Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2001-0002-0092
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-08-30T21:58:21Z

35840
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
gS,
No.
145
f
Monday,
July
29,1991
/
Fbposed
Rules
Discussion
of
Proposed
Regulations
Concerned
motorists
requested
that
eregulations
for
the
drawbridge
across
the
Southern
Branch
of
the
Elizabefh
Rver
at
mile
8.8
in
Chesapeake,
Virginia,
be
amended
to
restrict
openings
d
e
the
peak,
highway
traffic
hours
to
help
reduce
traffic
congestion,
but
remain
open
on
signal
during
the
rest
ofthe
tie.
The
proposed
change
would
close
the
DominionBoulevard
Bridge
to
commercial,
recreational,
and
public
vessels
Monday
throughFriday,
except
Federal
holidays,
from6
a.
m.
to
9
a.
m.
and
from3
p.
m.
to
6
p.
m.
A
provision
that­
ailows
the
draw
to
open
on
signal
at
all
times
for
vessels
in
distress
was
made
a
part
of
the
pmposal.
As
a
result
of
the
proposed
rule
that
was
published
and
the
public
notice
issued
on
August
7,1990,
writtencomments
were
received
frcm
the
maritime
community
and
the
motoring
public.
The
comments
from
the
motdiists
were
din
favor
of
the
proposed
restrictions
during
peak
traffic
houts
sinceelimination
of
draw
operiings
during
these
hours
would
help
reduke
traffic
disruption,
delays,
codstion
ahd
minor
accidents.
The
commbnts
froni
the
commercial
maritime
industry
were
opposed
to
nstricting
the
drawbridge
based
on
such
Qenepauzed
factors
aseconomic
impact
given
to
all
views.
that
the
needs
of
motoristswho
use
the
bridge
warrant
,
T::
sit$
around
the
restricted
hours
of
operation.
Federalism
Assessment
This
action
has
been
analyzed
in
accordance
with
the
principles
and
criteria
contained
in
Executive
Order
12812.
and
it
has
been
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
raise
sufficientfederalism
implications
to
warrant
the
preparation
of
8
Federalism
Assessment.
Regulatory
Evdaation
These
proposed
regulations
are
considered
to
be
non­
major
under
Executive
Order
12291and
nonsignificantunder
the
Department
of
Transportation
regulatory
policies
and
procedures
(
44
F R
11034;
February
26,
1978).
The
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
regulation
on
commercial
navigation
or
on
any
industries
that
depend
onwaterborne
transportation
should
be
minimal.
Because
the
economic
impact
of
this
proposal
is
expected
to
be
mirhd,
the
Coast
Guard
certifies
that,
if
adopted,
it
will
not
have
a
significanteconomic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
EnvironmentalImpact
This
rulemaking
has
been
thoroughly
reviewed
by
the
Coast
Guard
and
it
has
been
determined
to
be
categorically
excluded
fromfurther
environmental
docrzmentationin
accordance
with
section
2.
B.
Z.
g.
5
of
Commandant
Instruction
bflf1475.13.
A
Categorical
Exclusion
Determination
statement
has
been
prepared
and
placed
in
the
rulemaking
docket.
List
of
Subjects
in
33CFR
Part
117
Bridges.
Regulations
In
consideration
of
the
foregoing,
the
Coast
Guard
proposes
to
amend
part
117
of
title
33.
Ccde
of
Federal
Regulations
to
read
as
follows:

PART
117­­
DRAWBRIOGE
OPERATION
REOULATfONS
I.
The
authority
citation
for
part
117
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
49%
40
CFR
1.46;
33
m1.05­
l(
g).
2.
Section
li7.99i(
d]
isredesignated
as
f
117.@
7(
e)
and
new
paragraph
0
117.997[
d]
is
added
to
read
as
follows:

$
117.997
Atfantle
IntracoastalWaterway,
Sc&
h
Branchef
the
Efiz&
eth
Rlver
to
the
Albsmarle
and
Ckrrapeake
Canat.
*****
(
d]
The
draw
of
the
Dominion
Boulevsrd
Bridge,
mile&&.
in
.
Chesapeake
shall
open
on
signal,.
except:
(
1)
From
630am.
to
750
a.
m.
and
from330pm
to
5
pm.,
Moriday
though
Friday,
except
Federal
Holidays,
the
draw
will
remain
closed
to
alhessel
traffic.
(
2)
The
draw
shall
open
on
signal
at
,. 
all
times
for
vessels
in
distress.
< 

*****
Dated:
July12,1991.
H.
B.
Gehring,
Captain,
US.
CoastGimd
Comandec
Fiftn
Coast
GuardDistrictActing.
Doc.
91­
17900Filed
7­
28­
91;
8:
45
am]
WNG
CODEuI1o­
Ic#

ENVlRONMENTALPROTECltON
AGENCY
4oCFRPart300
[
FRl­
397&
53
NationalPrioritiesUstfw
UncontrolledHazardousWaste
Sites
AGERCY:
EnvironmentalPmtection
Agency.
&
cmm:
Proposed
rule.

(  
EPA )
is
propoiii& 
to atid 
22newsites
to
the
NPE:­
Thaidelitificatibiiaf
a
site
for
theKTL
is
intended
p@
niiy
to
guide
Ep;
4;
ig
detehining
which
sites
warrant
furthminve 
stigation
to
assess
the
nature
add
exteat
of
public
health
and
enviromkental
risks
associated
with
,

the
site
and
to
determine
what
CERCLAfinanced
renedial
actionfs),
if
any,
may
be
appropriate.
This
proposed
rule
brings
the
number.
of
proposed
NPL
sites
to
23;
1,188sites
are
on
the
NPL
at
this
time,
for
a
total
of
1,211.
DATES:
Corneats
must
be
submitted
on
or
before
September
27,1991.
ADDRESSES:
Mail
comments
in
triplicate,
to
Larry
Reed,
Acting
Director,
Hazardous
Site
Evduaticn
Divisicn
fAttil:
NpL
Staffl,
Office
ofhergency
andRemedial
Response~(
OS­
ZBO),
US.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401M
.
Street
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
For
Docket
addresses
and
further
details
on
their
contents
see
Secticn
I
of
the
implement
CERCLA,
the
autho~
tyfayaikble
a&
aiNpt
sites)
than
tu
use
its
remavd
attthcwity
to
respond
to
the
idease,
Based
~#
tthesecriferia,
and
pursuant
to
mEectimlolifa)@
g q
af
cE&
cLA,
as
amended
by
SM,
EPA
ppeprcm
aBst
of
national
priorities
amongthe
­
known
or
threatenedrekases
ofhzandom
substances.
pollutants,
or
cw&
thongfroutthe
Unite8
States.
That
list,
which
isappendix
E
of
40CFR
part
300,
is
the
NationalPnorities
Lfsf
c"
pL"
L
Thedl'scussion
WQW
maj!
refer
fa
the
"
releases
or
threatened
releases?"
thai
are
included
om&
he
NE%.
inkmhmgdy
as
"
releases:'
"
facilities,
or
"
sites."
1
GERCEAs­
Wq&](&
kl@)*
reqh
bthN??
Lhsm&
ied
&
Ieast
­
U~&
Y.
A
site
W&­
CEKCLBfinanced
remediar
action
ody
after
it
is
phcedonthe
NIX.
asprovXedin
the'
=
at
====
 blpt
EPA
promulgated
anon@
NFLof
408siteruoaseptemher
S,
Z9&
3(
4i3FR
406585
The
NPLhas
been
expanded
sincethen,
most
mentry
onFehary
11,199?
I56
FR5598).
The
NPL
contains
1,188final
sites
at
this­.
EPA
may
delete
sites
franthe
NPL
whereno
Mer
response
is
appropriate,
as
exphinedin
theNCP
at
4Q.
CFR3QR.
4251e)
(
55
FR
Wch
8,
1990).
To
date,
the
Age­
hasdeleted
34StM
firomthe
mostrecently
tlre
M&
TDelisa
landfillon
March
21,
ISSL
(
56FR
11938).
The
34sitesaehted
below.

FIN&
STES
DELETEn
FROM
Npt
BE
CAUSE
FURTHER
RESPONSE
NE&­
ED&
LY
199%­
srate
­
AR
AS
Az
&
M
DE
FL
FL
FL
GA
IL
IN
iN
MD
MN
Mb
MI
MM
h49'

Nc.

NJ
owper*&
...............
1
e
MJ
35842
Fderal.
RegiSter
I
Vol.
SS.
No.
145
I
Monday,
july
29,
1991
/
Proposed
Rules
.
FINALSms
OnmD
FROM
NPL
BE­
CdUS
NO
FURTHER
RESPONSE
NEEDED
JULY
1991­
Cvntinued
Tx
VA
WA
Nunher
~~~.

haddition,
14sitesonthe
Nm,
are
in
the
construction
completion
category
(
56
FRW.
Febrnary
11,1991).
and
fifteen
others
ere
awaiting
final
documentation
before
they
can
be
formally
pIaced
in
the
construction
completion
category.
The
construction
completion
category
includes
sitesawaiting
deletion,
sites
awaiting
first
five­
yearreview
after
pletion
of
the
remedial
action,
and
of
63sites
have
been
in
the
consfruction
The
Headquarters
and
Regional
public
dockets
for
the
Nm,
contain
documents
relating
tolthe
evaluation
andscoringof
sites
in
thisproposed
rule.
The
dockets
are
available
for
viewing,
by
appointmeht
ody.
after
the
appearance
of
this
document.
'
She
hours
ofoperation
for
the
Headquarters
docket
are
from
9
e.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Mpnday
through
Friday
exduding
Federal
holidays.
Please
contact
individualRegional
Dockets
for
hours.
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters,
U.
S.
EPA
~
CLA
Docket
office.
OS­%&
Waterside
Mall.
4131M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
Benconetta,
Region
2.28
FederalPia?&
7th
Floor,
Room
740,
NewYok
NY
10278.
nZ/
28rwQB&
DianeMcCreary,
Region
3.
US.
EPA
Librarg,
3rdFloor.
R41ch alltnut3uitdin!
3.
etha
ChestnutStreeta,
Philadelphia.
PA
19lW
215/
597­
m.
Beverly
Fulupoad
Region
4,
U.
S.
EPA
Library,
Room
Ge.
345
Courtland
Stred
NE.,
Atlanta.
GA
30385.4[)
4/
W­
42l8.
Cathy
Freeman,
Region
5,
US.
EPA.
5
HS&
7,230
SouthDearborn
Street.
Chicago,
It.
60",
SlZ/
SSge214.
Bill
Taylor.
Region
R
U.
S.
EPA.
1445Ross
Averme.
MailCode
BH­
MA,
Dallas,
TX
m2­
2733,2l4/
855­
6740.
StevenWyman,
Region
7,
U.
S.
EPA
Library,
726
MinnesotaAvenue,
Kansas
City.
KS
BB101.913/
551­
7241.
Barbara
Waper,
Region8.
U.
S.
EPA
Library.
99918th
Street,
Suitem.
D~
RVW~
CO
~
2405.3031293­
1444.
Lisa
Nelson.
Region
9,
US.
EP+
75
HawthorneStreet
SanFrannsco.
CA
94105.415/
74&
2347.
DavidBennett,
Region10,
U.
S.
EPA.
9th
floor,
12006th
Avenue,
Mail
Stop
HW­
093.
Seattle,
WA
98lM.
208/
44%
2lO3.
The
Headquarters
docket
contains
ent
only,
in
the
appropriate
ueet
'
underthe
Feedom
of
all
comments
received
Duringthe
comment
period,
comments
are
&
aced
in
the
Headquarters
docket
and
are
available
to
the
public
on
an
"
as
received"
basis.
A
complete
set
of
be
availableforviewing
docket
approximate!
y
hefomd
comment
period
closes.
Commentsreceived
after
the
!
commentpeiiod
doses
willbe
Headquarters
docket
nddocket
onan
"
as
Comments
that
includecomplex
or
voIuminoua
reportsOFmaterials
prepared
for
purposes
other
tbanHRS
scoring,
shouldpoint
out
the
specific
,
information
that
EPA
should
consider
,'
andhow
it
affects
individual
HRSfactor
values.
See
Northside
SenitaryLandfill
v.
Thomas,
849F.
2d
1516
(
D.
C.
Ci.
1988).
After
considering
the
relevant
comments
received
during
the
comment
period,
EPA
will
add
sites
to
the
NPL
if
they
meet
requirementsset
out
in
the
.
NCP
andany
applicable
listing
policies.
Inpast
rules,
EPAhasattempted
to
respond
to
late
comments,
or
whenthat
was
not
practicable,
to
read
all
late
comments
and
address
those
that
brought
to
the
Agency's
attention
a
fundamental
emor
inthe
scoring
of
a
site,(
See,
most
recently,
56
5603,
February
ll,
1991.]
AlthoughEPA
intends
to
pursue
the
same
policy
with
sites
in
thisrule,
EPAcanguarantee
that
it
will
consider
only
those
comments
received
during
the
formal
comment
period.
EPA
cannot
delay
a
final
listing
decision
solely
to
accpmmodate
consideration
of
late
eomente.
ILPurpo&
md
hphmentation
of
the
NPL
LA
hknment
andpublic
Works,
Senate
ReDorl
No.
96­
848
96thCorn.,
zd
Sess.

ites
site
on
the
bat
doesnot
in
itself
re !&
B
judgment
of
the
activ$
tiesdits
owner
oroperator.
it
does
notrequirethose
persons
to
undertake
any
action,
nor
does
it
assign
liability
to
any
peraon.
Subseqaentgowrnment
action
in
the
form
ofremedial
actions
orenforcement
ackiom
will
be
neassarpin
order
tcr
dosa
anhtheseactionswill
be
attended*
all
apbmpriatepmced~
ralsafeguards.
Thepurpose
of
the
MI.,
therefore,
is
primarily
to
serve
BS
aninformational
and
management
tool.
Theidentification
of
a
site
for
the
Nm,
is
intended
primarily
to
guide
EPA
in
determining
which
sites
warrant
furtherinvestigation
to
assess
the
nature
and
extent
of
the
public
health
and
environmental
risks
associated
wjth
the
site
andto
determine
what
CERcLA­
firranced
remedial
actioNs),
if
any,
may
be
appropriate.
The
NPL
also
servesto
notifythe
public
daites
that
EPA
believeswarrant
+­
r
investigation.
Finally,
listing
a
Bite'mey,
to
the
extent
potentiallyreeponsiblepartiesare
1
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
56,
No.
145
/
Monday,
July
29.
1991
1
Proposed
Rules
35843
identifiable
at
the
time
of
listing.
serves
as
notice
to
such
parties
that
theAgency
may
initiate
CERCLA­
flnancedremedial
action.
Implenientation
TheNCP
at
40CFR
300A25(
b)(
l)
(
55
FR
8845,
March
6.1993]
bits
expenditure
of
the
Trust
Pund
for
remedial
actions
to
sites
on
the
final
NPL.
However.
EPA
may
take
enforcement
actions
under
CERCLAor
other
applicable
statutes
against
responsible
parties
regardless
of
whether
the
site
is
on
the
NPL,
although,
as
a
practical
matter.
the
focus
of
@
A s
CERCM
enforcement
actions
has
been
and
will
continue
to
be
on
NPL
sites.
Similarly,
in
the
case
of
CWICLA
removal
actions.
EPA
has
the
authority
to
act
at
any
site.
whether
listed
or
not,
that
meets
the
criteria
of
theNCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
b)(
l)(
55FX8845,
March
8,
19901.
As
of
April
1991,
EPA
has
conducted
1.940removal
actions,
489
of
them
at
NPL
sites.
Information
on
removals
is
availabIe
from
the
Superfund
Hotline.
EPAs
policy
is
to
pursue
cleanup
of
NPL
sitesusing
ail
the
appropriate
response
andlor
enforcement
actions
available
to
the
Agency,
including
authorities
other
than
CWCLA.
The
Agency
will
decide
on
a
site­
by­
site
basis
whether
to
take
enforcement
or
other
action
under
CERCLA
or­
oher
infomation
collected
to
develop
HRS
scoresis
not
sufficient
in
itself
to
detetmine
either
the
extent
of
contamination
or
the
appropriate
response
for
a
particular
site.
Moreover,
the
sites
with
the
highest
acores
do
not
necessarily
come
to
the
Agency 
s
attehtion
first.
Thus.
BPAreUes
on
further,
more
detailed
studies
in
the
remediai
investigation/
feasibilitystudy
(
RI/
FSl
thab
typicallyfollows
listing.
The
RllkS
determines
the
nature
and
extent
of
the
Uveat
presented
by
the
corrt$
mination
(
40
$
FR
300.430(
a)(
2)
(
55
FR
8848.
hkarch
8,199@
16also
takes
into
iaccount
the
mcjmtof
contaminants
in
the
environment.
the
risk
to
affected
populations
and
environment,
the
cost
to
correct
problems
at
the
site,
and
the
response
actions
that
have
been
taken
by
potentiallyresponsible
parties
or
others.
Decisions
on
the
type
and
extent
of
action
to
be
taken
at
these
sites
are
made
in
accordance
with
subpart
E
of
the
NCP
(
55
FR
8839,
March
8,1990).
After
conducting
these
additional
studies,
EPA
may
conclude
that
it
isnot
desirable
tu
initiate
a
CERCLAremedia1
action
at
some
sites
on
the
NPL
because
of
more
pressing
needs
at
other
sites,
or
because
a
private
party
cleanup
is
already
underway
pursuant
to
an
enforcement
action.
Given
the
limited
resources
available
in
the
TrustFund,
the
Agency
must
carefully
balance
the
relative
needs
for
response
at
the
numerous
sites
it
has
studied.
It
is
also
possible
that
EPA
will
conclude
after
furtheranalysis
that
the
site
does
not
warrant
remedial
action.
RI/
FSat
Proposed
Sites
An
RI/
FS
may
be
performed
at
proposed
sites
[
or
even
non­
NPL
sites)
pursuant
to
the
Agency s
removal
authority
under
CERCLA.
as
outlined
in
the
NCPat
40CFR300.4251b#
lb
Although
an
RI/
FS
generafiy
is
conducted
at
a
site
after
it
has
been
placed
on
the
NPL.
in
a
number
of
circumstames
theAgency
elects
to
conduct
anRI/
FS
at
a
proposed
NPL
site
in
preparation
for
a
Dossible
CERCLAfessible
nor
consistent
with
thisliited
purpose
for
the
NE%
to
attempt
to
describe
releases
in
precise
geographical
terms.
The
term
 
 acilityn
is
broadly
defined
in
CERCLA
to
include
any
area
where
a
hazardous
substance
has
 
come
to
be
located 
[
CERCLA
section
im[
9)],
and
the
listingprocess
is
not
intended
to
define
or
reflect
boundaries
ofsuch
facilities
or
releases.
Site
names
are
provided
for
general
identificationpurposesonly.
bowledge
regarding
the
extent
of
sites
will
be
refined
as
moreinformation
is
developed
during
the
M/
FS
and
even
.
during
implementation
of
the
remedy.
Because
the
NPL
does
not
assign
iiabilitynor
debe
the
geographic
extent
of
a
release,
a
listingneed
not
be
amended
if
further
research
into
the
extent
of
the
contamination
reveals
new
information
as
to
its
extent
Thisis
further
explained
in
preambles
to
past
NPL
rules,
most
recently
February
11.
1991(
56
FR
55981.

III.
Contents
ofThisProposed
Rule
Table
1identifies19non­
Federal
sites
and
Table
2
identifies3Federal
facility
sites
proposed
for
the
NPL
in
thisde.
Both
tables
follow
this
preamble.
All
are
proposed
based
on
HRS
scores
of
28.50
or
above.
Each
proposed
site
is
placed
by
score
ina
group
corresponding
to
groups
of
50sites
presented
within
the
NPL
For
example,
a
site
in
Group
4
of
this
proposal
has
a
score
that
falls
within
the
range
of
scorescovered
by
the
fourth
group
of
50
sites
on
the
NPL.
Since
promulgation
of
the
original
NPL
(
48
FR40660.
September
8.1983).
EPA
has
arranged
the
NPLby
rank
based
on
HRSScoresand
presented
sites
on
the
NPLin
groups
of
50
to
emphasize
that
minor
differences
in
scores
do
not
necessarily
represent
significanfly
differentlevels
of
risk.
EPAis
proposing
an
alternative,
and
55&
44
l%
dacal
Register
I
Vol.
58,
No.
145
I
Monday,
July
29,199l
I
Proposed
Rules
ec
1
proposing
this
change
because
as
the
NE%
has
grown
over
theyears,
listing
sites
by
rank
has
made
it
increadingly
difficult
for
usersof
appendix
B
to
find
individual
sites.
Almost
all
public
requests
for
the
NPL
askfor
a
list
organized
by
State,
rather
than
by
site,
rank
and
score.
Intomation
on
rank
or
actual
HEi
score
rtUl
wiil
be
provided
upon
reqceat.
(
Informal
requests
are
encouraged
since
they
generhlly
take
less
time
than
requests
under
the
Freedom
of
InformatiariAct.)
Further,
EPA
isconsidering
whether
to
retain
in&
e
preamble
@
rrtnot
appendix
31
some
form
of
identifiation
by
rank
of
each
siteinciuded
in
the
rule.
Presentation
of
the
Nm.
in
groups
of5(
1
often
ha6
been
confi~~
iq
to
the
public,
end
hes
not
conveyed
the
si@­
of
rankidgs,
as
EPA
had
intended
For
exaudle,
siteshaving
the
same
scorn
have
different
ranks,
and
sometimes
are
even
in
different
groups.
haddition,
State
top
priority
sites
are
placed
in
the
top
1M)
sites,
as
required
by
CERCLk
even
th~&
some
of
their
scores
are
lower
than
mcny
sites
radced
below
them.
However,
some
information
on
relative
ranking
of
sites
may
be
useful
to
the
public.
To
eliminate
some
of
the
concerns
with
the
piesent
inethod
of
ranking.
W.
4
is
considering
rankings
in
larger
groups,
possibly
escn
as
top,
middle,
or
low
thirds
of
the
NPL.
The
public
is
invited
to
comment
OR
these
proposed
changes
in
NPLformat,
and
on
whether
rankiigs
are
usehl
and
should
be
continued,
and
in
what
fom
as
well
as
to
provide
sny
further
suggestionson
ways
to
improve
the
clarity
and
usability
ofAppendix
B.
StatutoIy
Requirements
CERCLA
restricts
EPA's
authorityto
respond
to
certain
categories
of
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
by
expressly
excluding
some
substances,
such
as
petroleum,
hm
the
response
program.
In
addition,
CERUA
section
105[
a)(
B)(
B)
directs
EPA
to
list
priority
sites
"
among"
the
known
releases
or
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants.
and
section
105[
a)
f8)(
A)
directs
EPA
to
consider
certain
enumerated
and
"
other
eppropriate"
factors
in
doing
so.%
us.,
as
a
matter
o
poIicy,
EPA
has
the
discretion
not
to
use
listed
as
anatter
af
poky
are
not
being
properly
responded
to,
the
Agency
may
place
them
on
the
M'L.
"'
he
listing
policies
and
statutory
requirementsof
relevance
to
this
proposed
nile
aver
sites
subjectto
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRR]
(
42
U.
S.
C.
8901­
6991iJand
Federal
facility
sites.
These
polfcies
and
wquirements
are
explainedbelow
and
have
been
explained
ingreater
detail
in
yKwious
rulemaking3,
the
latest
being
February
11.1991
[
56
FR55981.
Reieuses
FromBesource
Coitseivatiun
and
RecoveryAct
[
RCRA]
Sites
@
A's
policy
is
that
sites
sabject
to
RCKA
subtitln
C
corrective
action
authorities
wiH
not,
in
general,
be
placed
on
the
NPL.
However,
EPA
will
list
certain
categories
of
ERA
sites
subject
to
subtitle
C
correctivegetion
authorities,
as
well
as
other
sites
~
ubject
to
those
authorities,
if
the
Agency
concludes
that
doing
so
best
furthersthe
aims
of
the
MPL/
RCRA
policy
and
the
CERCLA
program.
EPA
has
explained
these
policies
in
detail
in
past
Federal
Register
discussions
(
51FR
211?
5.1.
June
10,1%
3%
53
FR
23978,
Juiie
24,1988;
54
FR
41000,
October
4,1989;
56
FR
5602,
February11.1991).
Consistent
with
EPKs
NPL/
RCRA
policy,
EPh
is
proposing
to
sdd
two
sites
to
the
NPL.
New
Hampshire
Plating
Co.
in
Merrimack.
NewHampshire,
and
Fe'sochem
Recycli
Corp./
Ekotoch.
Inc.,
in
Salt
Lake
City,
Utah,
that
are
subject
to
RCRA
Subtitle
C
comctive
action
authorities.
Material
has
been
placed
in
the
public
docket
for
the
Petrochem
Recycling
Corp./
Ekotech.
Znc.
site
confirming
that
the
owner
is
bankrupt.
Regarding
the
New
Hampshire
Platiag
Go.
site.
ever.
though
the
owner
has
not
formally
invoked
the
bankruptcy
laws,
available
documentatian
indicates
that
the
qompany
assets
cannot
cover
a
current
State
lien
on
the
property
for
response
action,
much
less
address
any
new
expensea
which
wodd
be
incurred
in
,
remediatix&
thesite.
A
moredetailed
discussionofthisissue
as
well
as
N.
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
The
costs
of
cieamp
actions
that
may
be
thken
at
sites
are
nct
directly
attributable
ta
placement
on
the
NPL,
as
explained
below.
Therefore,
the
Agency
has
deiamined
that
this
ruIemaking
is
not
a
"
major"
regulatiun
under
Executive
Order
12291.
EPA
has
conkucted
a
preliminary
analysisof
the
economic
implications
of
today's
proposal
to
add
new
sites
to
the
hTL
EPA
ibeliwes
that
thelsinds
ofeconomic
effectsassociated
with
thisproposed
revision
are
generaUy
similar
to
those
idedtifiedin
the
regulatory
impact
analysis
m)
prepared
in
1982for
revisionstu
the
NCPpursuant
to
section
105
of
CWCLA[
47
FR3118Q.
July16.
19821and
the economic
analysis
prepared
when
amendments
tu
the
NCP
were
proposed
[!%
FR
5882,
February
12.
1985).
The
Agency
believes
that
the
anticipated
economic
effects
related
to
proposing
to
add
these
sites
to
the
NPL
can
be
characterized
in
terms
of
the
conclusions
of
the
earlier
RIA
and
the
most
recent
economic
analysis.
This
rule
was
submitted
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
for
review
as
required
by
Executive
Order
12291.

COS&

Thisproposed
rulemaking
is
not
a
 
major 
renulation
because
it
does
not
estabiish
&
at
EPA
necessarily
will
undertake
remedial
action,
nor
does
it
require
any
action
by
a
private
party
or
determine
its
liabdity
for
site
response
costs.
Costs
that
arise
out
of
site
responses
result
fromsite­
by­
site
decisions
about
what
actions
to
take,
not
directly
fromthe
act
of
listing
itself.
Nonetheless.
it
is
useful
to
consider
the
costs
associated
with
responding
to
all
sites
in
thisrule.
Theproposed
listing
of
a
site
on
the
NPL
may
be
followed
by
a
ape
costs
associated
ctioh,
and
OW,
or
remedial
planqing,
and
90percent
of
the
costs
of
the
remedial
action,
leaving
10
percent
to
the
State.
Forpubliclyoperated
kites,
the
State s
shareis
at
least
50
percent
of
all
response
costs
at
the
site,
including
the
RLjFSand
remedial
design
and
construction
of
the
remedial
action
seleeted.
After
the
remedy
is
built
costs
fall
into
two
categories:

­
For
restoration
ofground
water
and
surface
water,
@
A
will
share
in
start­
up
costs
according
to
the
ownership
criteria
in
the
previous
paragraph
for
10
years
or
until
atswcieat
level
of
protectiveness
is
ach iierrbdbefore
the
end
oflo
years.
Forother
deanupps,
EPA
will
share
for
up
to
1year
the
Cost
of
that
portion
of
response
needed
to
assure
that
a
remedy
is
operational
and
functional.
After
that,
the
State
assumes
all
O%
M
Cost&
In
previous
NPL
rulemakings,
the
Agency
estimated
the
costs
associated
with
these
activities
(
RI/
FS,
remedial
design,
remedial
action,
and
O&
M)
on
.
an
average­
per­
site
and
total
cost
basis.
EPA
willcontinue
with
this
approach.
using
the
most
recent
(
198e)
cost
estimates
available;
these
estimates
are
presented
below.
However,
costs
 or
individual
sites
vary
widely,
depending
onthe
amount,
type,
and
egtent
of
contamination.
Additionally,
EPA
is
unable
to
predict
what
portions
of
the
total
costs
responsible
parties
will
bear,
since
the
distribution
of
costs
depends
onthe
extent
ofvoluntary
and
negotiated
response
and
the
success
of
any
cost­
recovery
actions.

Remedial
design.........................
._....
750,
M)
o
Remedial
action
................

$
988US.
Oouars
*
Inciudes
State
mst­
share
Assumes
cost
ofWDyer
30years.
S400.
W
for
the
fM
year
and
10
percent
discount
rate.
Source:
oftice
of
Rcgam
Manegem~
nt.
OIfiCe
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response.
US.
EPA.
Washmgtm
W2.

percent
ofremedial
actions
and
10
percent
of
first­
year
O&
Mcosts
at
privately­
owned
sites
and
sites
that
are
publicly­
owned
but
not
publicly­
operated:
and
(
2)
at
least
50
percent
of
the
remedial
planning
(
RI/
FS
and
remedial
design],
remedial
action,
and
first­
year
O&
Mcosts
at
publicly­
operated
sites.
States
will
assume
the
cost
for
O%
Mafter
FPAs
participation
ends.
Using
the
assumptions
developed
in
the
1982RIA
for
the
NCP.
EPA
has
assumed
that
90percent
of
the
non­
Federal
sites
proposed
for
the
Nm.
in
this
rule
will
be
privately­
owned
and
10
percent
willbe
State­
or
iocallyoperated
Therefore,
using
the
budget
projections
presented
above,
the
cost
to
States
ofundertaking
Federal
remedial
planning
and
actions
at
all
non­
Federal 
sites
in
today s
proposed
rule,
but
excluding
OW
costs,
would
be
approximately
$
80
million.
State
O%
M
costs
cannot
be
accurately
deKermined
because
EPA.
as
noted
above.
will
share
O&
Mcosts
 or
up
to
10years
for
restoration
of
ground
water
and
surface
water.
and
it
isnot
known
how
many
siteswill
require
this
treatment
and
 or
how
long.
However,
based
on
past
experience,
EPA
believes
a
reasonable
estimate
is
that
it
will
share
star!­
up
costs
for
up
to
10years
st
25
percent
of
sites.
Using
this
estimate,
State
Oaf
costs
would
be
approximately
$
54
million.
Froposing
a
hazardous
waste
site
for
the
NpL
does
not
itself
cause
firms
responsible
for
the
site
to
bear
costs.
Nonetheless,
a
listing
may
induce
firms
to
clean
up
the
sites
voluntarily.
or
it
may
act
as
a
potential
trigger
for
subsequent
enforcement
or
cost­
recovery
actions.
Such
actions
may
impose
costs
on
firms.
but
the
decisions
to
take
such
actions
are
discretionary
and
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Consequently,
these
effects
cannot
be
precisely
estimated.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
every
site
will
be
cleaned
up
by
a
responsible
party.
EPA
cannot
project
at
this
time
which
firmsor
industrysectors
will
bear
specific
portions
ofthe
response
costs.
but
the
Agency
considers:
The
volume
and
nature
of
the
waste
at
the
sites;
the
wtentid
hazards.
In
addition
to
the
sites
as
national
priori&
targets
also
Associated
with
the
cost8
arb
significantpotential
benefits
and
cost
­
35848
Fdkal
Register
1
Voi.
56,
No.
145
f'
Monday,
July
29,
lggl
1
Proposed
Rules
of setrThe
distriiutional
costa
tafirms
o financingEmLremediea
have
correapandiag"
beneAta"
inthat
fur,
ds
expended
for
a
generate
empIoyment.
directlyQT
indirectly
(
though
purchased
materiala].
M.
Regdatory
Flexibqty
Act
Andyeis
The
Regulatory
mexibifity
Ad
of
19&
0
requiresEPAto
review
the
impacts
of
this
actionMamall
entities,
or
certify
that
the
ectim
willnot
have
a
significantimpact
011
a
substantial
numberof
mailentiiia.
3y
mall
estities.
theAct
refersto
small
busiraessee.
small
governmeat
jurisdictions
aad
nonprofit
organizatians.
While
this
ruleproposesrevisions
to
the
NCP,
they
arenot
typical
regulatory
changes
sincethe
revisiom
do
not
automatically
impose
costs.
As
stated
above.
pwposkagsites
for
the
NPLdoes
not
in
itself
requiremy
action
by
any
private
party,
nor
does
it
determine
the
liability
of
any
party
for
the
coet
of
cleanup
at
&
e
site.
Further,
no
iaenttfiable
grpups
are
affected
as
a
dole.
As
P
consequence.
impactson
my
pup
arel,
hardto
predict.
A
site's
praposed
irrclhsionanthe
NPLcould
increase
the
likehood
of
adverse
COst­
reCov~
d~
tlons,
which
EPA
takm
at
its
diXr8Gon
on
a
dte­
by­
site
basis.
EPA
considers
manyfactors
when
determinine
enforcementactions,
incIdir&
not
only
thefirm's
conttikhtiob
to
the
problem,
but
also
its
abi&
y
to
pay.
Theimpacts
(
fromcost
recovery)
on
small
govements
and
nonprofit
org&
abns
would
be
detehed
on
a
simdarlcase­
by­
case
basis.
List
of
Subjects
in40CFRPart
300
Air
poIlution
conkof,
chemicals.
Hazsrdous
materials,
Intergovernmental
relations.
Natural
resources,
oil
ponution,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requiremepis,
SuperfundWaste
d
disposal,
Waterpollution
Sal?
PlY.
Table
l.­­
Natimal
RioritiesList
Proposed
Update
#
l
1
Sites(
8yGap)

.
state
­
name
1cA
1uT
4
FL
4.
WA
5n
5KY
SKY
5
NE
5
NE
5"

6NY
5
PA
RW
tdrmutamg
ce..
me.
5
Rl
WestKingston
Tm
Dump/

g
19.
*
urespondingta
Table
P.­
National
Priwities
List,
Federal
Faciiity
Sites,
Proposed
Update
#
ll
@
Y
Group)

Slate
sitename
HI
pearl
Harbor.

Tx
Pantex
vilage.

WA
Nath
­
wofF
FEDERALWITIME
COM#
ISsION
46
CFRParfs
515,
Wand
572
[
Docket
No.
91­
20]

Ecemptimof
Certain
Wne
Tsrminaf
Servfces
Arrangements
At3EPICY:
Federal
Maritime
Conmission.

AmOK
Noticeof
proposed
~
de~~~
iking:
Extension
of
reply
date.

wurw?
r:
On
May
15.1991.
the
Federal
hiaritime
Commissionpublished
a
notice
of
pmposed
rulemakmg
I56
FR
22384)
WE<&
proposes
to
amend
46
CFR
parts
51%
560and
572
toconditionally
exempt,
pursuant
tosectian
%
of
the
ShippingA&,
1916.
and
section16of
the
he$­
Asskiation
ofFuri
Authbrities
C"
AApB"]
has
requested
that
time or&
lingreplies
be
extended
to
A­
t
3l.
1­
toprovide
ample
time
to
review
and
respondto
commmts.
The
Codkission
has
deiemiued
to
grant
AApIpsrequest
Replies
t~
comments
due
on
or
befork
August
31,1991.

ADDRESSES:
Send
anoriginal
and
fifteen
copiw
of
replies
tu:
JosephC.
Poking,
Sedtary,
Federal
Maritime
Codission
1100
L
Street
NW.,
Washington.
M:
205734051,
(
ZOZ]
5235725

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
COMAC'C
Bryant
L.
VanBrakle.
Deputy
Director,
Bmeau
of
Domestic
Regulation,
Federal
MaritimeCo~~
oOLStreet,
NW,
Washington.
DCZa57­(
ZOZ)
523519&