Rule2022-05397
National Priorities List
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 16, 2022
Effective
April 15, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA" or "the Act"), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP") include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List ("NPL") constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency ("the EPA" or "the agency") in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds 12 sites to the NPL, 11 to the General Superfund section and one to the Federal Facilities section.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14805-14813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05397]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0454, 0456, 0457, 0458, 0459, 0460, 0461, 0462, 0464,
0465, 0466 and 0467; FRL-9184-01-OLEM]
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``the EPA'' or ``the agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule adds 12 sites to the NPL, 11 to the General
Superfund section and one to the Federal Facilities section.
DATES: The rule is effective on April 15, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
<bullet> Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW;
William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC
20004, 202/566-0276.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone: (202) 566-1048,
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b414e454c055f4e5959526b4e5b4a054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1278777c753c667760606b527762733c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204T), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
<bullet> Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
<bullet> James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4342.
<bullet> Lorie Baker, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814-3355.
<bullet> Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8926.
<bullet> Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.
<bullet> Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX),
U.S. EPA, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Mailcode SED, Dallas, TX 75270;
214/665-3154.
<bullet> Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA,
11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.
<bullet> Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY),
U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
303/312-6578.
<bullet> Eugenia Chow, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/972-3160.
<bullet> Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, Mailcode 12-D12-1, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/890-0591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
B. What is the NCP?
C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL Listing?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?
B. What documents are available for review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional
dockets?
D. How do I access the documents?
E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?
C. Clarification of Figure for Meeker Avenue Plume Site
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
[[Page 14806]]
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.
B. What is the NCP?
To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR
part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section
105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP
sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial
threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several
occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990
(55 FR 8666).
As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP
(40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA,
as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of
``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires that
the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to
guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation
to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental
risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance, however, as it
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific
property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the
``General Superfund section'') and one of sites that are owned or
operated by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities
section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section,
these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies.
Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA
section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most
response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or
control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL.
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300).
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990
(55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017
(82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to
enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or
pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures
through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The
current HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil
exposure and subsurface intrusion, and air. As a matter of agency
policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible
for the NPL. (2) Each state may designate a single site as its top
priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one
facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public
health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state.
This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
<bullet> The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
<bullet> The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
<bullet> The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.
The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8,
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with a
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions''
(40 CFR 300.5).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing a site on
the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The EPA may
pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases,
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify
[[Page 14807]]
releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so.
Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not
known at the time of listing.
Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. Plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination; and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (``RI'')
``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the feasibility study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability
to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.
G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.
H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.
I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For more information on the CCL, see the
EPA's internet site at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number">https://www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number</a>.
J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important
Superfund accomplishments, and the measure reflects the high priority
the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of
the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This
measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is
complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional
or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many
occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness
of human health and the environment for current and future land uses,
in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to
environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go
to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#reuse">https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#reuse</a>.
K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the
position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the following website: https://
www.epa.gov/
[[Page 14808]]
superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state
and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where
appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that: (1)
Explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for
proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to
address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3)
emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states
that information on their responses will be publicly available.
A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and
tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing">https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing</a>.
II. Availability of Information to the Public
A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?
Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites
in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA
headquarters and in the EPA regional offices.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> (see table below for docket identification
numbers). Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facilities identified in section
II.D.
Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/county, state Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westside Lead........................ Atlanta, GA............ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0454.
North 5th Street Groundwater Goshen, IN............. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0456.
Contamination.
Lower Neponset River................. Boston/Milton, MA...... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0457.
Bear Creek Sediments................. Baltimore County, MD... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0458.
Michner Plating--Mechanic Street..... Jackson, MI............ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0459.
Southeast Hennepin Area Groundwater Minneapolis, MN........ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0460.
and Vapor.
Meeker Avenue Plume.................. Brooklyn, NY........... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0461.
Bradford Island...................... Cascade Locks, OR...... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0462.
Galey and Lord Plant................. Society Hill, SC....... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0464.
National Fireworks................... Cordova, TN............ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0465.
Unity Auto Mart...................... Unity, WI.............. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0466.
Paden City Groundwater............... Paden City, WV......... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0467.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What documents are available for review at the EPA headquarters
docket?
The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score
sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to
compute the score, a list of documents referenced in the documentation
record for each site and any other information used to support the NPL
listing of the site.
C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets?
The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the
headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the
data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating
the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the
regional dockets.
D. How do I access the documents?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the headquarters
docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for
hours. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see
ADDRESSES section in the beginning portion of this preamble.
E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?
You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the internet at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name">https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name</a> or by contacting the Superfund docket (see contact information in
the beginning portion of this document).
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
This final rule adds the following 12 sites to the NPL, 11 to the
General Superfund section and one to the Federal Facilities section.
All of these sites are being added to the NPL based on an HRS score of
28.50 or above.
General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA....................................... Westside Lead................... Atlanta.
IN....................................... North 5th Street Groundwater Goshen.
Contamination.
MA....................................... Lower Neponset River............ Boston/Milton.
MD....................................... Bear Creek Sediments............ Baltimore County.
MI....................................... Michner Plating--Mechanic Street Jackson.
MN....................................... Southeast Hennepin Area Minneapolis.
Groundwater and Vapor.
NY....................................... Meeker Avenue Plume............. Brooklyn.
SC....................................... Galey and Lord Plant............ Society Hill.
TN....................................... National Fireworks.............. Cordova.
WI....................................... Unity Auto Mart................. Unity.
WV....................................... Paden City Groundwater.......... Paden City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14809]]
Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR....................................... Bradford Island................. Cascade Locks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?
The EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule
and responded to all relevant comments. The EPA is adding 12 sites to
the NPL in this final rule. All 12 sites were proposed for addition to
the NPL on September 9, 2021 (86 FR 50515).
Comments on the Westside Lead and Bradford Island sites are being
addressed in response to comment support documents available in the
public docket concurrently with this rule. To view public comments on
these sites, as well as the EPA's responses, please refer to the
support documents available per docket ID number at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Below is a summary of significant comments
received on the remaining sites.
Paden City Groundwater:
The EPA received seven comments on the Paden City Groundwater site.
One comment did not oppose adding the site to the NPL and one comment
supported listing. Five comments, in support of listing Paden City
Groundwater, were erroneously received in the dockets for Westside
Lead, Bear Creek Sediments, and Bradford Island. Two additional
comments were received in the Paden City Groundwater docket but were
comments directed at the Meeker Avenue Plume and Galey and Lord Plant
sites. Three comments supported listing the Paden City Groundwater site
and expressed concerns related to the health impacts of
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) contamination in groundwater, and one comment
also expressed concerns about the financial impact of the need to
purchase clean drinking water due to contaminated tap water. One
commenter submitted comments regarding possible contamination in a
basement and inquired whether there should be concern regarding the
contamination.
Following listing, the EPA will be conducting additional sampling
to determine the extent of the contamination, determine what actual
risks are associated with the site, and take necessary actions to
address any health impacts. The EPA performs a comprehensive risk
assessment for the site as part of further investigations that
typically follow listing. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process,
the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and hazards
at the site more comprehensively. The results of risk assessment
activities will be considered during the evaluation of the need for
remedial actions at the site. Additionally, the EPA has contacted one
resident directly to address specific health concerns and to discuss
the location of their properties in relation to the site contamination.
National Fireworks:
The EPA received three comments on the National Fireworks site from
two private citizens and one non-profit organization. One private
citizen and the non-profit organization expressed support for listing
the National Fireworks site on the NPL due the presence of contaminated
groundwater. The non-profit organization stated that it was concerned
that per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) may be present in the
groundwater in addition to chlorinated solvents due the former use of
industrial degreasers at the site. The third commenter, a private
citizen, did not oppose adding the site to the NPL but expressed
opposition to the rationale for listing the site. The commenter stated
that the study used to support listing contained inaccuracies and
attributed contamination to an operation that was present for only two
years even though other possible origins of the contamination existed.
The commenter asserted that these other possible origins included an
industrial park that had operated for 35 years and a railroad that
operated in area until the mid-1990s.
The National Fireworks site qualifies for addition to the NPL
because it has achieved an HRS score of 28.50 or greater, as is
demonstrated in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Achieving a
site score of greater than 28.50 indicates that the site is eligible
for inclusion on the NPL and therefore may warrant further
investigation. The HRS documentation record at proposal outlines the
specific rationale for attributing the observed release to groundwater
to the site consistent with the requirements in the HRS. The
requirements in the HRS state that ``some portion of the release must
be attributable to the site.'' As indicated in the attribution section
of the HRS documentation record at proposal, attribution of at least
some of the release is supported, in part, by the detection of
explosives, which are unique to munitions manufacturing, in soil
collected from the burn pit at the National Fireworks facility,
demonstrating a lack of containment.
The HRS documentation record at proposal outlines the specific
rationale for attributing the groundwater contamination to the
manufacturing of explosives during World War II. Attribution of at
least some of the contamination detected in groundwater is supported by
the identification of the same contaminants in groundwater that were in
site sources and the detection of explosives, which are unique to
munitions manufacturing, in soil collected from the burn pit at the
National Fireworks facility.
The EPA will be conducting additional sampling to determine the
extent of the contamination. If additional source areas are discovered,
as the third commenter insists, EPA will fully investigate and clean up
those additional source areas. A subsequent stage of the Superfund
process, the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and
hazards at the site more comprehensively.
Galey and Lord Plant:
The EPA received a total of 16 comments submitted by private
citizens, the mayor of the Town of Society Hill, the governing body of
Darlington County, and the owners of a local farm near the Galey and
Lord Plant site. One additional comment was received in the docket but
was intended for the Southeast Hennepin Area Groundwater and Vapor
docket and supported listing of that site. One comment from the
governing body of Darlington County in support of listing the site was
received but was submitted to the Paden City Groundwater docket.
Comments received did not oppose adding the Galey and Lord Plant site
to the NPL. The mayor of the Town of Society Hill submitted a comment
that expressed support for listing and concern for human health,
wildlife, and waterways. Two private citizens and the owners of the
local farm submitted comments regarding the health impacts associated
with contamination from the Galey and Lord facility. One of the
commenters expressed concern for impacts to the commenter's health
experienced directly following consumption of local well water. One
comment from a private citizen on areas not a part of the site also
included specific concerns
[[Page 14810]]
regarding the impact of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in groundwater. In addition to commenting
on health impacts, the owners of the local farm expressed general
concerns regarding the impact of contamination on its property and
specific concern over the economic impact of the site and cleanup
actions on its business. This commenter requested input about the party
that initiated the cleanup process for this site. The South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control referred the Galey and
Lord site to EPA for NPL consideration following an assessment of the
plant site and the discovery of contamination in private drinking water
wells near the fields where wastewater sludge from the plant was
disposed of.
Following listing, the EPA will be conducting additional sampling
to determine the extent of the contamination, determine what actual
risks are associated with the site, and take necessary actions to
address any health impacts. A subsequent stage of the Superfund
process, the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and
hazards at the site more comprehensively. The EPA performs a
comprehensive risk assessment for the site as part of further
investigations that typically follow listing. The results of risk
assessment activities will be considered during the evaluation of the
need for remedial actions at the site. The EPA has contacted the
concerned individual directly to address their specific health
concerns.
Regarding economic impacts, the EPA notes that there are both costs
and benefits that can be associated with listing a site. Among the
benefits are increased health and environmental protection as a result
of increased public awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the
potential for federally financed remedial actions, the addition of a
site to the NPL could accelerate privately financed, voluntary cleanup
efforts. Listing sites as national priority targets also may give
states increased support for funding responses at particular sites. As
a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human
exposure to high-risk chemicals, and higher quality surface water,
ground water, soil, and air. Therefore, it is possible that any
perceived or actual negative fluctuations in property values or
development opportunities that may result from contamination may also
be countered by positive fluctuations when a CERCLA investigation and
any necessary cleanup are completed.
Bear Creek Sediments:
The EPA received 13 comments on the Bear Creek Sediments site. One
additional comment was received from a private citizen but was intended
for the Paden City Groundwater docket. The 13 comments received, from
11 private citizens and two non-profit organizations, expressed support
for listing the site on the NPL. One commenter, a non-profit
organization, requested that community engagement opportunities be
available if the site is placed on the NPL. Another non-profit
organization supported listing but included requests for further
actions in its comment submission. The non-profit organization also
submitted comments expressing environmental justice concerns. The non-
profit organization made the following assertions regarding the
contamination at the site:
<bullet> Data from a 2016 report suggested that an ecological risk
exists in Bear Creek, warranting remediation.
<bullet> A decrease in total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
concentrations with increasing distance from Sparrows Creek suggested
that Sparrows Point influences PAH concentrations in that area.
<bullet> Bear Creek contains elevated metals concentrations
including chromium, zinc, copper, and cadmium.
<bullet> Groundwater to surface water migration should be
considered as a migration route for hazardous substances to Bear Creek
due to the possible migration of contamination that appeared to occur
via this route.
<bullet> Offshore concentrations of dissolved constituents
suggested that groundwater fluxes were migrating from onshore source
areas.
<bullet> The background levels should be withdrawn because
locations upstream of Sparrows Point were not representative of
background.
<bullet> The three background sediment sample locations used in the
HRS evaluation were not representative of background contamination, in
part, due to the tidal influence impacting Bear Creek and the lack of
identification of possible upstream contributors to the contamination.
Following listing, the EPA will fully investigate the extent of
contamination at the site. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process,
the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and hazards
at the site more comprehensively. The EPA noted in the HRS
documentation record at proposal on the cover sheet that ``[t]he NPL
listing focuses solely on the releases to the Surface Water Migration
Pathway into Bear Creek via Tin Mill Canal.'' This same page of the HRS
documentation record at proposal explains the rationale for why the
ground migration pathway was not scored, indicating that it is not a
pathway of concern because ground water was not used as drinking water
within four miles of the site source (i.e., the Tin Mill Canal).
The background levels and background sample locations presented in
the HRS documentation record at proposal were appropriate for HRS
scoring purposes. For HRS scoring, background samples are used to
establish whether a release of contamination has occurred. The
background sample locations are only used as a reference point to
establish that a significant increase in contaminant levels in the
downstream samples has occurred. Ideally, background samples are
collected from an area outside of the influence of the contamination
being evaluated, but with similar physical conditions. Accordingly, the
area outside of the influence of the contamination used to represent
background levels for HRS evaluation purposes may not necessarily
coincide with natural background levels. For this site, samples from
background locations upgradient of the contaminated samples ``were used
to establish background conditions and chemical compositions of the
sediment materials upstream of the discharge point of [Tin Mill
Canal].'' Hence, the background level determination was consistent with
the HRS and the site as preliminary defined for HRS scoring purposes
(i.e., releases to Bear Creek from the Tin Mill Canal).
Many sites on the NPL are located in environmental justice,
minority and/or low-income communities. Through the cleanup of these
sites, the Superfund program has sought to ensure that residents do not
bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from past industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations, and that they have meaningful involvement in the
decisions on how to clean up the site. Furthermore, as the site moves
through the Superfund process, EPA will develop a community relations
plan to ensure public involvement and participation in the cleanup.
C. Clarification of Figure for Meeker Avenue Plume Site
The EPA is providing a clarification to Figure 8 in the HRS
Documentation Record for the Meeker Avenue Plume site. This figure
provides the location of possible originating facilities of subsurface
contamination. Figure 8 has been modified to include the Empire State
Varnish Company located at 38
[[Page 14811]]
Varick Street. The Empire State Varnish Company was identified as a
possible originating facility in the supporting reference materials
that provide the basis for Figure 8, but it was inadvertently omitted
from that figure at proposal. EPA also notes that the facility was
sufficiently identified as within the area of subsurface contamination
as described in Figure 8 in the HRS documentation record at proposal.
EPA is providing this clarification here to reflect that the facility
is a possible originating facility of subsurface contamination at the
Meeker Avenue Plume site.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group,
including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards
or requirements that any small entity must meet and imposes no direct
costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is
liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends
on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL
through this rulemaking.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a
site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does
listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal
governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise
out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a
site on the NPL.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in
nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide
protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future
regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health
and safety risks.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in
Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of
national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in
determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the
nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated
with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The
NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to
any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
L. Congressional Review Act
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C.
801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if
Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of
disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision
that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a
legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS
v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of
the University of Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir.
1996), cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, the EPA
has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into
[[Page 14812]]
question, the EPA will publish a document of clarification in the
Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.
Barry N. Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
300, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN
0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.
0
2. Amend appendix B of part 300 by:
0
a. In Table 1, adding entries for ``GA,'' ``Westside Lead'', ``IN,''
``North 5th Street Groundwater Contamination'', ``MA,'' ``Lower
Neponset River'', ``MD,'' ``Bear Creek Sediments'', ``MI,'' ``Michner
Plating--Mechanic Street'', ``MN,'' ``Southeast Hennepin Area
Groundwater and Vapor'', ``NY,'' ``Meeker Avenue Plume'', ``SC,''
``Galey and Lord Plant'', ``TN,'' ``National Fireworks'', ``WI,''
``Unity Auto Mart'', and ``WV,'' ``Paden City Groundwater'' in
alphabetical order by state; and
0
b. In Table 2, adding the entry for ``OR,'' ``Bradford Island'' in
alphabetical order by state.
The additions read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List
Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
GA........................... Westside Lead............... Atlanta................
* * * * * * *
IN........................... North 5th Street Groundwater Goshen.................
Contamination.
* * * * * * *
MA........................... Lower Neponset River........ Boston/Milton..........
* * * * * * *
MD........................... Bear Creek Sediments........ Baltimore County.......
* * * * * * *
MI........................... Michner Plating--Mechanic Jackson................
Street.
* * * * * * *
MN........................... Southeast Hennepin Area Minneapolis............
Groundwater and Vapor.
* * * * * * *
NY........................... Meeker Avenue Plume......... Brooklyn...............
* * * * * * *
SC........................... Galey and Lord Plant........ Society Hill...........
* * * * * * *
TN........................... National Fireworks.......... Cordova................
* * * * * * *
WI........................... Unity Auto Mart............. Unity..................
* * * * * * *
WV........................... Paden City Groundwater...... Paden City.............
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS
score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
* * * * *
Table 2--Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
OR........................... Bradford Island............. Cascade Locks..........
[[Page 14813]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
\a\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS
score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-05397 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 16, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.