National Priorities List, 46408-46413 [2018-19878]

Download as PDF 46408 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/ 814–3355. • Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, 40 CFR Part 300 GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, [EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0575, EPA–HQ– Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562–8637. OLEM–2017–0605, 0608 and 0610, EPA–HQ– • Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, OLEM–2018–0252 and 0254; FRL–9983–69– MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund OLEM] Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC–7J, Metcalfe Federal National Priorities List Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, AGENCY: Environmental Protection Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886–4465. Agency (EPA). • Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross ACTION: Final rule. Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Dallas, TX 75202–2733; 214/665–7436. Environmental Response, • Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner (‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended, Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS requires that the National Oil and 66219; 913/551–7956. • Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B, of national priorities among the known Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312–6578. releases or threatened releases of • Sharon Bowen, Region 9 (AZ, CA, hazardous substances, pollutants or HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 contaminants throughout the United Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6–1, States. The National Priorities List (‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947– 4250. intended primarily to guide the • Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘the WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining Mailcode ECL–112, Seattle, WA 98101; which sites warrant further 206/463–1349. investigation. These further FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: investigations will allow the EPA to Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852, assess the nature and extent of public email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site health and environmental risks Assessment and Remedy Decisions associated with the site and to Branch, Assessment and Remediation determine what CERCLA-financed Division, Office of Superfund remedial action(s), if any, may be Remediation and Technology appropriate. This rule adds five sites to Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. the General Superfund section of the Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 NPL, clarifies a site name, and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, withdraws a previous addition to the DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, NPL. phone (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412– DATES: The document is effective on 9810 in the Washington, DC, October 15, 2018. metropolitan area. ADDRESSES: Contact information for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA Headquarters: Table of Contents • Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; I. Background CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 A. What are CERCLA and SARA? Constitution Avenue NW; William B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room (NPL)? 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566– D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 0276. E. What happens to sites on the NPL? The contact information for the F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of regional dockets is as follows: sites? • Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, G. How are sites removed from the NPL? NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund H. May the EPA delete portions of sites Records and Information Center, 5 Post from the NPL as they are cleaned up? I. What is the Construction Completion List Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA (CCL)? 02109–3912; 617/918–1413. J. What is the Sitewide Ready for • Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, Anticipated Use measure? PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New K. What is state/tribal correspondence York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4344. concerning NPL Listing? • Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, II. Availability of Information to the Public DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule? Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Sep 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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? C. Site Name Clarification D. Vacatur of Previous NPL Listing IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations L. 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 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES 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 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, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Sep 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 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. On January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The current HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and subsurface intrusion, 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 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 46409 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 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES 46410 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the ‘‘site’’). The ‘‘site’’ is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name ‘‘Jones Co. plant site,’’ does not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site. EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (‘‘RI’’) ‘‘is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release’’ as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility study (‘‘FS’’) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination ‘‘has come to be located’’ before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty. Further, as noted 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Sep 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 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/construction-completionsnational-priorities-list-npl-sites-number. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 website: https://www.epa.gov/ superfund/statetribal-correspondenceconcerning-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 website at http:// semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/ 174024. 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. E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 46411 DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE Site name City/county, state Broadway Street Corridor Groundwater Contamination .......................... Rockwell International Wheel & Trim ....................................................... Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer .......................................................... Southside Chattanooga Lead ................................................................... Delfasco Forge ......................................................................................... Anderson, IN ................................... Grenada, MS .................................. Donnelsville, OH ............................. Chattanooga, TN ............................ Grand Prairie, TX ........................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2017–0605 EPA–HQ–OLEM–2017–0608 EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018–0252 EPA–HQ–OLEM–2017–0610 EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018–0254 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 five 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 IN ............... MS ............. OH ............. TN .............. TX .............. Broadway Street Corridor Groundwater Contamination ................................................. Rockwell International Wheel & Trim ............................................................................. Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer ................................................................................. Southside Chattanooga Lead ......................................................................................... Delfasco Forge ................................................................................................................ B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received? daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES Docket ID No. The EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and responded to all relevant comments. The EPA is adding five sites to the NPL in this final rule. Three sites were proposed for NPL addition on January 18, 2018 (83 FR 2576). The sites are: Broadway Street Corridor Groundwater Contamination in Anderson, IN; Rockwell International Wheel & Trim in Grenada, MS; and Southside Chattanooga Lead in Chattanooga, TN. Two sites were proposed for NPL addition on May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22918). Those sites are: Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer in Donnelsville, OH; and Delfasco Forge in Grand Prairie, TX. Comments on Rockwell International Wheel & Trim, Southside Chattanooga Lead and Broadway Street Corridor Groundwater Contamination are being addressed in response to comment support documents available in the public docket concurrently with this rule. To view public comments on these sites, as well as EPA’s response, please VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Sep 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 City/county refer to the support documents filed in connection with this rule. The EPA received no comments on the Delfasco Forge site. For the Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer site, the EPA received one comment from community members in support of NPL listing and one comment unrelated to NPL listing. C. Site Name Clarification On January 18, 2018 (83 FR 2576) the EPA proposed to add the ‘‘Southside Chattanooga Lead Site’’ site to the NPL. The EPA is dropping ‘‘Site’’ from the site name and henceforth referring to it as Southside Chattanooga Lead. D. Vacatur of Previous NPL Listing EPA placed the West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination site located in Indianapolis, Indiana on the NPL on September 9, 2016 (81 FR 62397). On May 18, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the 2016 rule which placed the site on the NPL (Genuine Parts Co. v. EPA, No. 16–1416 (DC Cir. 2018)). Consequently, EPA has withdrawn the West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination site from the NPL. PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Anderson. Grenada. Donnelsville. Chattanooga. Grand Prairie. 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. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. 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. E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1 46412 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations D. 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. E. 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. F. 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. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES G. 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. H. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Sep 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 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. I. 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. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. K. 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. L. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (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 6, 2018. Barry N. Breen, Acting 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, 3 CFR, 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 as follows: ■ a. Under Indiana: ■ i. By adding the entry ‘‘Broadway Street Corridor Groundwater Contamination’’ in alphabetical order. ■ ii. By removing the entry ‘‘West Vermont Drinking Water’’. ■ b. By adding the entries for ‘‘Rockwell International Wheel & Trim’’, ‘‘Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer’’, ‘‘Southside Chattanooga Lead’’, and ‘‘Delfasco Forge’’ in alphabetical order by state. The additions read as follows: ■ Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1 46413 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State Site name City/county Notes (a) * IN ..................................... * * * * * Broadway Street Corridor Groundwater Contamination .............. Anderson .................................. * * MS ................................... * * * * * Rockwell International Wheel & Trim .......................................... Grenada .................................... * * OH ................................... * * * * * Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer ............................................. Donnelsville .............................. * * TN .................................... * * * * * Southside Chattanooga Lead ...................................................... Chattanooga ............................. * * TX .................................... * * * * * Delfasco Forge ............................................................................ Grand Prairie ............................ * * * * * * * * (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). * * * * at 202–219–2349, or by email at travelpolicy@gsa.gov. Please cite Notice of FTR Bulletin 18–08. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal civilian employees of an agency as defined in FTR § 301–1.1, if authorized to travel via business-class air accommodations, must use the business-class city-pair fare (coded as ‘‘—CB’’) where awarded for the route(s) listed on the travel authorization. The Federal traveler must use this fare or have an authorized exception to mandatory use of a contract city-pair fare per the FTR. The information outlined in FTR Bulletin 18–08 will provide clarity and promote consistency across the Government. This bulletin is located at www.gsa.gov/ftr under the ‘‘FTR & Related Files’’ tab. * [FR Doc. 2018–19878 Filed 9–12–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 41 CFR Part 301–1 [Notice–MA–2018–08; Docket No. 2018– 0002, Sequence No. 20] Federal Travel Regulation: Contract City-Pair Business-Class Air Accommodations Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Notification of Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Bulletin 18–08, Contract City-Pair Business-Class Air Accommodations. AGENCY: GSA is notifying agencies that Federal civilian employees of an agency as defined in its regulations, if authorized to travel via business-class air accommodations, must use the business-class city-pair fare (coded as ‘‘—CB’’) where awarded for the route(s) listed on the travel authorization. The information outlined in an FTR bulletin will provide clarity and promote consistency across the Government. DATES: FTR Bulletin 18–08 is available September 13, 2018. ADDRESSES: The bulletin is located at www.gsa.gov/ftr under the ‘‘FTR & Related Files’’ tab. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, please contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Sep 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 Dated: September 6, 2018. Jessica Salmoiraghi, Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy. [FR Doc. 2018–19884 Filed 9–12–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820–14–P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 48 CFR Parts 831, 833, 852 and 871 RIN 2900–AQ02 VA Acquisition Regulation: Contract Cost Principles and Procedures; Protests, Disputes and Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending and updating its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased increments to revise or SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 remove any policy superseded by changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance internal to VA into the VA Acquisition Manual (VAAM), and to incorporate any new agency specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates portions of the removed VAAR as well as other internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten, we will publish them in the Federal Register. In particular, this rulemaking revises VAAR concerning Contract Cost Principles and Procedures and Protests, Disputes and Appeals. DATES: This rule is effective on October 15, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rafael N. Taylor, Senior Procurement Analyst, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Services, 003A2A, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 382–2787. This is not a toll-free telephone number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 6, 2018, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 14826), which announced VA‘s intent to amend regulations for VAAR Case RIN 2900– AQ02 (Parts 831 and 833). In particular, this final rule revises VAAR part 831 to clarify the cost principles under the chapter 31 program and to apply those principles to both fixed-price and cost reimbursement contracts with educational institutions, as well as those with commercial and non-profit organizations. It revises VAAR part 833 to update information for where an E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46408-46413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19878]



[[Page 46408]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0575, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0605, 0608 and 0610, EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2018-0252 and 0254; FRL-9983-69-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 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 five sites to the General Superfund section 
of the NPL, clarifies a site name, and withdraws a previous addition to 
the NPL.

DATES: The document is effective on October 15, 2018.

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.
     Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 
11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.
     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 Bowen, 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: [email protected], 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?
    C. Site Name Clarification
    D. Vacatur of Previous NPL Listing
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. 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

[[Page 46409]]

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 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. On January 9, 2017 
(82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to 
enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or 
pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures 
through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The 
current HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil 
exposure and subsurface intrusion, 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

[[Page 46410]]

may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there are 
uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, 
strictly speaking, part of the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither 
equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that 
may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to 
imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the 
property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site 
name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the 
contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of 
liability at a site. For example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' 
does not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the 
contamination located on the plant site.
    EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (``RI'') 
``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of 
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed 
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an 
interactive fashion with the feasibility study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5). 
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or 
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the 
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS 
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the 
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it 
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the 
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies 
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries 
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most 
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release 
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted 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/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number.

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 website: 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 website at http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174024.

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.

[[Page 46411]]



                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Site name                   City/county, state                     Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadway Street Corridor Groundwater    Anderson, IN...........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0605
 Contamination.
Rockwell International Wheel & Trim...  Grenada, MS............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608
Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer.....  Donnelsville, OH.......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0252
Southside Chattanooga Lead............  Chattanooga, TN........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0610
Delfasco Forge........................  Grand Prairie, TX......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0254
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 five 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN......................................  Broadway Street Corridor Groundwater        Anderson.
                                           Contamination.
MS......................................  Rockwell International Wheel & Trim.......  Grenada.
OH......................................  Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer.........  Donnelsville.
TN......................................  Southside Chattanooga Lead................  Chattanooga.
TX......................................  Delfasco Forge............................  Grand Prairie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 five sites to 
the NPL in this final rule. Three sites were proposed for NPL addition 
on January 18, 2018 (83 FR 2576). The sites are: Broadway Street 
Corridor Groundwater Contamination in Anderson, IN; Rockwell 
International Wheel & Trim in Grenada, MS; and Southside Chattanooga 
Lead in Chattanooga, TN. Two sites were proposed for NPL addition on 
May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22918). Those sites are: Donnelsville Contaminated 
Aquifer in Donnelsville, OH; and Delfasco Forge in Grand Prairie, TX.
    Comments on Rockwell International Wheel & Trim, Southside 
Chattanooga Lead and Broadway Street Corridor Groundwater Contamination 
are being addressed in response to comment support documents available 
in the public docket concurrently with this rule. To view public 
comments on these sites, as well as EPA's response, please refer to the 
support documents filed in connection with this rule.
    The EPA received no comments on the Delfasco Forge site.
    For the Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer site, the EPA received 
one comment from community members in support of NPL listing and one 
comment unrelated to NPL listing.

C. Site Name Clarification

    On January 18, 2018 (83 FR 2576) the EPA proposed to add the 
``Southside Chattanooga Lead Site'' site to the NPL. The EPA is 
dropping ``Site'' from the site name and henceforth referring to it as 
Southside Chattanooga Lead.

D. Vacatur of Previous NPL Listing

    EPA placed the West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination site 
located in Indianapolis, Indiana on the NPL on September 9, 2016 (81 FR 
62397). On May 18, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacated the 2016 rule which placed the site on the NPL 
(Genuine Parts Co. v. EPA, No. 16-1416 (DC Cir. 2018)). Consequently, 
EPA has withdrawn the West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination site 
from 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. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. 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.

[[Page 46412]]

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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.

G. 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.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. 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.

L. 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 6, 2018.
Barry N. Breen,
Acting 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, 3 CFR, 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 as follows:
0
a. Under Indiana:
0
i. By adding the entry ``Broadway Street Corridor Groundwater 
Contamination'' in alphabetical order.
0
ii. By removing the entry ``West Vermont Drinking Water''.
0
b. By adding the entries for ``Rockwell International Wheel & Trim'', 
``Donnelsville Contaminated Aquifer'', ``Southside Chattanooga Lead'', 
and ``Delfasco Forge'' in alphabetical order by state.
    The additions read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

[[Page 46413]]



                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                         Site name               City/county               Notes (a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
IN................................  Broadway Street Corridor    Anderson.............  .........................
                                     Groundwater Contamination.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
MS................................  Rockwell International      Grenada..............  .........................
                                     Wheel & Trim.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
OH................................  Donnelsville Contaminated   Donnelsville.........  .........................
                                     Aquifer.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
TN................................  Southside Chattanooga Lead  Chattanooga..........  .........................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
TX................................  Delfasco Forge............  Grand Prairie........  .........................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(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. 2018-19878 Filed 9-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P