National Priorities List, 60339-60344 [2019-24151]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘designated representative’’ is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to
units under the operational control of
USCG Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
(2) Persons and vessels seeking entry
into this safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF–FM Channel 16 or by
telephone at (412) 221–0807.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to
enter this safety zone must transit at
their slowest safe speed and comply
with all lawful instructions of the COTP
or a designated representative.
(e) Informational broadcasts. The
COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the
enforcement period for the safety zone
as well as any changes in the schedule
through Broadcast Notices to Mariners
(BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners
(LNMs), and/or Marine Safety
Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as
appropriate.
A.W. Demo,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of
the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2019–24411 Filed 11–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2019–0077 and 0078;
FRL–10001–92–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
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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Nov 07, 2019
Jkt 250001
determine what CERCLA-financed
remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule adds two sites to
the General Superfund section of the
NPL.
The document is effective on
December 9, 2019.
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.
• James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR,
VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4342.
• 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.
• Eugenia Chow, Region 9 (AZ, CA,
HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6–1,
San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972–
3160.
• 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
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60339
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. 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
E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM
08NOR1
60340
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
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’’
and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Nov 07, 2019
Jkt 250001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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,
E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM
08NOR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Nov 07, 2019
Jkt 250001
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 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60341
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
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
E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM
08NOR1
60342
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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 https://
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.
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE
Site name
City/county, state
Schroud Property .........................................................
Arsenic Mine ................................................................
Chicago, IL ..................................................................
Kent, NY ......................................................................
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,
a list of documents referenced in the
documentation record for each site and
any other information used to support
the NPL listing of the 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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
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/nationalpriorities-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 two
sites to the General Superfund section of
the NPL. Schroud Property is being
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Nov 07, 2019
Jkt 250001
added to the NPL based on an HRS
score of 28.50 or above. Arsenic Mine is
being added based on ATSDR health
advisory criteria.
GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State
Site name
IL ............
NY ..........
Schroud Property ....
Arsenic Mine ...........
City/county
Chicago.
Kent.
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 two sites to the NPL
in this final rule. The sites were
proposed for addition to the NPL on
June 3, 2109 (84 FR 25509).
The EPA received one unrelated
comment on the Arsenic Mine site.
The EPA received comments from 21
comment submitters that expressed
support for the proposed addition of the
Schroud Property site. While all of the
comments received were in support of
placing the Schroud Property site on the
NPL, some comments expressed
additional concerns. These concerns
include:
• Scoring or investigating additional
pathways and threats such as
contaminant movement via air and
groundwater in the HRS
documentation record and threats
from electric arc furnace (EAF) dust
(specifically zinc and lead) in the HRS
evaluation
• Environmental justice concerns
including nearby minority
populations and economically
disadvantaged neighborhoods, and
associated economic impacts
• Lack of institutional/physical barriers
to limit access the property
• Questions on the prioritizing of
funding and cleanup
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2019–0077.
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2019–0078.
• General concerns of site contaminant
effects on human health, fishing, and
nearby sensitive species and habitats
• Possible future remedial techniques
Regarding comments in support of
NPL listing that recommend scoring
additional HRS pathways, threats and
contaminants (i.e., the EAF dust) at the
Schroud Property site, the HRS does not
require that a site be evaluated for all
possible migration and exposure
pathways or all contaminants before the
HRS evaluation is completed.
Evaluation and scoring of these
pathways in the HRS documentation
record could only result in an increased
HRS score and, thus, would not have
any impact on the eligibility of the site
for the NPL. Although the EPA did not
score other pathways, this does not
mean that there is no associated concern
or that the EPA will not investigate
other pathways in the future. The HRS
is a screening model that uses limited
resources to determine whether a site
should be placed on the NPL for
possible Superfund response. A
subsequent stage of the Superfund
process, the remedial investigation (RI),
characterizes conditions and hazards at
the site more comprehensively. Through
the RI process, the EPA will fully
characterize the risks to human health
and the environment from
contamination at the site, determine
what cleanup is needed, and select an
appropriate remedy with input from the
community.
Many sites on the NPL are located in
environmental justice, minority and/or
poor communities. Through the cleanup
of these sites, the Superfund program
has sought to ensure that residents do
not bear a disproportionate share of the
negative environmental consequences
resulting from past industrial,
governmental, and commercial
operations, and that they have
meaningful involvement in the
decisions on how to clean up the site.
E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM
08NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
The EPA is working with the city of
Chicago to increase security and control
access to the site. In April 2019, the city
placed twenty-seven, 5,000-pound
barriers around the property at access
points to limit and discourage
trespassing on the property. The EPA
will continue to work with the
community and the city of Chicago
throughout the later stages of the
superfund process to restrict access to
the site.
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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Nov 07, 2019
Jkt 250001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60343
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.
E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM
08NOR1
60344
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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: October 28, 2019.
Peter C. Wright,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and
Emergency Management.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 300, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended 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.
PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300
is amended by adding the entries for
‘‘IL, Schroud Property, Chicago’’, and
‘‘NY, Arsenic Mine, Kent’’ in
alphabetical order by state and site
name to read as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 300—National
Priorities List
■
■
TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State
Site name
Notes a
City/county
*
*
*
*
*
IL ........................... Schroud Property ........................................................................................................
Chicago
*
*
*
*
*
NY ......................... Arsenic Mine ...............................................................................................................
*
*
Kent ..........................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
........................
*
A
*
aA
= 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).
*
*
*
*
*
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2019–24151 Filed 11–6–19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 130312235–3658–02; RTID
0648–XS015]
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Resources of the South
Atlantic; Vermilion Snapper Trip Limit
Reduction
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; trip limit
reduction.
AGENCY:
NMFS reduces the
commercial trip limit for vermilion
snapper in or from the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) of the South
Atlantic to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted
weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight.
This trip limit reduction is necessary to
protect the South Atlantic vermilion
snapper resource.
DATES: This rule is effective 12:01 a.m.,
local time, November 11, 2019, until
12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2020.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Nov 07, 2019
Jkt 250001
Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional
Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
frank.helies@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
snapper-grouper fishery in the South
Atlantic includes vermilion snapper and
is managed under the Fishery
Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic
Region (FMP). The South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council prepared
the FMP. The FMP is implemented by
NMFS under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations
at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial ACL (commercial
quota) for vermilion snapper in the
South Atlantic is divided into two 6month seasons, January through June,
and July through December. For the July
1 through December 31, 2019, fishing
season, the commercial quota is 483,658
lb (219,384 kg), gutted weight; 536,860
lb (243,516 kg), round weight (50 CFR
622.190(a)(4)(ii)(A)). As specified in 50
CFR 622.190(a)(4)(iii), any unused
portion of the commercial quota from
the January through June 2019, fishing
season will be added to the commercial
quota for the July through December
2019, fishing season. The unused
portion of the quota that was not
harvested by the commercial sector
during the January through June fishing
season, totaled 25,645 lb (11,632 kg)
gutted weight, 28,466 lb (12,912 kg),
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
round weight, and was added to the July
through December 2019 quota. This
resulted in an adjusted commercial
quota, for the July through December
2019 fishing season, of 509,303 lb
(231,015 kg), gutted weight, 565,326 lb
(256,428 kg), round weight.
Under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii), NMFS
is required to reduce the commercial
trip limit for vermilion snapper from
1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight, 1,110
lb (503 kg), round weight, to 500 lb (227
kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg),
round weight, when 75 percent of the
fishing season commercial quota is
reached or projected to be reached, by
filing a notification to that effect with
the Office of the Federal Register. Based
on current landings information, NMFS
has determined that 75 percent of the
available adjusted commercial quota for
the July through December 2019 fishing
season for vermilion snapper will be
reached by November 11, 2019.
Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the
commercial trip limit for vermilion
snapper to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted
weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight,
in or from the South Atlantic EEZ at
12:01 a.m., local time, on November 11,
2019. This reduced commercial trip
limit will remain in effect until the start
of the next commercial fishing season
on January 1, 2020, or until the adjusted
commercial quota is reached and the
commercial sector closes, whichever
occurs first.
E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM
08NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60339-60344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24151]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0077 and 0078; FRL-10001-92-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 two sites to the General Superfund section
of the NPL.
DATES: The document is effective on December 9, 2019.
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.
James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4342.
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.
Eugenia Chow, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/972-3160.
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?
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
[[Page 60340]]
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'' 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,
[[Page 60341]]
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 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
[[Page 60342]]
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 https://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.
Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/county, state Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schroud Property..................... Chicago, IL............ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0077.
Arsenic Mine......................... Kent, NY............... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0078.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, a list of documents referenced in the documentation
record for each site and any other information used to support the NPL
listing of the 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 two sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. Schroud Property is being added to the
NPL based on an HRS score of 28.50 or above. Arsenic Mine is being
added based on ATSDR health advisory criteria.
General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL................... Schroud Property......... Chicago.
NY................... Arsenic Mine............. Kent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 two sites to
the NPL in this final rule. The sites were proposed for addition to the
NPL on June 3, 2109 (84 FR 25509).
The EPA received one unrelated comment on the Arsenic Mine site.
The EPA received comments from 21 comment submitters that expressed
support for the proposed addition of the Schroud Property site. While
all of the comments received were in support of placing the Schroud
Property site on the NPL, some comments expressed additional concerns.
These concerns include:
Scoring or investigating additional pathways and threats such
as contaminant movement via air and groundwater in the HRS
documentation record and threats from electric arc furnace (EAF) dust
(specifically zinc and lead) in the HRS evaluation
Environmental justice concerns including nearby minority
populations and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, and
associated economic impacts
Lack of institutional/physical barriers to limit access the
property
Questions on the prioritizing of funding and cleanup
General concerns of site contaminant effects on human health,
fishing, and nearby sensitive species and habitats
Possible future remedial techniques
Regarding comments in support of NPL listing that recommend scoring
additional HRS pathways, threats and contaminants (i.e., the EAF dust)
at the Schroud Property site, the HRS does not require that a site be
evaluated for all possible migration and exposure pathways or all
contaminants before the HRS evaluation is completed. Evaluation and
scoring of these pathways in the HRS documentation record could only
result in an increased HRS score and, thus, would not have any impact
on the eligibility of the site for the NPL. Although the EPA did not
score other pathways, this does not mean that there is no associated
concern or that the EPA will not investigate other pathways in the
future. The HRS is a screening model that uses limited resources to
determine whether a site should be placed on the NPL for possible
Superfund response. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process, the
remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and hazards at
the site more comprehensively. Through the RI process, the EPA will
fully characterize the risks to human health and the environment from
contamination at the site, determine what cleanup is needed, and select
an appropriate remedy with input from the community.
Many sites on the NPL are located in environmental justice,
minority and/or poor communities. Through the cleanup of these sites,
the Superfund program has sought to ensure that residents do not bear a
disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences
resulting from past industrial, governmental, and commercial
operations, and that they have meaningful involvement in the decisions
on how to clean up the site.
[[Page 60343]]
The EPA is working with the city of Chicago to increase security
and control access to the site. In April 2019, the city placed twenty-
seven, 5,000-pound barriers around the property at access points to
limit and discourage trespassing on the property. The EPA will continue
to work with the community and the city of Chicago throughout the later
stages of the superfund process to restrict access to the site.
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.
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.
[[Page 60344]]
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: October 28, 2019.
Peter C. Wright,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
300, of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 by adding the entries
for ``IL, Schroud Property, Chicago'', and ``NY, Arsenic Mine, Kent''
in alphabetical order by state and site name to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List
Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
IL.............................. Schroud Property................ Chicago ...............
* * * * * * *
NY.............................. Arsenic Mine.................... Kent....................... A
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. 2019-24151 Filed 11-6-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
