Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27893

1EPA notes that paragraph (1) of subsection

182(b) is entitled ‘‘PLAN PROVISIONS FOR

REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS’’ and that

subparagraph (B) of paragraph 182(c)(2) is entitled

‘‘REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS

DEMONSTRATION,’’ thereby making it clear that

both the 15 percent plan requirement of section

182(b)(1) and the 3 percent per year requirement of

section 182(c)(2) are specific varieties of RFP

requirements.

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The OMB has exempted

this regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 25, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter.

Dated: April 28, 1995.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart N—Idaho

2. Section 52.670 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(28) introductory

text to read as follows:

§ 52.670 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(28) On April 14, 1992, the State of

Idaho submitted a revision to the SIP for

Pinehurst, ID, for the purpose of

bringing about the attainment of the

national ambient air quality standards

for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers. This

submittal includes an additional area in

Shoshone County adjacent to the City of

Pinehurst which EPA designated

nonattainment and moderate for PM–10

on January 20, 1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–12929 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[SIPTRAX No. PA63–1–7032a; FRL–5211–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Determination of Attainment of Ozone

Standard by the Pittsburgh-Beaver

Valley and Reading Ozone

Nonattainment Areas and

Determination Regarding Applicability

of Certain Reasonable Further

Progress and Attainment

Demonstration Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA has determined that the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley and Reading

ozone nonattainment areas have

attained the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.

This determination is based upon three

years of ambient air monitoring data for

the years 1992–94 that demonstrate that

the ozone NAAQS has been attained in

these areas. On the basis of this

determination, EPA is also determining

that certain reasonable further progress

and attainment demonstration

requirements, along with certain other

related requirements, of Part D of Title

I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are not

applicable to these areas as long as these

areas continue to attain the ozone

NAAQS.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become

effective July 10, 1995 unless notice is

received on or before June 26, 1995 that

adverse or critical comments will be

submitted. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, Air

Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Henry, (215) 597–0545.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) contains various

air quality planning and state

implementation plan (SIP) submission

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas. EPA believes it is reasonable to

interpret provisions regarding

reasonable further progress (RFP) and

attainment demonstrations, along with

certain other related provisions, so as

not to require SIP submissions if an

ozone nonattainment area subject to

those requirements is monitoring

attainment of the ozone standard (i.e.,

attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated

with three consecutive years of

complete, quality assured air quality

monitoring data). As described below,

EPA has previously interpreted the

general provisions of subpart 1 of part

D of Title I (sections 171 and 172) so as

not to require the submission of SIP

revisions concerning RFP, attainment

demonstrations, or contingency

measures. As explained in a

memorandum dated May 10, 1995, from

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards to the

Regional Air Division Directors, entitled

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,

Attainment Demonstration, and Related

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas Meeting the Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard’’, EPA

believes it is appropriate to interpret the

more specific RFP, attainment

demonstration and related provisions of

subpart 2 in the same manner.

First, with respect to RFP, section

171(1) states that, for purposes of part D

of Title I, RFP ‘‘means such annual

incremental reductions in emissions of

the relevant air pollutant as are required

by this part or may reasonably be

required by the Administrator for the

purpose of ensuring attainment of the

applicable national ambient air quality

standard by the applicable date.’’ Thus,

whether dealing with the general RFP

requirement of section 172(c)(2), or the

more specific RFP requirements of

subpart 2 for classified ozone

nonattainment areas (such as the 15

percent plan requirement of section

182(b)(1)), the stated purpose of RFP is

to ensure attainment by the applicable

attainment date.1 If an area has in fact

attained the standard, the stated

purpose of the RFP requirement will

have already been fulfilled and EPA

does not believe that the area need

submit revisions providing for the
27894 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

2See also ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ from John

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management

Division, to Regional Air Division Directors,

September 4, 1992, at page 6 (stating that the

‘‘requirements for reasonable further progress * * *

will not apply for redesignations because they only

have meaning for areas not attaining the standard’’)

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘September 1992

Calcagni memorandum’’).

further emission reductions described in

the RFP provisions of section 182(b)(1).

EPA notes that it took this view with

respect to the general RFP requirement

of section 172(c)(2) in the General

Preamble for the Interpretation of Title

I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)),

and it is now extending that

interpretation to the specific provisions

of subpart 2. In the General Preamble,

EPA stated, in the context of a

discussion of the requirements

applicable to the evaluation of requests

to redesignate nonattainment areas to

attainment, that the ‘‘requirements for

RFP will not apply in evaluating a

request for redesignation to attainment

since, at a minimum, the air quality data

for the area must show that the area has

already attained. Showing that the State

will make RFP towards attainment will,

therefore, have no meaning at that

point.’’ (57 FR 13564) 2

Second, with respect to the

attainment demonstration requirements

of section 182(b)(1), an analogous

rationale leads to the same result.

Section 182(b)(1) requires that the plan

provide for ‘‘such specific annual

reductions in emissions * * * as

necessary to attain the national primary

ambient air quality standard by the

attainment date applicable under this

Act.’’ As with the RFP requirements, if

an area has in fact monitored attainment

of the standard, EPA believes there is no

need for an area to make a further

submission containing additional

measures to achieve attainment. This is

also consistent with the interpretation of

certain section 172(c) requirements

provided by EPA in the General

Preamble to Title I, as EPA stated there

that no other measures to provide for

attainment would be needed by areas

seeking redesignation to attainment

since ‘‘attainment will have been

reached.’’ (57 FR 13564; see also

September 1992 Calcagni memorandum

at page 6.) Upon attainment of the

NAAQS, the focus of state planning

efforts shifts to maintenance of the

NAAQS and the development of a

maintenance plan under section 175A.

Similar reasoning applies to the

contingency measure requirements of

section 172(c)(9). EPA has previously

interpreted the contingency measure

requirement of section 172(c)(9) as no

longer being applicable once an area has

attained the standard since those

‘‘contingency measures are directed at

ensuring RFP and attainment by the

applicable date.’’ (57 FR 13564; see also

September 1992 Calcagni memorandum

at page 6.) Similarly, as the section

172(c)(9) contingency measures are

linked with the RFP requirements of

section 182(b)(1), the requirement no

longer applies once an area has attained

the standard.

EPA emphasizes that the lack of a

requirement to submit the SIP revisions

discussed above exists only for as long

as an area designated nonattainment

continues to attain the standard. If EPA

subsequently determines that such an

area has violated the NAAQS, the basis

for the determination that the area need

not make the pertinent SIP revisions

would no longer exist. The EPA would

notify the State of that determination

and would also provide notice to the

public in the Federal Register. Such a

determination would mean that the area

would have to address the pertinent SIP

requirements within a reasonable

amount of time, which EPA would

establish taking into account the

individual circumstances surrounding

the particular SIP submissions at issue.

Thus, a determination that an area need

not submit one of the SIP submittals

amounts to no more than a suspension

of the requirement for so long as the

area continues to attain the standard.

The State must continue to operate an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network, in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58, to verify the attainment status

of the area. The air quality data relied

upon to determine that the area is

attaining the ozone standard must be

consistent with 40 CFR part 58

requirements and other relevant EPA

guidance and recorded in EPA’s

Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS).

The determinations that are being

made with this Federal Register notice

are not equivalent to the redesignation

of the area to attainment. Attainment of

the ozone NAAQS is only one of the

criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E)

that must be satisfied for an area to be

redesignated to attainment. To be

redesignated the state must submit and

receive full approval of a redesignation

request for the area that satisfies all of

the criteria of that section, including the

requirement of a demonstration that the

improvement in the area’s air quality is

due to permanent and enforceable

reductions and the requirements that

the area have a fully-approved SIP

meeting all of the applicable

requirements under section 110 and Part

D and a fully-approved maintenance

plan.

Furthermore, the determinations

made in this notice do not shield an

area from future EPA action to require

emissions reductions from sources in

the area where there is evidence, such

as photochemical grid modeling,

showing that emissions from sources in

the area contribute significantly to

nonattainment in, or interfere with

maintenance by, other nonattainment

areas. EPA has authority under sections

110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(D) to require

such emission reductions as necessary

and appropriate to deal with transport

situations.

II. Analysis of Air Quality Data

EPA has reviewed the ambient air

monitoring data for ozone (consistent

with the requirements contained in 40

CFR part 58 and recorded in AIRS) for

the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley and

Reading moderate ozone nonattainment

areas in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania from 1992 through the

present time. On the basis of that review

EPA has concluded that the area

attained the ozone standard during the

1992–94 period and continues to attain

the standard at this time.

The current design value for the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment

area, computed using ozone monitoring

data for 1992 through 1994, is 121 parts

per billion (ppb). The average annual

number of expected exceedances is 0.7

for that same time period. The current

design value for the Reading

nonattainment area, computed using

ozone monitoring data for 1992 through

1994, is 105 ppb. The average annual

number of expected exceedances is 0.3

for that same time period. An area is

considered in attainment of the standard

if the average annual number of

expected exceedances is less than or

equal to 1.0. Thus, these areas are no

longer recording violations of the air

quality standard for ozone. A more

detailed summary of the ozone

monitoring data for the area is provided

in the Technical Support Document for

this notice.

EPA is making these determinations

without prior proposal. However, in a

separate document in this Federal

Register publication, EPA is proposing

to make these determinations should

adverse or critical comments be filed.

This action will be effective July 10,

1995 unless, within 30 days of

publication, adverse or critical

comments are received.

If EPA receives such comments, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent notice that will withdraw
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27895

the final action. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective

on July 10, 1995.

Final Action

EPA has determined that the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley and Reading

ozone nonattainment areas have

attained the ozone standard and

continue to attain the standard at this

time. As a consequence of this

determination, the requirements of

section 182(b)(1) concerning the

submission of the 15 percent plan and

ozone attainment demonstration and the

requirements of section 172(c)(9)

concerning contingency measures are

not applicable to the area so long as the

area does not violate the ozone

standard. Since these areas will not be

required to submit 15 percent plans or

attainment demonstrations, these areas

will not be in the control strategy period

for conformity purposes for so long as

the areas do not violate the standard.

However, the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

and Reading areas, which are already

demonstrating conformity to a

submitted maintenance plan pursuant to

40 CFR Part 51, section 51.448(i), may

continue to do so, or the

Commonwealth may elect to withdraw

the applicability of the submitted

maintenance plan budget for conformity

purposes until the maintenance plan is

approved. The applicability may be

withdrawn through the submission of a

letter from the Governor or his or her

designee. If the applicability of the

submitted maintenance plan budget is

withdrawn for transportation

conformity purposes, the build/no-build

and less-than-1990 tests will apply until

the maintenance plan is approved.

EPA emphasizes that these

determinations are contingent upon the

continued monitoring and continued

attainment and maintenance of the

ozone NAAQS in the affected area.

When and if a violation of the ozone

NAAQS is monitored in the PittsburghBeaver Valley or Reading nonattainment

areas (consistent with the requirements

contained in 40 CFR part 58 and

recorded in AIRS), EPA will provide

notice to the public in the Federal

Register. Such a violation would mean

that the area would thereafter have to

address the requirements of section

182(b)(1) and section 172(c)(9) since the

basis for the determination that they do

not apply would no longer exist.

As a consequence of the

determination that these areas have

attained the NAAQS and that the RFP

and attainment demonstration

requirements of section 182(b)(1) do not

presently apply, the sanctions clocks

started by EPA on January 18, 1994, for

failure to submit these requirements is

hereby stopped since the deficiency for

which the clock was started no longer

exists.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000. Today’s determination

does not create any new requirements,

but suspends the indicated

requirements. Therefore, because this

notice does not impose any new

requirements, I certify that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected.

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

EPA’s final action does not impose

any federal intergovernmental mandate,

as defined in section 101 of the

Unfunded Mandates Act, upon the

State. No additional costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private

sector, result from this action, which

suspends the indicated requirements.

Thus, EPA has determined that this

final action does not include a mandate

that may result in estimated costs of

$100 million or more to either State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by an October 4,

1993 memorandum from Michael H.

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation. The OMB has

exempted this regulatory action from

E.O. 12866 review.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 25, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone.

Dated: May 16, 1995.

Stanley Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52, subpart NN of chapter

I, title 40 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania

2. Section 52.2037 is amended by

adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 52.2037 Control Strategy: Carbon

monoxide and ozone (hydrocarbons).

* * * * *

(b)(1) Determination—EPA has

determined that, as of July 10, 1995, the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone

nonattainment area has attained the

ozone standard and that the reasonable

further progress and attainment

demonstration requirements of section

182(b)(1) and related requirements of

section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act do

not apply to this area for so long as the

area does not monitor any violations of

the ozone standard. If a violation of the

ozone NAAQS is monitored in the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone

nonattainment area, these

determinations shall no longer apply.
27896 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Determination—EPA has

determined that, as of July 10, 1995, the

Reading ozone nonattainment area has

attained the ozone standard and that the

reasonable further progress and

attainment demonstration requirements

of section 182(b)(1) and related

requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the

Clean Air Act do not apply to this area

for so long as the area does not monitor

any violations of the ozone standard. If

a violation of the ozone NAAQS is

monitored in the Reading ozone

nonattainment area, these

determinations shall no longer apply.

[FR Doc. 95–13004 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5211–3]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

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.

This rule adds 1 new site to the NPL.

The NPL is intended primarily to guide

the Environmental Protection Agency

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining

which sites warrant further

investigation to assess the nature and

extent of public health and

environmental risks associated with the

site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may

be appropriate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the

Headquarters and Regional dockets, as

well as further details on what these

dockets contain, see ‘‘Information

Available to the Public’’ in Section I of

the ‘‘Supplementary Information’’

portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Keidan, Hazardous Site

Evaluation Division, Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response

(mail code 5204G), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC, 20460, or the

Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424–

9346 or (703) 412–9810 in the

Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction.

II. Contents of This Final Rule.

III. Executive Order 12866.

IV. Unfunded Mandates.

I. Introduction

Background

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 hazardous waste sites.

CERCLA was amended on October 17,

1986, by the Superfund Amendments

and Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’),

Public Law No. 99–499, stat. 1613 et

seq. To implement CERCLA, 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 forth the

guidelines and procedures needed to

respond under CERCLA to releases and

threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

EPA has revised the NCP on several

occasions. The most recent

comprehensive revision was on March

8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA

requires that the NCP include ‘‘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. 42 USC 9601(23).

‘‘Remedial’’ actions’’ are those

‘‘consistent with permanent remedy,

taken instead of or in addition to

removal actions. * * *’’ 42 USC

9601(24).

Pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of

CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA

has promulgated a list of national

priorities among the known or

threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants

throughout the United States. That list,

which is Appendix B of 40 CFR Part

300, is the National Priorities List

(‘‘NPL’’).

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines

the NPL as a list of ‘‘releases’’ and as a

list of the highest priority ‘‘facilities.’’

The discussion below may refer to the

‘‘releases or threatened releases’’ that

are included on the NPL

interchangeably as ‘‘releases,’’

‘‘facilities,’’ or ‘‘sites.’’

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) also

requires that the NPL be revised at least

annually. 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). However, under 40 CFR

300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL

‘‘does not imply that monies will be

expended.’’ EPA may pursue other

appropriate authorities to remedy the

releases, including enforcement action

under CERCLA and other laws.

The purpose of the NPL is merely to

identify releases that are priorities for

further evaluation. Although a CERCLA

‘‘facility’’ is broadly defined to include

any area where a hazardous substance

release 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.

It is the Agency’s policy that, in the

exercise of its enforcement discretion,

EPA will not take enforcement actions

against an owner of residential property

to require such owner to undertake

response actions or pay response costs,

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 (OSWER Directive

#9834.6, July 3, 1991). This policy

includes residential property owners

whose property is located above a

ground water plume that is proposed to

or on the NPL, where the residential

property owner did not contribute to the

contamination of the site. EPA may,

however, require access to that property

during the course of implementing a

clean up.

Three mechanisms for placing sites on

the NPL for possible remedial action are

included in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(c) (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990).

Under 40 CFR 300.425(c)(1), a site may

be included on the NPL if it scores

sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking

System (‘‘HRS’’), which EPA

promulgated as Appendix A of 40 CFR

Part 300. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR

51532), 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. The HRS serves as a

screening device to evaluate the relative