[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50450-50454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25094]
[[Page 50449]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 300
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Proposed Rule No. 23; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 50450]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5895-7]
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Proposed Rule No. 23
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. 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.
This rule proposes to add 9 new sites to the NPL, all to the
General Superfund Section.
DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before November 24, 1997.
ADDRESSES: By Mail: 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; 703/603-9232.
By Federal Express: Send original and three copies of comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. EPA;
CERCLA Docket Office; 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway; Crystal Gateway #1,
First Floor; Arlington, VA 22202.
By E-Mail: Comments in ASCII format only may be mailed directly to
[email protected] E-mailed comments must be followed up
by an original and three copies sent by mail or Federal Express.
For additional Docket addresses and further details on their
contents, see Section II, ``Public Review/Public Comment,'' 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, (703) 603-8852, or the Superfund Hotline, Phone
(800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan
area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Contents
I. Background
What are CERCLA and SARA?
What is the NCP?
What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
How are sites listed on the NPL?
What happens to sites on the NPL?
How are site boundaries defined?
How are sites removed from the NPL?
Can portions of sites be deleted from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
Can I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
How do I access the documents?
What documents are available for public review at the
Headquarters docket?
What documents are available for public review at the Regional
dockets?
How do I submit my comments?
What happens to my comments?
Can I submit comments after the public comment period is over?
Can I view public comments submitted by others?
Can I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to
the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
Proposed Additions to the NPL
Status of NPL
IV. Executive Order 12866
What is Executive Order 12866?
Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
V. Unfunded Mandates
What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
VI. Effect on Small Businesses
What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply to this proposed rule?
I. Background
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 of
hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public Law 99-
499, 100, Stat. 1613 et seq.
What is the NCP
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
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under
CERCLA. 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 42 U.S.C. 9601(23).)
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 by SARA. 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 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.
However, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it does not assign
liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property.
Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or
removal action necessarily need be taken. See Report of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Rep. No. 96-848, 96th
Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983).
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
[[Page 50451]]
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
generally is not the lead agency at Federal Facilities Section sites,
and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other
sites.
How are Sites Listed on the NPL
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):
(1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently
high on the Hazard Ranking System (``HRS''), which EPA promulgated as
Appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). 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. 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. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
(2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to
be listed on the NPL, 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 (see 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)).
(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their
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.
EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
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.
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
April 1, 1997 (62 FR 15572).
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
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions *
* *.'' 42 USC 9601(24).) 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.
How Are Site Boundaries Defined?
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.
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 (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, to describe the relevant release(s) the
approach generally used is to delineate a geographical area (usually
the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify 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 identify the site, as
well as any other location to which contamination from that area has
come to be located, or from which 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. 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(s) 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 as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.
How are Sites Removed From the NPL?
EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as
[[Page 50452]]
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 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.
To date, the Agency has deleted 149 sites from the NPL.
Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?
In November 1995, EPA initiated a new 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 available for productive use. As of September
1997, EPA has deleted portions of 6 sites.
What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)
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) 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.
In addition to the 142 sites that have been deleted from the NPL
because they have been cleaned up (7 sites have been deleted based on
deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up), an
additional 305 sites are also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of September
1997, the CCL consists of 447 sites.
II. Public Review/Public Comment
Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule
Yes, 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 in Washington, D.C. and in the appropriate Regional
offices.
How Do I Access the Documents
You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the appropriate Regional docket after the appearance of
this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket
are from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding
Federal holidays. Please contact individual Regional dockets for hours.
You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the
appropriate Regional docket. An informal request, rather than a formal
written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the
ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents.
Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
docket (see ``How do I submit my comments?'' section below for Regional
contacts):
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office,
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,
VA 22202, 703/603-9232. (Please note this is a visiting address only.
Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this
preamble, or contact Regional offices as detailed in the ``How do I
submit my comments?'' section below.)
What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters
Docket
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.
What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets
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.
How Do I Submit My Comments?
Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the
beginning of this preamble. Regional offices may be reached at the
following:
Jim Kyed, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), 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 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007-1866, 212/637-4435
Diane McCreary, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA Library,
3rd Floor, 841 Chestnut Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia,
PA 19107, 215/566-5250
Kathy Piselli, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 100
Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303, 404/562-8190
Cathy Freeman, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), 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 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Mail Code 6H-MA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-6740
Carole Long, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue,
Kansas City, KS 66101, 913/551-7224
Pat Smith, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 999 18th
Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, 303/312-6082
Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 415/744-2343
David Bennett, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200
6th Avenue, Mail Stop HW-114, Seattle, WA 98101, 206/553-2103
What Happens to My Comments?
EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific
[[Page 50453]]
information that EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS
factor values (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.
Can I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over?
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.
Can I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?
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.
Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the
NPL?
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.
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
Proposed Additions to the NPL
Table 1 identifies the 9 sites in the General Superfund section
being proposed to the NPL in this rule. This table follows 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 an HRS score that falls within the range of scores covered
by the fourth group of 50 sites on the NPL.
Status of NPL
A final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register,
results in an NPL of 1,204 sites, 1,053 in the General Superfund
Section and 151 in the Federal Facilities Section. With this proposal
of 9 new sites, there are now 52 sites proposed and awaiting final
agency action, 46 in the General Superfund Section and 6 in the Federal
Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,256.
IV. Executive Order 12866
What is Executive Order 12866?
Executive Order 12866 requires certain regulatory assessments for
any ``economically significant regulatory action,'' defined as one
which would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more, or have other substantial impacts.
Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
No, this is not an economically significant regulatory action;
therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
V. Unfunded Mandates
What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
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, 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.
Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
No, 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 section 202, 203 or
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
VI. Effect on Small Businesses
What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
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.
Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?
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
[[Page 50454]]
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.
Table 1.--National Priorities List Proposed Rule #23, General Superfund
Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN............... Cam-Or Inc.............. Westville......... 2
MA............... GE-Housatonic River..... Pittsfield........ 1
NJ............... Cornell Dubilier South Plainfield.. 5
Electronics Inc.
NJ............... LCP Chemicals Inc....... Linden............ 5/6
NJ............... Puchack Well Field...... Pennsauken 5/6
Township.
NJ............... Zschiegner Refining..... Howell Township... 5/6
NY............... Fulton Avenue........... North Hempstead... 21
NY............... Peter Cooper............ Gowanda........... 5/6
TN............... American Bemberg........ Elizabethton...... 5/6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 9.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
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: September 12, 1997.
Timothy Fields, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.
[FR Doc. 97-25094 Filed 9-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
