United States Office of September 2002 Environmental Protection Solid Waste and Agency Emergency Response Auxiliary Information: National Priorities List Proposed Rule and Final Rule Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Intermittent Bulletin State & Site Identification Center (5204G) Internet Volume 5, Number 2 This publication combines the information contained The EPA is also adding 19 sites to the NPL in a rule in the documents previously published as Background published in the Federal Register in September 2002. Information: National Priorities List, Proposed Rule and Nineteen of the sites are in the General Superfund Section Final Rule (Publication 9320.7-05I) and Supplementary and one is in the Federal Facilities Section. All scored Materials: National Priorities List, Proposed Rule and 28.50 or greater on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). Final Rule (Publication 9320.7-06I). The States of California, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin are each adding one proposing 7 sites to the National Priorities List (NPL) in a site. The State of Texas is adding two sites. The States of rule published in the Federal Register in September 2002. New Jersey and New York are each adding three sites. All of the sites in Proposed Rule #38 are in the General Superfund Section. All scored 28.50 or greater on the The NPL identifies and informs the public of Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The States of Florida, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that warrant further North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon are each adding one investigation to determine if they pose risks to human site. Puerto Rico is adding one site. The State of Texas is health or the environment. Such sites are eligible for long- adding two sites. CONTENTS How Sites Are Placed on the NPL ....................................................2 Statutory Requirements and Listing Policies ............................................3 How Sites Are Deleted From 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 Final Rule (by State) ...........................................................9 Proposed Sites (by State) ......................................................10 Federal Facilities Section (by State) ..............................................14 Sites Deleted from the NPL .....................................................21 Final and Proposed Sites (by State) ..............................................29 Final and Proposed Sites Per State/Territory (by Proposed Rule 38) ..................... 63 Proposed Rule Site Scores .....................................................65 Final Rule Site Scores .........................................................66 Federal Register Notices ..........................................................67 term "remedial action" financed under the Trust Fund and air. The other two pathways, direct contact and established by the Comprehensive Environmental fire/explosion, were evaluated to determine the need for Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 immediate removal (emergency) action. HRS scores (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments ranged from 0 to 100. An HRS score of 28.50 was and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). selected as the cutoff point for the first proposed NPL to identify at least 400 sites, the minimum suggested by SARA authorized a "Hazardous Substances CERCLA. Superfund" totaling $8.5 billion over 5 years to pay costs for overseeing work by those responsible for cleaning up On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA revised waste sites, and to pay costs for overseeing work by those the HRS, as required by SARA. The revised HRS became responsible parties for cleaning up waste sites, and to pay effective on March 14, 1991. It is a more comprehensive costs not assumed by responsible parties for cleanup at and accurate scoring system than the original HRS and sites in the General Superfund Section of the NPL. In may add new types of sites to the NPL. October 1990, SARA was extended to September 30, 1994. Appropriations by Congress have allowed The revised HRS retains the same cutoff score and Superfund to continue to operate. basic approach as the original HRS, while incorporating SARA requirements as well as improvements identified as EPA's goals for the Superfund program are to: necessary by EPA and the public. The revised HRS retains the ground water, surface water, and air pathways, drops • Address the worst sites and the worst problems the direct contact and fire/explosion pathways, and adds a first fourth pathway, soil exposure. All four can be used to calculate the site score. • Make sites safe by immediately controlling acute threats to people and the environment The second mechanism for placing sites on the NPL allows States or Territories to designate one top-priority • Develop and use new technologies for more site regardless of HRS score. Of the 57 States and effective cleanups. Territories, 41 have designated top-priority sites. EPA continually seeks ways to evaluate and clean up Fourteen of these sites have been deleted from the sites more quickly. EPA has developed several measures NPL because no further response was necessary. to streamline the listing process (most notably making the HRS documentation record more succinct) and is The third mechanism allows a site to be listed if it considering others. meets all three of these requirements: HOW SITES ARE PLACED • The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health ON THE NPL Service has issued a health advisory that recommends removing people from the site. EPA uses informal rulemaking to place sites on the NPL. Sites are first proposed to the NPL in the Federal • EPA determines the site poses a significant threat Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the sites to public health. (typically for 60 days), responds to the comments, and finally places on the NPL those sites that continue to meet • EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to the requirements for listing. use its remedial authority (available only at NPL sites) than to use its emergency removal authority Section 300.425 of the National Oil and Hazardous to respond to the site. Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), the Federal regulation by which CERCLA is implemented (55 FR Thirteen sites have been listed on the NPL on the basis 8845, March 8, 1990), provides three mechanisms for of ATSDR advisories: placing sites on the NPL. The primary mechanism is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The original HRS, • Eight are currently on the NPL: Forest Glen developed in 1982, evaluated the relative threat a site Mobile Home Subdivision, Niagara Falls, NY (54 posed to human health and/or the environment over five FR 48184, November 21, 1989); White Chemical "pathways," or routes of exposure. The HRS score was Corp., Newark, NJ (56 FR 48438, September 25, based on the evaluation of three pathways through which 1991); Lower Ecorse Creek Dump, Wyandotte, contaminants can migrate: ground water, surface water, MI (59 FR 27989, May 31, 1994); Raymark 2 Industries, Inc., Stratford, CT (59 FR 2568 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND January 19, 1995); Tennessee Products, LISTING POLICIES Chattanooga, TN (60 FR 50435, September 29, 1995); Aircraft Components (D&L Sales), CERCLA restricts EPA's authority to respond to Benton Harbor, MI (61 FR 30510, June 17, certainsites by expressly excluding some substances -- 1996); Little Valley, Little Valley, NY (61 FR petroleum, for example -- from the definition of 30510, June 17, 1996) and Grand Street Mercury, "release." In addition, as a matter of policy, EPA may Hoboken, NJ (62 FR 50441, September 25, choose not to use CERCLA because the Federal 1997). government can undertake or enforce cleanup under other laws, thus preserving CERCLA funds for sites not • Four, Austin Avenue Radiation Site, Delaware covered by other laws. EPA has chosen not to use County, PA (57 FR 47181, October 14, 1992); CERCLA for certain types of sites regulated by Subtitle Lansdowne Radiation Site, Lansdowne, PA (56 C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act FR 46121, September 10, 1991); Radium (RCRA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chemical Co., Inc., New York City, NY (60 FR (NRC). However, if EPA later determines that sites not 15489, March 24, 1995); and H&K Sales, listed as a matter of policy are not being properly Belding, MI (63 FR 27855, May 21, 1998); have responded to, it may consider placing them on the NPL. been deleted because all appropriate response has been completed. RCRA-Related Sites • One, Quail Run Mobile Manor, Gray Summit, MO (48 FR 40674, September 8, 1983) was When the first final NPL was promulgated in dropped from further consideration on February September 1983, EPA announced certain listing policies 11, 1991 (56 FR 5598). Because of an EPA relating to sites that might qualify for the NPL. One of removal action, ATSDR had rescinded its health these