National Priorities List, 62397-62403 [2016-21615]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
authorized NPDES program’s electronic
reporting systems. However, if a state,
territory, or tribe is already using EPA’s
electronic reporting systems, the
regulated entities would not need to
register again as the NPDES-regulated
entity will be using the same electronic
reporting tool (i.e., no change in the
subscriber agreement that accompanies
the electronic reporting tool).
II. Listing of the Initial Recipients for
NPDES Electronic Reporting
The final rule requires EPA to publish
in the Federal Register a listing of the
initial recipients for electronic NPDES
information from NPDES-regulated
facilities by state, tribe, and territory
and by NPDES data group [see 40 CFR
127.27(c)]. This listing must identify for
NPDES-regulated facilities the initial
62397
recipient of their NPDES electronic data
submissions and the due date for these
NPDES electronic data submissions. The
final rule requires authorized NPDES
programs to send EPA an opt-out notice
by 19 April 2016. The following is a list
of the six states that sent an opt-out
notice to EPA. These notices are posted
on EPA’s Web site that provides
implementation information.
State
State elected for EPA to be initial
recipient for general permit reports
(NPDES Data Group No. 2)
State elected for
EPA to be initial
recipient for DMRs
(NPDES Data
Group No. 3)
State elected for EPA to be initial
recipient for program reports
(NPDES Data Group Nos. 4 through
10)
Georgia ..................................................
Nebraska ...............................................
New Jersey ............................................
Yes (All) ................................................
Yes (All) ................................................
No .........................................................
Yes ........................
Yes ........................
No .........................
North Carolina .......................................
Yes (only for Low Erosivity Waivers
and No Exposure Certifications).
Yes (All) ................................................
Yes (All) ................................................
No .........................
Yes (All).
Yes (All).
Yes (only for CAFO Annual Program
Report).
No.
Yes ........................
Yes ........................
Yes (All).
Yes (All).
Oregon ...................................................
Rhode Island .........................................
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Note: Although not required as the initial recipient process is an ‘opt-out’ process, Tennessee sent notice to EPA that they intend to be the Initial Recipient for all NPDES data groups.
State that have elected for EPA to be
the Initial Recipient for all of the NPDES
data groups will be using EPA’s
electronic reporting tools (e.g., NetDMR,
NeT) and NPDES data system (ICIS–
NPDES). It should be noted that Georgia
and Rhode Island elected to use EPA’s
NetDMR and NPDES data system (ICIS–
NPDES) prior to the effective date of the
final rule. Consequently, NPDESregulated entities in these two states
that are already using NetDMR will not
need to take any additional actions in
response to Georgia and Rhode Island
designating EPA as the Initial Recipient
for DMRs (NPDES Data Group No. 3). In
accordance with the final rule (see 40
CFR 127.16), NPDES-regulated entities
in Nebraska and Oregon will need to
register and start using NetDMR prior to
the Phase 1 electronic reporting
deadline (21 December 2016). New
Jersey has elected for EPA to be the
Initial Recipient for the Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)
Annual Program Report [see 40 CFR
122.42(e)(4)]. In accordance with the
final rule, CAFOs in New Jersey will
need to register and start using NeT to
submit their CAFO Annual Program
Report prior to the Phase 2 electronic
reporting deadline (21 December 2020).
Finally, North Carolina has elected for
EPA to be the Initial Recipient for Low
Erosivity Waivers (LEWs) [see Exhibit 1
to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)] and No
Exposure Certifications (NOEs) [see
122.26(g)]. In accordance with the final
rule, facilities in North Carolina will
need to register and start using NeT to
submit their LEWs and NOEs prior to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:08 Sep 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
the Phase 2 electronic reporting
deadline (21 December 2020).
For all other authorized NPDES
programs not in the above table, the
authorized state, tribe, or territorial
NPDES program is the initial recipient
for the NPDES programs and NPDES
permits that it administers. For
example, Arkansas will be the initial
recipient for all NPDES Data Groups
except for the Sewage Sludge/Biosolids
Annual Program Reports [40 CFR part
503], as Arkansas is not authorized for
the Federal Biosolids NPDES program.
Likewise, Colorado will be the initial
recipient for all NPDES Data Groups
except for:
• Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual
Program Reports [40 CFR part 503],
• Pretreatment Program Reports [40
CFR 403.12(i)],
• Significant Industrial User
Compliance Reports in Municipalities
Without Approved Pretreatment
Programs [40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)],
and
• All NPDES reporting for Federal
facilities.
Colorado is not authorized for the
Federal Biosolids or Pretreatment
NPDES programs and Colorado is not
the NPDES permitting authority for
Federal facilities in Colorado. It should
be noted that EPA will be the initial
recipient for all NPDES-regulated
entities where EPA is the permitting
authority or authorized NPDES program.
A full listing of NPDES program
authorization for each state is available
on EPA’s Web site (https://
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-stateprogram-information).
Dated: August 24, 2016.
David Hindin,
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2016–21204 Filed 9–8–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0151, 0152, 0154,
0155, 0156, 0157 and 0158; EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2015–0139, 0575 and 0576; FRL–
9952–06–OLEM]
National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
requires that the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list
of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United
States. The National Priorities List
(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is
intended primarily to guide the
Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘the
EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
62398
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 adds ten sites to
the General Superfund section of the
NPL.
The document is effective on
October 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Contact information for the
EPA Headquarters:
• 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.
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.
• Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL,
GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25,
Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562–8637.
• 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.
• Brian Mitchell, Region 7 (IA, KS,
MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd.,
Mailcode SUPR/SPEB, Lenexa, KS
66219; 913/551–7633.
• Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO,
MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B,
Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312–6578.
• 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.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Sep 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
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. Availability of Information to the Public
A. May I review the documents relevant to
this final rule?
B. What documents are available for review
at the EPA headquarters docket?
C. What documents are available for review
at the EPA regional dockets?
D. How do I access the documents?
E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL
sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
B. What did the EPA do with the public
comments it received?
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
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
K. Congressional Review Act
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
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’’
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
of only 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Sep 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 a 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
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
62399
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
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
62400
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
most cases, it may be impossible to
describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted previously, 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 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 more
information on the CCL, see the EPA’s
Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/
superfund/superfund-remedialperformance-measures#cc_anchor.
J. What is the Sitewide Ready for
Anticipated Use measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated
Use measure 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
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/
about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.
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/statetribalcorrespondence-concerning-npl-sitelisting.
The EPA has improved 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
between the EPA and states and tribes
where applicable, is available on the
EPA’s Web site at https://www.epa.gov/
superfund/statetribal-correspondenceconcerning-npl-site-listing.htm.
II. Availability of Information to the
Public
A. May I review the documents relevant
to this final rule?
Yes, documents relating to the
evaluation and scoring of the sites in
this final rule are contained in dockets
located both at the EPA headquarters
and in the EPA regional offices.
An electronic version of the public
docket is available through https://
www.regulations.gov (see table below
for docket identification numbers).
Although not all docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket
facilities identified in section II.D.
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Site name
City/county, State
Argonaut Mine ..........................................................................................
Bonita Peak Mining District ......................................................................
West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination .........................................
SBA Shipyard ...........................................................................................
Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant .......................
Wappinger Creek ......................................................................................
Valley Pike VOCs .....................................................................................
Dorado Ground Water Contamination ......................................................
Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. .....................................................................
Jackson, CA ...................................
San Juan County, CO ....................
Indianapolis, IN ...............................
Jennings, LA ...................................
Columbia Falls, MT ........................
Dutchess County, NY .....................
Riverside, OH .................................
Dorado, PR .....................................
Live Oak, TX ..................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Sep 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0151
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0152
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0575
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0576
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0139
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0155
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0154
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0156
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0157
09SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
62401
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE—Continued
Site name
City/county, State
Docket ID No.
North 25th Street Glass and Zinc .............................................................
Clarksburg, WV ..............................
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0158
B. What documents are available for
review at the EPA headquarters docket?
These reference documents are available
only in the regional dockets.
E. How may I obtain a current list of
NPL sites?
The headquarters docket for this rule
contains the HRS score sheets, the
documentation record describing the
information used to compute the score
and a list of documents referenced in
the documentation record for each site.
D. How do I access the documents?
You may obtain a current list of NPL
sites via the Internet at https://
www.epa.gov/superfund/nationalpriorities-list-npl-sites-site-name or by
contacting the Superfund docket (see
contact information in the beginning
portion of this document).
C. What documents are available for
review at the EPA regional dockets?
The EPA regional dockets contain all
the information in the headquarters
docket, plus the actual reference
documents containing the data
principally relied upon by the EPA in
calculating or evaluating the HRS score.
You may view the documents, by
appointment only, after the publication
of this 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. For addresses for the
headquarters and regional dockets, see
‘‘Addresses’’ section in the beginning
portion of this preamble.
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
This final rule adds the following ten
sites to the General Superfund section of
the NPL. These sites are being added to
the NPL based on HRS score.
General Superfund section:
State
Site name
CA .....................
CO .....................
IN .......................
LA ......................
MT .....................
NY .....................
OH .....................
PR .....................
TX ......................
WV ....................
Argonaut Mine ..........................................................................................................................................
Bonita Peak Mining District ......................................................................................................................
West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination .........................................................................................
SBA Shipyard ...........................................................................................................................................
Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant ......................................................................
Wappinger Creek .....................................................................................................................................
Valley Pike VOCs .....................................................................................................................................
Dorado Ground Water Contamination .....................................................................................................
Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc .....................................................................................................................
North 25th Street Glass and Zinc ............................................................................................................
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. What did the EPA do with the public
comments it received?
The EPA reviewed all comments
received on the sites in this rule and
responded to all relevant comments.
The EPA is adding ten sites to the NPL
in this final rule, all to the General
Superfund section. Comments on the
Bonita Peak Mining District (San Juan
County, CO), West Vermont Drinking
Water Contamination (Indianapolis, IN),
SBA Shipyard (Jennings, LA) and
Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia
Falls Reduction Plant (Columbia Falls,
MT) sites are addressed in a response to
comment support document available in
the public docket concurrently with this
rule.
The remaining six sites being added
to the NPL in this rule did not receive
any comments urging specific changes
to the HRS score. The Valley Pike VOCs
(Riverside, OH) site received no
comments. The Dorado Ground Water
Contamination (Dorado, PR) and
Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. (Live Oak,
TX) sites both received only erroneous
comments that were meant for other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Sep 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
City/county
sites but were directed to incorrect
docket numbers.
The Argonaut Mine (Jackson, CA) site
received two comments urging EPA to
list, one from a citizen and one from the
Mayor of the City of Jackson. In
response, EPA is placing the Argonaut
Mine site on the NPL.
The Wappinger Creek (Dutchess
County, NY) site received three
comments, all urging EPA to list the
site, one from a citizen, one anonymous
and one from Senator Gillibrand. In
response, EPA is placing the Wappinger
Creek site on the NPL.
The North 25th Street Glass and Zinc
(Clarksburg, WV) site received nine
comments. Three of those comments
were erroneous comments directed
toward the incorrect docket. Three of
the comments urged EPA to list the site
and two urged EPA to clean up the site.
One comment raised objections to tax
payer money being wasted on hazardous
waste lawsuits. In response, nothing
raised in this comment impacted the
HRS score or the decision to list the site
on the NPL. Therefore, EPA is adding
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Jackson.
San Juan County.
Indianapolis.
Jennings.
Columbia Falls.
Dutchess County.
Riverside.
Dorado.
Live Oak.
Clarksburg.
the North 25th Street Glass and Zinc site
to the NPL.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.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.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
62402
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 final 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.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Sep 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
K. Congressional Review Act
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Provisions of the Congressional
Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of
CERCLA may alter the effective date of
this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C.
801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or
continue in effect, if Congress enacts
(and the President signs) a joint
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
resolution of disapproval, described
under section 802. Another statutory
provision that may affect this rule is
CERCLA section 305, which provides
for a legislative veto of regulations
promulgated under CERCLA. Although
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct.
2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the
University of Washington v. EPA, 86
F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the
validity of the legislative veto into
question, the EPA has transmitted a
copy of this regulation to the Secretary
of the Senate and the Clerk of the House
of Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the
CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the
effective date of this regulation into
question, the EPA will publish a
document of clarification in the Federal
Register.
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.
Dated: September 1, 2016.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and
Emergency Management.
40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:
PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3CFR,
2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300
is amended by adding entries for
‘‘Argonaut Mine’’, ‘‘Bonita Peak Mining
District’’, ‘‘West Vermont Drinking
Water Contamination’’, ‘‘SBA
Shipyard’’, ‘‘Anaconda Aluminum Co
Columbia Falls Reduction Plant’’,
‘‘Wappinger Creek’’, ‘‘Valley Pike
VOCs’’, ‘‘Dorado Ground Water
Contamination’’, ‘‘Eldorado Chemical
Co., Inc.’’, and ‘‘North 25th Street Glass
and Zinc’’ in alphabetical order by state
to read as follows:
■
Appendix B to Part 300—National
Priorities List
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
62403
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
City/county
Notes a
State
Site name
*
CA ....................
*
*
*
*
Argonaut Mine ............................................................................................................
Jackson.
*
CO ....................
*
*
*
*
Bonita Peak Mining District ........................................................................................
*
San Juan County.
*
*
IN ......................
*
*
*
*
West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination ...........................................................
*
Indianapolis.
*
*
LA .....................
MT ....................
NY ....................
*
*
*
*
SBA Shipyard .............................................................................................................
Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant ........................................
Wappinger Creek .......................................................................................................
*
Jennings.
Columbia Falls.
Dutchess County.
*
*
OH ....................
*
*
*
*
Valley Pike VOCs .......................................................................................................
Riverside.
*
PR ....................
*
*
*
*
Dorado Ground Water Contamination .......................................................................
Dorado.
*
TX .....................
WV ....................
*
*
*
*
Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. ......................................................................................
North 25th Street Glass and Zinc ..............................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Live Oak.
Clarksburg.
*
a A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater
than or equal to 28.50).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–21615 Filed 9–8–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
42 CFR Part 8
[Docket No. 2016–0001]
RIN–0930–AA22
Medication Assisted Treatment for
Opioid Use Disorders; Correction
Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Correcting amendment.
AGENCY:
The Health and Human
Services Department (HHS) is correcting
a final rule that appeared in the Federal
Register on July 8, 2016. The final rule
increased the maximum number of
patients to whom an individual
practitioner may dispense or prescribe
certain medications, including
buprenorphine, from 100 to 275.
Practitioners are eligible for the
increased patient limit if they have
prescribed covered medications to up to
100 patients for at least one year
pursuant to secretarial approval,
provided that they meet certain criteria
and adhere to several additional
requirements aimed at ensuring that
patients receive the full array of services
that comprise evidence-based
medication-assisted treatment (MAT)
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Sep 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
and minimize the risks that medications
provided for treatment are misused or
diverted. One pathway through which
practitioners may become eligible to
increase their patient limit is by
obtaining additional credentialing from
one of several credentialing bodies. In
the final rule, the name of one of the
credentialing bodies listed was
incorrect. This action provides the
correct name.
DATES: Effective on September 9, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jinhee Lee, Division of Pharmacologic
Therapies, Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment, SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (240) 276–
2700, email: Jinhee.Lee@
samhsa.hhs.gov.
On July 8,
2016 (81 FR 44711), HHS published a
final rule in the Federal Register, which
increased the maximum number of
patients to whom an individual
practitioner may dispense or prescribe
certain medications, including
buprenorphine, from 100 to 275. One of
the pathways through which
practitioners can become eligible to
increase their patient limit is by
receiving additional credentialing.
In the final rule, the American
Osteopathic Academy of Addiction
Medicine (AOAAM), which provides
training but not certification, was
mistakenly included in the definition
for ‘‘additional credentialing.’’ HHS
intended to include the American
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Osteopathic Association (AOA) in this
definition, not AOAAM. This intention
was evident in HHS’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
published on March 30, 2016, which
proposed defining ‘‘board certification’’
so as to include ‘‘subspecialty board
certification in addiction medicine from
the American Osteopathic Association
(AOA) . . . .’’ AOAAM, on the other
hand, was not referenced within the
NPRM. Accordingly, HHS gave the
public notice and an opportunity to
comment on its proposal to include
AOA board certification as one of the
credentials that would make
practitioners eligible to practice at the
higher patient cap. No public comments
were received that related to AOA’s role
in the proposed rule.
HHS’s intention to reference AOA
(not AOAAM) was also reflected in the
preamble of the final rule; AOA board
certification was referenced in Section B
of the Regulatory Impact Analysis,
which stated that ‘‘[t]he training
requirement may be satisfied in several
ways: One may hold board certification
in . . . addiction medicine from the
American Osteopathic Association
. . . .’’ HHS also explained in the
preamble of the final rule that, ‘‘HHS
removed the term ‘board certification’
and added ‘additional credentialing’ to
clarify that all practitioners who
currently qualify to treat up to 100
patients are eligible for the higher
patient limit if they are included as
specialists as described in 21 U.S.C. 823
E:\FR\FM\09SER1.SGM
09SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62397-62403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21615]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0151, 0152, 0154, 0155, 0156, 0157 and 0158; EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2015-0139, 0575 and 0576; FRL-9952-06-OLEM]
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``the EPA'' or ``the agency'') in
determining
[[Page 62398]]
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 adds ten sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL.
DATES: The document is effective on October 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
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.
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.
Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8637.
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.
Brian Mitchell, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201
Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPR/SPEB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7633.
Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY),
U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
303/312-6578.
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.
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. Availability of Information to the Public
A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?
B. What documents are available for review at the EPA
headquarters docket?
C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional
dockets?
D. How do I access the documents?
E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?
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
K. Congressional Review Act
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 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''
[[Page 62399]]
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 of only 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 a
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 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
[[Page 62400]]
most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a
release with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted previously, 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 more information on the CCL, see the
EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-remedial-performance-measures#cc_anchor.
J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure 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/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.
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/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
The EPA has improved 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 between the EPA and states and
tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.htm.
II. Availability of Information to the Public
A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?
Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites
in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA
headquarters and in the EPA regional offices.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
https://www.regulations.gov (see table below for docket identification
numbers). Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facilities identified in section
II.D.
Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/county, State Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argonaut Mine........................ Jackson, CA............ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0151
Bonita Peak Mining District.......... San Juan County, CO.... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0152
West Vermont Drinking Water Indianapolis, IN....... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0575
Contamination.
SBA Shipyard......................... Jennings, LA........... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0576
Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Columbia Falls, MT..... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0139
Reduction Plant.
Wappinger Creek...................... Dutchess County, NY.... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0155
Valley Pike VOCs..................... Riverside, OH.......... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0154
Dorado Ground Water Contamination.... Dorado, PR............. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0156
Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc........... Live Oak, TX........... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0157
[[Page 62401]]
North 25th Street Glass and Zinc..... Clarksburg, WV......... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0158
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What documents are available for review at the EPA headquarters
docket?
The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score
sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to
compute the score and a list of documents referenced in the
documentation record for each site.
C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets?
The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the
headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the
data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating
the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the
regional dockets.
D. How do I access the documents?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this 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. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see
``Addresses'' section in the beginning portion of this preamble.
E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?
You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name or by contacting the Superfund docket (see contact information in
the beginning portion of this document).
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
This final rule adds the following ten sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL
based on HRS score.
General Superfund section:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA................... Argonaut Mine........ Jackson.
CO................... Bonita Peak Mining San Juan County.
District.
IN................... West Vermont Drinking Indianapolis.
Water Contamination.
LA................... SBA Shipyard......... Jennings.
MT................... Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls.
Columbia Falls
Reduction Plant.
NY................... Wappinger Creek...... Dutchess County.
OH................... Valley Pike VOCs..... Riverside.
PR................... Dorado Ground Water Dorado.
Contamination.
TX................... Eldorado Chemical Live Oak.
Co., Inc.
WV................... North 25th Street Clarksburg.
Glass and Zinc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?
The EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule
and responded to all relevant comments. The EPA is adding ten sites to
the NPL in this final rule, all to the General Superfund section.
Comments on the Bonita Peak Mining District (San Juan County, CO), West
Vermont Drinking Water Contamination (Indianapolis, IN), SBA Shipyard
(Jennings, LA) and Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant
(Columbia Falls, MT) sites are addressed in a response to comment
support document available in the public docket concurrently with this
rule.
The remaining six sites being added to the NPL in this rule did not
receive any comments urging specific changes to the HRS score. The
Valley Pike VOCs (Riverside, OH) site received no comments. The Dorado
Ground Water Contamination (Dorado, PR) and Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc.
(Live Oak, TX) sites both received only erroneous comments that were
meant for other sites but were directed to incorrect docket numbers.
The Argonaut Mine (Jackson, CA) site received two comments urging
EPA to list, one from a citizen and one from the Mayor of the City of
Jackson. In response, EPA is placing the Argonaut Mine site on the NPL.
The Wappinger Creek (Dutchess County, NY) site received three
comments, all urging EPA to list the site, one from a citizen, one
anonymous and one from Senator Gillibrand. In response, EPA is placing
the Wappinger Creek site on the NPL.
The North 25th Street Glass and Zinc (Clarksburg, WV) site received
nine comments. Three of those comments were erroneous comments directed
toward the incorrect docket. Three of the comments urged EPA to list
the site and two urged EPA to clean up the site. One comment raised
objections to tax payer money being wasted on hazardous waste lawsuits.
In response, nothing raised in this comment impacted the HRS score or
the decision to list the site on the NPL. Therefore, EPA is adding the
North 25th Street Glass and Zinc site to the NPL.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.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
[[Page 62402]]
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 final 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.
K. Congressional Review Act
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C.
801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if
Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of
disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision
that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a
legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS
v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of
the University of Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir.
1996), cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, the EPA
has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.
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.
Dated: September 1, 2016.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.
40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN
0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p.193.
0
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding entries for
``Argonaut Mine'', ``Bonita Peak Mining District'', ``West Vermont
Drinking Water Contamination'', ``SBA Shipyard'', ``Anaconda Aluminum
Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant'', ``Wappinger Creek'', ``Valley Pike
VOCs'', ``Dorado Ground Water Contamination'', ``Eldorado Chemical Co.,
Inc.'', and ``North 25th Street Glass and Zinc'' in alphabetical order
by state to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List
[[Page 62403]]
Table 1--General superfund section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CA......................... Argonaut Mine........ Jackson.........................
* * * * * * *
CO......................... Bonita Peak Mining San Juan County.................
District.
* * * * * * *
IN......................... West Vermont Drinking Indianapolis....................
Water Contamination.
* * * * * * *
LA......................... SBA Shipyard......... Jennings........................
MT......................... Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls..................
Columbia Falls
Reduction Plant.
NY......................... Wappinger Creek...... Dutchess County.................
* * * * * * *
OH......................... Valley Pike VOCs..... Riverside.......................
* * * * * * *
PR......................... Dorado Ground Water Dorado..........................
Contamination.
* * * * * * *
TX......................... Eldorado Chemical Live Oak........................
Co., Inc..
WV......................... North 25th Street Clarksburg......................
Glass and Zinc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS
score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-21615 Filed 9-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
