Rule2025-12499
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
July 3, 2025
Effective
August 4, 2025
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 three sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 126 (Thursday, July 3, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 126 (Thursday, July 3, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29491-29498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12499]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0374, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0375, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0377;
FRL-12162-02-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 three sites to the General Superfund
section of the NPL.
DATES: The rule is effective on August 4, 2025.
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, telephone number: (202) 566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Van Note, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mail Code 5203T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number: (202) 564-4830, email
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#166077787879627338607778736565775673667738717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8afcebe4e4e5feefa4fcebe4eff9f9ebcaeffaeba4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>.
The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
<bullet> Mandy Liao, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund and Emergency Management Division, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; telephone number: (617) 918-1036.
<bullet> James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; telephone number: (212) 637-4342.
<bullet> Nancy Shannon, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S.
EPA, 4 Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Mail code 3SD12,
Philadelphia, PA 19103; telephone number: (215) 814-3175.
<bullet> Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mail code 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303;
telephone number: (404) 562-8926.
<bullet> Jessica Wheatley, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S.
EPA Superfund Records Officer, MI-10J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-
8559
<bullet> Steve Cowan, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1201
Elm Street, Suite 500, Mail code SEDA, Dallas, TX 75270; telephone
number: (214) 665-3149.
<bullet> Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA,
11201 Renner Blvd., Mail code SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone
number: (913) 551-7956.
<bullet> Ryan Dunham, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Mail code 8SEMD-EMB, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
telephone number: (303) 312-6627.
<bullet> Leslie Ramirez, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP),
U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail code SFD-8-4, San Francisco, CA
94105; telephone number: (415) 972-3978.
[[Page 29492]]
<bullet> Justin Hodgson, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Mail code 13-J07, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number:
(206) 553-6516.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
B. What is the NCP?
C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL Listing?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?
B. What documents are available for review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional
dockets?
D. How do I access the documents?
E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
K. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
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. Of note, listing a site on the NPL 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
[[Page 29493]]
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 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
[[Page 29494]]
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: <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>.
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 site
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 ID Nos.).
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Potteries................. Trenton, NJ................ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0374
Carlisle Village Cleaners.......... Albuquerque, NM............ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0375
J.H. Baxter........................ Eugene, OR................. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0377
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. These documents are also available online at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 that support this rule via the internet
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or by contacting the EPA HQ docket or
appropriate regional docket. The hours of operation for the
headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please contact the individual
regional dockets for hours. 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 online 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>.
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
This final rule adds the following three sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL
based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.
General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ.......................... Historic Potteries.. Trenton.
NM.......................... Carlisle Village Albuquerque.
Cleaners.
OR.......................... J.H. Baxter......... Eugene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29495]]
B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?
The EPA is adding three sites to the National Priorities List (NPL)
in this final rule. The Historic Potteries site in Trenton, NJ, the
Carlisle Village Cleaners Site in Albuquerque, NM, and the J.H. Baxter
site in Eugene, OR were proposed for addition to the NPL on September
5, 2024 (89 FR 72356). The public comment period on the proposed rule
to add these sites to the NPL closed on November 4, 2024.
The EPA reviewed and considered all public comments received on the
sites in this rule and responded to all comments in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OLEM-2024-0374 (Historic Potteries, NJ), EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0375
(Carlisle Village Cleaners, NM), and EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0377 (J.H.
Baxter, OR). In this Unit is a summary of significant comments received
on the Historic Potteries, Carlisle Village Cleaners, and J.H. Baxter
sites and EPA responses.
Historic Potteries
For the Historic Potteries site, the EPA received 17 comments that
either supported or did not oppose the addition of the site to the NPL.
One commenter expressed support for all four sites in the proposal, and
seven commenters provided support with requests. Lead-Free NJ and three
private citizens supported listing and provided the following requests:
prioritization of funding and proposal adoption, addressing community
concerns about blood lead level testing, addressing indoor and outdoor
lead paint concerns, and incorporating local hiring in the removal
activities. Unleaded Kids requested the EPA work with the community,
test for contaminants that were used by historic potteries, expand the
site as data permit, ensure transparency about contractors completing
cleanup, provide lead-based paint abatement to residents, and
collaborate with state and local agencies. A private citizen requested
that additional information about soil lead contamination and its
impacts to children be considered. An additional private citizen
requested that lead testing be conducted in homes. A private citizen
requested the implementation of the EPA's Technical Assistance Services
for Communities (TASC) Program or a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
Program, as well as a Superfund Community Advisory Group (CAG).
In response to the overwhelming support for listing this site, the
EPA has added the Historic Potteries site to the NPL. Listing makes a
site eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA, and the EPA
will examine the site to determine what response, if any, is
appropriate to ensure the protection of human health and the
environment. EPA emphasizes that while an initial focus has been on the
residential, public school, and public park properties in or around the
East Trenton and Top Road neighborhood, the full extent of the site
will be determined in a separate stage of the CERCLA process following
additional investigation. EPA may identify additional properties or
neighborhoods for which remediation for risks from lead in soil is
necessary. Sources of funding are also determined at a separate stage
of the Superfund process after listing. Regarding community
involvement, the EPA ensures community relations is a continuing
activity designed to meet the specific needs of the community. Anyone
wanting information on a specific site should contact the Community
Relations staff in the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Additional
information on community involvement can also be found on the EPA's
website, and site-specific information can be accessed on the site
progress profile (<a href="https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0203535">https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0203535</a>). Regarding comments discussing the TAGs
program, the TASC program, or CAGs, TAGs are grants provided by the EPA
to qualified community groups to assist communities with NPL sites. The
EPA provides information specific to TAGs online at the following
location: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/technical-assistance-grant-tag-program">https://www.epa.gov/superfund/technical-assistance-grant-tag-program</a>. The TASC program provides independent assistance through an
EPA contract to help communities understand EPA actions, and CAGs are
groups intended to represent the views and perspectives of community
members regarding issues related to a Superfund site. Information
regarding the TASC program and CAGs are available online at the
following locations: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/technical-assistance-services-communities-tasc-program">https://www.epa.gov/superfund/technical-assistance-services-communities-tasc-program</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/community-advisory-group-cag-resources">https://www.epa.gov/superfund/community-advisory-group-cag-resources</a>.
Carlisle Village Cleaners
The EPA received 41 comments that either supported the listing of
the Carlisle Village Cleaners site on the NPL or did not oppose the
addition of the site to the NPL and eight comments that opposed
listing. Two comments received provided support for all four sites
included in the proposal. One commenter not opposing the listing of the
site stated that there should be more facts, statistics and information
on how the government is working to cleanup the contamination. Another
commenter that did not oppose listing requested testing of their home.
One commenter expressed concern that the ongoing cleanup efforts at the
site are not sufficient to address the complexity of the contamination
present. Several commenters mentioned adverse health effects possibly
associated with the Site and expressed concerns with families and
children living in impacted areas. Additional requests submitted by
commenters in support of listing included requests for additional
information about when remediation will be completed.
In opposition to the proposed addition of the site to the NPL, five
commenters opposed listing the site due to what they characterized as
the limited number of individuals impacted by the site. One commenter
also asserted that NPL sites can be perceived negatively. Two other
commenters stated that additional testing should occur prior to adding
the site to the NPL, and one commenter expressed general opposition to
the proposal to add the site to the NPL.
In response to all comments received, the EPA has added the
Carlisle Village Cleaners site to the NPL to further investigate and
characterize the extent of contamination. By listing this site, the EPA
is identifying Carlisle Village Cleaners as a site of national priority
among known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its
territories. Listing makes a site eligible for remedial action funding
under CERCLA, and the EPA will examine the site to determine what
response, if any, is appropriate. Decisions regarding whether remedial
actions will occur and which approach to remediation should be
employed, if any, will occur later in the Superfund process. The full
process is outlined here: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cleanup-process">https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cleanup-process</a>.
Regarding the comment to provide more facts and statistics on the
site to the public. EPA has included all data, referencing all
available documentation, needed to meet all CERCLA and HRS requirements
for placing the site on the NPL into the Hazard Ranking System
documentation record available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
information is sufficient to confirm that there is contamination
present that requires cleanup under CERCLA authority. With the site
being placed on the NPL, EPA will move forward with conducting a larger
investigation to
[[Page 29496]]
establish the risk the contamination may present to the public and
surrounding environment. All results from these investigations will be
made publicly available and the public will be asked to provide input
on any future decisions to conduct cleanup activity at the site.
Additional information regarding the Site's progress is made available
to the public on the Site progress profile available here: <a href="https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0622185">https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0622185</a>.
Regarding questions of the level of risk posed by the site and the
number of people evaluated as targets, the site and associated
population evaluated in the HRS scoring achieved an NPL-eligible HRS
site score above the minimum of 28.50 required for listing. The HRS is
not a site-specific or human health risk assessment. The HRS is a
numerically based screening tool that the EPA uses to assess the
relative degree of risk to human health and the environment posed by a
site compared to other sites subject to review based on a screening-
level knowledge of site conditions. The HRS score is one method used to
determine whether a site is eligible for placement on the NPL. An NPL-
eligible HRS site score at or above 28.50 establishes that the site
poses a sufficient relative risk to human health or the environment to
warrant inclusion on the NPL. For HRS scoring purposes, the population
associated with the Carlisle Village Cleaners site and the site
conditions are sufficient to achieve an NPL-eligible HRS site score and
warrant inclusion on the NPL. A site-specific risk assessment will be
performed at later stage of the Superfund cleanup process, as
appropriate. The full process is outlined here: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cleanup-process">https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cleanup-process</a>.
Regarding the ongoing efforts to reduce the contamination through
the introduction of air mitigation systems referred to as ``air
filters,'' more data are needed to determine which mitigation systems
are appropriate to address the known and unknown human exposure issues
on site. These systems are meant as a human health protection measure
but do not treat or cleanup the contamination that is present in the
soil at the site.
Regarding possible stigma associated with an NPL site, economic
factors and stigma are generally not considered in the assessment of
whether a site belongs on the NPL. However, the EPA notes that costs
and benefits can both be associated with including a site on the NPL.
Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not impact the confirmed presence
of hazardous waste at a site location. Among the benefits of including
sites on the NPL are increased health and environmental protections as
a result of increased public awareness of potential hazards and the
distribution of appropriate resources to addressing the contamination
at a site, if warranted. Should CERCLA remedies be implemented, there
will be lower human exposure to high-risk chemicals, and access to
higher quality surface water, ground water, soil, and air. Therefore,
it is possible that any perceived or actual negative fluctuations in
property values that may result from contamination may also be
countered by positive fluctuations when a CERCLA investigation and any
necessary cleanup are completed. For further questions on how a
Superfund site might affect properties within the impacted community,
see this fact sheet: <a href="https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/927384.pdf">https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/927384.pdf</a>.
J. H. Baxter
The EPA received 18 comments that either supported or did not
oppose the proposed placement of the J. H. Baxter site on the NPL. The
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde and the Confederated Tribes of
Siletz Indians provided support for listing as it would allow for
funding and other resources to be made available for the site. One
private citizen expressed support for listing due to the personal
emotional, financial, and environmental costs associated with the
Site's presence in the commenter's neighborhood. Another private
citizen that did not oppose listing inquired about where contaminated
material is ultimately transported during remediation. Beyond Toxics
and private citizens described what they characterized as high rates of
cancer among people in the vicinity of the Site.
In response, the EPA has added the J. H. Baxter site to the NPL.
Listing makes a site eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA,
and the EPA will examine the site to determine what response, if any,
is appropriate. Decisions regarding whether remedial actions will occur
and which approach to remediation should be employed, if any, occur in
the remedial stage of the Superfund process. The full process is
outlined here: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cleanup-process">https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cleanup-process</a>.
Regarding risk posed by the site, the HRS is not a site-specific risk
assessment but is a numerically based screening tool that the EPA uses
to assess the relative degree of risk to human health and the
environment posed by a site compared to other sites subject to review
based on a screening-level knowledge of site conditions. A site-
specific risk assessment will be performed at later stage of the
listing process.
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. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group,
including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards
or requirements that any small entity must meet and imposes no direct
costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is
liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends
on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL
through this rulemaking.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a
site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does
listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal
governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise
out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a
site on the NPL.
[[Page 29497]]
E. 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in
nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide
protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future
regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health
and safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
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 CRA or section 305 of CERCLA may alter the
effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), a rule
shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress enacts (and
the President signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, described under
section 802. Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is
CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of
regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S.
919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the University of
Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the
validity of the legislative veto into question, the EPA has transmitted
a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House of Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.
K. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR
9065, February 6, 2025) because it is not a significant regulatory
action subject to Office of Management and Budget review. This
rulemaking is published in accordance with direction provided in the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
enacted in 1980 to address the cleanup of the Nation's most highly
contaminated sites.
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.
Steven Cook,
Principal Deputy 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 table 1 of appendix B to part 300 by adding the entries ``NJ,
Historic Potteries'', ``NM, Carlisle Village Cleaners'', and ``OR, J.
H. Baxter'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List
Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
NJ................................ Historic Potteries...... Trenton.................
* * * * * * *
NM................................ Carlisle Village Albuquerque.............
Cleaners.
* * * * * * *
OR................................ J. H. Baxter............ Eugene..................
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
[[Page 29498]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-12499 Filed 7-2-25; 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 July 3, 2025.
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.