National Priorities List, 16498-16504 [2024-04778]
Download as PDF
16498
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The District did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and
did not consider EJ in this proposed
action. Due to the nature of the action
being proposed here, this proposed
action is expected to have a neutral to
positive impact on the air quality of the
affected area. Consideration of EJ is not
required as part of this proposed action,
and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal
of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people
of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
State law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a
Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
Tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 1, 2024.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2024–04773 Filed 3–6–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2024–0066, 0067 and
0068; FRL–11724–01–OLEM]
National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
requires that the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list
of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United
States. The National Priorities List
(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is
intended primarily to guide the
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining
which sites warrant further
investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to
assess the nature and extent of public
health and environmental risks
associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed
remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add
three sites to the General Superfund
section of the NPL.
DATES: Comments regarding any of these
proposed listings must be submitted
(postmarked) on or before May 6, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate
docket number from the table below.
SUMMARY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE
Site name
City/county, state
Afterthought Mine ...............................................
Gelman Sciences Inc .........................................
Upper Columbia River ........................................
Bella Vista, CA .................................................
Ann Arbor, MI ...................................................
Upper Columbia River, WA .............................
You may send comments, identified
by the appropriate docket number, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:38 Mar 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
Docket ID No.
preferred method). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Website: https://
www.epa.gov/superfund/current-nplupdates-new-proposed-npl-sites-and-
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2024–0066.
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2024–0067.
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2024–0068.
new-npl-sites; scroll down to the site for
which you would like to submit
comments and click the ‘‘Comment
Now’’ link.
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
• Mail: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery or Courier (by
scheduled appointment only): EPA
Docket Center, WJC West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket
Center’s hours of operations are 8:30
a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except
Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the appropriate Docket ID
No. for site(s) for which you are
submitting comments. Comments
received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/,
including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on
sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the ‘‘Public Review/Public
Comment’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Jeng, Site Assessment and
Remedy Decisions Branch, Assessment
and Remediation Division, Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation (Mail code 5204T), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 1301
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20460, telephone number: (202)
566–1048, email address: jeng.terry@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
I. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant to
this proposed rule?
B. What documents are available for public
review at the EPA Headquarters docket?
C. What documents are available for public
review at the EPA regional dockets?
D. How do I access the documents?
E. How do I submit my comments?
F. What happens to my comments?
G. What should I consider when preparing
my comments?
H. May I submit comments after the public
comment period is over?
I. May I view public comments submitted
by others?
J. May I submit comments regarding sites
not currently proposed to the NPL?
II. 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?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:38 Mar 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
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?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant
to this proposed rule?
Yes, documents that form the basis for
the EPA’s evaluation and scoring of the
sites in this proposed rule are contained
in public dockets located both at the
EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC,
and in the regional offices. An
electronic version of the public docket
is available through https://
www.regulations.gov (see table above 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.
B. What documents are available for
public review at the EPA Headquarters
docket?
The Headquarters docket for this
proposed rule contains the following
information for the sites proposed in
this rule: Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
score sheets; documentation records
describing the information used to
compute the score; information for any
sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or the EPA listing policies;
and a list of documents referenced in
the documentation record. These
documents are also available online at
https://www.regulations.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16499
C. What documents are available for
public review at the EPA regional
dockets?
The regional dockets for this proposed
rule contain all of the information in the
Headquarters docket plus the actual
reference documents containing the data
principally relied upon and cited by the
EPA in calculating or evaluating the
HRS score for the sites. These reference
documents are available only in the
regional dockets.
D. How do I access the documents?
You may view the primary documents
that support this proposed rule online at
https://www.regulations.gov or by
contacting the EPA HQ docket. You may
view the primary documents plus the
references by contacting the regional
dockets. 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 individual regional dockets
for hours. 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, 4 Penn Center,
1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Mail
code 3SD12, Philadelphia, PA 19103;
(315) 814–3355.
• Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL,
GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Mail code 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, Mail code SED,
Dallas, TX 75270; (214) 665–3154.
• Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA,
KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner
Blvd., Mail code SUPRSTAR, Lenexa,
KS 66219; (913) 551–7956.
• David Fronczak, Region 8 (CO, MT,
ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mail code 8SEM–EM–
P, Denver, CO 80202–1129; (303) 312–
6096.
• Leslie Ramirez, Region 9 (AZ, CA,
HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mail code SFD–6–1,
San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 972–
3978.
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
16500
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
• Brandon Perkins, Region 10 (AK,
ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Mail code 13–J07, Seattle, WA
98101; (206) 553–6396.
You may also request copies from the
EPA Headquarters or the regional
dockets. An informal request, rather
than a formal written request under the
Freedom of Information Act, should be
the ordinary procedure for obtaining
copies of any of these documents. Please
note that due to the difficulty of
reproducing them, oversized maps may
be viewed only in-person. The EPA
dockets are not equipped to copy and
mail out such maps, nor are they
equipped to scan them for electronic
distribution.
You may use the docket at https://
www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters docket.
Please note that there are differences
between the Headquarters docket and
the regional dockets, and those
differences are outlined in this preamble
above.
E. How do I submit my comments?
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Follow the online instructions
detailed above in the ADDRESSES section
for submitting comments. Once
submitted, comments cannot be edited
or removed from the docket. The EPA
may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
F. What happens to my comments?
The EPA considers all comments
received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically
addressed in a support document that
the EPA will publish concurrently with
the Federal Register document if, and
when, the site is listed on the NPL.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:38 Mar 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
G. What should I consider when
preparing my comments?
Comments that include complex or
voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS
scoring, should point out the specific
information that the EPA should
consider and how it affects individual
HRS factor values or other listing
criteria (Northside Sanitary Landfill v.
Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir.
1988)). The EPA will not address
voluminous comments that are not
referenced to the HRS or other listing
criteria. The EPA will not address
comments unless they indicate which
component of the HRS documentation
record or what particular point in the
EPA’s stated eligibility criteria is at
issue.
H. May I submit comments after the
public comment period is over?
Generally, the EPA will not respond
to late comments. The EPA can
guarantee only that it will consider
those comments postmarked by the
close of the formal comment period. The
EPA has a policy of generally not
delaying a final listing decision solely to
accommodate consideration of late
comments.
I. May I view public comments
submitted by others?
During the comment period,
comments are placed in the
Headquarters docket and are available to
the public on an ‘‘as received’’ basis. A
complete set of comments will be
available for viewing in the regional
dockets approximately one week after
the formal comment period closes.
All public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public
viewing in the electronic public docket
at https://www.regulations.gov as the
EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Once in the public
dockets system, select ‘‘search,’’ then
key in the appropriate docket ID
number.
J. May I submit comments regarding
sites not currently proposed to the NPL?
In certain instances, interested parties
have written to the EPA concerning sites
that were not at that time proposed to
the NPL. If those sites are later proposed
to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate,
resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal
comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
period of formal proposal and comment
will not generally be included in the
docket.
II. 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
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA,
as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B)
defines the NPL as a list of ‘‘releases’’
and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and
requires that the NPL be revised at least
annually. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide the EPA in
determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and
extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a
release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is
only of limited significance, however, as
it does not assign liability to any party
or to the owner of any specific property.
Also, placing a site on the NPL does not
mean that any remedial or removal
action necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL
includes two sections, one of sites that
are generally evaluated and cleaned up
by the EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund
section’’), and one of sites that are
owned or operated by other Federal
agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities
section’’). With respect to sites in the
Federal Facilities section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other
Federal agencies. Under Executive
Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29,
1987) and CERCLA section 120, each
Federal agency is responsible for
carrying out most response actions at
facilities under its own jurisdiction,
custody or control, although the EPA is
responsible for preparing a Hazard
Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’) score and
determining whether the facility is
placed on the NPL.
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
There are three mechanisms for
placing sites on the NPL for possible
remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c)
of the NCP): (1) A site may be included
on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high
on the HRS, which the EPA
promulgated as appendix A of the NCP
(40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a
screening tool to evaluate the relative
potential of uncontrolled hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants
to pose a threat to human health or the
environment. On December 14, 1990 (55
FR 51532), the EPA promulgated
revisions to the HRS partly in response
to CERCLA section 105(c), added by
SARA. 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:38 Mar 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
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)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B),
each State may designate a single site as
its top priority to be listed on the NPL,
without any HRS score. This provision
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent
practicable, the NPL include one facility
designated by each State as the greatest
danger to public health, welfare or the
environment among known facilities in
the State. This mechanism for listing is
set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2); (3) The third mechanism
for listing, included in the NCP at 40
CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites
to be listed without any HRS score, if all
of the following conditions are met:
• The Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the
U.S. Public Health Service has issued a
health advisory that recommends
dissociation of individuals from the
release.
• The EPA determines that the release
poses a significant threat to public
health.
• The EPA anticipates that it will be
more cost-effective to use its remedial
authority than to use its removal
authority to respond to the release.
The EPA promulgated an original NPL
of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR
40658) and generally has updated it at
least annually.
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
A site may undergo remedial action
financed by the Trust Fund established
under CERCLA (commonly referred to
as the ‘‘Superfund’’) only after it is
placed on the NPL, as provided in the
NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1).
(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those
‘‘consistent with permanent remedy,
taken instead of or in addition to
removal actions. * * *’’ 42 U.S.C.
9601(24).) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16501
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.
The EPA regulations provide that the
remedial investigation (‘‘RI’’) ‘‘is a
process undertaken . . . to determine
the nature and extent of the problem
presented by the release’’ as more
information is developed on site
contamination, and which is generally
performed in an interactive fashion with
the feasibility Study (‘‘FS’’) (40 CFR
300.5). During the RI/FS process, the
release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
16502
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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?
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.
manner that allows contaminated
properties to be restored to
environmental and economic vitality.
For further information, please go to
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/aboutsuperfund-cleanup-process#reuse.
I. What is the Construction Completion
List (CCL)?
K. What is State/Tribal correspondence
concerning NPL listing?
The EPA also has developed an NPL
construction completion list (‘‘CCL’’) to
simplify its system of categorizing sites
and to better communicate the
successful completion of cleanup
activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993).
Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no
legal significance.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1)
Any necessary physical construction is
complete, whether or not final cleanup
levels or other requirements have been
achieved; (2) the EPA has determined
that the response action should be
limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional
controls); or (3) the site qualifies for
deletion from the NPL. For more
information on the CCL, see the EPA’s
internet site at https://www.epa.gov/
superfund/construction-completionsnational-priorities-list-npl-sites-number.
In order to maintain close
coordination with States and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the
EPA’s policy is to determine the
position of the States and tribes
regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This
consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the
following website: https://www.epa.gov/
superfund/statetribal-correspondenceconcerning-npl-site-listing.
The EPA has improved the
transparency of the process by which
State and Tribal input is solicited. The
EPA is using the Web and where
appropriate more structured State and
Tribal correspondence that: (1) Explains
the concerns at the site and the EPA’s
rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an
explanation of how the State intends to
address the site if placement on the NPL
is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the
transparent nature of the process by
informing States that information on
their responses will be publicly
available.
A model letter and correspondence
between the EPA and States and tribes
where applicable, is available on the
EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/
superfund/statetribal-correspondenceconcerning-npl-site-listing.
J. What is the Sitewide Ready for
Anticipated Use measure?
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
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated
Use measure (formerly called Sitewide
Ready-for-Reuse) represents important
Superfund accomplishments, and the
measure reflects the high priority the
EPA places on considering anticipated
future land use as part of the remedy
selection process. See Guidance for
Implementing the Sitewide Ready-forReuse Measure, May 24, 2006, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(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
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
In this proposed rule, the EPA is
proposing to add three sites to the NPL,
all to the General Superfund section. All
of the sites in this rulemaking are being
proposed for NPL addition based on an
HRS score of 28.50 or above.
The sites are presented in the table
below.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State
Site name
CA .................
MI ..................
WA ................
Afterthought Mine ........................................................................
Gelman Sciences Inc ..................................................................
Upper Columbia River ................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:38 Mar 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
City/county
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Bella Vista.
Ann Arbor.
Upper Columbia River.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
directly from the act of placing a site on
the NPL
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA. This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements that
require approval of the OMB.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. This rule listing sites on the
NPL does not impose any obligations on
any group, including small entities. This
rule also does not establish standards or
requirements that any small entity must
meet and imposes no direct costs on any
small entity. Whether an entity, small or
otherwise, is liable for response costs for
a release of hazardous substances
depends on whether that entity is liable
under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the
site is listed on the NPL through this
rulemaking.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local, or
Tribal governments or the private sector.
Listing a site on the NPL does not itself
impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that the EPA necessarily will undertake
remedial action. Nor does listing require
any action by a private party, state,
local, or Tribal governments or
determine liability for response costs.
Costs that arise out of site responses
result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
This rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have Tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL
does not impose any costs on a tribe or
require a tribe to take remedial action.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because this action itself is procedural
in nature (adds sites to a list) and does
not, in and of itself, provide protection
from environmental health and safety
risks. Separate future regulatory actions
are required for mitigation of
environmental health and safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
16503
action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations because it does not affect
the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment. As
discussed in section I.C. of the preamble
to this action, the NPL is a list of
national priorities. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide the EPA in
determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and
extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a
release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is
of only limited significance as it does
not assign liability to any party. Also,
placing a site on the NPL does not mean
that any remedial or removal action
necessarily need be taken.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
substances, Hazardous waste,
Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Oil pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Barry N. Breen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Land and Emergency Management.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 300 as follows:
PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 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.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
2. Amend table 1 of appendix B to
part 300 by adding the entries for ‘‘CA,
Afterthought Mine’’, ‘‘MI, Gelman
Sciences Inc’’, and ‘‘WA, Upper
Columbia River’’ in alphabetical order
by State to read as follows:
The EPA believes the human health or
environmental risk addressed by this
Appendix B to Part 300—National
Priorities List
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
■
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
16504
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 46 / Thursday, March 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
Notes a
State
Site name
*
CA .....................
*
*
Afterthought Mine ...................................
*
Bella Vista.
*
*
*
*
MI ......................
*
*
Gelman Sciences Inc .............................
*
Ann Arbor.
*
*
*
*
WA ....................
*
*
Upper Columbia River ............................
*
Upper Columbia River.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
City/county
*
*
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).
S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites regardless of score).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–04778 Filed 3–6–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 11
[PS Docket No. 15–94; FR ID 206752]
The Emergency Alert System
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal
Communications Commission (the FCC
or the Commission) proposes and seeks
comment on implementing a
multilingual alert processing model for
the Emergency Alert System (EAS)
through which brief, pre-scripted (or
‘‘template’’) alert messages that have
been pre-translated into the 13 most
commonly spoken non-English
languages in the United (as well as in
English), can be initiated by alert
originators for distribution to the public
by the TV and radio broadcasters, cable
service providers, and other ‘‘EAS
Participant’’ services that make up the
EAS public alert distribution system.
The NPRM also seeks comment a wide
range of specific technical, operational,
cost and implementation timing issues
related to the template alert distribution
model.
DATES: Comments on the NPRM are due
on or before April 8, 2024, and reply
comments are due on or before May 6,
2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by PS Docket No. 15–94, by
any of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020),
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice) or 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information concerning the
information contained in this document,
send an email to David Munson,
Attorney Advisor, Cybersecurity and
Communications Reliability Division,
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau at 202–418–2921 or David.
Munson@fcc.gov, or George Donato,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Associate Division Chief, Cybersecurity
and Communications Reliability
Division, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau at George.Donato@
fcc.gov or call 202–418–0729.
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS
Docket Nos. 15–94, FCC 24–23, adopted
on February 15, 2024, and released on
February 16, 2024. The full text of this
document is available at https://
www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposessolution-expand-multilingualemergency-alerts-0.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Synopsis
The EAS is a national public warning
system through which TV and radio
broadcasters, cable systems, direct
broadcast satellite service providers,
digital audio radio service providers and
other service providers (‘‘EAS
Participants’’) deliver alerts to the
public to warn them of impending
emergencies and dangers to life and
property. EAS alerts are initiated by
local, state and national alert originators
(such as State Governor’s offices, state
and county emergency management
authorities, Public Safety Answering
Points, state and county fire
departments, National Weather Service,
etc.). In terms of its architecture, the
EAS is comprised of both a broadcastbased, or ‘‘legacy,’’ system and an
internet-based, or ‘‘Common Alerting
Protocol (CAP)’’ system. The legacy EAS
distributes alerts over-the-air from one
broadcast station antenna to another.
Alerts can also be sent over the internet
in CAP format for distribution to EAS
Participants via the Federal Emergency
Management Agency’s Integrated Public
Alert and Warning System. Alerts can
be initiated in multiple languages in
both the legacy and CAP-based EAS
architectures.
E:\FR\FM\07MRP1.SGM
07MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 46 (Thursday, March 7, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16498-16504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04778]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0066, 0067 and 0068; FRL-11724-01-OLEM]
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires that
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add three sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL.
DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before May 6, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.
Docket Identification Numbers by Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/county, state Docket ID No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afterthought Mine........... Bella Vista, CA..... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-006
6.
Gelman Sciences Inc......... Ann Arbor, MI....... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-006
7.
Upper Columbia River........ Upper Columbia EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-006
River, WA. 8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may send comments, identified by the appropriate docket number,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Agency Website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/current-npl-updates-new-proposed-npl-sites-and-new-npl-sites; scroll down to the
site for which you would like to submit comments and click the
``Comment Now'' link.
[[Page 16499]]
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the appropriate
Docket ID No. for site(s) for which you are submitting comments.
Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on
the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Review/Public Comment''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, Site Assessment and Remedy
Decisions Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mail code 5204T), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone number: (202) 566-1048, email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
B. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
regional dockets?
D. How do I access the documents?
E. How do I submit my comments?
F. What happens to my comments?
G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is
over?
I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed
to the NPL?
II. 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?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and
scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public
dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in
the regional offices. An electronic version of the public docket is
available through https://www.regulations.gov (see table above 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.
B. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the
following information for the sites proposed in this rule: Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) score sheets; documentation records describing the
information used to compute the score; information for any sites
affected by particular statutory requirements or the EPA listing
policies; and a list of documents referenced in the documentation
record. These documents are also available online at https://www.regulations.gov.
C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional
dockets?
The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the
information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference
documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the
EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These
reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.
D. How do I access the documents?
You may view the primary documents that support this proposed rule
online at https://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the EPA HQ
docket. You may view the primary documents plus the references by
contacting the regional dockets. 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 individual
regional dockets for hours. 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,
4 Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Mail code 3SD12,
Philadelphia, PA 19103; (315) 814-3355.
Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mail code 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, Mail code SED, Dallas, TX 75270;
(214) 665-3154.
Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA,
11201 Renner Blvd., Mail code SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; (913) 551-
7956.
David Fronczak, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S.
EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mail code 8SEM-EM-P, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
(303) 312-6096.
Leslie Ramirez, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP),
U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail code SFD-6-1, San Francisco, CA
94105; (415) 972-3978.
[[Page 16500]]
Brandon Perkins, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail code 13-J07, Seattle, WA 98101; (206) 553-6396.
You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the
regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written
request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary
procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note
that due to the difficulty of reproducing them, oversized maps may be
viewed only in-person. The EPA dockets are not equipped to copy and
mail out such maps, nor are they equipped to scan them for electronic
distribution.
You may use the docket at https://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters docket. Please note that there are
differences between the Headquarters docket and the regional dockets,
and those differences are outlined in this preamble above.
E. How do I submit my comments?
Follow the online instructions detailed above in the ADDRESSES
section for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
F. What happens to my comments?
The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document
if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.
G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA
will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS
or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless
they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.
H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?
Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can
guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the
close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally
not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate
consideration of late comments.
I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional
dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic
public docket at https://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them
and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Once in the public dockets system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket ID number.
J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the
NPL?
In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the docket.
II. 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
[[Page 16501]]
under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B)
defines the NPL as a list of ``releases'' and the highest priority
``facilities'' and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually.
The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which
sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of
public health and environmental risks associated with a release of
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of
limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any
party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on
the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily
need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the
``General Superfund section''), and one of sites that are owned or
operated by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities
section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section,
these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies.
Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA
section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most
response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or
control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL.
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300).
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990
(55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. 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) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each State may
designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL,
without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the
extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each
State as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the
environment among known facilities in the State. This mechanism for
listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2); (3) The third
mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3),
allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the
following conditions are met:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.
The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8,
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. *
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The
EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. Plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination; and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. Plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
The EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation
(``RI'') ``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the release'' as more information is
developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as
[[Page 16502]]
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 (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments, and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA
places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (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/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.
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add three sites to
the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this
rulemaking are being proposed for NPL addition based on an HRS score of
28.50 or above.
The sites are presented in the table below.
General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA.................. Afterthought Mine....... Bella Vista.
MI.................. Gelman Sciences Inc..... Ann Arbor.
WA.................. Upper Columbia River.... Upper Columbia River.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16503]]
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group,
including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards
or requirements that any small entity must meet and imposes no direct
costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is
liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends
on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL
through this rulemaking.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a
site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does
listing require any action by a private party, state, local, or Tribal
governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise
out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a
site on the NPL
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in
nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide
protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future
regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health
and safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in
section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of
national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in
determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the
nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated
with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The
NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to
any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.
Barry N. Breen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 300 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 table 1 of appendix B to part 300 by adding the entries for
``CA, Afterthought Mine'', ``MI, Gelman Sciences Inc'', and ``WA, Upper
Columbia River'' in alphabetical order by State to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List
[[Page 16504]]
Table 1--General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CA................... Afterthought Bella Vista....
Mine.
* * * * * * *
MI................... Gelman Sciences Ann Arbor......
Inc.
* * * * * * *
WA................... Upper Columbia Upper Columbia
River. River.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites
regardless of score).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-04778 Filed 3-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P