? In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA’s policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/ superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/policy/ govlet.pdf The EPA is improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA’s rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available. A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA’s Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/ nplstcor.htm II. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule? Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA’s evaluation and scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public dockets located both at the 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 E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM 26MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 15976 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 Protection Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566–0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.) The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows: • Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109–3912; 617/918–1413. • Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4344. • Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/ 814–3355. • Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562–8799. • Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC–7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886–4465. • 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. • Preston Law, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551–7097. • 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. • Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6–1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947– 4250. • 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 the 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Mar 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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? The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that the 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 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 scoring, should point out the specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in the EPA’s stated eligibility criteria is at issue. H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over? Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. The 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 form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public docket at https://www.regulations.gov as the 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 the 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. E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM 26MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add six sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. 15977 The sites are presented in the table below. GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State Site name IL .................. LA ................ MA ............... MT ................ TX ................ WA ............... Estech General Chemical Company ................................................................................................................. Colonial Creosote .............................................................................................................................................. BJAT LLC ........................................................................................................................................................... Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant ................................................................................ Main Street Ground Water Plume ..................................................................................................................... Grain Handling Facility at Freeman ................................................................................................................... IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or 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. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Mar 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 City/county enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This 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. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on 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 action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Calumet City. Bogalusa. Franklin. Columbia Falls. Burnet. Freeman. risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the 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 of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. 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, E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM 26MRP1 15978 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757. Dated: March 16, 2015. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 2015–06728 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Mar 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM 26MRP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15972-15978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06728]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0136, 0137, 0138, 0139, 0140 and 0141; FRL 9924-31-
OSWER]

National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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 the 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 six sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.

[[Page 15973]]

Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/county, state Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estech General Chemical Company...... Calumet City, IL....... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0136.
Colonial Creosote.................... Bogalusa, LA........... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0137.
BJAT LLC............................. Franklin, MA........... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0138.
Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Columbia Falls, MT..... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0139.
Reduction Plant.
Main Street Ground Water Plume....... Burnet, TX............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0140.
Grain Handling Facility at Freeman... Freeman, WA............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0141.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Email: http://superfund.docket@epa.gov.
Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA
Docket Office; (Mailcode 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., William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room
3334, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only 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). The 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 email. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system; that means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through https://www.regulations.gov your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the 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,
email: jeng.terry@epa.gov Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 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 the 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?
K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
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
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

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, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution

[[Page 15974]]

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. The 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS
evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and
air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or
greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Each state may
designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL,
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.
The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
The 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.
The 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''
(40 CFR 300.5). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on
the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The 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 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

[[Page 15975]]

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.
The 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?

The 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 the 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 the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?

In November 1995, the 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)?

The 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) the 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 the 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 the EPA
places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the 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. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment for current and future land uses, 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/pdf/sitewide_a.pdf

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the
position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/policy/govlet.pdf The EPA is
improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal
input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more
structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the
concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2)
requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if
placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent
nature of the process by informing states that information on their
responses will be publicly available.
A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between
the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the
EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplstcor.htm

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and
scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public
dockets located both at the 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

[[Page 15976]]

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 Protection
Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William
Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/
566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments
to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA
19103; 215/814-3355.
Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC,
TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303;
404/562-8799.
Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.
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.
Preston Law, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201
Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7097.
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.
Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/947-4250.
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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the
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 the 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?

The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
the 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 the EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA
will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS
or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless
they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can
guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the
close of the formal comment period. The 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
form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic
public docket at https://www.regulations.gov as the 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 the 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.

[[Page 15977]]

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add six sites to the
NPL, all to the General Superfund section. 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 table below.

General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL................. Estech General Chemical Calumet City.
Company.
LA................. Colonial Creosote...... Bogalusa.
MA................. BJAT LLC............... Franklin.
MT................. Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls.
Columbia Falls
Reduction Plant.
TX................. Main Street Ground Burnet.
Water Plume.
WA................. Grain Handling Facility Freeman.
at Freeman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive
orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group,
including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards
or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct
costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or 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.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a
site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does
listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal
governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise
out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a
site on the NPL.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on 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 action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in
nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide
protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future
regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health
and safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in
Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of
national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the 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 of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to
any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

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,

[[Page 15978]]

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution
control, Water supply.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); E.O. 11735,
38 FR 21243; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757.

Dated: March 16, 2015.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2015-06728 Filed 3-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.