[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30575-30579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15033]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-5520-3]


National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, 
Proposed Rule No. 20

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed 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 proposes to add 15 new sites to the NPL, 13 to the 
General Superfund Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities Section. 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 
CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Mail original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or 
tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA, CERCLA Docket 
Office, (Mail Code 5201G); 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, 
703/603-8917. Please note this is the mailing address only. If you wish 
to visit the HQ Docket to view documents, and for additional Docket 
addresses and further details on their contents, see Section I of the 
Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Keidan, State and Site 
Identification Center, 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 Proposed Rule
III. Executive Order 12866
IV. Unfunded Mandates
V. Governors' Concurrence
VI. Effect on Small Businesses

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''), Pub. L. 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 U.S.C. 9601(23). 
``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with permanent remedy, 
taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *'' 42 U.S.C 
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.'' 
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. 
Further, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it does not assign 
liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. See 
Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate 
Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted above and at 48 
FR 40659 (September 8, 1983).
    Three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial 
action are included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c). 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 potential of 
uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat to human health or 
the environment. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
    Under a second mechanism for adding sites to the NPL, each State 
may designate a single site as its top priority, regardless of the HRS 
score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), 
requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the 
100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State 
representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the 
environment among known facilities in the State.
    The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR

[[Page 30576]]

300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their 
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

    <bullet> The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health 
advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the 
release.
    <bullet> EPA determines that the release poses a significant 
threat to public health.
    <bullet> EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to 
use its remedial authority (available only at NPL sites) than to use 
its removal authority to respond to the release.

    EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 
(48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on 
September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50435).
    The NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are evaluated and 
cleaned up by EPA (the ``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites 
being addressed generally by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal 
Facilities Section''). 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 EPA is responsible for 
preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed 
on the NPL. EPA is not the lead agency at these sites, and its role at 
such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites. The 
Federal Facilities Section includes facilities at which EPA is not the 
lead agency.

Site Boundaries

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; 
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of 
the NPL (as the mere identification of releases), for it to do so.
    CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list national priorities 
among the known ``releases or threatened releases.'' Thus, 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. Of course, HRS data upon which the NPL placement was based 
will, to some extent, describe which release is at issue. That is, the 
NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS 
analysis (including noncontiguous releases evaluated under the NPL 
aggregation policy, described at 48 FR 40663 (September 8, 1983)).
    When a site is listed, it is necessary to define the release (or 
releases) encompassed within the listing. The approach generally used 
is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within the 
installation or plant boundaries) and define the site by reference to 
that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that 
area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the 
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all 
contaminated areas within the area used to define the site, and any 
other location to which contamination from that area has come to be 
located.
    While geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., 
the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property owned by the 
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 facility or plant. 
The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at 
the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help 
identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the 
``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 ``nature and extent of the threat 
presented by a release'' will be determined by a Remedial 
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) as more information is 
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)). 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 and the 
migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an 
evaluation of the threat posed; 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 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, supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any 
time after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible 
party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended if further research 
into the extent of the contamination expands the apparent boundaries of 
the release.

Deletions/Cleanups

    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 EPA shall consult with 
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether 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;
    (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.

To date, the Agency has deleted 108 sites from the final NPL.
    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). 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) 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.

Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.
    In addition to the 102 sites that have been deleted from the NPL 
because they have been cleaned up (6 sites have been deleted based on 
deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up), an 
additional 251 sites are also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of June 1996, 
the CCL consists of 353 sites.

[[Page 30577]]

Public Comment Period

    The documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring 
of sites in this rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA 
Headquarters and in the appropriate Regional offices. The dockets are 
available for viewing, by appointment only, after the appearance of 
this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays. 
Please contact individual Regional dockets for hours.

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail 
Code 5201G), Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703/603-8917. (Please note this is 
visiting address only. Mail comments to address listed in ``Addresses'' 
section above.)
Jim Kyed, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HRC-CAN-
7, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, 617/573-9656.
Ben Conetta, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, 
212/637-4435.
Diane McCreary, Region 3, U.S. EPA Library, 3rd Floor, 841 Chestnut 
Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19107, 215/566-5250.
Kathy Piselli, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, 
GA 30365, 404/347-4216.
Cathy Freeman, Region 5, U.S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management 
Division 7-J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, IL 60604, 312/886-6214.
Bart Canellas, Region 6, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6H-MA, 
Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-6740.
Carole Long, Region 7, U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 
66101, 913/551-7224.
Bob Heise, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 
80202-2466, 303/312-6831.
Carolyn Douglas, Region 9, U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105, 415/744-2343.
David Bennett, Region 10, U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail 
Stop HW-114, Seattle, WA 98101, 206/553-2103.

    The Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score sheets for 
each proposed site; a Documentation Record for each site describing the 
information used to compute the score; information for any site 
affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; 
and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record.
    The Headquarters docket also contains an ``Additional Information'' 
document which provides a general discussion of the statutory 
requirements affecting NPL listing, the purpose and implementation of 
the NPL, and the economic impacts of NPL listing.
    Each Regional docket for this rule contains all of the information 
in the Headquarters docket for sites in that Region, plus the actual 
reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and 
cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS scores for sites in 
that Region. These reference documents are available only in the 
Regional dockets. Interested parties may view documents, by appointment 
only, in the Headquarters or the appropriate Regional docket or copies 
may be requested from the Headquarters or appropriate Regional docket. 
An informal written request, rather than a formal request under the 
Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for 
obtaining copies of any of these documents.
    EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. 
During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters 
docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A 
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional 
docket approximately one week after the formal comment period closes. 
Comments received after the comment period closes will be available in 
the Headquarters docket and in the Regional docket on an ``as 
received'' basis. Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, 
or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point 
out the specific information that EPA should consider and how it 
affects individual HRS factor values. See Northside Sanitary Landfill 
v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988). EPA will make final listing 
decisions after considering the relevant comments received during the 
comment period.
    In past rules, EPA has attempted to respond to late comments, or 
when that was not practicable, to read all late comments and address 
those that brought to the Agency's attention a fundamental error in the 
scoring of a site. Although EPA intends to pursue the same policy with 
sites in this rule, EPA can guarantee that it will consider only those 
comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. EPA has 
a policy of not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate 
consideration of late comments.
    In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA 
concerning sites which were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If 
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their 
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for 
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific 
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and 
comment will not generally be included in the docket.

Contents of This Proposed Rule

    Table 1 identifies the 13 sites in the General Superfund Section 
being proposed to the NPL in this rule. Table 2 identifies the 2 sites 
in the Federal Facilities Section being proposed to the NPL in this 
rule. These tables follow this preamble. All sites are proposed based 
on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites in Table 1 and Table 2 are 
listed alphabetically by State, for ease of identification, with group 
number identified to provide an indication of relative ranking. To 
determine group number, sites on the NPL are placed in groups of 50; 
for example, a site in Group 4 of this proposal has a score that falls 
within the range of scores covered by the fourth group of 50 sites on 
the NPL.
    This action along with a final rule published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register, results in an NPL of 1,227 sites, 1,073 in the 
General Superfund Section and 154 in the Federal Facilities Section. An 
additional 52 sites are now proposed and are awaiting final agency 
action, 47 in the General Superfund Section and 5 in the Federal 
Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,279.

III. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

IV. Unfunded Mandates

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 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, 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 to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule,

[[Page 30578]]

section 205 of the UMRA generally requires 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 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 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, giving 
them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (within the meaning of 
Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector. Nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This is 
because today's listing decision does not impose any enforceable duties 
upon any of these governmental entities or the private sector. 
Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. It 
does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action, 
nor does it require any action by a private party or determine its 
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. Therefore, today's 
rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203 or 
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

V. Governor's Concurrence

    On May 2, 1996, Congress enacted the Omnibus Consolidated 
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 Public Law (Pub. L.) 104-
134, which established federal government spending limitations for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996. Pub. L. 104-134 provides that 
EPA may not use funds made available for fiscal year 1996 ``to propose 
for listing or to list any additional facilities on the National 
Priorities List * * * unless the Administrator receives a written 
request to propose for listing or to list a facility from the Governor 
of the State in which the facility is located. * * *'' EPA has received 
letters from the appropriate governors requesting that the Agency list 
on the NPL all the facilities in this rule with one exception. EPA 
received a letter for the Del Amo site from the State environmental 
agency with prior verbal agreement from the Governor of California. 
These letters are available in the docket for this rulemaking.

VI. Effect on Small Businesses

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires EPA to review the 
impacts of this action on small entities, or certify that the action 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. By small entities, the Act refers to small businesses, small 
government jurisdictions, and nonprofit organizations.
    While this rule proposes to revise the NPL, an NPL revision is not 
a typical regulatory change since it does not automatically impose 
costs. As stated above, adding sites to the NPL does not in itself 
require any action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of 
any party for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable 
groups are affected as a whole. As a consequence, impacts on any group 
are hard to predict. A site's inclusion on the NPL could increase the 
likelihood of adverse impacts on responsible parties (in the form of 
cleanup costs), but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially 
affected businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that 
might also be affected.
    The Agency does expect that placing the sites in this proposed rule 
on the NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms 
within industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage 
of waste site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of 
these sites to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small businesses.
    In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement 
and cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site-
by-site basis. EPA considers many factors when determining enforcement 
actions, including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but 
also its ability to pay. The impacts (from cost recovery) on small 
governments and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a 
similar case-by-case basis.
    For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this proposed 
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this proposed 
regulation does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

  National Priorities List Proposed Rule #20, General Superfund Section 
       [Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 13]      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State              Site name              City/County       NPL Gr <SUP>1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA...........  Del Amo..................  Los Angeles........  22       
FL...........  MRI Corp (Tampa).........  Tampa..............  16       
FL...........  Stauffer Chemical Co       Tampa..............  1        
                (Tampa).                                                
IL...........  Circle Smelting Corp.....  Beckemeyer.........  1        
IL...........  Sauget Area 1............  Sauget.............  1        
LA...........  Madisonville Creosote      Madisonville.......  7        
                Works.                                                  
MD...........  Central Chemical           Hagerstown.........  5/6      
                (Hagerstown).                                           
NH...........  Beede Waste Oil..........  Plaistow...........  1        
NY...........  Cross County Sanitation    Patterson..........  5/6      
                Landfill.                                               
PR...........  V&M/Albaladejo...........  Vega Baja..........  5/6      
SC...........  Shuron Inc...............  Barnwell...........  1        
TX...........  Tex-Tin Corp.............  Texas City.........  5/6      
WV...........  Sharon Steel Corp          Fairmont...........  2        
                (Fairmont Coke Works).                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the
  final NPL.                                                            


[[Page 30579]]



 National Priorities List Proposed Rule #20, Federal Facilities Section 
        [Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facility Section: 2]       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State              Site name              City/County       NPL Gr <SUP>1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL...........  Tyndall Air Force Base...  Panama City........  5/6      
VA...........  Sewells Point Naval        Norfolk............  5/6      
                Complex.                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the
  final NPL.                                                            

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Air pollution control, Chemicals, Environmental Protection, 
Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, 
Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, 
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    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.

    Dated: June 6, 1996.
Elliott P. Laws,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 96-15033 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P