environmental protection agency - superfund … · environmental protection agency ... and scoring...

24
Wednesday February 21, 1990 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Fart 300 National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites; Final Rule 500179

Upload: lekien

Post on 12-Aug-2018

226 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

WednesdayFebruary 21, 1990

Part II

EnvironmentalProtection Agency40 CFR Fart 300National Priorities List for UncontrolledHazardous Waste Sites; Final Rule

500179

Page 2: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

6154 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 35 / Wednesday. February 21', 1990 / Rules and Regulations

Si

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

(FRL 5724-6]

National Priorities Ust forUncontrolled Hazardous Waste SitesAGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Final rule.____________

SUMMARY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency ("EPA") is amending theNational Oil and Hazardous SubstancesPollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40CFR part 300, which was promulgatedon July 16,1982. pursuant to section 105of the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liabili tyAct of 1980 rCERCLA"). CERCLA hassince been amended by the SupcrfundAmendments and Reauthorization Actof 1986 ("SARA") and is implementedby Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923,January 29.1987). CERCLA requires t h a tthe NCP include a list of nationalpriorities among the known releases orthreatened releases of hazardoussubstances, pol lu tan ts , or cc in t fminun t sthroughout the United States, and th;i t'.he list be revised at least annually. The

,National Priorities List ("NPL"), in i t i a l lypromulgated as appendix B of the NCPon September 8,1983 (48 FR 40658).constitutes this list and is being revisedtoday by the addi t ion of 71 sites,including 14 Federal facility sites. Basedon a review of public comments onthese sites, EPA has decided that theymeet the eligibil i ty requirements of theN'PL and are consistent with theAgency's listing policies. In addition,today's action remove* one site from theproposed is'PL. Information supportingthese actions is contained in theSupcrfund Public Dockets.

This rule results in a final NPL of 1.081sites. 93 of them in the Federal section;137 liloi aro proposed to the N'PL, 24 ofthem in the Federal section. Final ;'ndproposed sites now total 1,218.EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date forthis amendment to the NCP shall beMarch 23,1990. CERCLA section 305provides for a legislative veto ofregulations promulgated under CERCLA.Although /NS v. Chadha. 462 U.S. 919.103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), cast the val id i ty ofthe legislative veto ir.to question, EPAhas transmitted a copy of this regulationto the Secretary of the Senate and theClerk of the House of Representatives. Ifany action by Congress calls theeffective date of this regulation into

' question, the Agency will publish a

notice of clarification in (he FederalRegister.ADDRESSES: Addresses for theHeadquarters and Regional docketsfollow. For further details on what thesedockets contain, see section I of the"Supplementary Information" portion ofthis preamble.Tina Maragousis, Headquarters. U.S. EPA

CERCLA Docket Office. OS-245. WatersideMall. 401 M Street SW.. Wanhinglon. DC20460, 202/382-3046.

Evo Cunha. Region 1. U.S. EPA WusteManflgoment Record* Center. HES-CAN 6.{.P. Kennedy Federal Duilding, Boston. MA02203, 617/565-3300.

U.S. EPA. Region 2. Document ControlCenter, Supcrfund Docket, 26 FederalPlaza, 7th Floor. Room 740. New York, NY10278. Latchmin Serrano. 212/264-5540,Ophelia Brown. 212/264-1154.

Diane McCrcary. Region 3, U.S. EPA Library.5!h Floor. 841 Chestnut Building. 9th &Chestnut Streets. Philadelphia. PA 19107.215/597-0580.

Cayle Aiston. Region 4. U.S. EPA Library.Room C-6. 345 Courtland Street NF...At lanta . CA 30365, 404/347-4216.

Cathy Freeman, Region 5. U.S. EPA. 5 US-12.230 South Dcnrborn Street. Chicago. IL60004. 312/886-f,Z14.

Deborah Vaughn-Wright. Region 6. U.S. EPA.1445 ROM, Avenue, Mail Code 6H-MA.Dallas. TX 75202-2733. 214/655-6740.

Brenda Ward. Region 7, U.S. EPA Library. 726Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 06101.913/23fr-2828.

Dolores Eddy, Region 8. U.S. EPA Library, 99918th Street, Suite 500. Denver. CO 80202-2405.303/283-1444.

Und» Sunnen, Region 9. U.S. EPA Library, 6thFloor. 215 Fremont Street. San Francisco.CA 94105, 415/974-8082.

David Bennctl. Region 10. U.S. EPA. 9th Floor.1200 6th Avenue. Mail Stop HW-093.Seattle. WA 96101, 206/442-2103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Martha Otto, Hazardous Site EvaluationDivision. Office of Emergency andRemedial Response (OS-230). U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. 401 MStreet, SW., Washington, DC. 20400. orthe Superfund Hotline. Phone (ftOOj 424-9346 (382-3000 in the Washington. DC.metropolitan area).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of ContentsI. IntroductionII. Purpose and Implementation of the NPLIII. NPL Update ProcessIV. Statutory Requirements and Listing

PoliciesV. Disposition of Sites in Today's Final RuleVI. Disposition of All Proposed Sites/Federal

Facility SitesVII. Contents of the NPLVIII. Regulatory Impact AnalysisI.. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

I. IntroductionBackground

In 1960, Congress enacted theComprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657 ("CERCLA" orthe "Act"), in response to the dangers ofuncontrolled hazardous waste sites.CERCLA was amended in 1986 by theSuperfund Amendments andReauthorization Act ("SARA"). PublicLaw No. 99-499, slat. 1613 ct seq. Toimplement CERCLA. the EnvironmentalProtection Agency ("EPA" or "theAgency") promulgated the revisedNational Oil and Hazardous SubstancesPollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40CFR part 300, on July 16, 1902 (47 FR31180) pursuant to CERCLA section 105and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237,Augusl 20.1981). The NCP. fur therrevised by EPA on September 16.1985(50 FR 37624) and November 20,1985 (50FR 47912), sets forth guidelines andprocedures needed to respond underCERCLA to releases and threatenedreleases of hazardous substances,pollutants, or con taminan t s . OnDecember 21, 1988 (53 FR 51394), EPAproposed revisions to the NCP inresponse to SARA.

Section 105(a](8)(A) of CERCLA, asamended by SARA, requires tha t theN'CP include "criteria for determiningpriorities among releases or threatenedreleases throughout the United Slatesfor the purpose of taking remedial actionand. to the extent practicable taking in toaccount the potent ia l urgency of suchaction, for the purpose of taking removalaction." Removal action involvescleanup or other actions that are takenin response to releases or threats ofreleases on a short-term or temporarybasis (CERCLA section 101(23)).Remedial action tends to be long-term innature and involves response actionsthat are consistent with a permanentremedy for a release (CERCLA section101(24)). Criteria for determiningpriorit i t 'k for pon f l i b lo rornudli i l (tclum*financed by the Trust Fund establishedunder CERCLA are included in theHazard Ranking System ("MRS"), whichEPA promulgated as appendix A of theNCP (47 FR 31219. July 16.1982).

On December 23,19D8 (5o FK 51962)."EPA proposed revisions to the HRS inresponse to CERCLA section 105(c),added by SARA. EPA intends to issiu;the revised HRS as soon as possible.However, until the revised HRS is ineffect. EPA will continue to use thecurrent HRS in accordance withCERCLA section 105(c)(l) andCongressional in t en t , as explained in 54FR 13299 (March 31, 1989).

500180

Page 3: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

Eagtstoc / Vol. 55, No. J5 / Wednesday. February tl, 1O90 / Rules and Regulation* 8155

Based in targe put on tfce HRScriteria, and pursoaitf to section105(a)(8HB) of CERCLA, M amended bySARA. £PA prepared a list of national

_. priorities among the known nrkasei orthreatened releases of hazardoussubstances, pollutants, or contaminantsthroughoul\the United SLetes {the"National Frioritiet Lisa" or "NPL";. Thelist ha* been promulgated at AppendixB of the AICP. A site can undergoCERCLA-Cnanced remedial action onlyafter il is placed on <he NPL. a* providedin the NCP at 40 CFR 300.66(cJ(2) and300.68(8).

As is stated in CERCLA section105(a)(8j(b). the NPL is a listing of"releases or threatened releases" ofhazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants. For simplicity, thediscussion below may refer lo these"releases or threatened releases" simplyas "releases." "facilities," or "sites."

An original NPL of 400 sites waspromulgated on September 8.1983 (48FR 40658). Pursuant to CERCLA section105(8)(8][B). which requires that the NPLbe revised at least annually, the NPL hasbeen updated periodically, most recentlyon November 21,1989 (54 FR 48184). TheApency also has proposed adding newsites to the NPL, most recently onOctober 28,1989 (M FR 43778).

EPA may delete sites from the NPLwhen no further response is appropriate,as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR

^ee(c)(7). To date, the Agency hasj»ted 28 sites from the final NPL. most

"Trecen'.ly on September 2Z. 1989 (54 FR38994), whet; Cecil Lindsey. Newport.Arkansas, was deleted.

This rule adds 71 sites, including 14Federal facility site*, to the NPL. anddrops 1 site from the proposed NPL EPAhas carefully considered publiccommen.g submitted for the sites intoday's final rule find hut made certainmodifications in response to thosecomments. This rule results in a finalNPL of 1.081 site*. 8.1 of them in theFederal section: 137sites remain inproposed status. 24 of them in theFederal section. In addition, today'sfinal rule removes 1 site from theproposed NPL. With (hcsc changes, finaland proposed sites now total 1.2m.Information Available to the Public

The Headquarters and Regional publicdockets for the NPL (see ADDRESSESportion of this notice) containdocuments relating to the evaluation'and scoring of sites in this final role. Thedockets are available for viewing, by

. appointment only, after the appearanceof this notice. The hours of operation forthe Headquarters docket .are Irom S:00a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. Monday throughFriday, excluding Federal holidays.

Please contact individual Regionaldockets for bom.

The Headquarters docket coots insHRS score sheets for cadi find site: aDocumentation Record for each sitedescribing the information used tocompute the score: pertinent informationfor any site affected fay special st udywaste or other requirements, orResource conservation and RecoveryAct or other listing policies; a list ofdocuments referenced in theDocumentation Record; commentsreceived; and the Agency's response tothose comments. The Agency'sresponses are contained in the "SupportDocument for the Revised NationalPriorities Us)—Final Rule. February

.1990."Each Regional docket includes all

information available in theHeadquarters docket for sites in thatRegion, as well as the actual referencedocuments, which contain the dataprincipally relied upon by EPA incalculating or evaluating the HRS scoresfor sites in that Region. These referencedocuments are available only in theRegional dockets. They may be viewed,by appointment only, in the appropriateRegional Docket or Superfund Branchoffice. Requests for copies may bedirected to the appropriate Regionaldocket or Superfund Branch.

An informal written request, ratherthan a formal request, should be theordinary procedure for obtaining copiesof any of these documents.II. Purpose and Implementation of theNPLPurpose

The primary purpose of the NPL isstated in Ibe legislative history ofCERCLA (Report of the SenateCommittee on Environment and PublicWorks. Senate Rep. No. 96-959, 06thCong.. 2d Sess. 60 (1960)):

The priority 1««U verve primarilyinformational purposes, identifying Tor theStales and the public thote facilities and •)!<•»or olhcr release! which appear to warrantremedial actions. Inclusion of a .facility or ateon the list doei nut m itself rede jl a judgmentof Dm nc l iv i t in i of Hi ownor or tipnrulur It

-docs not require those penona toundiTtsVeany action, nor doe* it aiiign liability to anyperson. Subsequent government action in theform of remedial action* or enforcementactioni will be micesMry in order to do BO.and these action* will be attended by allappropriate procedural lufeguard*.

The purpose of the NPL, therefore, isprimarily to serve as an informationaland management tool. The initialidentification of a site for the NPL isintended primarily lo juide EPA indetermining which sites warrant furtherinvest igat ion to assess the nature and

extent of the public health andenvironmental risks associated with thesite and to determine what CERCLA-finanoed remedial *ctk/n(t). if any, maybe appropriate.The NPL also serves tonotify the public of eites EPA believeswarrant further investigatkm.

Federal facility sites are eligible forthe NPL pursuant to the NCP at 40 CFR300.66(^(2). However, section lll(e)(3)of CERCLA, as amended by SARA.limits the expenditure of CERCLAmoneys at Federally owned facilities.Federal facility sites also are subject tothe requirements of CERCLA section120. added by SARA.Implementation

A site rriHy undergo remedial actionfinanced by the TruslFund establishedunder CERCLA f "Superfund") only afterit is placed on the final NPL as outlinedin the NCP at 40 CFR 300.66{c)(2) and300.68[a). However, EPA may takeenforcement actions under CERCLA orolher applicable statutes againstresponsible parties regardless ofwhether the site is on the NPL, although,as a practical matter, the focus of EPA'senforcement actions has been and willcontinue to be on NPL sites. Similarly, inthe case of removal actions, EPA has theauthority to act at any site, whetherlisted or not, that meets the criteria ofthe NCP at 40 CFR 300.65-67.

EPA's policy is to pursue cleanup ofNPL sites using the appropriate responseand/or enforcement actions avajlable tothe Agency, including authorities otherth.-in CERCLA. Listing a site will serveas notice to any potentially responsibleparty that the Agency may initiateCERCLA-financed remedial action. TheAgency will decide on a sile-by-sitebasis whether to take enforcement orother action under CERCLA or otherauthorities, proceed direct!}' withCKRCLA-financed response actions nndseek to recover response costs «ftercleanup, or do both. To the e.\tenlfeasible, once sites are on the NPL. EPAw i l l determine high-priority candidatesfur Superfund-financed response actionnrxj/cr enforcement action through bothSlutc and Federal initiatives. Thesedeterminations will take into accountwhich approach is more likely to mostcxpedit iously accomplish cleanup of thesite whi le using CERCLA's limitedresources as efficiently as possible.

Remedial response actions will notnecessarily be funded in the same orderas a site's ranking on the NPL—that is,ill HRS score. The information collectedto develop HRS scores is not sufficientin i t»elf lo determine either the extent ofconlaminarion or the appropriaterexponse for a pf.rticular site. EPA relics

500181•WWW*

Page 4: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

6156 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations

on further, more detailed studies in the-emedial investigation/feasibility study.RI/FS) to address these concerns.

The Rl/FS determines the nature andextent of the threat posed by the releaseor threatened release. It also takes intoaccount the amount of contaminants inthe environment, the risk to affectedpopulations and environment, the costto correct problems at the site, and theresponse actions that have been takenby potentially responsible parties orothers. Decisions on the type and extentof action, if any, to be taken at thesesites are made in accordance with thecriteria contained in Subpart F of theNCP. After conducting these addit ionalstudies. EPA may conclude that it is notdesirable to in i t i a te a CERCLA remedialaction at some sites on the NPL becauseof more pressing needs at other sites, or

v^because a pr ivate party cleanup isalready underway pursuant to an

"enforcement ac t i . -n . Given the l imi t edresources ava i l ab le in the Trust Fund,the Agency must careful ly balance therelative needs fjr response at thenumerous sites it has s tudied. It is alsopossible thai EPA will conclude a f t e rfur ther analysis that the site does notwarrr.r.t remedial action.

Revisions to the NPL such as toddy'snjlerreivlng may move some previouslylisted sites to a lower pos;tion on theN'PL. However, if EPA has in i t i a led

ion such as an Rl/FS at a site, it does>_a\ intend Ic cease such actions todetermine if a subsequent ly listed siteshould have a higher pr ior i ty forfunding. Rather , the Agency willcontinue funding site s tudies 'andremedial actions once they have beenin i t ia ted , even if higher-scoring sites arelater added to the NPL.

Rl/FS c: ProposedS:;es. An RI/FSmay be performed at proposed sites (oreven non-N'PL s i tes) pursuant to theAgency's removal au thor i ty underCERCLA. as out l ined in the NCP at 40CFR 300.66!a]f]). Section 101(23) ofCERCLA df fines "remove" or "removal"to include "such actions as may benecessary to monitor, assess andevaluate thp release or threat of release• • "." The d e f i n i t i o n of "removal" alsoincludes "action taken under section104(b)of this Act. ' ' ' ."whichauthorizes the Agency to performstudies, invest igat ions , and otherinformal ion-fMthcrirg activities.

Although an RI/FS generally isconducted at a site after the site hasbeen placed on the NPL. in a number ofcircumstances the Agency elects toconduct an RI/FS at a proposed NPL sitein preparation for a possible CERCLA-financed remedial action, such as whenthe Agency believes tha t a delay may

:ate unnecessary r i sks to h u m a n

health or the environment. In addition,the Agency may conduct an RI/FS toassist in determining whether to conducta removal or enforcement actions) asite.

Facility (Site) Boundaries. TheAgency, on occasion, has receivedinquiries concerning whether EPA could(or would] revise NPL "gite boundaries."The issue frequently arises where alandowner seeks to tell an allegedlyuncontaminated portion of an NPL site.The Agency's position is thai the NPLdoes not describe releases in precisegeographical terms, and that it would beneither feasible nor consistent with thelimited purpose of the NPL (as the mereidentification of releases), for it to do so.

CERCLA section 105(a)(8](B) directsEPA to list national priorities among theknown "releases or threatened releases"of hazardous substances. Thus, thepurpose of the NPL is merely to identifyreleases of hazardous substances t ha tare priorities for further evaluation.Although a CERCLA "facility" isbroadly defined to include any areawhere a hazardous substance releasehas "come to be located" (CERCLAsection 101(9)), the listing process itselfis not intended to define or reflect theboundaries of such facilities orreleases.1 Of course, HRS data-uponwhich the NPL placement was basedwill , to some extent, describe whichrelease is at issue; that is, the NPL sitewould include all releases evaluated aspart of that HRS analysis (includingnoncontiguous releases evaluated underthe NPL aggregation policy, see 48 FR40603 (Septembers, 1983)).

EPA regulations do provide that the"nature and extent of the threatpresented by a release" will bedetermined by an RI/FS as moreinformation is developed on sitecontamination (40 CFR 300.r>3(d)).During the RI/FS process, the releasemay be found to be larg&r or smallerthan was originally known, as more islearned about the source and themigration of the contamination.However, this inquiry focuses on anevaluat ion of the threat posed: theboundaries of the release need not bedefined, and in any event areindependent of the NPL listing.Moreover, it generally is impossible todiscover the fu l l extent of where thecontamination "has come to be located"before all necessary studies and

1 Ahhiiuxh CKRCLA M-I lion 10](H) tclt out Ihtij.-finiiion of "futility" «nd nut "relcn»t:." thus**Irrnik iirc often uwd inlrrchangruhly. |Srt* CKKC1-AH'cimn 10S|d j|H||Oj. which dcdnn thr Mt at a listnl "rrli-.iki'n" at well ul u( I he hixhnl prionty"l.n ilitip* "| (For raic of rcfwnte. EPA also usesIhi; ii-rm "mi:" inli-rrh.inipMbly wilh "n-li-aw" .ir.J" "

remedial work are completed at a site;.indeed, the boundaries of thecontamination can be expected tochange over time. Thus, in most cases, itwill be impossible to describe theboundaries of a release with certainty.

Because the Agency does not formallydefine the geographic extent of releases(or sites) at the time of listing, there isno administrative process to "delist"allegedly uncontaminated areas of anNPL site (or to expand sites to follow thecontamination where it has come to belocated).1 Such a process would be time-consuming, subject to constant re-verification, and wasteful of resources.For the same reason, the NPL need notbe amended if further research into theextent of the contamination expands (heapparent boundaries of the release.Further, the NPL is only of limitedsignificance, as it does not assignliability to any party or to the owner ofany specific property. See Report of theSenate Committee on Environment andPublic Works, Senate Rep. No. 96-848,96th Cong.. 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted at48 FR 40659 (September 8,1983). If aparty contests liability for releases ondiscrete parcels of property, it may doso if and .when'the Agency brings anaction against that party to recovercosts or to compel a response action attha t property.

At the same time, however, the RIFSor the Record of Decision (which definesthe remedy selected) may offer a usefulindication to the public of the areas ofcontaminat ion at which the Agency isconsidering taking a response action.based on information known at tha ttime. For example, EPA may evaluate(and l is t ) a release over a 400-acre area,but the Record of Decision may select aremedy over 100 acres only. Thisinformation may be useful to alandowner seeking to sell the other 300acres, but it would result in no formalchange in the fact that a release isincluded on the NPL. The landowner(and the public) also should note in sucha case that if further study (or theremedial construction itself] ruviinU I h n lthe contamination is located on or hasspread to other areas, the Agency mayaddress those areas as well.

This view of the NPL as an in i t i a lidentification of a release that is notsubject to constant re-ev.tiuation isconsistent with the Agency's policy ofnot rescoring NPL sites:

1 The Agency htiB ulrrndy di.scusKL'd il* milhurilylo fullow conUmmalion ui fdr as il KOI-S, jtuj thruIn f'in?,,Ji'r Ihe rcli'.ise or fdcilu> fur rt:s|>un»rpt,riK:-.cs 1C tic Ihi: entire iirCd whcrr the h.i/.inlnnsMil.M.im-es h.ivr conn: li> lie I", .itril (M KH 1:IJ:IH.M.in h 31. J<m»l|.

500182

Page 5: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 35 / Wednesday. Febmary 21. 1890 / Rules tad Regulations tU7

EPA nco(naei that the NPL prooes*cannot be perfect, aod it u possible thaterrors exist or that new data will alterprevious assumptions. Once the initialscoring effort is complete, however, the focusof EPA BcrMry mat 'x on invCTt'rgottng vitesin detail amd determining (he appropriateresponse. New data or errors can beconsidered in Iftat process.' * * |T/heNPLserves as a guide to ETA and doe* notdetermine liability or the need for response.(49 FR 37061 (September 21.19MJ).*HI. NPL Update Process

There are three mechanism* forplacing sites on ihe NPL. The principalmechanism is the application of theHRS. The HRS serves as a screeningdevice io evaluate the relative potentialof uncontrolled hazardous substances tocause human health or safety problems.or ecological or environmental damage.The HRS score is calculated byestimating risks presented in threepotential "pathways" of human orenvironmental exposure: ground waler.surface water, and air. Within eachpathway of exposure, the HRS considersthree categories of factors "that aredesigned lo encompass most aspects ofthe likelihood of exposure lo ahazardous substance through a releaseand the magnitude or degree of harmfrom such exposure": (1) Factors thatindicate the presence or likelihood of arelease to the environment (2) factorsthat indicate the nature and quantity of'he substances presenting the potential

threat; and (3) factor* that indicate thehuman or environmental "targets"potentially a: ."isk from the site. Factorswithin e?-A of these three categories areassigned a numerical value according toa set scale. Once numerical values arecomputed for each factor, the HRS usesmathematical formulas that reflect therelative importance andinterrelationships of the various factorsto arrive at a final srite soore on • »cal«of 0 to 100. The resultant HRS scorerepresents an estimate of the relative"probability and magnitude of harm tothe human population or sensitiveenvironment from exposure tohazardous substances as a result of thecontamination of ground water, surfacewater, or air" (47 « SlfflO, July 10.1BB2). Those sites that score Z8.50 or

•8« »t*o Crty tfStooghton. Wnc. v. U.S. ETM.SS6 F. 2d 747.TH (DC. Or. IBS*:

Certainly EPA amid hue perrraned ivtsurrcomment or ocnducMd (vstor «e*lu« {an propmndNil, sil£*4. Erttar C*«TM wouki tuvc faiMnrwlfurther •ttetl oT Iht Agency and would havedelayed • deltnrmrBtion of ttte riafc priority•Mounted with the ate. Y« . . .-iteifLutimfoa rmighli* of art orHict.mnimh Mqmd. ly•nd ineigjciuivdy lo comply with Cotypcw'mandalc for the Agency lo uVc *ctioa»1r«ijrht»wny."" Eaffa-n^kcr ftixhiftrrr* ». EPA/ ft.7S8 f. 2d (UL| •< S3Z «OC. Or. WSS)|.

greater oa tfae HRS are efaffeie for theNPL

Under die second mechanism foradding sites to the NPL. each State maydesignate a ringte site as its top priority,regardless of the HRS acore. Thismechanism is provided by section105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA. as amended bySARA, which requires .that, to the extentpracticable, the NPL indude "within the100 highest priorities, one facilitydesignated by each State representingthe .greatest danger to pub lie health,welfare, or the environment amongknown facilities in the State.

The third mechanism far listing.included in the NCP at 40 CFR30086(bH4) (SO FR 37824. September 10,1985}, has been used only in rareinstances. It allows certain sites withHRS scores below 2850 to be eligible forthe NPL if all of the following occur:

• The Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry (ATSOR) of theUS. Department of Health and HumanServices has issued a health advisorythat recommends dissociation ofindividuals from the release.

• EPA determines that the releaseposes a significant threat to publichealth.

• EPA anticipates that it wiu be morecost-effective to use its remedialauthority than to use iu removalauthority to respond (o the release.

All of tfae sites in today's final rulehave been pUced on the NPL based ontheir HRS scores.

States have tfae primary responsibilityfor identifying non-Federal sites,computing HRS scores, and submittingcandidate sites to the EPA RegionalOffices. EPA Regional Offices conduct aquali ty control review of tfae States'candidate sites, and may assist ininvestigating, sampling, monitoring, andscoring sites. Regional Offices also mayconsider candidate sites in addition tothose submitted by States. EPAHeadquarters conducts further qualityassurance audits to ensure accuracy andconsistency among the various EPA andState offices participating hi tfae scoring.The Agency then"proposes the sites thatmeet one of the three criteria for listing(as well as statutory requirements andEPA's listing policies) and solicits publiccomment on the proposal. Based onthese comments and further review byEPA. the Agency determines final HRSscores and places those sites that stillqualify on the final NPLIV. Statutory Requirements and listingPolicies

CERCLA restricts EPA's authority torespond to certain categories c/releasesof hazardous substances, pollutant*, orcontaminants by expressly excluding

some substances, sack as petrotevsn.from the response program, ia addition,CERCLA section *05(a)(e)(B) directsEPA to list priority sites "among" theknown releases or threatened releasesof hazardous substance*, pollutants, orcontaminants, and section 105(a){6XA)dii jets EPA to consider certainenumerated and "other appropriate"factors in doing so. Tbna. its a natter ofpolicy. EPA has tfae discretion not to useCERCLA to respond to certain types orreleases. For example, EPA has chosennot to list sites that ret lift fromcontamination associated with facttrheslicensed by the Nuclear RegulatoryCommifision (NRC). on the grounds thatNRC has the authority and expertise toclean up releases from those facilities(« FR 40661. September B. 1963). Whereother authorities exist, placing the sHeon the NPL for possible remedial actionunder CERCLA may not be appropriate.Therefore, EPA has chosen to defercertain types of sites from the WL eventhough CERCLA may provide authorityto respond. If, however, the Agency laterdetermines that sites deferred as amatter of policy are not being properlyresponded to, the Agency may placethem on the NPL-

The Agency has solicited comment ona policy lo expand deferral to otherFederal and State authorities [S3 FR51415. December ZL 1X8}: however, thatpob'cy is not currently in effect and hasnot been applied to sites in this rule. TheAgency has committed sot to implementany part of an expanded deferral policyuntil public and ConxreasiTial concernshave been fully reviewed and analyzed,and a decision reached oa whether ornot to implement such a policy.

The listing policies and statutoryrequirements of relevance to this finalrule covor Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) (U.S.C. fiflOl-6991 i) sites. Federal facility sites with"special study wastes," and tttiaiagwaste sites. These and other listingpolicies and statutory reqmremeatshave been explained in previousrulenakings. the latest being October 4,1989 (54 FR 41000).Releases Froai Retources Conservationand Recovery Act {RCRA) Sites

On }une 10. IBM (SI FR 21O54). EPAannounced a decision on components ofa policy for the bating or tfae deferralfrom listing on the NPL of severalcategories of non-Federal sites subjectto RCRA subtitle C corrective actionauthorities. Under tfae policy, sites notsubject K> RGB A Subtitle C correctiveaction authorities wtfl cuitkiae to faeplaced on tfae NPL. Examples of suedsites indude;

500183&

Page 6: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

6158 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 35 / Wednesday. February 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations

• Facilities thai ceased treating,storing, or disposing of hazardous wasteirior to November 19.1980 (the effective

ate of Phase I of the Subtitle C—.-egulalions) and lo which the RCRA

corrective action or other authorities ofSubtitle C cannot be applied.

• Sites at which only materialsexempted from the statutory orregulatory definition of solid waste orhazardous waste are managed.

• Contamination areas resulting fromtheaclivit- jf RCRA hazardous wastehandlers 10 which RCRA subtitle Ccorrective action authorities do notapply, such as hazardous wastegenerators or transporters, which arenot required lo have Interim Status or afinal RCRA permit.

Further, the policy stated that certainRCRA sites at which Subtitle Ccorreclive"ac!ion authorities areavailable also may be listed if they meetthe criterion for listing (i.e., an MRSscore of 26.50 or greater) and they fallwi thin one of the following categories.

• Facilities whose owners havedemonstrated an inabil i ty to financecorrective action as evidenced by theirinvocation of the bankrupcty laws.

• Facilities that have lostauthorization to operate, and for which •there are additional indications that theowner or operator will be unwilling loundertake corrective action.

• Facilities, analyzed on a case-by-e basis, whose owners or operators

N_/e a clear history of unwillingness toundertake corrective action.

On August 9,1988 (53 FR 30005), EPA'announced a policy for determiningwhether RCRA facilities are unwill ing toperform corrective actions, andtherefore should be proposed to theNPL Additionally, on August 9.1988 (53KR 30002). EPA requested comment on adraft policy for determining when anowner/operator should be consideredunable to pay for addressing thecontamination at a RCRA-regulated site;that draft policy is still under review.

On June 24.1988 (53 FR 23978), EPAannounced its intent to list several othercategories of RCRA facilities that theAgency considers appropriate for theNPL These categories are non- or latefilers, converters (i.e., facilities whosepart A permits have been withdrawn),protective filers, and sites holding RCRApermits issued before enactment of theHazardous and Solid WasteAmendments (HSWA) of 1984. (Furtherdefinition of these terms is contained inthe June 24,1988 policy announcement.)Consistent with (his policy. 23 RCRAsites were placed on the final NPL onOctober 4.1989 (54 FR 41000).

In this final rule, EPA is adding to theNPL six sites that are subject to RCRA

subtitle C corrective action authorities.These sites are not appropriate fordeferral under the NPL/RCRA deferralbecause policy either the site ownersare unable to finance corrective action,as evidenced by their invocation of thebankruptcy laws, or the sites areconverters.Releases from Federal Facility Sites

On March 13.1989154TR 10520), theAgency announced a policy for listingFederal facility sites on the NPL if theymeet the prescribed eligibility criteria(e.g., an MRS score of 28.50 or greater),even if the Federal facility also issubject to the corrective actionauthorities of RCRA subtitle C. In thatway. cleanup, if appropriate, could beeffected at those sites under CERCLA.

Federal facility sites are placed in aseparate section of the NPL. This ruleadds 14 Federal facility sites lo the finalNPL, bringing the total number of finalFederal facility sites to 93. Currently, 24Federal facility sites are proposed to theNPLReleases of Special Study Wastes

Section 105(g) of CERCLA, asamended by SARA, requires EPA toconsider certain factors before addingsites involving RCRA "special studywastes" to the NPL Section 105(g)applies to sites that (1) were not on orproposed for the NPL as of October 17,1986 and (2) contain significantquantities of special study wastes asdefined under RCRA sections 3001(b)(2)(drilling fluids], 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii) [miningwastes], and 3001(b)(3)(A)(iii) (cementkiln dusts). Before these sites can beadded to the NPL section 105(g) requirestha t the following information beconsidered.

• The extent lo which the HRS scorefor the facility is affected by thepresence of the special study waste at orreleased from the facility.

• Available information as to thequanti ty, toxicity, and concentration ofhazardous substances that areconstituents of any special study wasteat, or released from, the facility; (heextent of or potential for release of suchhazardous constituents; the exposure orpotential exposure to human populationand environment; and the degree ofhazard to human health or theenvironment posed by the release ofsuch hazardous constituents at thefacility.

This Final rule includes one sitecontaining or potentially containingspecial study wastes subject to section105(g). EPA has placed in the dockets anaddendum that evaluates for the site theinformation called for in section 105(g).The addendum indicates that the spcci.il

study waste presents a threat to humanhealth and the environment, and that thesite should be added to the NPL

CERCLA section 125, as amended bySARA, addresses specific special studywastes described in RCRA section3001(b)(3)(A)(i) (fly ash and relatedwastes). No sites in this rule are subjectlo section 125.Response lo Public Comment:; onSpecial Study Waste Sites

When EPA proposed to include on theNPL the special study waste site intoday's final rule, the Agency receivedseveral public comments. The Agency'sresponses to site-specific comments arecontained in the "Support Document forthe Revised National Priorities List—Final Rule, February 1990." (See SectionV in today's final rule.)

EPA also received general (i.e., non-site-specific) comments from oneorganization concerning the Agency'sevaluat ion of coal tar special studywaste sites. A summary of the issuesraised in these comments and theAgency's response follow. EPA'sresponse generally applies to all specialstudy waste sites, not just to the one intoday's final rule.

The commentersaid that "it can beargued" that coal tar wastes, found atthe special study waste site in today'srule (see Section V), are "generatedprimarily from the combustion of coal orother fossil fuels" and, therefore, couldbe cjnsidered the type of special studywaste governed by CERCLA section 125.However, the commentersaid tha t ,"[f]or purposes of these comments, weconcur with EPA's categorization" ofcoal tar waste as a waste from the"extraction, beneficiation, andprocessing of ores and minerals"governed by CERCLA section 105(g).

In response. EPA has stated thatwastes produced in the coal gasificationprocess are subject to CERCLA section105(g), not section 125. See 54 FR 15319,April 17,1989; 54 FR 36542, September 1,1989; and 54 FR 39301-2, September 25,1989. The Agency's interpretat ion ofRCRA section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii), and,therefore, CERCLA section 105(g), usapplying to wastes generated in the coalgas i f ica t ion process, also was staled ina September 15,1987 memorandum fromMarcia Williams, then the Director ofEPA's Office of Solid Waste, andChristina Kaneen, EPA AssistantGeneral Counsel for RCRA. to RobertDuprey, Director of the WasteManagement Division in EPA Region 8.(This memorandum is included in theSuporfund docket for this f inal rule.)Therefore, the si te with coal tar wastesin today's rule was evaluated as a

500184

Page 7: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

w^Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 35 / Wednesday. February 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 6159

CERCLA section 105(g) special study/vasle site.

^ The commenter also questioned EPA'sinterpretation of statutory requirementsin evaluating special study waste sites.The commenler criticized "EPA'sapparent position" that the requirementsimposed on the Agency by CERCLAsection 125 for listing sites wilh specialstudy wastes described in RCRA section3001(b)(3)(A)(i) [fly ash and relatedwastes] are equivalent to those imposedby CERCLA section 105(g) for listingother special study waste sites. Thecommenter stated that CERCLA section125 imposes "burdens beyond thoseimposed by section 105(g) with respectto listing fossil fuel combustion wastesites pending revision of the HRS."

In response, in EPA's view, the sitesreferred to by the commenter do notcontain substantial volumes of wastessubject to CERCLA section 125. If. in thefuture. EPA proposes to include such asite on the NPL using the current HRS.the Agency will carefully evaluate andcomply with the requirements of thatsection, and respond to the specificconcerns raised by the commenterregarding the difference betweensections 125 and 10S(g). (No such siteshave been listed to date since theenactment of section 125.)

The commenter also stated that;tion 105[g) requires EPA to "consider

^Ofe enumerated site-specific factors todetermine whether the HRS scoreoverestimates the actual risks posed bythe site." He stated that if risks areoverestimated, EPA must reassess itsinitial decision to list a site. Hesuggested that this reassessment couldbe done by revising the inputs used toscore the site or by making a new listingdecision based on an analysis of site-specific factors listed in section 105[g).The commenter stated that the HRSscoring packages, including the specialstudy waste addenda, did not indicatethat such a reassessment had beenmade.

In response. EPA notes that CERCLA• section 10i(g) requires that certain

factors (listed earlier in this preamble)be "considered" in ranking facilitiescontaining special study wastes, butdoes not set forth a specific procedure tobe followed in doing so. As required bysection 105[g)(2)(A), EPA reviewed eachsite included in this final rule to

' determine whether the presence of anyspecial study waste at. or release ofsuch waste from, the site may have hadan effect on the HRS score. As notedabove, only one site in today's final rulewas affected. The information referred

in section 105(g)(2)[6). to the extentailable within the meaning of that

section, was gathered as reflected in theaddendum to the scoring package.

EPA is satisfied that, in consideringthis and other special study waste sites.it has complied with the directive insection 105(g) to consider factorsrelating to special study waste sites. Intheabscnce of specific direction fromCongress as to the process by whichthose factors should be considered. EPAassembles the available information oneach of those factors and summarizesthat information in the addendum foreach site. Where the HRS evaluation fora silc is based at least in part on thepresence of special study wastes orcontaminants found in special studywastes, the Agency includes in theaddendum a qualitative analysis relatedto the risks posed by the site tocomplement the HRS evaluation. Thatanalysis includes an evaluation of thetoxicity of the contaminants present, anevaluation of potential or actual humanexposures, and an assessment of thepotential hazards at any possible pointsof exposure. In the case of the specialstudy waste site included in today'sfinal rule, based on informationassembled in the addendum, EPA hasconcluded that the site presents a threatto human health and the environmentand that inclusion on the NPL iswarranted (53 FR 23992, June 24,1988).

EPA notes that the requirements forconsideration of special study wastes inCERCLA section 105 differ significantlyfrom those in CERCLA section 125,which applies only to sites containingwaste described in RCRA section3001(b)(3)(A)(i) (fly ash and certainother fossil fuel combustion wastes).Section 125, added by SARA.specifically prohibits EPA fromincluding on the NPL any site for whichthe ranking was based principally onvolume and not concentration of theconstituents of the section300l(b)(3)(A}(i) waste. No suchprohibition is contained in section105(g), also added by SARA. Thelegislative history of section 105[g)demonstrates lhat Congress hadconsidered and rejected languagesimilar to that used in section 125 in anearlier version of section 105(g). Theintentional revision of section 105(g) todistinguish it from section 125demonstrates that Congress decided togive EPA wide discretion in addingspecial study waste facilities to the NPL.In particular, section 105(g) permits sitesto be listed even If the ranking is basedprincipally on total waste volume.

The commenter also stated that EPAhas failed to comply with CERCLAsection 105(g) in proposing special studywaste sites for the NPL, because EPA

did not estimate quantities of hazardousconstituents at each site. Thecommenter said that any decision to listsuch a site must "be based on anassessment of the actual risks posed bythe hazardous constituents of the wastes• * *"

In response, where data on factorssuch as quantity or concentration ofhazardous substance constituents arenot readily available, EPA is notrequired by SARA to collect newinformation. SARA directs EPA toconsider only "available information."and the Report to SARA explains that"{i]n the course of determining whetherto add facilities containing special studywastes to the NPL in (he interim period,if the President has sampling data frompast or present on-site or off-siteexamination of the facility or releasesfrom the facility available, he shallconsider it" (H.R. Rep. No. 962, 99thCong.. 2d Sess. 202 (1986)).

At sites where information onhazardous constituent quantity isavailable, EPA does consider thatinformation, as discussed above.However, the Conference Report citedabove emphasizes that although EPA isrequired to "consider" availableinformation, this consideration shouldnot involve "the conduct of riskassessments." Thus, at those sites wheresome concentration data are available,the Agency has broad discretion indetermining how the availableinformation will be considered in listingdecisions.

The commenter also stated that theanalysis of special study waste sitesshould not focus on the highestconcentration of hazardous constituentsbut should consider the range ofconcentrations.

In response. SARA directs EPA onlyto consider "available information" on"concentrations of hazardoussubstances" in special study wastes; itdues not specify in further detail how toanalyze the site where multiple samplesshow differing levels of concentration,and that decision is therefore within theAgency's discretion. The commenter iscorrect in noting that EPA generally usesthe highest concentrations found inorder to ensure that the most severethreats identified are taken into account.Many of the hazardous constituents ofthe special study wastes have beenfound at high concentrations at the coaltar waste sites referred to by thecommenter. Listing such sites is notinconsistent with the Congressionalconcern that "high volume, low toxicitywaste sites posing low risk * * '"notbe listed on the NPL (131 Cong. Rec. S11681, September 18,1985). Furthermore,

500185

Page 8: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

6MO Fodtnl Register / VoL 55. Nc. 35 / Wednesday. February 21. t990 / Ruka and Regulation*

; data generally are limited at tk«inspection stage, high

cobcentratiocM of certain hazardoussubstances in some samples toayindicate that more extensive sampling

_ later at the remedial stage will revealelevated levels of these or otherhazardous substances. These factors,taken together, justify EPA's approachof using the highest concentration data.This approach is consistent with EPA'sapproach to other similar scoring issues;for example, where multiplecontaminants are found at a site, themost toxic constituent is used forscaring purposes.

The conunenter *bo stated that EPAhas failed to consider readily availablesite-specific information on the directionof ground water flovr in preparingspecial study waste addenda.

In response, the Agency does notbelieve that section 105{g} requiresassessing site-specific information onground water flow direction. Nowhere inthe statutory language or the legislativehistory of section 105 or other provisionsof CERCLA. as amended, does Congressinstruct EPA to consider the direction ofgroand water flaw in scoring sites withspecial study wastes. Rather. Congressgives the Agency brood discretion to"rank sites «s accnrately as the agencyb'*'-ves is feasible, using informationf jreliminary assessments end siteinspections, * * * and identification of

potentially and sctmarry contaminatedwater supplies for sensitiveenvironments" (HJt Rep. No. 962,96thCong, 2d Sew. 200 (1988}}.

The principal concern of Congress inenacting section 105(g) was that thecurrent HRS may "introduce a bias inthe hazard ranking system against largequantities of waste with the presence oftrace toxic metals, such as typicalmining wastes'* (Senate Rep. No, 99-11,99th Cong., 1st Sess. 40 (1985}). Groundwater flow direction is vnntlated to thisconcern. In any case, at the siteinspection stage, determining the extentof population actually exposed orthreatened based on ground water flowinformation generally is not practicable(47 FR 31190, July 16,1982). In manyinstances, this information is notavailable, and in others, the flowdirection varies over time. Requiring aprecise measure of the affectedpopulation would substantially delaythe listing of sites and substantiallyincrease the costs associated withscoring sites. As stated in the legislativehistory for section 105, "(njeither therevised Hazard Ranking Systemrequired by this section nor any otherprovision of law or regulation requiresthe conduct of risk assessments atunlisted or listed facilities'' (H.R. Rep.No. 962. 93th Cong, 2d Sess. 202 (1986)).

In analyzing any site, the Agencygenerally oses a radius of 3 miles or less

around a site when determining thedistance to the nearest well in thecontaminated aquifer and the populationat risk doe to actual or potentialcontamination. This methodology isreasonable because it recognizes thepotential for future population growth atlocations downgradient from the siteand for new data that indicate adifferent flow direction. Furthermore,the purpose of the MRS is not only toprotect current ground water users, butmore broadly to identify and protectvaluable ground water resources.V. Disposition of Sites in Today's FinalRula

This final rule promulgates 71 sites(table 1) and drops 1 site from severalproposed rulemakings. These 72 sitesare from the following proposedupdates:

• Update £2 (49 FR 40320, October 15.1984): 1 site

• Update *3 (50 FR 14115, April 10,1985): 1 site

• Update *4 (50 FR 37850, September18, 1985): 3 sites

• Update *5 (51 FR 21090, June 10,1986): 4 sites

• Update #6 (52 FR 2492, January 22,1987): 6 sites

• Update *7 (53 FR 23988, June 24,1988): 4 sites

• Update *9 (54 FR 29620, July 14,1389); 8 sites

TABLE 1.—NATIOMAL PRioRnriES LIST, New FINAL SITES (BY RANK), FEBRUARY 1990

wGr'

2

33

44

S

6

7

aSB•8.6•

9

10K)w1111T111

12t2

^ 12

t

Rat*! .

TO143150

163197

211

280

318

363170380381384391396

412

457483486

515S24

537538

553563567

SUM

WA

KYVT

DEMl

TNTN

OK

WA

MAFT.WAIAINPAMl

GA

SCILOHn.OK

NCMl

SCMfVA

ALCOA (Vancouvet S/ndtor) ............ .... ............................ ....................Bmnfcy UndHl . __ .. _ ._. __ . _ . ______ ................_.._.._._.__..._..

E.I. Do Pont (Newport PUnl U» .... ... .................. ......... .........

Oklahoma Rearing Co _____ . —— _______ ...................... _ ...... _ ..

Pacific Car 4 Fotndry Co _____ . _____ .. _ ............ _ ... ___ ...........

Himco Durnp _ ....

SUM Disposal Landfill, inc................................ ...............................................

R<X* mi C^TM*r CO

Allied Plating. Inc _ . __ ...... __ . _ ............................................ ........

Mosfey Road Sanitary UndfiB. .... . ......................................................FCX, Inc. (SlatecviUe Planl) ... . ........ .......................... ._ . ..Mk' Noar i Dispo&af (COffc Stro9t Lf)Sanoamo/Tw<Hve4«le/Hartw«0 PCS ____ ..._............._._.._.._.... __ j

Aro«*<»d AMOC/SCO* Com.- - __ ....................... ... . 1

CityCounry

taia/xJ.

H land.

Cyri.

Mttfrt.R«nton.

E1WWLWiiham sport.

RodtHiO.Jot»«t.

OWahomaGty.

Pickacs.St JotefXx

w-:.HT.

500186

Page 9: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 6161

TABLE 1.—NATKDNAL PRIORITIES LIST, NEW FINAL SITES (BY RANK), FEBRUARY 1990—Continued

NPL

Of'

121213131313141414

15IS151516161616161616

17

1818161818

191919

2020

Rank

568S96602622636648677695700713723739744754755762770781789795831

861867871880897

933939947966977

Stale &te Name

VASC

VAILNYKSILMlMl

DESCNYCTNYPACACAKYWlscCA

MOFLFLALWA

CAMEWA

PAMl

City/County

Atlantic Wood Industries, loe __........._.............................................................. Portsmouth.Townsend Saw Chain Co __...................................................................._.. Ponbac.Suffolk City Landfill.........___............................................................................. Suffolk.DuPage Cty Ld»/B!ackwe« Forest...................................................................... Warrenville.Niagara Mohawk Power (Saratoga Sp).............................................................. Saratoga Spring*29th A V'^A Ground Water Contamm............................................................... Wichita.HO.D. Landfill_................................................................................................... Anboch.Kaydon Corp._._._......„_................................................................................. Muskegon.Muskegon Chemical Co........................................................................................ Whitehall.Tyler Refrigeration Pit............................................................................................ Smyrna.Helena Chemical Co. Landfill..........................................................._..__..._...._ FairfaxCarroM & Duties Sewage Disposal.....................................................................J Port Jervis.Linemasler Switch Corp........—.............................................A_........._...._J Woodstock.Jones ChermcaJs. Inc._._._.............................................................................JU Caledonia.Saegertown Industrial Area.................................................................._.__.......J Saegertown.CTS Prime*. lne.._..............._..............................................................................J Mountain View.Sola Optical USA. Inc.........................................................................................J Petaluma.General Tire/Rubber (MayfieW LnO................................................................... I Mayf*W.Madison Metro Sewer District Lag.....................................................................J Blooming Grove.Beaumt Corp (Circular Knrt & Dye).....-.....-.......................................................J Fountain Inn.TRW Microwave. Inc (Building 825)....................... ...........................................J Sunnyvale.

Missouri Electric Works.......................................................................................J Cape Girardeau.Pipar Aircraft/Vero Beach Wlr&Swr...................................................................J Vero Beach.Anodyne. Inc.._..__............................................................................_..............J North Miami Beach.Redwing Carriers. Inc. (Saraland)....................................................................... J Saraland.Northwest Translormer (S Harkness).........................................._...................J Everson.Hcwlen.Packard(620-40 Page Mill)..................................................................J Pato A/to.Saco Municipal Landfill....._................................................................................J Saco.OW Inland Pit._....._...........................................................................................J Spokane.North Penn—Area 12...................................................... ...............................J Worcester.Metal Working Shop.......................................................................................... J Lake Ann.

! • -rk' Sties are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding lo groups of 50 on the final NPL.Number ol New Final Sites 57.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST. FEDERAL FACILITY SITES. NEW FINAL (BY RANK), FEBRUARY 1990

NPLGr' Stale Site Name unty

13

57

9101010

1213141617

19

CA

MD

NJ

CAWANMWY

CAMAMECAA2MO

Riverbank Army Ammunition Plan!.. i Rivertank.iAbet Prov Ground-Edgcwood Area.................................. ..........................................._........_.J Edgewood.

Naval Air Sla. WhxJ Is (Ault).................................................. ............................ ..............._._._.....,' Wrudbey Island.Picaimny Arsenal............................................................. .. . . . . . . . . . ............................j Rockaway Township.

Fort Ord.......................................................................................... ..................................................' Manna.Na^al Air Sia. Whid Is (Seaplane).............................................. .... ....... ..............................j Whidbey IslandPease Air Force Base..................................................... ...... ......................................................J Portsmouth/Ncwington.F.E. Warren Air Force Base.................................................. .......................................................J Cheyenne.El Toro Manne Corps A» Slation....................................... ...........................................................J El Toro.Fort Devens-Sudbury Training Ann............_.................................................................................. J Middlescn County.Loring Air Force Base....................._..._.._....................................................................................... J Limestone.G*orQ« Air Fo'ce BaM* ........................................ ... .... . . ., ... . . . . ..... ,,,..,... ViClorviHoYuma Manne Cotpj Air Slation....................................................................................................... Yuma.

Weldon Spring Form Army Ord Works............................................................................................' St. Charles County.

1 S/ies are placed m groups (Gr) corresponding to groups ol SO on the final NPLNumber of New Final Federal Facility &lcs. 14.

EPA read all comments received onthese sites, including late comments. Inpast rules, EPA responded even to latecomments. However, given the volumeand number of late comments receivedand the need to make final decisions onall currently proposed sites prior to thedate that the revised HRS takes effect.EPA was not able to respond to all late

comments received for sites in this rule.EPA has responded (in the SupportDocument) to those comments receivedno later than October 31.1988 for allsites included in this final rule that wereproposed in Updates #2. 3. 4, 5. 6. and 7and to those comments received no laterthan October 3.1989 for sites in thisfinal rule that were proposed in Update

—9. (EPA had previously indicated thatit may no longer be able to consider latecomments (S3 FR 23990, June 24,1988and 54 FR 19527. May 5.1989)). AlthoughEPA lias not responded to all latecomments, it has read all late comments,and has endeavored to respond in theSupport Document to those latecomments that bring to the Agency's

50018?

Page 10: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

§182 Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 35 / Wednesday. February 21. 1990 / Rnfes and Regulations

attention a fundamental error in (hescoring of a site. In addition, the Agency

as routinely responded to latecomments resulting from EPA

providedcommenters with more recent data orrequested that the commenters be morespecific in (heir comments.

Based on the comments received onthe proposed she*, as well asinvestigation by EPA and the States(generally in response to comment). EPArecalculated the HRS scores forindividual sites where appropriate.Where the public comments oradditional information dropped a scorebelow 28.50. the site has been removedfrom the NPL. EPA'« response to site-specific public comments andexplanations of any score changes madeas a result of such comments areaddressed in the "Support Document forthe Revised National Priorities List —Final Rule. February 1990."RCRA Sites

Six sites are subject to Subtitle Ccorrective Action authorities, but eitherthe site owner has invoked theprotection of the bankruptcy laws, or thePart A permit has been withdrawn(converter status). These sites are beingadded to the f inal NPL consistent wi ththe NPL/RCRA listing policy:• CTS Prinlex. Inc.. Mountain View,

al i fomia (converter)> — john Deere (O ' tumwa Works

Landfills), Ot tumwa, Iowa (converter)• Oklahoma Ref ining Co.. Cyril,

Oklahoma (bankruptcy)• Allied Plating Inc.. Portland. Oregon

(bankruptcy)• Townsend Saw Chain Co., Pcntiac,

South Carolina (converter)• Carrier Air Conditioning Co.,

Collicrvi'le. Tennessee (converter)Federal Facility Sites

This final rule adds 14 Federal fac i l i tysites to the NPL (Table 1).Special Study Waste Sites

One site containing or possiblycontaining special study wastes is beingodded to the NPL In this rule:

• Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.(Saratoga Springs Plant). SaratogaSprings, New York (cosl tar wastes).Score Revisions

EPA has revised the HRS scores for 19sites based 00 its review of comment*and additional information developedby EPA and the Stales (table 2L Some of(he changes have placed the sites indifferent groups of SO sites. For one ofthese sites, the public comments haveresulted in scores below the cut-off of.

"0. Accordingly, this site ts being

dropped from the proposed NPL at thistime:• Keyser Avenue Borehole, Scranton.

Pennsylvania

TABLE 2—SITES WITH HRS SCORECHANGES

1 HRS ScoreSlala/Sile N»roe

A2/Yum« ManneCorps AirStation.

CA/CTS Prmtex.Inc.

CA/El ToroMarine CorpsAir Station.

CA/Soia OpticaJUSA. Inc

DE/T>1orRefrigerationPit.

IL/Amoco

(JolKJt LandM)IL/HO.D LandM).KS/29tn i Mead

Ground WaterContamination

Ky/3rantleyLandMI.

MA/Attas TacKCorp

Vi/MelalWorking Shop

MO/MissouriElectric Works.

MO/WeidonSpnng FormerArmyOrdnanceWorks.

PA/KeysorAvenueBorehoie

SC/Roc* KinCnemcal Co.

TN/Carrwr AirCondilicrnngCo

VA/AtlaniicWoodIndustries. Inc.

VT/ParKerSanitaryLand ML

WA/NavaJ AtStation.WrKjbey liiand(Ault)

Locanon

Vum8._............

MountMlView.

El Toro)

Petaluma ........

Smyrna ,.....-..j

Joiiet ...............

Antiocti ....... ....Wiciita. ............

;

Island............./i

Farrhaven......-!

Lake Ann........i

Cape ;Cirardeau. j

Si Charles :

Co.

Scrar.ton.. ......'

Rock Ha......-..\1

Colliervillc.......'

iPortsmoufn.....

iLyndon. ...........'

ii

WhKtxry iIsUnd. i

I1

' i

!29 M |

1

35.39 ;

4083 :

35.57 |i

29.41 iIj

32.47 ,

I

52.02 ;*2 79 !

i58.15 j

[31 89 j

30.12 ,i

33.40 j!

3077 ;|i!

3024 :j'

49.76 'i

35.37 '•

40.77 iII

46.25 !

j44. « :

(

I

Fir,;

32,24

3362

3 7 4 3

3339

3394

3344

34683535

52.73

4260

28(2

31.20

3026

ocoo

4C2S

48 .91

37.', 4

52.29

47.58

Name RevisionsTiie name of one site addressed in th is

f inal rule has been changed in responseto information received during thecomment period. The change is intendedto reflect more accurately the location,nature, or potential sources ofcontamination at the site:• North Pcr.a—Area 12 (proposed as

TraniicoiL, lac.). Worcester,Pennsylvania

VI. Disposition of Alt Proposed Sites/Federal Facility Siia*

To date, EPA has proposed 10 majorupdates to the NPL. Today's rule resultsin a to ta l of 113 non-Federal sites and 24Federal faci l i ty sites that cont inue to beproposed pending completion ofresponse to comment, resolution oftechnical issues ar.d resolution ofvar ious policy issues ( table 3). All sitesthat remain proposed will be consideredfor f u t u r e f ine! ruks. Although thesesites remain proposed, the commentperiods have not been extended orreopened.

TABLE 3—NPL PROPOSALS

UcxiiiteND

1 .... .. .

2.... . .....

3...

. . . . . .

c.

6 ...

-,

e .. . . ...

9. .._.......

10 ... ..

ATSDfl ...

, s

Date'FiOERAL

.i .1 ii .

1 9/6/63. 46 FR40674

.. 10/15/84. 49 FR4C320.

.. 4 /10/65. 5C FRI 14115.. 9/18/65. 50 FR. 37950

.. 6/1C/86, 51 FR. 21091

.. 1/22/67, 52 FR

' 6'2-1/eS. 53 FR, 239S6

.' 5/5/69, 54 FR13526

.. 7/14.69. 54 FR

• 10/26/69. 54 FR43778.

.! B / '6 /83 . 54 FR' 33346.

j Number o* Sites/i Federal Facility' Sitesii Pro-| posed

' 132/1

! 208/36

: 26/6ii 38/3

, 43/2

( 63/1

! 215/14|| 10/3

; 0/52

• 23/2

Remain-ingPro-

posed

1/0

16/3

0/0

0/0

4/0

7/0

57/2

5/0

C/17

23/2i

2/0 : 0/0

7£C.'n7 113/24

VII. Cor.tents of the NPLThe 71 new sites adJed to the .\PL in

today's rule (Table 1) have beenincorporated in to the NPL in order oftheir HRS scores except where F.PAmodified the order to reflect topp r i o r i t i i : i di:aij;n,'iloJ by llx; S l u t f S , usdiscussed in greater detai l in previousruiLTnakings. the most recent on March31, 1989 (5-1 FR 13290).

The NT'L appears at the end of th isf i n a l rule and wil l be codified as pa r t ofAppendix B to the NCP. Sites on theNPL are arranged according to theirscores on the HRS. The NPL is presentedin groups of 50 w'tes to emphasize t h a tminor differences in HRS scores do notnecessarily represent significantlydifferent levels of risk. Except for thefirst group, the score range within thegroups, as indicated in the list, M less

500188

Page 11: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 1990 / Rules and "Regulations 6163

than -4 points. EPA-considers the siteswilhin-a-group to have approximatelythe same priority for response actions.

^~ For convenience, ihe sites arcnumbered.

The following three siles previouslywere placed on the NPL because theymet Ihe requirements of the NCP ul§ 300.66[b)(4). as explained in section IIIof this rule:• Forest den Mobile Home

Subdivision, Niagara Fulls. New York• Radium Chemical-Co.. Inc.. Woodside.

Now York City. New York• Lansdowne Radiation Site.

I-ansdowne. PennsylvaniaThese sites have IfRS scores less than2B.50. and appear al the end of the list.

This rule adds 14 new silcs to theFederal facil i ty section of thn NT1. bygroup number.VIM. Regulatory Impact Analysis

The cosls of cleanup actions t h a t maybe taken at sites are not d i r ec t l yattributable to placement on the NPL asexplained below. Therefore, thn Agencyhas determined tha i Ihis rulem.ikmg isnot a "major" regulat ion underExecutive Order 12291. EPA hasconducted a preliminary analysis ofeconomic impl i ca t ions of today'samendment to the NCP. EPA believest h a t the kinds of economic effectsassociated wilh this revision generally

re similar to those e f fec t s i den t i f i ed in^—ihe regulatory impact analys is (RIA)

prepared in 1982 for Ihe revisions to theNCP pursuant to section 105 of CF.RCl.Aand the economic analysis preparedwhen nmcndmenls to Ihe NCP wereproposed (50 FR 5862. February 12.1SI85]. The Agency believes the' jnl idpated economic e f f e c t s re la ted toadding these 71 sites to ihe \PI. can becharacter ized in terms of theconclusions of ihe ea r l i e r RIA ant! themost recent economic ana lys i s . This ru lewas s u b m i t t e d to the Off ice ofManagement and I'udget fur n.-vicw asrequired by Execu t i ve Order 12291.

Cost*EPA has determined I h a t Ihis

ru lem. ikmg is nul a "m.i|ur" ivg . i l . i tun iunder Executive Order 12291 becauseinclusion of a site on the NPI. does noli tself impose any costs. It does nolestablish tha t EPA necessarily w i l lunder take remedia l ac t ion , nor dues i lrequire any action by a pr ivate parly ordetermine i ts l i a b i l i t y for si te responsecosls. Cos's tha t arise out of sileresponses resul t from s i l e - b y - s i l edecisions about wha t ac t ions to lake.not direct ly from the acl of l i s l i i i K i t s e l f .Nonetheless, il is u s e f u l lo consider I he-rns Is associated wi th responding to all

les included in Ihis ru l em, ik ing .

The major events-(hat follow (heproposed listing of a site on .the NPL arca search for potentially responsibleparties and a remedial investigation/feasibi l i ty study (RJ/FS) to determine ifremedial actions will be undertaken at asite. Design and construction of iheselected remedial alternative followcompletion of the RI/FS. and opera'ionand maintenance (O&M) activities maycont inue af ter construction has beencompleted.

EPA initially bears costs associatedwilh responsible parly searches.Responsible parties may bear some orall the costs of the RI/FS. remedialdesign and construction, and O&M. orEPA and Ihe States may share cosls.

The State cost share fur site cleanupactivities has been amended by section104 of SARA. For privately-owned sites.as well as at publicly-owned but notpublicly-operfllod sites. EPA willpa> for100'V. of the costs of the RI/PS andremedial planning, and 90% of the costsassociated wilh remedial action. TheStale wi l l be responsible for 10% of theremedial action. For publicly-operatedsilcs. the State cost share is at least SO*.'.of all response cosls at the site,including the RI/FS and remedial designand construction of the remedial act ionselected. After Ihe remedy is built, costsfa l l i n to two categories:

• For restoration of ground water unrisurface water. EPA will share in sliirlupcosls according to the criteria in theprevious paragraph for 10years or uni i la s u f f i c i e n t level of prolecliveness isachieved before the end of 10 years.

• For other cleanups. F.PA will sharefor up lo 1 year the cost of t h a i p o r t i o nof response needed to assure t h a t aremedy is operational and functional.Af ler t h a t , the Stale assumes f u l lresponsibili t ies for O&M.

In previous NPI, rulemakings. iheAgency es t imated the costs associatedwilh these activities (RI/FS. remedialdesign, remedial action, and O&M) onK M average p e r w i l l - ani l In l a l r u n t | I ; I N I > IF.PA w i l l conlinue wi th th i s approach,using the most recent (19BII) cos!estimates available: these estimates arepresented below. However, there iswide var ia t ion in costs for i nd iv idua lsiles. depending on Ihe amoun t , type,and ex ten l of con t amina t i on .Addit ional ly. EPA is unable to penlirtwhat por t ions of Ihe t o t a l costsresponsible parlies will bear, since i l i ed i s t r i b u t i o n of costs depends on ihee x t e n t of vo lun ta ry and nego t i a t edresponse ..mi Ihe success of any cost-recovery ari . ' ius .

Cosi categoryAverage

lolrfp«r

RI/FS.............—..............,......-.._-._...J 1.300.000Kerne**! Design................................._.J 1.500.000RerrxxWl Acton .......................................1 ''25.000.000Ne! present vilue t» O4M "....................I '3.770.000

1 19B6 US dollars'include SUie cost-share'Attomei cotl of O&M ov«r 30 vearv $400.000

lor trie fni year »nd 10% discount rate

Source: Office of Program Mnnngrmcnl.Office of Emergency and Kemcdiul Response.US F.I'A.

Cosls to Slates associated withtoday's final rule arise from the requiredStale cost-share of: (1) 10% of remedialactions and 10% of first-year O&M costsat privately-owned sites and sites (hatarc publicly-owned but not publicly-optrated: and (2) at least 50% of theremedial planning (R!/FS and remedialdesign), remedial action, and first-yearO&M costs at publicly-operated sites.Slates will assume the cost for O&Ma f t e r EPA's period of pa r t i c i pa t i on .Using ihe awsumpi ions developed in the1982 RIA for the NCP. EPA has ussumedt h a t 90% of the 57-non-Federal silesadded to the NPL in this rule will beprivately-owned and 10\ wil l be Stute-or locally-operated. Therefore, using Ihebudget projections presented above, thecost lo Stales of under taking Federalremedial planning .and actions, butexcluding O&M costs, would beapproximately S211 million. State OfcMcosts cannot be accurately de terminedbecause EPA. as noied above, will shareO&M cosls for up to 10 years forrcs to ra i ion of ground water and surfacewater , and it is not known how manysi l rs VM!! require t h i s t r e a t m e n t and forhow long. However , based on pastexperience. F.PA believes a reasonableest:ma!e is t h a t i l w i l l share s t a r t u pcosls for up to 10 years at 25% of silos.Using t h i s e s l imalc . Slate O&M costswould be approximately Si83 mil l ion.

Placing a hazardous waste sile on Ihef i n a l NPL does nol i t se l f cause firmsresponsible for Ihe sile In benr runln .Nomtll if les . i . a l i s l i n g may induce f i rmsto clean up the sites v o l u n t a r i l y , or itmay act as a p o t e n t i a l trigger forsubsequen t enforcement or cosl-n-coverj act ions. Such ac t ions mayimpose cos's on f i rms, bul the decisionsIn lake such actions are discretionaryand made on a case-by-casc basis.C i K i s r q u e n l l v . precise est imates of lhe.see f f ec t s canno t be made. EPA does nolbel ieve I h a l every site w i l l t ie cleanedup by <i responsible party. F.PA cannotp r n j i ' c : t a t th i s t i m e which f i rms orindus t ry sectors will bear specificp o r t i o n s of Ihe response costs, but Ihe

500189

Page 12: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

6164 Federal Register / Vol. 55. N'o. 35 I Wednesday. February 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations

Agency considers: the volume andnature of the waste at the sites: Ihestrength of the evidence linking thewastes al Ihe site to the parlies: theparties' ability lo pay: and other factorswhen deciding whether and how loproceed against the parties.

Economy-wide effects of thisamendment to the NCR are aggregationsof effects on Finns and State and localgovernments. Although effects could befelt by some individual firms and Slates.the tola! impact of this amendment onoutput, prices, and employment isexpected lo be negligible at the nationallevel, as was Ihe case in the 1982 R1A.Benefits

The real benefits associated withtoday's amendment placing addi t iona lsiles on the NPL are increased healthand environmental protection as a resultof increased public awareness ofpotential hazards. In addition to thepolential for more federally-financedremedial actions, expansion of the NPLcould accelerate privately-financed,volunlary cleanup efforts. Listing sitesas national priority targets also maygive States increased support forfunding responses at particular sites.

As a result of the addit ional CERCLAs—femedies, there will be lower human

exposure to high-risk chemicals, andhigher-quality surface water, groundwaler, soil, and air. These benefi ts areexpected to be significant, althoughdi f f i cu l t to es t imate in advance ofcompleting the RI/FS at these si tes .

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act AnalysisThe Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1S30

requires EPA lo review the impacts ofthis action on small entities, or certifytha t the action will not have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. By smalleniities, the Act refers lo smallbusinesses, small governmentjurisdictions, and nonprofitorganizations.

While modifications lo the NPL areconsidered revisions lo the NCP. theyare not typical regulatory changes sincethe revisions do not automaticallyimpose costs. The placing of sites or. theNPL does not in itself require any actionof any private party, nor does itdetermine the l iabil i ty of any party forthe cost of cleanup at the site. Further,no ident i f iable groups are affected as awhole. As a consequence, it is hard topredict impacts on any group. Placing asite on the NPL could increase thel ikel ihood that adverse impacts toresponsible parties (in Ihe form ofclear.-jp costs) will occur, but EPAcannot ident i fy the potentially affectedbusiness at this time nor estimate then u m b e r of small businesses that mightbe affected.

The Agency does expect that certainindustries and firms within industriesthat have caused a proportionately highpercentage of waste site problems couldbe s ignif icant ly affected by CERCLAactions. However, BPA does not expectthe impac ts from the listing of these 57non-Federal sites to have a s ign i f ican teco.io.Tiic impact on a substantial

businesses.

In any case, economic impacts wouldcccur only through enforcement andcost-recovery actions, which are tokenfit EPA's discretion on a si te-by-silcbasis. EPA considers many factors whendetermining what enforcement actionsto take, including not only Ihe firm'scontr ibut ion to the problem, but also thefirm's abi l i ty to pay.

The impacts (from cost recovery) onsmall governments and nonprofitorganizations would be determined on asimilar case-by-case basis.List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Air pol lu t ion control, chemicals.Hazardous materials, Intergovernmentalrelations. Natural resources, Oilpo l l u t i on , Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements. S:jperfund, Wastet r e a tmen t and disposal, Water pol lut ioncontrol, Water supply.

Dated: February 9.1990.Don R. Clay.Adinsi Assistant Administrator. Office ofSolid Waste end Emergency Response.

40 CFR part 300 is amended asfollows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority ci tat ion for part 300continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9605: 42 U.S.C. 9C2O. 33I' S C. 1321(0)12): E.0.11735 (38 FR 212-13):E.G. 12580 [52 FR 2923).

2. Appendix B of pa.-t 300 is re1. i?ed toread as set forth below.BILLING COPC

500190Y.C.

Page 13: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

Appendix

B-

Nati

onal P

riorities

List

Nati

onal Priorities

List (

by t

ank)

February 1990

tn o o (-* CO

NP1

EPA

Rank

R

*|

It

lit*

N*M

Clty

/Cot

nty

t t i « s * r 8 9 10 It 12 IS U 15 17 18 W 20 21 22 13 24 25 26 27 28 ¥) 30 31 32 31 Ji 3e 37 34 39 40 42 4}

44 4S 46 47 4* SO

02 03 OS 02 Q) oe 67 oi Ot oi o? 05 01 02 91 OS 04 •i M 06 06 OS 01 OS 03 06 OS 06 06 04 09 01 u» 02 06 06 01 OS OS _1 04 0? o« 03 02 02 04 08 to M

RJ M PA NJ MM HJ

NT IA OE NJ MA NJ Ml

MA NJ NN MH M UN NT to Tl

Ml

NN PA PA TX ON Ml

T« Al

CA nt TX NJ

CO TX MA m m FL NJ

MJ

PA NT NJ FL Ml

IM Ul

Cro

up

t (K

RI t

*6re

* 75

.60

• 58

.

llp»rl

lehW

III

Tybd

utl

Corn

V I

thdflll

••r

uin

ItfM

nH

elen

(ria

*y landfil

lIn

dMtr

l-Plta

Prlt*

lantffll

l •

Pol

lutio

n M

tMtn

t M

rvlc

e* *

laio

untf lit*

Ar*

y C

reet

landfill

CPS/

M«d

laon

IndM

trle

tKy

anta

rti»

»Ual

Wal

t* D

uvp

MM

t la

ndfil

lle

rlln

1 F

err*

Ral

rd I

McC

utre

Ion*

Pin

* iv

xlflll

tooe

riKor

th S

anita

ry l

an

dfill

FMC

Cor

p. (

Frl

dle

y P

lant

)V

erta

c, I

nc.

Ree

f* En

viro

nmen

tal

Ser

vice

*S

ilver

Ion C

reek/

lutt*

Are

*W

iltM

ood

free*

•Fr

ench

, IM

.liq

uid

•fa

pwal

, In

c.

Syl

veet

er •

Tyi

om P

ui

McA

doo

Aan

clat

e* •

Mot

to,

Inc.

•Ar

canu

e, I

ren

1 M

etal

EM

I H

elen

a S

ite

like

* »l

tpc*

al P

lti

Trla

na/Ie

nnM

ie*

Riv

erS

trln

ifa

lloe •

HcH

n C

O.

Crr

atal

Chc

alca

l C

o.lrl

dgepo

rt P

inta

l (

ell

t*rv

lcM

Sand

Cre

tk I

nduetr

lal

Oen

ev*

Indu

ltrle

a^F

uhH

liarn

Ene

rgy

u.R

, C

rete

( C

o In

c (A

cton

Pla

nt)

Re

lllr

Ta

r (S

t. leull

Par

k P

lant

) •

N*v

Irlf

hta

n/A

rden

Nlll

atc

huylk

lll M

ettl*

t"r

p.

Vln

elin

d C

leric

al C

o.. In

c.

•um

t F

ly lo

tP

ubllc

kar

Irduatr

le*

Inc.

did

leth

peoe

landfill

Shl

elde

lley

Cor

p.R

eeve

* S

outd

eeet

(U

lvanltl

ng

Cor

pAn

acon

d* C

o. S

helte

rW

»*f*

rr.

Pro

ceaa

lng

Co.

, In

c.

Oae

aa H

llla

lorth

La

nd

fill

54 > Pltr

t-n

•c«

Ca

ltle

Cou

nty

Iruln

loro

uoh

Man

tU*

lounth

lpbo

turn

Plfa

ian

tvlll

eO

twtg

oC

hart*

* C

ityNe

w C

att

U C

ount

yO

ld (

rlcto

* to

umhl

pA

ihl a

ndG

louc

este

r To

unth

lpJw

arti

Cree

kRo

l bro

okfr

eeho

ld T

owns

hip

Soi

Mriw

drth

Frl

dle

yJe

ckto

ovl

ll*E

ppln

gfll

lo

u/t)e

*r l

odge

Milt

tuod

dC

ro*b

yU

tlca

Mai

huk

Ucp

er M

erlo

n Tu

pM

cAdo

o O

orou

ght*

M*rq

u»D

«rk*

Cou

nty

(••t

Hel

en*

CrM

hyI

(net

tcoe

/Hor

dvi

OlK

i Av

on H

eigh

tsC

ray

Mou

ntt

iIr

ldg^

poft

COM

MTC

* C

ity

tlout

ton

Act

onS

t. Ib

XIlt

Par

kNe

w R

Mgh

ton

Pla

nt C

ity

Vln

tlknti

Mar

lbor

ci t

owrr

thlp

Phl

lade

pMa

Oyi

ter

lay

•N

eefle

ld l

orou

gh

Anac

onda

rent

Cer

nent

otm

Nat

iona

l P

rlorlt

lee

Hot

(b

y Ra

nk)

Febr

uary

199

0

im

IPA

Rank

R

et

It

tit*

N*M

Ilty/

Cou

nty

Cro

up

2 <*

*» S

COT*

* M

.Xl

• 54

.16,

exc

ept

for

Sla

t* t

ep p

rio

rity

alt

r*>

4l

04

F'l

Amer

ican

Cre

oaot

e (p

*nM

C«l

* P

it)

52

02

NJ

Cet

dwel

l Tr

ucki

ng C

o.S3

02

IT

C

t K

or**

u54

06

O

K Ta

r C

r*»*

(tit

tew

* C

ount

y)55

07

tS

C

hero

ke*

boun

ty56

05

IN

Se

yfto

ur l

ecy

clirq

Cor

p. •

S7

05

OM

Uni

ted

Stra

p le

ed C

o.,

Inc.

58

04

FL

' Paa

r t\\

C

o./te

y O

rua

Co.

59

02

NJ

Irlc

k t

c«T»

Mp

landfill

60

1)2

NJ

Irook

InA

aitr

Ul

Par

k61

05

M

l A

fric

an

Ano

dco, I

nc.

61

10

IM

Fro

ntie

r K«

rd C

hroa

e. I

nc.

63

05

Ul

J«n*

«vlt

I* O

'.d la

ndfill

64

05

Ml

Rort

hern

tlr*

plat

ing1

<5

04

JC

Kal

aita

Spe

cial

ty C

heai

lcal

t66

04

1C

In

depe

nden

t R

ail

Co.

67

05

Ul

Janetv

lll*

A*K

led*

68

04

Fl

OaV

I* lA

nd

flll

09

05

OX

M(*

»| C

ount

y In

cine

rato

r70

tO

IM

A

ltoH

(»«

nceu

V*y

taelte

r)71

04

FL

to

ld toU

f O

il C

orp.

72

10

UA

fr*

n«r«

l E

lMr(

c(ip

oka

n*

Shop

)73

09

A2

Tu

cMri

Inte

rnat

iona

l A

irpor

t A

re*

74

05

IN

Inte

rnat

iona

l M

iner

at a

(E

. P

lant

)75

05

W

I U

h*e(

»r l

*lt

76

09

CA

Ope

ratin

g In

duat

rle*. I

nc.

Indfll

77

02

NT

Uld

* M

ecFI

Dev

V ^

aktn

t78

09

CA

Iro

n M

ount

ain

Mine

79

05

Ml

6r*

tio

t C

cWy

landfill

•80

01

R

I P

tcll

ld F

an*

•81

01

M

A N

ew l

edfo

rd S

ite •

82

06

LA O

ld |n

g*r

Oil

••fin

ery

•83

05

O

N C

he«-

Dyn

* •

84

04

SC

SCK

OI H

uff

Roa

d •

85

01

CT laure

l P

ark. I

nc.

•84

08

C

O M

ereh

all la

ndfill

•87

05

11

O

utbo

ard

Mar

ine

Cor

p. •

M

06

MM

Sou

th V

alle

y •

99

01

VT

Pin

e S

treet

Can

al *

90

03

WV

Ue*

t V

irg

inia

Ord

nanc

e •

91

07 M

D ll

lla

vlll*

Site

•92

08 »

A

rwril

e T

rldjld

* tit*

*93

07

IA

A

ld«x

Cor

p. •

94

05

Wl

N.U

. Mau

th*

Co.

, In

c.

•75

04

TN

N

orth

Nol

l ysio

oel O

uWp

*94

04

rt

A.I.

ley

lor

(Val

ley

ef

»ruM

) •

97

09

01

Ord

ot l

andfill

•96

04

M

S F

lou6

6d S

ite

•99

O

S U

T Ro

ee P

ark

SlM

dg*

Pit

•10

0 07

K

S A

rkan

***

City

Du*

p •

P*n

**c*

leF

alr

fle

ldSo

uth

Sle

n F

ills

Otta

wa

Cou

nty

Che

roke

* C

ount

ySe

ymou

rTr

ey

Irlc

k t

oana

hlp

foun

d (r

ook

lonl*

Vanc

ouve

rJe

neev

lll*

Ced

lllac

leeufo

rtI'e

aufo

rtJa

neev

llle

Oav

l*Tr

oyVa

ncou

ver

Ml**

iltp

oUn*

fuca

ori

Ter

r* lU

ut*

la P

ralr

l* f

ount

hlp

Mon

te/e

y Pe

rkIrant

Red

ding

St.

loult

Cov

entry

Hew

tedf

ord

Dar

rou

Nan

! (to

nC

olur

i>la

ystj^

tluck

lor

ougr

ilo

oloV

r C

ount

yUe

xAef

fen

Alb

ucfu

erct

jeeu

rllog

too

Poi

nt f

leee

ent

Illltv

lll*

Sou

thet

rate

rn N

OC

ounc

il H

uff

*A

pple

t on

Men

rili

fro

otf

BUM

Flou

ood

Sal

t la

ke C

ityAr

kane

ae C

lt

I \. ? J "~ <J Q ' P* ^ ? • en ^H 4C 3 B* • 1" - r* 5 vj ti i M ~-

50 I r» OR CD S tw 2? 1C3 B" 9

Page 14: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

£166

•c

i£1

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

**

is .c e ?i !!= t i..»« 1-! I rl-tHI 1« i ? 3 _ «x Iti *--

if~I'%.'f *f- '•

t

kfr

.II1 i

!=I!?•

I*63U »

ll55

2i*j:i= « > £ » -8 3 - 5 S S Jx 6 • u a <•

*!!ii "=p . * • •C ev.w — — *:!iH2$ - 5 * 5 ?'^S'?lr«i-?|

500192

Page 15: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21,1990 / Rules and Regulations 6167

s 1

i l - I* A$ II

= 1t Z

1 I

ss

500193

Page 16: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

6168 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 1990 / Rules and RegulaHons

=1tfllT ik*!

•» f. m !c

i . i I i I! *

Is«tIIk Ik•.

i•*

|

500194

Page 17: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21,1990 / Rules and Regulations 6169

mt**

£5

1 I

- , - .»QUOX«(-J — O — » — »<•-x» — J tv>K^3" -« l [ r f 3 ru<J

t

S I

o • ^ LJ *•- ? sI =>*- >• Q

* gIf I t 1 ro 4 » * « - ^ u t - f l * - l l — -n — i > O 2 trt ""* u «c •-. 6 •*- >. — «L —» - i - « c < « * * — — a. c w o* « a o c- ^ » ^ t a . - n C> »t _ « « ^ v v < ^ . 3 i _ - ' w . x 3 4 - — — ^— * * — V» C .«_ cl* » i— **• « *^ — • v .^ « _« k o * —' *i — *^ - — o *- • vw o C *^* - « - ^ ^ > . x > . * « . . _ £ — **— i- o * . « - — C * - c o 4- f l-o c .* C— *-* * X X * » f c « * * - 3 — — — XC-^- O 5 OC— Bo— LJ . *^ .c C £ *-C X— DC3 * » • — — — O • * _ - ^ * _ « T J x at *••- * - * - « _ « 3 of\ j o X * L— x C —

^ — — — — — * j C U I k . * ' V " " 1 ^ . C ^* ^*- — * • B ( / I t A O . — ' U X ^W\ w* « *- » W> « «. ^ — .MT l « — — « • « * . * — « 4 ^ OT * X — — •- C C ^ • C ** m C £ • »• - '» -»_ X •-£ • • » > > > 3 •- • 3 *fc — * _« •* u ^ • — o o * •• » • o — o ^ • . — • • 3 o x f *^ -n * • —3 J > > ** L *- U -C CO — C • U *- • w •— -*— Q . * - 0 — t * f c O * C J * - — * C B . * *>»O _ o o o — « i _ i « t C -1— x—— 3 ._ TJ - ._ -^ — — - ^ « I r ^ — | f « C * O u C C ^ i S f l O ' ^ ^ .»- TI — — "6 • 6 ' O 3 % * ^ — C i/» > ». — • t i c * > » « * ' ^ ' - « - D ? * - — 5 * - < » B x 3 « - < i . v ^ - ^U C « * » C C C t J X — *- f fc • o ^ • • v C * ' 0 > 1 - * < - £ v i * ' v O i « * o — » * - * 5 — ' • *. C «^irr l fJr .'"PSlJ^o^.iSu £ ^ - < « u * « « * * u _ c - r ^ _ _ - - 9 2 a > i K - = u « . ~ t r ^ . = .. I;

500195

Page 18: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

KpS- *':1^*>*Ot:^Zi -_" 'V &3&£ '•'' *i£ * -J&'-tiX.SajSgKc-- *•'••••***• _-™*t'?-'- ^^7?"-:?5 .

6170 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 35 / Wednesday. Februery 21,1990 / Rules and Regulations

0000000000000000000000000000

500196

Page 19: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulation* 6171

£1it|l1 I

- rr S» *»5 - 5 «S y Z •" r?

s *"

* M ¥ — « P >- S > - X * - - » » < » - f < » - < - * < » - — *-<«.J-- <->f-<<*-*¥-* >-<<*»< — Q -**-*- K X < —>-oa»-OMO»' -z>» — 2 » 5 f c M > — D»*»U-« —x3«wu3:»3x*» .3 [»> : * lC — X » « « - U M

=

I !5 :

aJC g . 1

— «ft U

n «ii.s.»! * T;-:• • * — —«.1 -o - -

o o. cU Vf —

•« * •

!:.§=lilrff!

5 J~e• 6

Ig«J

-1,1al* 5:x

500197

Page 20: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

6172 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 35 / Wednesday. February 21,1990 / Rules and Regulations

= 1It

UI I

*•»

-IsItII&1•a>

x

I«_>ju

IM

W5

*sM

•M m

3•Kl

0

*

Sfe

M

St *

ii_0

„i " §| . Z•- C — S. . « = 8 -— ** >- > «A

33 i "°X ^ * ^

_ s £ - c= |3|

" c% ^ i "fi•5 ?s t - r g ^ cJ- • - •_• -•--:»'n

! «^^ g- &-J5 |

s°3*- *

v^^PT-- -.

E

1 500198

Page 21: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

Register / Vol. 55, No. 35 / Wedne«day. Febraary 21.1990 / Roles sad Regulations 6173

I*

ft

**

=1JtII&. *.*.

1*«

p

500199

Page 22: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

'Cr^^^IT'ir

I

i

-I* >•

riIIA. **"

1 i

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 35 / Wednesday. Februa;y 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulat ions

8-

IsItr 5

I -* *

«•

fc*«•

27IM m

**

i , > »- — —• •* o— — • ** c •> > — • « 5

|>.* - * * • « • c * 3 —' o. • i- *—• "B C C * « u c a. K ^ « °

o CQ • _ • « : ~ - o ^5 »5°w f l ( J . « 4 Q . W ^ ^ * O ^ O» - « _ » a | f v i- •• F — —6 t - • .9 "5 o S t w - t Z o f k O . 5

: i u C a.

? c £*l-ic|5- o— c. ir-j . o

U X < V J I < k

500200

Page 23: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21,1990 / Rules and Regulations 6I7S

coo

~~~\ X

u

J 0M X

U C7>-. c —^r tc, m 3

« ~* VC « u.O w

u -O •

ii 3Z

c

w

£2 ~

Q.

W

Bru

nsw

ick

Vc

tcrt

on

Roc

kaw

ay

To'

cou

en— * *~>< ft. ^^-< <J C«« C 41> * W

21 a. <X « xu u cV 0 -M U. <->C «3 Ui uu w — <A < ft-

UJ O -53C 0 2

r. r- r-

Pe

nsa

cola

co

• u•uin

<•J

Z

ou

cft.

riOO

X

La

thro

pO

kla

ho

aa

Cl

Marina

~

§

eo•o^j

v<

u*

O T?O. — <*> od i/i

E 03U.< < -o

* »- oo. ** C t.^ -* oCT (-« X

u o u

^ o o

Llv

ern

ort

Fo

rt

Dev

ens

T»c

oa«

Sav

anna

^c

-^. VUJ HS S Xt/) « *J*i i-^ >JD * >->« u uJ « <

00« - *ikJ £. OO no.B * *

3 c£ E4J < <

V >U O ^ *C Q t* C» O C

> u L> >«5 O U *

5 5 5 ^

ty y* o* o*

oCL

2to

3co

Z

cJ

ooum

£

o

c0

c0 T5 Sc c »

— HZT) — i ^.n M j;C 3 « hit, X 0 C > V• « B C O -« TJ

• D U X • C U• ^* O *" 4 r- oin 5 ft. G BUZ

->c «C 1

a.

<S S «•^ • »

• >-• • « •<% • u • B n• T) « M p. •

f ia u o u« 5 of*u • u o oO «" U < C 0U. 4J O — t U* U.

CO U. C U *4kj V • < U— l- u u c —* < < 5 > S *S "• S » TJu > • u w — •»0 it <l • « -. «

u :* E S u < u

O O O O -• -- — '

o.2

c 53 0

Fra

nklin

C

oE

l T

oro

P«»bert

on

T

1 c•I 0n — *

a.

O «

le-"o ^-*

e"?< ^c c

§£ d« K* O -*u ki O• Ou H *-'»-t w* *-< OJ u; u.

252

X

CT

illde

ribu

rB

»n

ton

Cou

nD

over

Ho

ntlce

llo

1*3

2C V)* 2a. CO K>oa e•4 to *Hi> s • *-•^c "^ • •;>•*>»-JJ • -•

< u .-•xo c j;B O kM ^^ O

• -0 < "•n i- u« O w — txi >» « ^« c > c^- * O 0< = c. r

<$ oB

X

c30o

• uTJ •-!•o -iZ H

c

C bIc *-4 C• WW V.Jl-l

5 •1 i

c •

i «

u uk< h4

K k.

55

otJM W>K C

U| =

^ S t0 -1 C1 X Z

"• c« V^ o< uft. <J< •»J ID«^

C «• cfl *~ o•» ul U3 S -«i s?? c •

u^">i? "^< 3 ><-> X Q

*-> C oc

w

LlB

«*to

n«S

abtr

u S

ec*

Chj

iBb«

r»hu

rF

o*«

.•«x t.

> "AJ ^^V 9

m c «a tx a«>3 C

IQ O O •>

r^ M

U.0 *J <

b 3 C <

< 1. • «

C — • <—>- > JJ —

J Z — 0

Sc £ £ £

• c.4J 3X O

J Un xV .0 O

*4 C »— •

onal

Pri

or

ral

Se

ctl

oF

ebru

ary

V T3

S.S.

X

C.300\X

o

eI

VAJ

Ifl

*J

£_ V-

^ °

X X

c ca aC 0ouc c c

.0 'J «

c c — •t t cPC CO U

^^

UJ LO O

/*i Vi . l/l l/l 15

u« 4 CCl 41 0u* >-> ~t< < a.o o •o o u

•O TJ u!

0 0 X

e c u* « 0x z a:

< < o:» :» o

o

x «<c ~iQ k. U

,O < «

€) •»* LJ> B •

C£ Jj VI

4JC

a.e "x

r~ G«••* *S *x.C LO UJ3 irt OJ=> i5

ISX «-*

S3 ?< « -.* x o.C *-» trt

>- 3 O> ^ -«

OC U S

< :r ou -z. x

oX H

C U O3 O *->O *J CLJ « V "Dc e c ^a L; — • t o «

~- I* w x »-•o - ' « « « «< x :* (/> o u.

. -~s

« C v uJ0 O « OU 0 4 O< 03 i/>

C » 4* 4) -

a, « 3 o c"•» c e *o t5C 0 4. C W« -« U 3 -• T>W *-» O < 0ij —t a. i-i u<< c o o C £*-

3 ^ ^ 0C E * ri v>-. g > 03 v- -.« < «l U- W «*J Q < *J -•

3 S1 1- C * vo u -4 « a. 4-1SC < < — • • «x c ~* 7 .r X

.* a « .-• ui T3o >— ' >(_>•••* vO — * « u ui «yoc ac 2: r n t*.

0 Z < < = XU t- ft- U O O

u4J -3> O

o aC U)* ^

,UJg .in v— <•> t)w Oo o

^

Pow

er

Ada

Gro

und

-Edg

•2 >^^ o-* w> CL.

C kjc «.o x:

< a3 x:

qWl 3 X

— O ~i^ u 3 e >J« = « 3 ifl

U. 0 C TS 0 tiiJ O -< U 3o K u o: x c

<t c 3 J£ •-* .* *C•o c o « « fl no•" < Z O X J 0

XN ^*^ « tO uUl « A C

S i. .3 «< ^-t10 « u a. LI:D ^3 BOO »~ c T> & c u

~ 3 w 0 CJO -1 3 -< V

!2 . c 'c «C « O 3 C

"«i o u 1 "M Sc a.-< « i « aui « *« > « «a

Q -D t. X C— • c • a «< cc B"^- " < c" liO " fi£ U O-i < m b u.4J U. W « W* C < bO.X •* I*z 2 «2 5*50 « .5 ** •§ "* Z« c .a ji k. > _

•D C O H O « —— < IX O U 2 =

Q -J < Z UJ -i H— < O h- Z Z 3

J "• J;i/l 21 -

C J<<t C X

U. ^ C

C —— JL ——

£ £ < sc<ua. ^

3 Ui 3X Q <

*J • O •

> n • -o

•a " *"C O k- *• U. V ••" > **>f i. — V.>-i -» CL

• £ —14 C « <3 C CM M ^ r-l• » - " « * <« . * ? : .u — re t

< X <

~k-

ct-«•

S

^

8^1-1C

t

C

«you

fy-

S'

t1

^

r^

C

c. rc oc •—

BC fr*-i

riTD

^

W

i.) n.h S*-o o

: 3>- o

O VO Z

Ll

1*«*-( «c --^X 0

> 5

«-

c <^-

C C * 4.

•c ^ u i-*>c - « «C < v, i;

I« 2• >~»«"^ %• &LU ^-• o -o

° • * J» «D u

C S- "•« tr o i-V O C V,o w e

£ I 2 1T3 k« u Ch£ * « «O X w v:

S 5 5 ^

C

u.c*.<•0

c

cT'Cc-c«•n••*j»-o«j

•-u

•tCi,DC*-»cc

«- -1t*. V

cc _*I- <M*

cw. r:c *-

— CLT 0

500201

Page 24: Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund … · Environmental Protection Agency ... and scoring of sites in this final role. The ... Please contact individual Regional dockets

6176 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 35 / Wednesday. February 21. W90 / Rules aad Regulations

—, c —k. Oo — >

«4 4> bw o »e. * 3

LI kl•-• .a« ^ *c « uO u

w fc4J -Da «.z b. e«z

XuC3O

<J

••o•

*Mk*zim o• uO H

XC3O0

o•0•oc•

*• « u

,-. — C-*.-!•- ion> 0. CC • •0 • O.u c «u c -g> r «

x •uC3eu

u y b90 oO.-4 O. «

•-»*4>

« g• •

Xu

• C-* 3^ O

>°|2«l

« S2^

co c

^1•

*-4T3

j=00

C ^-0 3

ki •* ^

S 5

X,4-1Cao

(_>•*u

It!r-«X •

X

c3

* C-* u•x §gj3 O

^^ ^ • o

• oo u

j *Cf r^v -0

C i"« u> ! « ! « <

o. 3 .

IT

u a.u ao ck. U

< <3 0

< _u* ucek. Co —e >O H

t> Z -~

• •X >

J z

*4 L.

i0.

i V^ aC"l GCM 2

! Z O < Ufe T: r» 2