Jump to main content.

Federal Register Notice

27989 - 27996 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 31, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

horizontal navy line

27989 - 27996 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 31, 1994 / Rules and Regulations


40 CFR Part 300

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION:  Final rule.


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 42 new sites to the NPL, 18 to the General Superfund Section and 24 to the Federal Facilities Section. The identification of a site for 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 action results in an NPL of 1,232 sites, 1,082 of them in the General Superfund Section and 150 of them in the Federal Facilities Section. An additional 54 sites are proposed, 48 in the General Superfund Section and 6 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,286.


The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall be June 30, 1994. CERCLA section 305 provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983) cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. If any action by Congress calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the Agency will publish a notice of clarification in the Federal Register.

[Return to Table of Contents]


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.


Terry Keidan
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation (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.


I. Introduction
II. Purpose and Implementation of the NPL
III. Contents of This Final Rule
IV. Executive Order 12866
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

[Return to Table of Contents]

I. Introduction


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, most recently 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 action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to releases or threats of releases on a short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA section 101(23)). Remedial action tends to be long-term in nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA section 101(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.

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

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 February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8724).

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 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 those facilities at which EPA is not the lead agency.


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) (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990). To date, the Agency has deleted 59 sites from the General Superfund Section of the NPL, most recently Monroe Township Landfill, Monroe Township, New Jersey (59 FR 5109, February 3, 1994).

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 58 sites that have been deleted from the NPL because they have been cleaned up (the Waste Research and Reclamation site was deleted based on deferral to another program and is not considered cleaned up), an additional 177 sites are also in the NPL CCL, all but one from the General Superfund Section. Thus, as of April 1994, the CCL consists of 235 sites.

Cleanups at sites on the NPL do not reflect the total picture of Superfund accomplishments. As of April 1994, EPA had conducted 614 removal actions at NPL sites, and 1,783 removal actions at non-NPL sites. Information on removals is available from the Superfund hotline.

Action in This Rule

This final rule adds 42 sites to the NPL, 18 to the General Superfund Section and 24 to the Federal Facilities Section. This rule also expands the Austin Avenue Radiation Site (Delaware County, PA) and reclassifies three General Superfund sites as Federal Facilities. This action results in an NPL of 1,232 sites, 1,082 of them in the General Superfund Section and 150 of them in the Federal Facilities Section. An additional 54 sites have been proposed, 48 in the General Superfund Section and 6 in the Federal Facilities Section, and are awaiting final Agency action. Final and proposed sites now total 1,286.

Information Available to the Public

The Headquarters and Regional public dockets for the NPL contain documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of sites in this final rule. The dockets are available for viewing, by appointment only, after the appearance of this notice. 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 the Regional Dockets for hours.

Addresses and phone numbers for the Headquarters and Regional dockets follow.

Docket Coordinator
Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office
5201 Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460

Ellen Culhane
Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HES-CAN 6
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211

Walter Schoepf
Region 2
26 Federal Plaza, 7th Floor, Room 740
New York, NY 10278

Diane McCreary
Region 3, U.S. EPA Library, 3rd Floor
841 Chestnut Building
9th & Chestnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Kathy Piselli
Region 4, U.S. EPA
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365

Cathy Freeman
Region 5, U.S. EPA Records Center
Waste Management Division 7-J
Metcalfe Federal Building
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604

Bart Canellas
Region 6, U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6H-MA
Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Steven Wyman
Region 7, U.S. EPA Library
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101

Greg Oberley
Region 8, U.S. EPA
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466

Rachel Loftin
Region 9, U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

David Bennett
Region 10, U.S. EPA, 11th Floor
1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop HW-114
Seattle, WA 98101

With the exception of Lower Ecorse Creek Dump (Wyandotte, Michigan) which is being listed based on ATSDR health advisory criteria, the Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score sheets for the final sites; Documentation Records for the sites describing the information used to compute the scores; pertinent information regarding statutory requirements or EPA listing policies that affect the sites; a list of documents referenced in each of the Documentation Records; comments received; and the Agency's responses to those comments. The Agency's responses are contained in the "Support Document forthe Revised National Priorities List Final Rule - May 1994."

Except for the ATSDR health advisory criteria site mentioned above, each Regional docket contains all the information in the Headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the site. These reference documents are available only in the Regional dockets. For the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site which is being listed on the basis of health advisory criteria, both the Headquarters and Regional dockets contain the public health advisory issued by ATSDR, and EPA memoranda supporting the findings that the release poses a significant threat to public health and that it would be more cost-effective to use remedial rather than removal authorities at the site.

Interested parties may view documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or Regional Dockets, or copies may be requested from the Headquarters or Regional Dockets. 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.

[Return to Table of Contents]

II. Purpose and Implementation of the NPL


The legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980)) states the primary purpose of the NPL:

The priority lists serve primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to any person. Subsequent government action in the form of remedial actions or enforcement actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.

The purpose of the NPL, therefore, is primarily to serve as an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites that EPA believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.


After initial discovery of a site at which a release or threatened release may exist, EPA begins a series of increasingly complex evaluations. The first step, the Preliminary Assessment (PA), is a low-cost review of existing information to determine if the site poses a threat to the public health or the environment. If the site presents a serious imminent threat, EPA may take immediate removal action. If the PA shows that the site presents a threat but not an imminent threat, EPA generally will perform a more extensive study called the Site Inspection (SI). The SI involves collecting additional information to better understand the extent of the problem at the site, screen out sites that will not qualify for the NPL, and obtain data necessary to calculate an HRS score for sites that warrant placement on the NPL and further study. To date EPA has completed approximately 35,000 PAs and approximately 17,000 SIs.

The NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1) limits expenditure of the Trust Fund for remedial actions to sites on the NPL. However, EPA may take enforcement actions under CERCLA or other applicable statutes against responsible parties regardless of whether the site is on the NPL; although, as a practical matter, the focus of EPA's CERCLA enforcement actions has been and will continue to be on NPL sites. Similarly, in the case of CERCLA removal actions, EPA has the authority to act at any site, whether listed or not, that meets the criteria of the NCP at 40 CFR 300.415(b)(2) (55 FR 8842, March 8, 1990).

EPA's policy is to pursue cleanup of NPL sites using all the appropriate response and/or enforcement actions available to the Agency, including authorities other than CERCLA. The Agency will decide on a site-by-site basis whether to take enforcement or other action under CERCLA or other authorities prior to undertaking response action, to proceed directly with Trust Fund-financed response actions and seek to recover response costs after cleanup, or do both. To the extent feasible, once sites are on the NPL, EPA will determine high-priority candidates for CERCLA-financed response action and/or enforcement action through both State and Federal initiatives. EPA will take into account which approach is more likely to accomplish cleanup of the site most expeditiously while using CERCLA's limited resources as efficiently as possible.

Although it is a factor that is considered, the ranking of sites by HRS scores does not by itself determine the sequence in which EPA funds remedial response actions, since the information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site (40 CFR 300.425(a)(2), 55 FR 8845). Additionally, resource constraints may preclude EPA from evaluating all HRS pathways; only those presenting significant environmental risk and sufficient to make a site eligible for the NPL may be evaluated. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require stopping work at sites where it already was underway. In addition, certain sites are based on other criteria.

More detailed studies of a site are undertaken in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") that typically follows listing. The purpose of the RI/FS is to assess site conditions and evaluate alternatives to the extent necessary to select a remedy (40 CFR 300.430(a)(2)). The RI/FS takes into account the amount of contaminants released into the environment, the risk to affected populations and environment, the cost to remediate contamination at the site, and the response actions that have been taken by potentially responsible parties or others. Decisions on the type and extent of response action to be taken at these sites are made in accordance with 40 CFR 300.415 and 40 CFR 300.430.

After conducting these additional studies, EPA may conclude that initiating a CERCLA remedial action using the Trust Fund at some sites on the NPL is not appropriate because of more pressing needs at other sites, or because a private party cleanup already is underway pursuant to an enforcement action. Given the limited resources available in the Trust Fund, 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 further analysis that the site does not warrant remedial action.

RI/FS at Proposed sites

An RI/FS may be performed at sites proposed in the Federal Register for placement on the NPL (or even sites that have not been proposed for placement on the NPL) pursuant to the Agency's removal authority under CERCLA, as outlined in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.415. Although an RI/FS generally is conducted at a site after it has been placed on the NPL, in a number of circumstances the Agency elects to conduct an RI/FS at a site proposed for placement on the NPL in preparation for a possible Superfund-financed response action, such as when the Agency believes that a delay may create unnecessary risks to public health or the environment. In addition, the Agency may conduct an RI/FS to assist in determining whether to conduct a removal or enforcement action at a site.

Facility (Site) Boundaries

The Agency's position is that the NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms, and that 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" of hazardous substances. Thus, the purpose of the NPL is merely to identify releases of hazardous substances 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)).

EPA regulations provide that the "nature and extent of the threat presented by a release" will be determined by an RI/FS as more information is developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.68(d)). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally known, 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 defined, and in any event are independent of the NPL listing. 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 will be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with certainty.

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. 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 at 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983). If a party contests liability for releases on discrete parcels of property, it may do so if and when the Agency brings an action against that party to recover costs or to compel a response action at that property.

At the same time, however, the RI/FS or the Record of Decision (which defines the remedy selected, 40 CFR 300.430(f)) may offer a useful indication to the public of the areas of contamination at which the Agency is considering taking a response action, based on information known at that time. For example, EPA may evaluate (and list) a release over a 400-acre area, but the Record of Decision may select a remedy over 100 acres only. This information may be useful to a landowner seeking to sell the other 300 acres, but it would result in no formal change in the fact that a release is included on the NPL. The landowner (and the public) also should note in such a case that if further study (or the remedial construction itself) reveals that the contamination is located on or has spread to other areas, the Agency may address those areas as well.

This view of the NPL as an initial identification of a release that is not subject to constant re-evaluation is consistent with the Agency's policy of not rescoring NPL sites:

EPA recognizes that the NPL process cannot be perfect, and it is possible that errors exist or that new data will alter previous assumptions. Once the initial scoring effort is complete, however, the focus of EPA activity must be on investigating sites in detail and determining the appropriate response. New data or errors can be considered in that process. . . . [T]he NPL serves as a guide to EPA and does not determine liability or the need for response. (49 FR 37081 (September 21, 1984)).

See also City of Stoughton, Wisc. v U.S. EPA, 858 F. 2d 747, 751 (DC Cir. 1988):

Certainly EPA could have permitted further comment or conducted further testing [on proposed NPL sites]. Either course would have consumed further assets of the Agency and would have delayed a determination of the risk priority associated with the site. Yet * * * "the NPL is simply a rough list of priorities, assembled quickly and inexpensively to comply with Congress' mandate for the Agency to take action straightaway." Eagle-Picher [Industries v. EPA] II, 759 F. 2d [921,] at 932 [(DC Cir. 1985)].

[Return to Table of Contents]

III. Contents of This Final Rule

This final rule adds 42 sites to the NPL, 18 to the General Superfund Section (Table 1) and 24 to the Federal Facilities Section (Table 2). Proposal #11 (56 FR 35840, July 29, 1991) provided 2 sites, Proposal #12 (57 FR 4824, February 7, 1992) provided 2 sites, Proposal #13 (57 FR 47204, October 14, 1992) provided 3 sites, Proposal #14 (58 FR 27507, May 10, 1993) provided 9 sites, and Proposal #15 (58 FR 34018, June 23, 1993) provided 14 sites; all are being added to the NPL based on HRS scores of 28.50 or greater. Proposal #16 (59 FR 2568, January 18, 1994) provided 12 sites; all but one are being added based on HRS scores of 28.50 or greater. The Lower Ecorse Creek Dump is being added to the NPL based on ATSDR health advisory criteria.

As discussed more fully below, the following tables present the sites in this rule arranged alphabetically by State and identifies their rank by group number. Group numbers are determined by arranging the NPL by rank and dividing it into groups of 50 sites. For example, a site in Group 4 has a score that falls within the range of scores covered by the fourth group of 50 sites on the NPL.

Table 1
National Priorities List Final Rule - General Superfund Section

State Site Name City/county Group
CA Frontier Fertilizer Davis 14
CO Summitville Mine Rio Grande County 4/5
FL Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho Division) Orlando 4/5
FL Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tarpon Springs) Tarpon Springs 1
KS Chemical Commodities Inc. Olathe 4/5
KY National Southwire Aluminum Co. Hawesville 5
MD Spectron, Inc. Elkton 4
MA Blackburn and Union Priveleges Walpole 5
MI Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Wyandotte *
NY GCL Tie and Treating Inc. Village of Sidney 5
OH North Sanitary Landfill Dayton 4/5
OR McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co. (Portland) Portland 1
PA UGI Columbia Gas Plant Columbia 4
TN Chemet Co Moscow 4/5
WA Pacific Sound Resources Seattle 1
WA Spokane Junkyard/Associated Properties Spokane 5
WA Vancouver Water Station #1 Contamination Vancouver 4/5
WI Ripon City Landfill Fond du Lac County 11
Number of Sites Listed: 18. * Based on issuance of ATSDR health advisory (not scored)

Table 2
National Priorities List Final Rule - Federal Facilities Section

State Site Name City/county Group
AK Adak Naval Air Station Adak 4
AK Fort Richardson (USARMY) Anchorage 4/5
AL Redstone Arsenal (USARMY/NASA) Huntsville 4/5
CA Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research/Old Campus Landfill (USDOE) Davis 4/5
FL Whiting Field Naval Air Station Milton 4/5
HI Naval Computer & Telecommunications Area Master Station Eastern Pacific Oahu 4/5
KY Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (USDOE) Paducah 2
MA Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base Bedford 4/5
MA Materials Technology Laboratory (USARMY) Watertown 5
MA Natick Laboratory Army Research, Development, & Engineering Center Natick 4/5
MA Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Bedford 4/5
MA South Weymouth Naval Air Station Weymouth 4/5
MD Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (USDA) Beltsville 4/5
MD Patuxent River Naval Air Station St. Mary's County 4/5
ME Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Kittery 1
PA Navy Ships Parts Control Center Mechanicsburg 4/5
TX Pantex Plant (USDOE) Pantex Village 4
VA Langley Air Force Base/NASA Langley Research Center Hampton 4/5
VA Marine Corps Combat Development Command Quantico 4/5
WA Jackson Park Housing Complex (USNAVY) Kitsap County 4/5
WA Old Navy Dump/ Manchester Laboratory (USEPA/NOAA) Manchester 4/5
WA Port Hadlock Detachment (USNAVY) Indian Island 4/5
WA Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Complex Bremerton 4/5
WV Allegany Ballistics Laboratory (USNAVY) Mineral County 4/5
Number of sites Listed: 24.

Expansion of the Austin Avenue Radiation Site

The Austin Avenue Radiation Site (Delaware County, PA), was proposed to the NPL on February 7, 1992 (57 FR 4824). At that time, specific areas were identified and enumerated as part of the site. EPA has identified additional contaminated areas not included in the original proposal. EPA proposed to expand the site in Proposal #13 (57 FR 47204, October 14, 1992). The comment period for the proposed expansion ended on November 13, 1992. EPA received no comments and, at this time, is finalizing the expansion of the Austin Avenue Radiation Site to include those additional areas identified in Proposal #13.

Reclassification of General Superfund Sites as Federal Facilities

EPA has reclassified three General Superfund Sites as Federal Facilities in response to information demonstrating Federal affiliation and/or ownership of these sites. These changes are intended to reflect more accurately the ownership, location, nature, or potential sources of contamination at the sites. The names have also been slightly modified to reflect the Federal status of the sites. The three sites are:

The number of sites in the General Superfund Section and the Federal Facilities Section have been adjusted to reflect these reclassifications.

While EPA has redesignated these sites as Federal Facilities, the Agency emphasizes that designation of a site as Federal or non-Federal for listing is for informational purposes only. NPL listing, and the underlying information, may be used as evidence that a Federal agency may own or operate all or part of a facility for purposes of determining its obligations under Section 120(e) of CERCLA. However, the designation of a site as Federal or non-Federal for placement on the NPL does not determine, or limit, the extent of any Federal agency's obligations under section 120. For example, any Federal agencies that own or operate these sites were obligated under CERCLA Section 120(e) to commence the RI/FS within six months of listing, even though the sites were not listed in the Federal Facilities section of the NPL.

Name Change

EPA is changing the name of the Hanscom Air Force Base site in Bedford, Massachusetts, to Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base. EPA believes the name change more accurately reflects the site.

Public Comments

EPA reviewed all comments received on sites included in this rule. The formal comment period ended on September 27, 1991 for sites included from Proposal #11; April 7, 1992 for sites included from Proposal #12; November 13, 1992 for the expansion of the Austin Avenue Radiation Site (Delaware County, PA); December 14, 1992 for sites included in Proposal #13; June 9, 1993 for Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base (Bedford, MA) and Natick Laboratory Army Research, Development, and Engineering Center (Natick, MA); July 9, 1993 for all other sites included in Proposal #14; July 23, 1993 for South Weymouth Naval Air Station (Weymouth, MA), Materials Technology Laboratory (USARMY, Watertown, MA) and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (Kittery, ME); August 23, 1993 for all other sites in Proposal #15; and March 21, 1994 for sites in Proposal #16.

Based on comments received on the proposed sites, as well as investigation by EPA and the States (generally in response to comment), EPA recalculated the HRS scores for individual sites where appropriate. EPA's response to site-specific public comments and explanations of any score changes made as a result of such comments are addressed in the "Support Document forthe Revised National Priorities List Final Rule - May 1994". For a number of the sites included in this rule and for the expansion of the Austin Avenue Radiation Site (Delaware County, PA), EPA received no comments.

Statutory Requirements

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list priority sites "among" the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and section 105(a)(8)(A) directs EPA to consider certain enumerated and "other appropriate" factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, EPA has the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, EPA has chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency may place them on the NPL.

Releases from Federal Facility Sites

On March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10520), the Agency announced a policy for placing Federal Facility sites on the NPL if they meet the eligibility criteria (e.g., an HRS score of 28.50 or greater), even if the Federal Facility also is subject to the corrective action authorities of RCRA Subtitle C. In that way, those sites could be cleaned up under CERCLA, if appropriate.

Economic Impacts

The costs of cleanup actions that may be taken at any site are not directly attributable to placement on the NPL. EPA has conducted a preliminary analysis of economic implications of today's amendment to the NPL. EPA believes that the kinds of economic effects associated with this revision generally are similar to those effects identified in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) prepared in 1982 for the revisions to the NCP pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA and the economic analysis prepared when amendments to the NCP were proposed (50 FR 5882, February 12, 1985). The Agency believes the anticipated economic effects related to adding sites to the NPL can be characterized in terms of the conclusions of the earlier RIA and the most recent economic analysis.

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. Nonetheless, it is useful to consider the costs associated with responding to the sites included in this rulemaking.

The major events that follow the proposed listing of a site on the NPL are a search for potentially responsible parties and a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine if remedial actions will be undertaken at a site. Design and construction of the selected remedial alternative follow completion of the RI/FS, and operation and maintenance (O&M) activities may continue after construction has been completed.

EPA initially bears costs associated with responsible party searches. Responsible parties may bear some or all the costs of the RI/FS, remedial design and construction, and O&M, or EPA and the States may share costs.

The State cost share for site cleanup activities has been amended by Section 104 of SARA. For privately-owned sites, as well as at publicly-owned but not publicly-operated sites, EPA will pay for 100% of the costs of the RI/FS and remedial planning, and 90% of the costs associated with remedial action. The State will be responsible for 10% of the remedial action. For publicly-operated sites, the State cost share is at least 50% of all response costs at the site, including the RI/FS and remedial design and construction of the remedial action selected. After the remedy is built, costs fall into two categories:

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 will continue with this approach, using the most recent (1993) cost estimates available; the estimates are presented below. However, there is wide variation in costs for individual sites, depending on the amount, type, and extent of contamination. Additionally, EPA is unable to predict what portions of the total costs responsible parties will bear, since the distribution of costs depends on the extent of voluntary and negotiated response and the success of any cost-recovery actions.

Cost category Average total cost per site 1
RI/FS 1,350,000
Remedial Design 1,260,000
Remedial Action 21,960,000 3
Net present value of O&M 2 3,770,000
Source: Office of Program Management, Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 1 1993 U.S. Dollars.
2 Assumes cost of O&M over 30 years, $400,000 for the first year and 10% discount rate.
3 Includes State cost-share.

Costs to the States associated with today's final rule arise from the required State cost-share of:

  1. 10% of remedial actions and 10% of first-year O&M costs at privately-owned sites and sites that are publicly-owned but not publicly-operated; and

  2. at least 50% of the remedial planning (RI/FS and remedial design), remedial action, and first-year O&M costs at publicly-operated sites.

States will assume the cost for O&M after EPA's period of participation. Using the budget projections presented above, the cost to the States of undertaking Federal remedial planning and actions, but excluding O&M costs, would be approximately $60 million. State O&M costs cannot be accurately determined because EPA, as noted above, will share O&M costs for up to 10 years for restoration of ground water and surface water, and it is not known if the site will require this treatment and for how long. Assuming EPA involvement for 10 years is needed, State O&M costs would be approximately $58 million.

Placing a hazardous waste site on the final 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, precise estimates of these effects cannot be made. EPA does not believe that every site will be cleaned up by a responsible party. EPA cannot project at this time which firms or industry sectors will bear specific portions of the response costs, but the Agency considers: the volume and nature of the waste at the sites; the strength of the evidence linking the wastes at the site to the parties; the parties' ability to pay; and other factors when deciding whether and how to proceed against the parties.

Economy-wide effects of this amendment to the NPL are aggregations of efforts on firms and State and local governments. Although effects could be felt by some individual firms and States, the total impact of this amendment on output, prices, and employment is expected to be negligible at the national level, as was the case in the 1982 RIA.


The real benefits associated with today's amendment are increased health and environmental protection as a result of increased public awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the potential for more Federally-financed remedial actions, expansion of the NPL could accelerate privately-financed, voluntary cleanup efforts. Listing sites as national priority targets also may give States increased support for funding responses at particular sites.

As a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human exposure to high-risk chemicals, and higher-quality surface water, ground water, soil, and air. These benefits are expected to be significant, although difficult to estimate in advance of completing the RI/FS at these sites.

[Return to Table of Contents]

IV. Executive Order 12866

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

[Return to Table of Contents]

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

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 revises the NCP, it 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 the listing of the sites in this NPL rule 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 the 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 rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this regulation does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

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.

Dated: May 24, 1994

Timothy Fields,
Acting, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.


1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

2. Appendix B to Part 300 is revised to read as set forth below:

Appendix B to Part 300 - National Priorities List

[FR Doc. 94-13189 Filed 5-27-94; 8:45 am]


Top of page

OSWER Home | Superfund Home | Innovative Technologies Home

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.