```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31417-31427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12324]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0064, 0598, 0599, 0600, 0601, 0602, 0603, 0604, 
0606, 0607 and 0647; FRL-9815-1]

National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 56

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 eight sites to the General Superfund 
section of the NPL; adds one site to the Federal Facilities section of 
the NPL; corrects an error in a footnote; and corrects an error in the 
state location for Five Points PCE Plume site.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP 
is June 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
     Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.; 
EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276.
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:

 Joan Berggren, 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; 617/918-1417.
 Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
 Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), 
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 
19103; 215/814-5364.
 Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), 
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 
404/562-8862.
 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.
 Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/
665-7436.
 Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 
5th Street, Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
 Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 
1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-
6484.
 Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 
75 Hawthorne Street, Mail Code SFD-9-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/
972-3219.
 Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th 
Avenue, Mail Code ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, 
email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, 
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation 
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,

[[Page 31418]]

DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-
9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

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 headquarters 
docket?
    C. What documents are available for review at the 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. Correction of Appendix B Footnote ``A'' Description
    D. Correction of State Location for Five Points PCE Plume Site
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is this final rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this final rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How has the EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA apply to this final rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this final rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this final rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this final rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this final rule?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
apply to this final rule?
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this final rule?
    K. Congressional Review Act
    1. Has the EPA submitted this rule to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office?
    2. Could the effective date of this final rule change?
    3. What could cause a change in the effective date of this rule?

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

[[Page 31419]]

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. The 
revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil 
exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a single site as its 
top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This 
provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL 
include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to 
public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the 
state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP 
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any 
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory 
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     The EPA determines that the release poses a significant 
threat to public health.
     The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to 
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond 
to the release.
    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund 
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'') 
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with a 
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * 
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing 
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The 
EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the 
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; 
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of 
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further 
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of 
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any 
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA 
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define 
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, 
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL 
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at 
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as 
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the 
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the 
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site 
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily 
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the 
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the 
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all 
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well 
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, 
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate 
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property 
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not 
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due 
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full 
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of 
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of 
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its 
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is 
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the 
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to 
help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not 
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For 
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the 
Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant 
site.
    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 above, 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.

[[Page 31420]]

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 the most up-to-date information on the 
CCL, see the EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm

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 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/sitewide_a.pdf

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 Web site: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/policy/govlet.pdf. The EPA is 
improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal 
input is solicited. The EPA will be 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 from this point forward between 
the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, will be added to the 
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplstcor.htm.

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 Regional offices.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
www.regulations.gov (see table below for Docket Identification 
numbers). Although not all Docket materials may be available 
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available 
Docket materials through the Docket facilities identified below in 
section II D.

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Site name                    City/county, state                     Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macon Naval Ordnance Plant............  Macon, GA................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0064
Pike and Mulberry Streets PCE Plume...  Martinsville, IN.........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0598
Former United Zinc & Associated         Iola, KS.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0599
 Smelters.
Creese & Cook Tannery (Former)........  Danvers, MA..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0600
Walton & Lonsbury Inc.................  Attleboro, MA............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0601
Matlack, Inc..........................  Woolwich Township, NJ....  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0602
Riverside Industrial Park.............  Newark, NJ...............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0603
Clinch River Corporation..............  Harriman, TN.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0604
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume.........  Salt Lake City, UT.......  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0647
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What documents are available for review at the headquarters docket?

    The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains, for each site, the 
HRS score sheets, the Documentation Record describing the information 
used to compute the score, pertinent information regarding statutory 
requirements or the EPA listing policies that affect the site and a 
list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. For sites 
that received comments during the comment period, the Headquarters 
Docket also contains a Support Document that includes the EPA's 
responses to comments.

C. What documents are available for review at the regional dockets?

    The 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 for the sites located in their Region. These reference 
documents are available only in the Regional Dockets. For sites that 
received comments during the comment period, the Regional Docket also 
contains a Support Document that includes the EPA's responses to 
comments.

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.

[[Page 31421]]

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 
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm or by contacting the 
Superfund Docket (see contact information in the beginning portion of 
this notice).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds the following nine sites to the NPL, eight to 
the General Superfund Section and one to the Federal Facilities 
Section. All of the sites included in this final rulemaking are being 
added to the NPL based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are 
presented in the table below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                             Site name                          City/County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           General Superfund section:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA.......................................  Macon Naval Ordnance Plant.  Macon.
IN.......................................  Pike and Mulberry Streets    Martinsville.
                                            PCE Plume.
KS.......................................  Former United Zinc &         Iola.
                                            Associated Smelters.
MA.......................................  Creese & Cook Tannery        Danvers.
                                            (Former).
MA.......................................  Walton & Lonsbury Inc......  Attleboro.
NJ.......................................  Matlack, Inc...............  Woolwich Township.
NJ.......................................  Riverside Industrial Park..  Newark.
TN.......................................  Clinch River Corporation...  Harriman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Federal Facilities section:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT.......................................  700 South 1600 East PCE      Salt Lake City.
                                            Plume.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. This rule adds nine sites to 
the NPL.
    The EPA is adding nine sites to the NPL in this final rule, eight 
general sites and one federal facility site. Comments on the Macon 
Naval Ordnance Plant site (Macon, GA) are addressed in a response to 
comment support document available in the public docket concurrently 
with this rule. Two generic comments, applicable to the Macon Naval 
Ordnance Plant site and all other sites proposed March 15, 2012 (77 FR 
15344), were previously addressed in the September 2012 NPL final rule 
preamble (77 FR 57499-57500, September 18, 2012).
    None of the other eight sites being added to the NPL in this rule, 
which were proposed September 18, 2012 (77 FR 57546), received comments 
relating to the determination of the HRS site scores. One commenter's 
submission to the Matlack, Inc. docket also contained comments directed 
to Pike and Mulberry Streets PCE Plume, Clinch River Corporation, 
Creese & Cook Tannery (Former), Former United Zinc & Associated 
Smelters, Riverside Industrial Park, and Walton & Lonsbury Inc. These 
comments are addressed below. One comment was submitted to the Walton & 
Lonsbury Inc. docket, but was directed at the 700 South 1600 East PCE 
Plume site, and is also addressed below.
    The Pike & Mulberry Streets PCE Plume (Martinsville, IN) received 
two comments. One comment that solely supported the listing was 
included in a commenter's submission to the Matlack, Inc. docket, as 
mentioned above; this comment noted the potential for vapor intrusion 
contamination into residential basements. The other comment, from a 
firm which indicated experience in remediation of vapor intrusion, 
asked that the EPA consider the firm when cleaning up the site. In 
response, NPL listing makes a site eligible for remedial action funding 
under CERCLA. The Pike & Mulberry Streets PCE Plume site will be 
further investigated during the remedial investigation/feasibility (RI/
FS) phase of the Superfund process to determine what response, if any, 
is appropriate. Actual funding of cleanup work may not necessarily be 
undertaken in the precise order of HRS scores, however, and upon more 
detailed investigation may not be necessary at all in some cases. If a 
response is later deemed necessary, the EPA will follow government-wide 
federal procurement requirements in selecting cleanup contractors for 
the site.
    The Creese & Cook Tannery (Former) (Danvers, MA) received two 
comments. One comment that solely supported the listing was included in 
a commenter's submission to the Matlack, Inc. docket, as mentioned 
above; this commenter indicated that the site contamination affected 
local fisheries and wetland frontage on the Crane River. The other 
comment urged that oil and hazardous materials companies be held 
accountable for their actions in creating waste dumps, and that the EPA 
require the waste to be disposed of properly. In response, liability 
for response costs is not considered under the HRS and is not 
established at the time of the NPL listing. The NPL serves primarily as 
an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for 
the NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which 
sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of 
the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and 
to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be 
appropriate. Identification of a site for the NPL does not reflect a 
judgment on the activities of the owner(s), operator(s), or 
generator(s) associated with a site. It does not require those persons 
to undertake any action, nor does it assign any liability to any 
person. Subsequent government actions will be necessary in order to do 
so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate procedural 
safeguards. This position, stated in the legislative history of CERCLA, 
has been explained in the Federal Register (48 FR 40674, September 8, 
1983 and 53 FR 23988, June 24, 1988). The EPA is adding the site to the 
NPL and, if cleanup is later deemed necessary, will require wastes at 
the site to be handled appropriately so that human and environmental 
risks are mitigated.
    The EPA received seven comments on the 700 South 1600 East PCE 
Plume site

[[Page 31422]]

(Salt Lake City, UT). The site is being listed as a federal facility 
(Veterans Administration). As noted earlier, one of the comments was 
submitted to the Walton & Lonsbury Inc. docket and is addressed here. 
This comment and three other comments solely supported the listing; two 
pointed out the potential for contamination of residential basements, 
one noted the plume should be cleaned for human health and ecological 
reasons, and one expressed concern for drinking water contamination. 
The fifth comment supported the listing and added that listing should 
not negatively impact property values because any astute buyer would 
already be aware of the contamination issues once the site had been 
proposed, and final listing was needed to ensure cleanup. In response 
to these five comments, the EPA is listing the site to study the risks 
and determine what, if any, actions need to be taken to ensure 
protection of human health and the environment.
    A sixth commenter on the 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume was 
concerned with the impact of listing on property values for properties 
located within or nearby the plume. The commenter urged that if the 
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA ensure the administrative record 
clearly identifies the source of the contamination so that innocent 
landowners will not be affected in the context of liability, land use 
and land values. The commenter also asked the EPA to confirm whether 
any stakeholders, including local and state governments, were 
contemplating pursuing a cleanup under RCRA 7002 before the Agency 
takes final action on the NPL proposal. In response, as discussed above 
for the Creese & Cook Tannery (Former) site, listing only identifies 
that a release needs to be evaluated to determine what, if any, cleanup 
is needed; it does not identify liable parties. Liability is determined 
later in the Superfund process and any decision is accompanied by 
appropriate legal safeguards. Further, under the EPA's ``Policy Toward 
Owners of Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers'' (1995), the 
agency generally does not take enforcement actions to require the 
performance of response actions or the payment of response costs 
against the owner of property, who meets certain conditions, where 
hazardous substances have come to be located on or in a property solely 
as a result of the subsurface migration in an aquifer from a source or 
sources outside the property. In addition, under the ``Policy Toward 
Owners of Residential Property at Superfund Sites'' (1991), the EPA 
generally does not take enforcement actions, subject to certain 
conditions, against an owner of residential property unless the 
residential homeowner's activities lead to a release or threat of 
release of hazardous substances, resulting in the taking of a response 
action at the site. In response to the use of the citizen suit 
provision of RCRA 7002, as of the time of this final rule, the EPA is 
not aware of any notices of intent to litigate pursuant to RCRA at this 
time. This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change 
in the Agency's decision to place the site on the NPL.
    A seventh comment submitted to the 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 
site docket was directed to the EPA's decision to withdraw the proposed 
listing of Evergreen Manor Ground Water Contamination (Winnebago 
County, IL) in the same proposed rule. The commenter was opposed to the 
withdrawal of Evergreen Manor Ground Water Contamination because the 
commenter opposed a cleanup remedy that involved connection to 
municipal water. The commenter felt there were contaminants in 
municipal water, providing access to municipal water is expensive, and 
installing additional private wells should be the cleanup selected. In 
response, as stated in the proposed rule, the cleanup for the Evergreen 
Manor site has already been completed. Contrary to the commenter's 
assertions, placing private wells into contaminated aquifers may well 
result in those residents having drinking water more contaminated than 
if residents are hooked up to a municipal system drawing from a clean 
aquifer. The commenter's arguments result in no change in the agency's 
decision to withdraw the 1998 proposal to add the Evergreen Manor 
Ground Water Contamination site to the NPL.
    The EPA received five comments on the Matlack, Inc. site (Woolwich 
Township, NJ). One commenter said Superfund was a great program. One 
commenter, who submitted the comment to the Riverside Industrial Park 
docket, discussed the dangers of volatile organic compounds. The three 
other commenters all supported listing the site, and each outlined the 
risks associated with various chemicals found at the site and included 
lists of references. In response to all five comments, the EPA has 
placed the site on the NPL. The EPA will consider the information 
provided by the commenters as it evaluates the risks posed and cleanup 
options at the site.
    One comment on the Clinch River Corporation site (Harriman, TN), in 
a submission to the Matlack, Inc. docket, solely supported the listing, 
mentioning concern over risks to animals and the environment posed by 
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). One comment on the Walton & 
Lonsbury Inc. listing, in a submission to the Matlack, Inc. docket, 
solely supported the listing, noting that poor plant maintenance over 
decades of use has resulted in contamination of nearby wetlands. The 
EPA will consider the information provided by the commenter as it 
evaluates the risks posed and cleanup options at these sites.
    The EPA received six comments on Riverside Industrial Park site 
(Newark, NJ), including a comment submission to the Matlack, Inc. 
docket, as mentioned above. This comment solely supported the listing, 
indicating that the underground storage tanks need to be removed. Also 
as noted above, one of the comments submitted to the Riverside 
Industrial Park docket was directed to Matlack, Inc., and was addressed 
in this preamble in discussing comments for that site. A third 
commenter supported the Riverside Industrial Park listing, presented 
information on the toxicity and health risks of benzene, and also 
wanted more testing of additional pathways of potential concern. In 
response to the request, the HRS does not require scoring all pathways 
if scoring those pathways does not change the listing decision. For 
some sites, data for scoring a pathway are unavailable, and obtaining 
these data would be time-consuming or costly. In other cases, data for 
scoring some pathways are available, but will have only a minimal 
effect on the site score. In still other cases, data on other pathways 
could substantially add to a site score, but would not affect the 
listing decision. The HRS is a screening model that uses limited 
resources to determine whether a site should be placed on the NPL for 
possible Superfund response. The EPA will consider other contaminants 
and pathways during the RI/FS, during which more extensive sampling and 
evaluation will occur. A fourth commenter supported the listing and 
encouraged the EPA to more thoroughly evaluate the health risks of 
mercury at the site. The EPA will consider those risks during the RI/FS 
when more extensive analyses of the site occur. (In addition, see 
responses above to the Pike & Mulberry Streets PCE Plume site and the 
Creese & Cook Tannery (Former) site for further discussion of the 
Superfund process.)
    A fifth commenter supported the Riverside Industrial Park listing 
but suggested that the EPA could better address the negative stigma

[[Page 31423]]

accompanying listing in its Federal Register notices, the EPA should 
impose a mandatory obligation on property owners to investigate 
suspected releases, and the EPA should require responsible parties to 
purchase sand bags to prevent the Passaic River flooding from spreading 
contamination. Liability is not considered under the HRS and is not 
established at the time of the NPL listing. (See the response above to 
the Creese & Cook Tannery (Former) site for further discussion 
regarding liability). In response to the comment related to property 
owner obligations, Superfund provides the opportunity for potentially 
responsible parties (PRPs) to take the lead in investigating and 
remediating wastes for which they may have been responsible; if they 
refuse, the EPA may take the lead and recover costs from the PRPs. With 
respect to the purchase of sand bags, the EPA will consider the need 
for sand bags or other options to restrict contaminant transport by 
flooding when it evaluates the site. Regarding the stigma concern, some 
portion of the language desired by the commenter does typically appear 
in NPL rule preambles, including that listing serves informational 
purposes and that listing does not imply liability. The EPA notes that 
any stigma at a site listed on the NPL is a result of the 
contamination, not the listing. Any perceived or actual negative 
fluctuations in property values or development opportunities that may 
result from contamination may be countered by positive changes when a 
CERCLA investigation and any necessary cleanup are completed.
    The remaining Riverside Industrial Park comment requested that a 
particular parcel included in the site be excluded from the listing 
because it has been the subject of several years of remedial 
investigation under the oversight of the New Jersey Department of 
Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The commenter indicated an engineered 
cap is the remedy being selected and claimed that the oversight by 
NJDEP was all that was needed. In response, the actions taken to date 
have been considered in the decision to list this site, but the risks 
posed to the public and the environment by the past, and potentially 
future releases, at the site were not addressed. These actions neither 
removed all the hazardous substances from the sources that were 
evaluated, nor did they eliminate the risk posed by the release of 
those remaining hazardous substances. In addition, New Jersey provided 
a support letter prior to proposal requesting the entire industrial 
park be listed, including the parcel mentioned by the commenter. Upon 
receiving this comment, the EPA requested the position of NJ, and in an 
email the state reiterated that it wants the entire park listed. As the 
email said: ``Regardless of DEP [Department of Environmental 
Protection] involvement with the specific property, Federal Refining 
Company, in question where a deed notice for remaining soil 
contamination and a classification exception area for remaining 
groundwater contamination has been approved, DEP requested that the 
entire Riverside Industrial Park be listed for evaluation as an NPL 
site . . . The proposed listing should not be changed.'' This 
documentation of the state's position has been added to the Riverside 
Industrial Park docket at promulgation. The EPA and the state will 
coordinate activities to ensure there is no duplication of effort with 
respect to this particular parcel, and will consider all actions taken 
to date before deciding what if any further remedial action is 
necessary.

C. Correction of Appendix B Footnote ``A'' Description

    The EPA received no comments on its September 18, 2012 proposal to 
correct the partial deletion notation in Table 1 (77 FR 57546, Docket 
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0606). Therefore, this final rule corrects 
an error in the footnote ``A'' description in Appendix B to CFR part 
300. In Table 1, the incorrect portion of the footnote currently reads 
``(if scored, HRS score need not be 28.50)''. The EPA is correcting both footnote ``A'' 
descriptions by changing them to ``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)''.

D. Correction of State Location for Five Points PCE Plume Site

    The EPA received no comments on its September 18, 2012 proposal to 
correct the state location in Table 1 for the Five Points PCE Plume 
site (77 FR 57546, Docket EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0607). Therefore, 
this final rule corrects an error in Table 1 of Appendix B to CFR part 
300 in which the location of the Five Points PCE Plume site is 
incorrectly listed as being in the state of Washington. The correct 
location of the Five Points PCE Plume is the state of Utah.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of 
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities; 
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the 
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
2. Is this final rule subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations 
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory 
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA 
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined 
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB 
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information that requires OMB 
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final 
rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

[[Page 31424]]

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this final rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
the EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule 
does not contain any information collection requirements that require 
approval of the OMB.
    Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended 
by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide 
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
2. How has the EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    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. Thus, this rule does not 
impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing 
reasons, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by state, local and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. Before the EPA promulgates a rule 
where a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates and informing, educating and advising small 
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
2. Does UMRA apply to this final rule?
    This final rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
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 or determine 
liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses 
result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not 
directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL. Thus, this rule is 
not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned 
above, site listing does not impose any costs and would not require any 
action of a small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''

2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this final rule?

    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, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it does not contain any 
requirements applicable to states or other levels of government.

[[Page 31425]]

Thus, the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
final rule.
    The EPA believes, however, that this final rule may be of 
significant interest to state governments. In the spirit of Executive 
Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote 
communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA 
therefore consulted with state officials and/or representatives of 
state governments early in the process of developing the rule to permit 
them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. All 
sites included in this final rule were referred to the EPA by states 
for listing. For all sites in this rule, the EPA received letters of 
support either from the governor or a state official who was delegated 
the authority by the governor to speak on their behalf regarding NPL 
listing decisions.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have tribal implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to 
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or 
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government 
and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this final rule?
    This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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 final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this final rule?
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, 
and because the agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this section present 
a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use'' (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001), requires federal agencies to prepare a ``Statement of 
Energy Effects'' when undertaking certain regulatory actions. A 
Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of a 
``significant energy action'' on energy supply, distribution, and use, 
reasonable alternatives to the action and the expected effects of the 
alternatives on energy supply, distribution, and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this final rule?
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. Further, 
the agency has concluded that this final rule is not likely to have any 
adverse energy impacts because adding a site to the NPL does not 
require an entity to conduct any action that would require energy use, 
let alone that which would significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution or usage. Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not apply to 
this action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to 
this final rule?
    No. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) 
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main 
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable 
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this final rule?
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon 
state, tribal or local governments, this rule will neither increase nor 
decrease environmental protection.

K. Congressional Review Act

1. Has the EPA submitted this rule to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office?
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

[[Page 31426]]

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 
which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to 
the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA has submitted a 
report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. 
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General 
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 
Register. A ``major rule'' cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 
published in the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
2. Could the effective date of this final rule change?
    Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation.
    The EPA has submitted a report under the CRA for this rule. The 
rule will take effect, as provided by law, within 30 days of 
publication of this document, since it is not a major rule. NPL listing 
is not a major rule because, by itself, imposes no monetary costs on 
any person. It establishes no enforceable duties, does not establish 
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it 
require any action by any party or determine liability for site 
response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from 
site-by-site decisions about what actions to take, not directly from 
the act of listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in 
the effective date of major rules after this report is submitted.
3. What could cause a change in the effective date of this rule?
    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.

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.

    Dated: May 17, 2013.
Barry N. Breen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response.

    40 CFR part 300 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. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 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. Table 1 of Appendix B is amended as follows:
0
i. By adding entries for ``Macon Naval Ordnance Plant, Pike and 
Mulberry Streets PCE Plume, Former United Zinc & Associated Smelters, 
Creese & Cook Tannery (Former), Walton & Lonsbury Inc., Matlack, Inc., 
Riverside Industrial Park and Clinch River Corporation'' in 
alphabetical order by state;
0
ii. By revising footnote ``A''; and
0
iii. By removing the ``Five Points PCE Plume'' entry under the state of 
Washington, adding a ``Five Points PCE Plume'' entry under the state of 
Utah; and
0
b. Table 2 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended as follows:
0
i. By adding an entry for ``700 South 1600 East PCE Plume'' in 
alphabetical order by state; and
0
ii. By revising footnote ``A''.
    The revisions and 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.................................  Macon Naval Ordnance Plant.  Macon                       ..................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
IN.................................  Pike and Mulberry Streets    Martinsville                ..................
                                      PCE Plume.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
KS.................................  Former United Zinc &         Iola                        ..................
                                      Associated Smelters.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
MA.................................  Creese & Cook Tannery        Danvers                     ..................
                                      (Former).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
MA.................................  Walton & Lonsbury Inc......  Attleboro                   ..................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
NJ.................................  Matlack, Inc...............  Woolwich Township           ..................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
NJ.................................  Riverside Industrial Park..  Newark                      ..................
 

[[Page 31427]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
TN.................................  Clinch River Corporation...  Harriman                    ..................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
UT.................................  Five Points PCE Plume......  Woods Cross/Bountiful       ..................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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)\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
UT.................................  700 South 1600 East PCE      Salt Lake City
                                      Plume.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(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. 2013-12324 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```