DOCSLIB.ORG

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Priorities List, Proposed Rule United States Office of March 2004 Environmental Protection Solid Waste and Agency Emergency Response Auxiliary Information: National Priorities List, Proposed Rule Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Intermittent Bulletin State & Site Identification Center (5204G) Internet Volume 7, Number 1 This publication combines the information contained The NPL identifies and informs the public of in the documents previously published as Background uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that warrant further Information: National Priorities List, Proposed Rule and investigation to determine if they pose risks to human Final Rule (Publication 9320.7-05I) and Supplementary health or the environment. Such sites are eligible for long- Materials: National Priorities List, Proposed Rule and term "remedial action" financed under the Trust Fund Final Rule (Publication 9320.7-06I). established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments proposing 11 sites to the National Priorities List (NPL) in and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). a rule published in the Federal Register in March 2004. All sites are in the General Superfund Section and all SARA authorized a "Hazardous Substances scored 28.50 or greater on the Hazard Ranking System Superfund" totaling $8.5 billion over 5 years to pay costs (HRS). The States of Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, for overseeing work by those responsible for cleaning up Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West waste sites, and to pay costs for overseeing work by those Virginia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are each responsible parties for cleaning up waste sites, and to pay adding one site. The State of New York is adding two costs not assumed by responsible parties for cleanup at sites. CONTENTS How Sites Are Placed on the NPL ...................................................2 Statutory Requirements and Listing Policies ...........................................3 How S ites A re D eleted F rom the NPL ................................................5 Removing Proposed Sites .........................................................5 Construction Completion List .......................................................5 Additional Publications ............................................................5 Key Dates In Superfund ...........................................................6 Lists and Data Summaries: ........................................................7 Proposed Rule (by State) ....................................................... 8 Proposed Sites (by State) ......................................................9 Federal Facilities Section (by State) .............................................13 Sites Deleted from the NPL ....................................................20 Final and Proposed Sites (by State) .............................................28 Final and Proposed Sites Per State/Territory (by Proposed Rule 40) .................... 62 Proposed Rule Site Scores ....................................................64 Federal Register Notices .........................................................65 sites in the General Superfund Section of the NPL. In The revised HRS retains the same cutoff score and October 1990, SARA was extended to September 30, 1994. basic approach as the original HRS, while incorporating Appropriations by Congress have allowed Superfund to SARA requirements as well as improvements identified as continue to operate. necessary by EPA and the public. The revised HRS retains the ground water, surface water, and air pathways, drops EPA's goals for the Superfund program are to: the direct contact and fire/explosion pathways, and adds a fourth pathway, soil exposure. All four can be used to • Address the worst sites and the worst problems calculate the site score. first The second mechanism for placing sites on the NPL • Make sites safe by immediately controlling acute allows States or Territories to designate one top-priority threats to people and the environment site regardless of HRS score. Of the 57 States and Territories, 41 have designated top-priority sites. • Develop and use new technologies for more effective cleanups. Fifteen of these sites have been deleted from the NPL because no further response was necessary. EPA continually seeks ways to evaluate and clean up sites more quickly. EPA has developed several measures The third mechanism allows a site to be listed if it to streamline the listing process (most notably making the meets all three of these requirements: HRS documentation record more succinct) and is considering others. • The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health HOW SITES ARE PLACED Service has issued a health advisory that recommends removing people from the site. ON THE NPL • EPA determines the site poses a significant threat EPA uses informal rulemaking to place sites on the to public health. NPL. Sites are first proposed to the NPL in the Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the sites • EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to (typically for 60 days), responds to the comments, and use its remedial authority (available only at NPL finally places on the NPL those sites that continue to meet sites) than to use its emergency removal authority the requirements for listing. to respond to the site. Section 300.425 of the National Oil and Hazardous Thirteen sites have been listed on the NPL on the basis Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), the Federal of ATSDR advisories: regulation by which CERCLA is implemented (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990), provides three mechanisms for • Eight are currently on the NPL: Forest Glen placing sites on the NPL. The primary mechanism is Mobile Home Subdivision, Niagara Falls, NY (54 EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The original HRS, FR 48184, November 21, 1989); White Chemical developed in 1982, evaluated the relative threat a site posed Corp., Newark, NJ (56 FR 48438, September 25, to human health and/or the environment over five 1991); Lower Ecorse Creek Dump, Wyandotte, "pathways," or routes of exposure. The HRS score was MI (59 FR 27989, May 31, 1994); Raymark based on the evaluation of three pathways through which Industries, Inc., Stratford, CT (59 FR 2568 contaminants can migrate: ground water, surface water, January 19, 1995); Tennessee Products, and air. The other two pathways, direct contact and Chattanooga, TN (60 FR 50435, September 29, fire/explosion, were evaluated to determine the need for 1995); Aircraft Components (D&L Sales), Benton immediate removal (emergency) action. HRS scores Harbor, MI (61 FR 30510, June 17, 1996); Little ranged from 0 to 100. An HRS score of 28.50 was selected Valley, Little Valley, NY (61 FR 30510, June 17, as the cutoff point for the first proposed NPL to identify at 1996) and Grand Street Mercury, Hoboken, NJ least 400 sites, the minimum suggested by CERCLA. (62 FR 50441, September 25, 1997). On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA revised • Four, Austin Avenue Radiation Site, Delaware the HRS, as required by SARA. The revised HRS became County, PA (57 FR 47181, October 14, 1992); effective on March 14, 1991. It is a more comprehensive Lansdowne Radiation Site, Lansdowne, PA (56 and accurate scoring system than the original HRS and may FR 46121, September 10, 1991); Radium add new types of sites to the NPL. Chemical Co., Inc., New York City, NY (60 FR 15489, March 24, 1995); and H&K Sales, 2 Belding, MI (63 FR 27855, May 21, 1998); have Regulatory Commission (NRC). However, if EPA later been deleted because all appropriate response has determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not been completed. being properly responded to, it may consider placing them on the NPL. • One, Quail Run Mobile Manor, Gray Summit, MO (48 FR 40674, September 8, 1983) was RCRA-Related Sites dropped from further consideration on February 11, 1991 (56 FR 5598). Because of an EPA When the first final NPL was promulgated in removal action, ATSDR had rescinded its health September 1983, EPA announced certain listing policies advisory. relating to sites that might qualify for the NPL. One of these policies involved facilities subject to RCRA Subtitle NPL STATUS (March 2004)* C. EPA's policy was generally not to place on the NPL, RCRA "regulated units" (for example, land disposal units that received hazardous waste after the effective date of the Number of Sites on Final NPL: RCRA land disposal regulations) because EPA can require Total: 1,240 the owner/operator to clean up under RCRA. The RCRA General Superfund Section: 1,082 cleanup process and standards are similar to those under Federal Facilities Section: 158 CERCLA, ensuring that all actions taken will protect human health and the environment. Number of Sites Remaining on Proposed NPL: In November 1984, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Total: 65 General Superfund Section: 59 Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA were enacted, expanding Federal Facilities Section: 6 EPA's authority to require corrective measures under Subtitle C. As a result of this broadened RCRA authority, Total Number of Final and Proposed Sites: EPA revised its policy for placing non-Federal RCRA- 1,305 regulated sites on the NPL, and on June 10, 1986 (54 FR 21057) announced that facilities subject to RCRA Subtitle Number of Sites on the Construction C corrective action authorities would be placed on the NPL Completion List: if one or
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RCED-98-241 Superfund
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters August 1998 SUPERFUND Information on the Status of Sites GAO/RCED-98-241 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-280503 August 28, 1998 The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking Minority Member Committee on Commerce House of Representatives The Honorable Thomas J. Manton Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials Committee on Commerce House of Representatives The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify severely contaminated hazardous waste sites and place them on the National Priorities List for cleanup under the Superfund program. The progress of cleanup work at National Priorities List sites has been a focus of congressional and EPA attention over the history of the program. National Priorities List sites generally follow a regular path toward cleanup that includes a study of site conditions and an evaluation of cleanup alternatives, the selection of one or more cleanup remedies (that is, the cleanup standards and techniques to be used at site), and the design and construction of the remedies. Given the congressional interest in the status of sites on the National Priorities List, you asked us to (1) determine the progress the Superfund program has made in selecting remedies at both federal and nonfederal sites; (2) verify the accuracy of the information in the Superfund database on sites’ cleanup progress; and (3) determine the number of cleanup projects that cannot be started in fiscal year 1998 because of a lack of funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio River Park Site Operable Unit Three Neville Island Allegheny County, Pennsylvania February 1998
    SUPERFUND PROGRAM PROPOSED PLAN Ohio River Park Site Operable Unit Three Neville Island Allegheny County, Pennsylvania February 1998 INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region HI (EPA) has identified the Preferred Alternative to address hazardous contamination in groundwater, surface water, and sediment at the Ohio River Park Superfund Site ("Site") located on Neville Island in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (see Figure 1). The major components of EPA's Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3 in this Proposed Plan) include monitored natural attenuation, and institutional controls. (Terms in bold print are defined hi the Glossary.) This Proposed Plan is based on site-related documents contained in the Administrative Record for the Site including the Remedial Investigation, the Baseline Risk Assessment, v the Ecological Risk Assessment1, the Feasibility Study, and the Intrinsic Remediation Demonstration. The Administrative Record is at the following locations: Coraopolis Memorial Library U.S. EPA-Regipn ffl Docket Room State and School Streets Ms. Anna Butch Coraopolis, PA 15108 841 Chestnut Building, 9th Floor (412)264-3502 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 566-3157 EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania encourage the public to review and comment on the Preferred Alternative, the Proposed Plan, and other documents hi the Administrative Record file. The public comment period begins on February 25, 1998 and closes on March 26, 1998. On March 17, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., EPA will hold a public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan at the Neville Township Municipal Building, 5050 Grand Avenue, Neville Island, PA. Written comments, postmarked no later than March 26, 1998, should be sent to: 1 The ERA consists of Sections 1.0 - 3.0 of the Draft Ecological Risk Assessment prepared by the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) as supplemented by EPA's Data Interpretation, dated November 18, 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • It's Time to Prioritize Climate Threats
    10. DUNDAS_ (DO NOT DELETE) 2/4/2020 7:00 PM CERCLA: IT’S TIME TO PRIORITIZE CLIMATE THREATS Lindsey Dundas∗ Climate change will bring more extreme weather, including increased flooding and wind damage, to all stretches of the United States. These effects of climate change will cause pro- found consequences for communities living near sites with a legacy of toxic waste. With 1,883 Superfund sites on the Na- tional Priorities List and countless other U.S. properties with some degree of contamination, climate change will re- sult in increased risk of exposure for surrounding local popu- lations and environments. Currently, the Hazard Ranking System does not consider effects of climate change when cal- culating the risk a site poses to the public. Without consider- ing associated climate risks, the sites are not accurately ranked on the National Priorities list, and resources under CERCLA may not be adequately allocated. This Comment explores an approach to modifying the cur- rent CERCLA regime to account for climate change while calculating a site’s score under the Hazard Ranking System. I argue that the process of ranking sites on the National Pri- orities List must be updated to account for associated climate risks. This change should be made by updating the current formula through rulemaking by the Environmental Protec- tion Agency. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 284 I. SUPERFUND SITES IMPERILED BY CLIMATE CHANGE ..... 285 A. Damage to the San Jacinto Waste Pits During Hurricane Harvey .................................................... 285 B. The Martin Aaron Industrial Site ........................... 289 ∗ J.D. Candidate, 2020, University of Colorado Law School; B.S. Chemistry, 2016, Virginia Tech.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrator's Emphasis List 2017-2021
    MAKING DECISIONS AND MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN SUPERFUND ADMINISTRATOR’S EMPHASIS LIST 2017-2021 Following a key recommendation of the Superfund Task Force, EPA released the initial Administrator’s Emphasis List in December 2017. It identified 21 sites from across the United States targeted for immediate and intense attention. The Superfund site remedial process is a multi-step process that can be delayed, sometimes for years, for any number of reasons. In developing this list, EPA considered sites that could benefit from the Administrator’s direct engagement and that had identifiable actions to protect human health and the environment that were yet to be completed. These sites required timely resolution of specific issues to expedite cleanup and redevelopment efforts. The Administrator’s Emphasis List identified site-specific milestones covering a broad spectrum of issues at sites across the United States. Milestones covered National Priorities List listing, remedy selection, investigations and settlement agreements. The list was designed to be dynamic and to spur action at sites where opportunities exist to act quickly and comprehensively. The resolution of an issue at a particular site can often provide information and insight into how to resolve similar issues at other sites and thus, provide lessons learned that can be applied broadly to the Superfund program. Significant progress has been made at each of the sites because of this special emphasis. Information on the Administrator’s Emphasis List can be found at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-sites- targeted-immediate-intense-action. Since the creation of the Administrator’s Emphasis List in 2017, EPA has achieved critical milestones at 28 sites that have moved site cleanups forward.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGICAL REVITALIZATION: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
    ECOLOGICAL REVITALIZATION: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets A pocket park at a Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, former service station restored to a wetland Constructed wetland on a Superfund landfill site Former weapons manufacturing site, now a national wildlife refuge Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, now part of the Audubon Trail Former Brownfields property, transformed into a natural habitat Former Superfund site February 2009 restored to natural habitat Former army ammunition plant, now a national tallgrass prairie Former Brownfields property, restored to natural habitat About the cover page: Ecological Revitalization in Action Descriptions are in a clock-wise direction, starting with top right. 1. Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, restored to a wetland: Ecological revitalization at the AMAX Metals Recovery Inc. (now Freeport McMoRan) in Braithwaite, Louisiana, where a water retention pond was dewatered to form a wetland that provided a home to alligators relocated due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Photograph courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program. 2. Former weapons manufacturing site, now a national wildlife refuge: Nearly 27 square miles at Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) in Colorado, one of the worst hazardous waste sites in the country, have been transformed into one of the nation’s largest urban national wildlife refuges. The open space surrounding a former weapons manufacturing facility at RMA provides a home for nearly 300 species of wildlife including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Photograph courtesy of EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI). 3. Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, now part of the Audubon Trail: At England Air Force Base in Louisiana, areas excavated during cleanup became part of the Audubon Trail, provided habitat and a stopping point for migratory birds, and expanded an 18-hole golf course.
    [Show full text]
  • Ciba-Geigy National Priorities List Site, Mcintosh, Alabama Restoration
    August 2017 Ciba-Geigy National Priorities List Site, McIntosh, Alabama Restoration Plan and Programmatic Environmental Assessment Prepared by: Natural Resource Trustees for the Ciba-Geigy NPL Site U.S. Department of the Interior National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Geological Survey of Alabama This page intentionally left almost blank. i Ciba-Geigy National Priorities List Site, McIntosh, Alabama Restoration Plan and Programmatic Environmental Assessment August 2017 Suggested Citation Ciba-Geigy NRDAR Trustees. 2017. Ciba-Geigy NPL Site Restoration Plan/Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and Geological Survey of Alabama. ii FACT SHEET Restoration Plan/Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Ciba-Geigy National Priorities List (NPL) Site Trustee Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and Geological Survey of Alabama Abstract: The Natural Resource Trustee Agencies (Trustees) present a description of the assessed natural resource injuries and losses resulting from releases of hazardous substances from the Ciba-Geigy NPL Site in McIntosh, Alabama, and the restoration project types proposed for use to compensate for those injuries and losses. Releases of hazardous substances, which include primarily dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and DDT-isomers, likely affected fish, birds, sediment, and sediment-dwelling biota. The Trustees identified habitat enhancement and restoration on newly acquired lands and habitat enhancement and restoration of state-owned lands as appropriate and reasonable strategies for restoration of natural resources or services like those injured or lost.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision 1993
    1140073-R8SDMS RECORD OF DECISION MONTANA POLE AND TREATING PLANT NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE BUTTE, MONTANA Montana Department of Health &, Environmental Sciences Solid & Hazardous Waste Bureau Cogswell Building Helena, Montana 59620 (Lead Agency) (Support Agency) United States Environmental Protection Agency Region Vm - Montana Office Federal Building, 301 S. Park, Drawer 10096 Helena, MT 59626-0096 September 1993 6011002 431468 RECORD OF DECISION MONTANA POLE AND TREATING PLANT NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE INTRODUCTION The Montana Department of Health & Environmental Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) present the Record of Decision for the Montana Pole and Treating Plant site (the Site). The Record of Decision is based on the Administrative Record, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, the Proposed Plan, the public comments received, including those from the potentially responsible parties, EPA comments, and other new information. The Record of Decision presents a brief outline of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, actual and potential risks to human health and the environment, and the selected remedy. The state followed EPA guidance' in preparation of the Record of Decision. The Record of Decision has the following three purposes: 1. Certify that the remedy selection process was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP); 2. Outline the engineering components and remediation goals of the selected remedy; and 3. Provide the public with a consolidated source of information about the history, characteristics, and risks posed by the conditions at the Site, as well as a summary of the cleanup alternatives considered, their evaluation, and the rationale behind the selected remedy.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Year Review Report Signed on March 24, 2003
    111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 SDMS DoclD 2089416 Five-Year Review Report Second Five-Year Review Report for Ohio River Park Neville Township Allegheny County, Pennsylvania EPA 10 Number PA0980508816 PREPARED BY: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 11 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms and Abbreviations vi Executive Summary vii Five-YI~ar Review Summary Form. ........................................... .. viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY 2 3.0 BACKGROUND 4 3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 4 31.1 Surface Features 4 3.12 Geology 4 3.1.3 Hydrology 5 3.1.4 Climate 5 3.2 LAND AND RESOURCE USE 5 3.3 HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION 6 3.4 INITIAL RESPONSE 6 3.5 BASIS FOR TAKING REMEDIAL ACTION 7 3.5.1 Air Quality 7 3.5.2 Surface Soil Contamination 7 3.5.3 Subsurface Soil Contamination 8 3.5.4 Buried Waste 8 3.5.5 Surface Water 8 3.5.6 Sediment 8 3.5.7 Groundwater 8 3.5.8 Summary of Site Risks 9 4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS 10 4.1 REMEDY SELECTION 10 4.1.1 Operable Unit 1- Soil 10 4.12 Operable Unit 3 - Groundwater 11 4.2 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION 11 4.21 Remedy Implementation Operable Unit 1 11 4.2.2 Remedy Implementation Operable Unit 3 15 4.3 SYSTEMS OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 15 4.4 SITE REDEVELOPMENT 16 5.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 17 6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 17 6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENTS 17 6.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 18 6.3 DOCUMENT REVIEW 19 6.4 DATA REVIEW 19 11I 64.1 Groundwater Data 20 6.4.2 Surface Water Data 21 6.4.3 Air Monitoring Data 22 6.5 Site Inspection.
    [Show full text]
  • Close out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
    OSWER Directive 9320.2‐22 May 2011 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites Table of Contents Section Page Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ iv 1.0 Introd uction ........................................................................................................................... 1­1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.2 Contents of the Guidance ..................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Role of the Remedial Project Manager ........................................................................... 1‐3 2.0 Remedial A c tion Completion ......................................................................................... 2­1 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1.1 Relation to Operable Units ................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1.2 Utilizing Multiple RA Projects at a Site ............................................................ 2‐1 2.2 Remedial Action Completion Definition .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Priorities List (NPL) Sites - by State | Superfund | US EPA
    National Priorities List (NPL) Sites - by State | Superfund | US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Topics Laws & Regulations About EPA CONTACT US SHARE Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) Sites - by State ( 1336 Sites as of May 16, 2017 ) [View NPL Sites - by Site Name] | [View NPL Sites - by Date] Choose a state or territory from the map or list below. Alabama This page provides information about sites on the NPL; including site name, city, site EPA ID, listing date, federal facility indicator, site narrative, site progress profle, and Federal Register Notice. Select a state from the map for a list of NPL sites in that state. You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s About PDF page to learn more. Alabama ( 12 sites ) Federal Listing Site Additional Site Name City Site EPA ID Facility Date Score Information Indicator Site Listing Narrative Site Progress Alabama Army Profile Childersburg AL6210020008 07/22/1987 36.83 Yes Ammunition Plant Federal Register Notice (PDF) (27 pp, 287 K) Site Listing Narrative Site Progress Alabama Plating Profile Vincent ALD004022448 09/18/2012 30.20 No Company, Inc. Federal Register Notice (PDF) (10 pp, 261 K) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-state#WA[5/23/2017 10:25:55 AM] National Priorities List (NPL) Sites - by State | Superfund | US EPA Site Listing Narrative Site Progress Profile American Brass Headland ALD981868466 05/10/1999 55.61 No Federal Register Notice (PDF) (8 pp, 189 K) Site Listing Narrative Site Progress Anniston Army Depot Profile (Southeast Industrial Anniston AL3210020027 03/13/1989 51.91 Yes Federal Register Area) Notice (PDF) (11 pp, 136 K) Site Listing Narrative Site Progress Ciba-Geigy Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • National Priorities List and State Orphan Sites
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA Budget Change Proposal - Cover Sheet DF-46 (REV 10/20) Fiscal Year Business Unit Department Priority No. 2021-22 3960 Department of Toxic Substances Control Click or tap here to enter text. Budget Request Name Program Subprogram 3960-013-BCP-2021-GB 3620 Site Mitigation and 3620011 Other Site Mitigation Restoration Program Activities Budget Request Description National Priorities List and State Orphan Sites Budget Request Summary The Department of Toxic Substances Control requests a transfer of $19.55 million from the Toxic Substances Control Account to the Site Remediation Account to fund the state’s National Priorities List obligations and state orphan sites with Priorities 1A, 1B, and 2. Requires Legislation Code Section(s) to be Added/Amended/Repealed ☐ Yes ☒ No Click or tap here to enter text. Does this BCP contain information technology Department CIO Date (IT) components? ☐ Yes ☐ No Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap to enter a date. If yes, departmental Chief Information Officer must sign. For IT requests, specify the project number, the most recent project approval document (FSR, SPR, S1BA, S2AA, S3SD, S4PRA), and the approval date. Project No.Click or tap here to enter text. Project Approval Document: Click or tap here to enter text. Approval Date: Click or tap to enter a date. If proposal affects another department, does other department concur with proposal? ☐ Yes ☐ No Attach comments of affected department, signed and dated by the department director or designee. Prepared By Date Reviewed By Date Charlie Ridenour 1/7/2021 Alice Jeung 1/7/2021 Department Director Date Agency Secretary Date Meredith Williams 1/7/2021 Jared Blumenfeld 1/7/2021 Department of Finance Use Only Additional Review: ☐ Capital Outlay ☐ ITCU ☐ FSCU ☐ OSAE ☐ Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation Slides: National Priorities List (Npl) Proposal
    Newark South Ground Water Plume National Priorities List Proposal (NPL) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 August 15, 2017 Who Are We & What Is Our Mission Lisa Denmark EPA Remedial Project Manager Who Are We? • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Established December 2 nd , 1970 • Region 3 of 10 • Location: 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA • Mission- Protect Human Health and Environment How EPA Began • 50s/60s awareness of human impact on environment • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-1969 – Established environmental policy and regulations – Protector of Earth, Air, Land, and Water • Nixon proposed one organization for environmental issues EPA Goals • Enforcement and Environmental Protection Standards • Research effects and methods to prevent pollution • Assist others through grants and technical assistance • Policies to protect human health and the environment How to Achieve EPA Goals • Variety of divisions established for protection – Air Protection – Land and Chemicals – Water Protection – Environmental Assessment and Innovation – Hazardous Site Cleanup Superfund • 1970’s Awareness of dangers grew – Love Canal in Niagra Falls, New York – Valley of the Drums in Brooks, Kentucky • Government action and funding needed • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) • Better known as “Superfund” for the initial trust fund • Superfund Reauthorization Amendment Act of 1986 (SARA) Superfund • Authorizes EPA to investigate and clean up contamination • Historically, money came
    [Show full text]