8212
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
60,
No.
29
/
Monday,
February
13,
1995
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
300
[
FRL
 
5154
 
6]

National
Priorities
List
for
Uncontrolled
Hazardous
Waste
Sites,
Proposed
Rule
No.
18
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980
(``
CERCLA''
or
``
the
Act''),
as
amended,
requires
that
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(``
NCP'')
include
a
list
of
national
priorities
among
the
known
releases
or
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
throughout
the
United
States.
The
National
Priorities
List
(``
NPL'')
constitutes
this
list.
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(``
EPA'')
proposes
to
add
new
sites
to
the
NPL.
This
18th
proposed
revision
to
the
NPL
includes
7
sites
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
2
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section.
The
NPL
is
intended
primarily
to
guide
EPA
in
determining
which
sites
warrant
further
investigation
to
assess
the
nature
and
extent
of
public
health
and
environmental
risks
associated
with
the
site
and
to
determine
what
CERCLAfinanced
remedial
action(
s),
if
any,
may
be
appropriate.
The
NPL
is
not
intended
to
define
the
boundaries
of
a
site
or
to
determine
the
extent
of
contamination
(
see
Section
II,
subsection,
``
Facility
Boundaries'').
This
action
does
not
affect
the
1,241
sites
currently
listed
on
the
NPL
(
1,087
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
154
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section).
However,
it
does
increase
the
number
of
proposed
sites
to
55
(
47
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
8
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section).
Final
and
proposed
sites
now
total
1,296.
DATES:
Comments
must
be
submitted
on
or
before
April
14,
1995.
ADDRESSES:
Mail
original
and
three
copies
of
comments
(
no
facsimiles
or
tapes)
to
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters;
U.
S.
EPA;
CERCLA
Docket
Office;
(
Mail
Code
5201G);
401
M
Street,
SW;
Washington,
DC
20460;
703/
603
 
8917.
Please
note
this
is
the
mailing
address
only.
If
you
wish
to
visit
the
HQ
Docket
to
view
documents,
and
for
additional
Docket
addresses
and
further
details
on
their
contents,
see
Section
I
of
the
``
Supplementary
Information''
portion
of
this
preamble.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Terry
Keidan,
Hazardous
Site
Evaluation
Division,
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
(
Mail
Code
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.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
Introduction
II.
Purpose
and
Implementation
of
the
NPL
III.
Contents
of
This
Proposed
Rule
IV.
Executive
Order
12866
V.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Analysis
I.
Introduction
Background
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,
100
stat.
1613
et
seq.
To
implement
CERCLA,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(``
EPA''
or
``
the
Agency'')
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.
The
most
recent
comprehensive
revision
was
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''
actions
are
defined
broadly
and
include
a
wide
range
of
actions
taken
to
study,
clean
up,
prevent
or
otherwise
address
releases
and
threatened
releases.
42
USC
9601(
23).
``
Remedial''
actions''
are
those
``
consistent
with
permanent
remedy,
taken
instead
of
or
in
addition
to
removal
actions
*
*
*.''
42
USC
9601(
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
determining
priorities
for
possible
remedial
actions
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
is
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,
pollutants,
and
contaminants
to
pose
a
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
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
8213
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
60,
No.
29
/
Monday,
February
13,
1995
/
Proposed
Rules
listed
whether
or
not
they
score
above
28.50,
if
all
of
the
following
conditions
are
met:
·
The
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
of
the
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
has
issued
a
health
advisory
that
recommends
dissociation
of
individuals
from
the
release.
·
EPA
determines
that
the
release
poses
a
significant
threat
to
public
health.
·
EPA
anticipates
that
it
will
be
more
cost­
effective
to
use
its
remedial
authority
than
to
use
its
removal
authority
to
respond
to
the
release.
EPA
promulgated
an
original
NPL
of
406
sites
on
September
8,
1983
(
48
FR
40658).
The
NPL
has
been
expanded
since
then,
most
recently
on
December
16,
1994
(
59
FR
65206).
The
NPL
includes
two
sections,
one
of
sites
being
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
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
if
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.

Deletions/
Cleanups
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
68
sites
from
the
General
Superfund
Section
of
the
NPL,
most
recently
Suffolk
City
Landfill,
Suffolk,
Virginia
(
60
FR
4568,
January
24,
1995).
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
67
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
215
sites
are
also
in
the
NPL
CCL,
all
but
two
from
the
General
Superfund
Section.
Thus,
as
of
January
25,
1995,
the
CCL
consists
of
282
sites.
Cleanups
at
sites
on
the
NPL
do
not
reflect
the
total
picture
of
Superfund
accomplishments.
As
of
December
1994,
EPA
had
conducted
649
removal
actions
at
NPL
sites,
and
2,357
removal
actions
at
non­
NPL
sites.
Information
on
removals
is
available
from
the
Superfund
hotline.
Pursuant
to
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
c),
this
document
proposes
to
add
9
sites
to
the
NPL.
The
General
Superfund
Section
currently
includes
1,087
sites,
and
the
Federal
Facilities
Section
includes
154
sites,
for
a
total
of
1,241
sites
on
the
NPL.
An
additional
55
sites
are
proposed,
47
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
8
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section.
Final
and
proposed
sites
now
total
1,296.

Public
Comment
Period
The
documents
that
form
the
basis
for
EPA's
evaluation
and
scoring
of
sites
in
this
rule
are
contained
in
dockets
located
both
at
EPA
Headquarters
and
in
the
appropriate
Regional
offices.
The
dockets
are
available
for
viewing,
by
appointment
only,
after
the
appearance
of
this
rule.
The
hours
of
operation
for
the
Headquarters
docket
are
from
9:
00
a.
m.
to
4:
00
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday
excluding
Federal
holidays.
Please
contact
individual
Regional
dockets
for
hours.
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters,
U.
S.
EPA
CERCLA
Docket
Office,
(
Mail
Code
5201G),
Crystal
Gateway
#
1,
12th
Floor,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA
22202,
703/
603
 
8917.
(
Please
note
this
is
visiting
address
only.
Mail
comments
to
address
listed
in
ADDRESSES
section
above.)
Ellen
Culhane,
Region
1,
U.
S.
EPA
Waste
Management
Records
Center,
HES
 
CAN
6,
J.
F.
Kennedy
Federal
Building,
Boston,
MA
02203
 
2211,
617/
573
 
5729
Walter
Schoepf,
Region
2,
U.
S.
EPA,
26
Federal
Plaza,
New
York,
NY
10278
212/
264
 
0221
Diane
McCreary,
Region
3,
U.
S.
EPA
Library,
3rd
Floor,
841
Chestnut
Building,
9th
&
Chestnut
Streets,
Philadelphia,
PA
19107,
215/
597
 
7904
Kathy
Piselli,
Region
4
U.
S.
EPA,
345
Courtland
Street,
NE.,
Atlanta,
GA
30365,
404/
347
 
4216
Cathy
Freeman,
Region
5,
U.
S.
EPA,
Records
Center,
Waste
Management
Division
7
 
J,
Metcalfe
Federal
Building,
77
West
Jackson
Boulevard,
Chicago,
IL
60604,
312/
886
 
6214
Bart
Canellas,
Region
6,
U.
S.
EPA,
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Mail
Code
6H
 
MA,
Dallas,
TX
75202
 
2733,
214/
655
 
6740
Steven
Wyman,
Region
7,
U.
S.
EPA
Library,
726
Minnesota
Avenue,
Kansas
City,
KS
66101,
913/
551
 
7241
Greg
Oberley,
Region
8,
U.
S.
EPA,
999
18th
Street,
Suite
500,
Denver,
CO
80202
 
2466,
303/
294
 
7598
Rachel
Loftin,
Region
9,
U.
S.
EPA,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
CA
94105,
415/
744
 
2347
David
Bennett,
Region
10,
U.
S.
EPA,
11th
Floor,
1200
6th
Avenue,
Mail
Stop
HW
 
114,
Seattle,
WA
98101,
206/
553
 
2103
The
Headquarters
docket
for
this
rule
contains
HRS
score
sheets
for
each
proposed
site;
a
Documentation
Record
for
each
site
describing
the
information
used
to
compute
the
score;
information
for
any
site
affected
by
particular
statutory
requirements
or
EPA
listing
policies;
and
a
list
of
documents
referenced
in
the
Documentation
Record.
Each
Regional
docket
for
this
rule
contains
all
of
the
information
in
the
Headquarters
docket
for
sites
in
that
Region,
plus
the
actual
reference
documents
containing
the
data
principally
relied
upon
and
cited
by
EPA
in
calculating
or
evaluating
the
HRS
scores
for
sites
in
that
Region.
These
reference
documents
are
available
only
in
the
Regional
dockets.
Interested
parties
may
view
documents,
by
appointment
only,
in
the
Headquarters
or
the
appropriate
Regional
docket
or
copies
may
be
requested
from
the
Headquarters
or
appropriate
Regional
docket.
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.
EPA
considers
all
comments
received
during
the
comment
period.
During
the
comment
period,
comments
are
placed
in
the
Headquarters
docket
and
are
available
to
the
public
on
an
``
as
received''
basis.
A
complete
set
of
comments
will
be
available
for
viewing
in
the
Regional
docket
approximately
one
week
after
the
formal
comment
period
closes.
Comments
received
after
the
comment
period
closes
will
be
available
in
the
Headquarters
docket
and
in
the
Regional
docket
on
an
``
as
received''
basis.
Comments
that
include
complex
or
voluminous
reports,
or
8214
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
60,
No.
29
/
Monday,
February
13,
1995
/
Proposed
Rules
materials
prepared
for
purposes
other
than
HRS
scoring,
should
point
out
the
specific
information
that
EPA
should
consider
and
how
it
affects
individual
HRS
factor
values.
See
Northside
Sanitary
Landfill
v.
Thomas,
849
F.
2d
1516
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1988).
EPA
will
make
final
listing
decisions
after
considering
the
relevant
comments
received
during
the
comment
period.
In
past
rules,
EPA
has
attempted
to
respond
to
late
comments,
or
when
that
was
not
practicable,
to
read
all
late
comments
and
address
those
that
brought
to
the
Agency's
attention
a
fundamental
error
in
the
scoring
of
a
site.
(
See,
most
recently,
57
FR
4824
(
February
7,
1992)).
Although
EPA
intends
to
pursue
the
same
policy
with
sites
in
this
rule,
EPA
can
guarantee
that
it
will
consider
only
those
comments
postmarked
by
the
close
of
the
formal
comment
period.
EPA
has
a
policy
of
not
delaying
a
final
listing
decision
solely
to
accommodate
consideration
of
late
comments.
In
certain
instances,
interested
parties
have
written
to
EPA
concerning
sites
which
were
not
at
that
time
proposed
to
the
NPL.
If
those
sites
are
later
proposed
to
the
NPL,
parties
should
review
their
earlier
concerns
and,
if
still
appropriate,
resubmit
those
concerns
for
consideration
during
the
formal
comment
period.
Site­
specific
correspondence
received
prior
to
the
period
of
formal
proposal
and
comment
will
not
generally
be
included
in
the
docket.

II.
Purpose
and
Implementation
of
the
NPL
Purpose
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
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
serves
as
notice
to
potentially
responsible
parties
that
the
Agency
may
initiate
CERCLA­
financed
remedial
action.

Implementation
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
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
will
generally
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
which
warrant
placement
on
the
NPL
and
further
study.
EPA
may
perform
removal
actions
at
any
time
during
the
process.
As
of
December
1994,
EPA
had
completed
36,831
PAs
and
17,790
SIs.
The
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
b)(
1)
(
55
FR
8845,
March
8,
1990)
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,
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
the
ranking
of
sites
by
HRS
scores
is
considered,
it
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(
b)(
2),
55
FR
8845,
March
8,
1990).
Additionally,
resource
constraints
may
preclude
EPA
from
evaluating
all
HRS
pathways;
only
those
that
present
significant
risk
or
are
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
was
already
underway.
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)
(
55
FR
8846,
March
8,
1990)).
It
takes
into
account
the
amount
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants
or
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
(
55
FR
8842,
March
8,
1990)
and
40
CFR
300.430
(
55
FR
8846,
March
8,
1990).
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
is
already
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
8215
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
60,
No.
29
/
Monday,
February
13,
1995
/
Proposed
Rules
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
Trust
Fund
financed
remedial
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
NPL
does
not
describe
releases
in
precise
geographical
terms;
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.''
Thus,
the
purpose
of
the
NPL
is
merely
to
identify
releases
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
thought,
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.
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
above
and
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
(
D.
C.
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
[(
D.
C.
Cir.
1985)].

It
is
the
Agency's
policy
that,
in
the
exercise
of
its
enforcement
discretion,
EPA
will
not
take
enforcement
actions
against
an
owner
of
residential
property
to
require
such
owner
to
undertake
response
actions
or
pay
response
costs,
unless
the
residential
homeowner's
activities
lead
to
a
release
or
threat
of
release
of
hazardous
substances,
resulting
in
the
taking
of
a
response
action
at
the
site
(
OSWER
Directive
#
9834.6,
July
3,
1991).
This
policy
includes
residential
property
owners
whose
property
is
located
above
a
ground
water
plume
that
is
proposed
to
or
on
the
NPL,
where
the
residential
property
owner
did
not
contribute
to
the
contamination
of
the
site.
EPA
may,
however,
require
access
to
that
property
during
the
course
of
implementing
a
clean
up.

III.
Contents
of
This
Proposed
Rule
Table
1
identifies
the
7
sites
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
Table
2
identifies
the
2
sites
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section
being
proposed
to
the
NPL
in
this
rule.
Both
tables
follow
this
preamble.
All
sites
are
proposed
based
on
HRS
scores
of
28.50
or
above.
The
sites
in
Table
1
and
Table
2
are
listed
alphabetically
by
State,
for
ease
of
identification,
with
group
number
identified
to
provide
an
indication
of
relative
ranking.
To
determine
group
number,
sites
on
the
NPL
are
placed
in
groups
of
50;
for
example,
a
site
in
Group
4
of
this
proposal
has
a
score
that
falls
within
the
range
of
scores
covered
by
the
fourth
group
of
50
sites
on
the
NPL.

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
8216
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
60,
No.
29
/
Monday,
February
13,
1995
/
Proposed
Rules
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.
The
listing
policies
and
statutory
requirements
of
relevance
to
this
proposed
rule
cover
Federal
facility
sites.
This
policy
and
requirements
are
explained
below
and
have
been
explained
in
greater
detail
previously
(
56
FR
5598,
February
11,
1991).

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.
This
rule
proposes
to
add
three
sites
to
the
Federal
Facilities
Section
of
the
NPL.

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
proposal
to
the
NPL.
EPA
believes
that
the
kinds
of
economic
effects
associated
with
this
proposal
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
proposing
and
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
typically
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
is
controlled
by
Section
104(
c)
of
CERCLA
and
the
NCP.
For
privatelyoperated
sites,
as
well
as
at
publiclyowned
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:

 
For
restoration
of
ground
water
and
surface
water,
EPA
will
share
in
startup
costs
according
to
the
criteria
in
the
previous
paragraph
for
10
years
or
until
a
sufficient
level
of
protectiveness
is
achieved
before
the
end
of
10
years.
 
For
other
cleanups,
EPA
will
share
for
up
to
1
year
the
cost
of
that
portion
of
response
needed
to
assure
that
a
remedy
is
operational
and
functional.
After
that,
the
State
assumes
full
responsibilities
for
O&
M.

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
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
site1
RI/
FS
.................................
1,350,000
Remedial
Design
..............
1,260,000
Remedial
Action
...............
3
22,500,000
Present
Discounted
Value
O&
M2
............................
5,630,000
1
1994
U.
S.
Dollars.
2
Assumes
cost
of
O&
M
over
30
years,
$
400,000
for
the
first
year
and
5.8%
discount
rate.
3
Includes
State
cost­
share.
Source:
Office
of
Program
Management,
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response,
U.
S.
EPA,
Washington,
DC.

Costs
to
the
States
associated
with
today's
proposed
rule
are
incurred
when
the
sites
are
finalized
and
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;
(
2)
at
least
50%
of
the
remedial
planning
(
RI/
FS
and
remedial
design),
remedial
action,
and
first­
year
O&
M
costs
at
publiclyoperated
sites;
and
(
3)
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
$
26
million.
State
O&
M
costs
cannot
be
accurately
determined
because
EPA,
as
noted
above,
will
pay
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
$
35
million.
Placing
a
site
on
the
proposed
or
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
costrecovery
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.
8217
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
60,
No.
29
/
Monday,
February
13,
1995
/
Proposed
Rules
Economy­
wide
effects
of
an
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.

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

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
proposes
to
revise
the
NPL,
an
NPL
revision
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
placing
the
sites
in
this
proposed
rule
on
the
NPL
could
significantly
affect
certain
industries,
or
firms
within
industries,
that
have
caused
a
proportionately
high
percentage
of
waste
site
problems.
However,
EPA
does
not
expect
the
listing
of
these
sites
to
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
businesses.
In
any
case,
economic
impacts
would
occur
only
through
enforcement
and
cost­
recovery
actions,
which
EPA
takes
at
its
discretion
on
a
site­
by­
site
basis.
EPA
considers
many
factors
when
determining
enforcement
actions,
including
not
only
a
firm's
contribution
to
the
problem,
but
also
its
ability
to
pay.
The
impacts
(
from
cost
recovery)
on
small
governments
and
nonprofit
organizations
would
be
determined
on
a
similar
case­
by­
case
basis.
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
I
hereby
certify
that
this
proposed
rule
would
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Therefore,
this
proposed
regulation
does
not
require
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis.

NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
PROPOSED
RULE
#
18
GENERAL
SUPERFUND
SECTION
State
Site
name
City/
county
NPL
Gr
1
FL
Normandy
Park
Apartments
..............................................................................................................
Temple
Terrace
......
6
KS
Ace
Services
......................................................................................................................................
Colby
......................
5/
6
LA
Gulf
State
Utilities­
North
Ryan
Street
................................................................................................
Lake
Charles
..........
5
LA
Old
Citgo
Refinery
.............................................................................................................................
Bossier
City
............
5/
6
LA
Southern
Shipbuilding
........................................................................................................................
Slidell
......................
5/
6
ME
West
Site/
Hows
Corners
....................................................................................................................
Plymouth
................
5/
6
MI
Bay
City
Middlegrounds
.....................................................................................................................
Bay
City
..................
5/
6
1
Sites
are
placed
in
groups
(
Gr)
corresponding
to
groups
of
50
on
the
final
NPL.
Note:
Number
of
Sites
Proposed
to
General
Superfund
Section:
7.

NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
PROPOSED
RULE
#
18
FEDERAL
FACILITIES
SECTION
State
Site
name
City/
county
NPL
Gr
1
KS
Sunflower
Army
Ammunition
Plant
....................................................................................................
DeSoto
...................
5/
6
MD
Indian
Head
Naval
Surface
Warfare
Center
......................................................................................
Indian
Head
............
5/
6
1
Sites
are
placed
in
groups
(
Gr)
corresponding
to
groups
of
50
on
the
final
NPL.
Note:
Number
of
Sites
Proposed
to
Federal
Facilities
Section:
2.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
300
Air
pollution
control,
Chemicals,
Hazardous
materials,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Natural
resources,
Oil
pollution,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Superfund,
Waste
treatment
and
disposal,
Water
pollution
control,
Water
supply.

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
9605;
42
U.
S.
C.
9620;
33
U.
S.
C.
1321(
c)(
2);
E.
O.
11735,
3
CFR,
1971
 
1975
Comp.,
p.
793;
E.
O.
12580,
3
CFR,
1987
Comp.,
p.
193.

Dated:
February
8,
1995.

Elliott
P.
Laws,

Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
[
FR
Doc.
95
 
3601
Filed
2
 
10
 
95;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47
CFR
Part
64
[
CC
Docket
No.
94
 
158;
FCC
94
 
352]

Operator
Services
Providers
AGENCY:
Federal
Communications
Commission.
