National Priorities List, 14805-14813 [2022-05397]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14805-14813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05397]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0454, 0456, 0457, 0458, 0459, 0460, 0461, 0462, 0464, 
0465, 0466 and 0467; FRL-9184-01-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 12 sites to the NPL, 11 to the General 
Superfund section and one to the Federal Facilities section.

DATES: The rule is effective on April 15, 2022.

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone: (202) 566-1048, 
email: [email protected], Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, 
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation 
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204T), 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.
    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, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, 
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814-3355.
     Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), 
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8926.
     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.
     Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), 
U.S. EPA, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Mailcode SED, Dallas, TX 75270; 
214/665-3154.
     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, Suite 155, Mailcode 12-D12-1, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/890-0591.

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. Clarification of Figure for Meeker Avenue Plume Site
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

[[Page 14806]]

    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 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

[[Page 14807]]

releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. 
Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not 
known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any 
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA 
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define 
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, 
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL 
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at 
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as 
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the 
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the 
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site 
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily 
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the 
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the 
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all 
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well 
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, 
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate 
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. Plant site'') in terms of the property 
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not 
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due 
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full 
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of 
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of 
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its 
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is 
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the 
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to 
help identify the geographic location of the contamination; and is not 
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For 
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the 
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant 
site.
    EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (``RI'') 
``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of 
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed 
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an 
interactive fashion with the feasibility study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5). 
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or 
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the 
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS 
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the 
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it 
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the 
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies 
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries 
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in 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#reuse.

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/

[[Page 14808]]

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 https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westside Lead........................  Atlanta, GA............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0454.
North 5th Street Groundwater           Goshen, IN.............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0456.
 Contamination.
Lower Neponset River.................  Boston/Milton, MA......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0457.
Bear Creek Sediments.................  Baltimore County, MD...  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0458.
Michner Plating--Mechanic Street.....  Jackson, MI............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0459.
Southeast Hennepin Area Groundwater    Minneapolis, MN........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0460.
 and Vapor.
Meeker Avenue Plume..................  Brooklyn, NY...........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0461.
Bradford Island......................  Cascade Locks, OR......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0462.
Galey and Lord Plant.................  Society Hill, SC.......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0464.
National Fireworks...................  Cordova, TN............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0465.
Unity Auto Mart......................  Unity, WI..............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0466.
Paden City Groundwater...............  Paden City, WV.........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0467.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 12 sites to the NPL, 11 to the 
General Superfund section and one to the Federal Facilities section. 
All of these sites are being added to the NPL based on an HRS score of 
28.50 or above.

                                            General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                                Site name                         City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA.......................................  Westside Lead...................  Atlanta.
IN.......................................  North 5th Street Groundwater      Goshen.
                                            Contamination.
MA.......................................  Lower Neponset River............  Boston/Milton.
MD.......................................  Bear Creek Sediments............  Baltimore County.
MI.......................................  Michner Plating--Mechanic Street  Jackson.
MN.......................................  Southeast Hennepin Area           Minneapolis.
                                            Groundwater and Vapor.
NY.......................................  Meeker Avenue Plume.............  Brooklyn.
SC.......................................  Galey and Lord Plant............  Society Hill.
TN.......................................  National Fireworks..............  Cordova.
WI.......................................  Unity Auto Mart.................  Unity.
WV.......................................  Paden City Groundwater..........  Paden City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14809]]


                                           Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                                Site name                         City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR.......................................  Bradford Island.................  Cascade Locks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 12 sites to 
the NPL in this final rule. All 12 sites were proposed for addition to 
the NPL on September 9, 2021 (86 FR 50515).
    Comments on the Westside Lead and Bradford Island sites 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 the EPA's responses, please refer to the 
support documents available per docket ID number at https://www.regulations.gov. Below is a summary of significant comments 
received on the remaining sites.
    Paden City Groundwater:
    The EPA received seven comments on the Paden City Groundwater site. 
One comment did not oppose adding the site to the NPL and one comment 
supported listing. Five comments, in support of listing Paden City 
Groundwater, were erroneously received in the dockets for Westside 
Lead, Bear Creek Sediments, and Bradford Island. Two additional 
comments were received in the Paden City Groundwater docket but were 
comments directed at the Meeker Avenue Plume and Galey and Lord Plant 
sites. Three comments supported listing the Paden City Groundwater site 
and expressed concerns related to the health impacts of 
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) contamination in groundwater, and one comment 
also expressed concerns about the financial impact of the need to 
purchase clean drinking water due to contaminated tap water. One 
commenter submitted comments regarding possible contamination in a 
basement and inquired whether there should be concern regarding the 
contamination.
    Following listing, the EPA will be conducting additional sampling 
to determine the extent of the contamination, determine what actual 
risks are associated with the site, and take necessary actions to 
address any health impacts. The EPA performs a comprehensive risk 
assessment for the site as part of further investigations that 
typically follow listing. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process, 
the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and hazards 
at the site more comprehensively. The results of risk assessment 
activities will be considered during the evaluation of the need for 
remedial actions at the site. Additionally, the EPA has contacted one 
resident directly to address specific health concerns and to discuss 
the location of their properties in relation to the site contamination.
    National Fireworks:
    The EPA received three comments on the National Fireworks site from 
two private citizens and one non-profit organization. One private 
citizen and the non-profit organization expressed support for listing 
the National Fireworks site on the NPL due the presence of contaminated 
groundwater. The non-profit organization stated that it was concerned 
that per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) may be present in the 
groundwater in addition to chlorinated solvents due the former use of 
industrial degreasers at the site. The third commenter, a private 
citizen, did not oppose adding the site to the NPL but expressed 
opposition to the rationale for listing the site. The commenter stated 
that the study used to support listing contained inaccuracies and 
attributed contamination to an operation that was present for only two 
years even though other possible origins of the contamination existed. 
The commenter asserted that these other possible origins included an 
industrial park that had operated for 35 years and a railroad that 
operated in area until the mid-1990s.
    The National Fireworks site qualifies for addition to the NPL 
because it has achieved an HRS score of 28.50 or greater, as is 
demonstrated in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Achieving a 
site score of greater than 28.50 indicates that the site is eligible 
for inclusion on the NPL and therefore may warrant further 
investigation. The HRS documentation record at proposal outlines the 
specific rationale for attributing the observed release to groundwater 
to the site consistent with the requirements in the HRS. The 
requirements in the HRS state that ``some portion of the release must 
be attributable to the site.'' As indicated in the attribution section 
of the HRS documentation record at proposal, attribution of at least 
some of the release is supported, in part, by the detection of 
explosives, which are unique to munitions manufacturing, in soil 
collected from the burn pit at the National Fireworks facility, 
demonstrating a lack of containment.
    The HRS documentation record at proposal outlines the specific 
rationale for attributing the groundwater contamination to the 
manufacturing of explosives during World War II. Attribution of at 
least some of the contamination detected in groundwater is supported by 
the identification of the same contaminants in groundwater that were in 
site sources and the detection of explosives, which are unique to 
munitions manufacturing, in soil collected from the burn pit at the 
National Fireworks facility.
    The EPA will be conducting additional sampling to determine the 
extent of the contamination. If additional source areas are discovered, 
as the third commenter insists, EPA will fully investigate and clean up 
those additional source areas. A subsequent stage of the Superfund 
process, the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and 
hazards at the site more comprehensively.
    Galey and Lord Plant:
    The EPA received a total of 16 comments submitted by private 
citizens, the mayor of the Town of Society Hill, the governing body of 
Darlington County, and the owners of a local farm near the Galey and 
Lord Plant site. One additional comment was received in the docket but 
was intended for the Southeast Hennepin Area Groundwater and Vapor 
docket and supported listing of that site. One comment from the 
governing body of Darlington County in support of listing the site was 
received but was submitted to the Paden City Groundwater docket. 
Comments received did not oppose adding the Galey and Lord Plant site 
to the NPL. The mayor of the Town of Society Hill submitted a comment 
that expressed support for listing and concern for human health, 
wildlife, and waterways. Two private citizens and the owners of the 
local farm submitted comments regarding the health impacts associated 
with contamination from the Galey and Lord facility. One of the 
commenters expressed concern for impacts to the commenter's health 
experienced directly following consumption of local well water. One 
comment from a private citizen on areas not a part of the site also 
included specific concerns

[[Page 14810]]

regarding the impact of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and 
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in groundwater. In addition to commenting 
on health impacts, the owners of the local farm expressed general 
concerns regarding the impact of contamination on its property and 
specific concern over the economic impact of the site and cleanup 
actions on its business. This commenter requested input about the party 
that initiated the cleanup process for this site. The South Carolina 
Department of Health and Environmental Control referred the Galey and 
Lord site to EPA for NPL consideration following an assessment of the 
plant site and the discovery of contamination in private drinking water 
wells near the fields where wastewater sludge from the plant was 
disposed of.
    Following listing, the EPA will be conducting additional sampling 
to determine the extent of the contamination, determine what actual 
risks are associated with the site, and take necessary actions to 
address any health impacts. A subsequent stage of the Superfund 
process, the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and 
hazards at the site more comprehensively. The EPA performs a 
comprehensive risk assessment for the site as part of further 
investigations that typically follow listing. The results of risk 
assessment activities will be considered during the evaluation of the 
need for remedial actions at the site. The EPA has contacted the 
concerned individual directly to address their specific health 
concerns.
    Regarding economic impacts, the EPA notes that there are both costs 
and benefits that can be associated with listing a site. Among the 
benefits are increased health and environmental protection as a result 
of increased public awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the 
potential for federally financed remedial actions, the addition of a 
site to the NPL could accelerate privately financed, voluntary cleanup 
efforts. Listing sites as national priority targets also may give 
states increased support for funding responses at particular sites. As 
a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human 
exposure to high-risk chemicals, and higher quality surface water, 
ground water, soil, and air. Therefore, it is possible that any 
perceived or actual negative fluctuations in property values or 
development opportunities that may result from contamination may also 
be countered by positive fluctuations when a CERCLA investigation and 
any necessary cleanup are completed.
    Bear Creek Sediments:
    The EPA received 13 comments on the Bear Creek Sediments site. One 
additional comment was received from a private citizen but was intended 
for the Paden City Groundwater docket. The 13 comments received, from 
11 private citizens and two non-profit organizations, expressed support 
for listing the site on the NPL. One commenter, a non-profit 
organization, requested that community engagement opportunities be 
available if the site is placed on the NPL. Another non-profit 
organization supported listing but included requests for further 
actions in its comment submission. The non-profit organization also 
submitted comments expressing environmental justice concerns. The non-
profit organization made the following assertions regarding the 
contamination at the site:
     Data from a 2016 report suggested that an ecological risk 
exists in Bear Creek, warranting remediation.
     A decrease in total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 
concentrations with increasing distance from Sparrows Creek suggested 
that Sparrows Point influences PAH concentrations in that area.
     Bear Creek contains elevated metals concentrations 
including chromium, zinc, copper, and cadmium.
     Groundwater to surface water migration should be 
considered as a migration route for hazardous substances to Bear Creek 
due to the possible migration of contamination that appeared to occur 
via this route.
     Offshore concentrations of dissolved constituents 
suggested that groundwater fluxes were migrating from onshore source 
areas.
     The background levels should be withdrawn because 
locations upstream of Sparrows Point were not representative of 
background.
     The three background sediment sample locations used in the 
HRS evaluation were not representative of background contamination, in 
part, due to the tidal influence impacting Bear Creek and the lack of 
identification of possible upstream contributors to the contamination.
    Following listing, the EPA will fully investigate the extent of 
contamination at the site. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process, 
the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and hazards 
at the site more comprehensively. The EPA noted in the HRS 
documentation record at proposal on the cover sheet that ``[t]he NPL 
listing focuses solely on the releases to the Surface Water Migration 
Pathway into Bear Creek via Tin Mill Canal.'' This same page of the HRS 
documentation record at proposal explains the rationale for why the 
ground migration pathway was not scored, indicating that it is not a 
pathway of concern because ground water was not used as drinking water 
within four miles of the site source (i.e., the Tin Mill Canal).
    The background levels and background sample locations presented in 
the HRS documentation record at proposal were appropriate for HRS 
scoring purposes. For HRS scoring, background samples are used to 
establish whether a release of contamination has occurred. The 
background sample locations are only used as a reference point to 
establish that a significant increase in contaminant levels in the 
downstream samples has occurred. Ideally, background samples are 
collected from an area outside of the influence of the contamination 
being evaluated, but with similar physical conditions. Accordingly, the 
area outside of the influence of the contamination used to represent 
background levels for HRS evaluation purposes may not necessarily 
coincide with natural background levels. For this site, samples from 
background locations upgradient of the contaminated samples ``were used 
to establish background conditions and chemical compositions of the 
sediment materials upstream of the discharge point of [Tin Mill 
Canal].'' Hence, the background level determination was consistent with 
the HRS and the site as preliminary defined for HRS scoring purposes 
(i.e., releases to Bear Creek from the Tin Mill Canal).
    Many sites on the NPL are located in environmental justice, 
minority and/or low-income 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. Furthermore, as the site moves 
through the Superfund process, EPA will develop a community relations 
plan to ensure public involvement and participation in the cleanup.

C. Clarification of Figure for Meeker Avenue Plume Site

    The EPA is providing a clarification to Figure 8 in the HRS 
Documentation Record for the Meeker Avenue Plume site. This figure 
provides the location of possible originating facilities of subsurface 
contamination. Figure 8 has been modified to include the Empire State 
Varnish Company located at 38

[[Page 14811]]

Varick Street. The Empire State Varnish Company was identified as a 
possible originating facility in the supporting reference materials 
that provide the basis for Figure 8, but it was inadvertently omitted 
from that figure at proposal. EPA also notes that the facility was 
sufficiently identified as within the area of subsurface contamination 
as described in Figure 8 in the HRS documentation record at proposal. 
EPA is providing this clarification here to reflect that the facility 
is a possible originating facility of subsurface contamination at the 
Meeker Avenue Plume 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

[[Page 14812]]

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.

Barry N. Breen,
Acting 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. 1251 et seq.; 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. Amend appendix B of part 300 by:
0
a. In Table 1, adding entries for ``GA,'' ``Westside Lead'', ``IN,'' 
``North 5th Street Groundwater Contamination'', ``MA,'' ``Lower 
Neponset River'', ``MD,'' ``Bear Creek Sediments'', ``MI,'' ``Michner 
Plating--Mechanic Street'', ``MN,'' ``Southeast Hennepin Area 
Groundwater and Vapor'', ``NY,'' ``Meeker Avenue Plume'', ``SC,'' 
``Galey and Lord Plant'', ``TN,'' ``National Fireworks'', ``WI,'' 
``Unity Auto Mart'', and ``WV,'' ``Paden City Groundwater'' in 
alphabetical order by state; and
0
b. In Table 2, adding the entry for ``OR,'' ``Bradford Island'' in 
alphabetical order by state.
    The additions read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State                        Site name                 City/county                 Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
GA...........................  Westside Lead...............  Atlanta................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
IN...........................  North 5th Street Groundwater  Goshen.................
                                Contamination.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
MA...........................  Lower Neponset River........  Boston/Milton..........
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
MD...........................  Bear Creek Sediments........  Baltimore County.......
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
MI...........................  Michner Plating--Mechanic     Jackson................
                                Street.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
MN...........................  Southeast Hennepin Area       Minneapolis............
                                Groundwater and Vapor.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
NY...........................  Meeker Avenue Plume.........  Brooklyn...............
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
SC...........................  Galey and Lord Plant........  Society Hill...........
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
TN...........................  National Fireworks..........  Cordova................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
WI...........................  Unity Auto Mart.............  Unity..................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
WV...........................  Paden City Groundwater......  Paden City.............
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).

* * * * *

                                       Table 2--Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State                        Site name                 City/county                 Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
OR...........................  Bradford Island.............  Cascade Locks..........
 

[[Page 14813]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * * * *
\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. 2022-05397 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P