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