
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75534-75542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29349]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0200, 0630, 0632, 0633, 0634, 0635, 0637, 0638, and 
0639; FRL-9903-90-OSWER]


National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 59

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (``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 NPL is intended primarily to guide 
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the agency'') in 
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further 
investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of 
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to 
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be 
appropriate. This rule proposes to add eight sites to the NPL, all to 
the General Superfund Section. This proposed rule also solicits 
additional comments on the Smurfit-Stone Mill site based on additional 
references to the site's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) documentation 
record being made available to the public.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be 
submitted (postmarked) on or before February 10, 2014.
    Comments regarding the additional Smurfit-Stone Mill reference 
material available for review must be submitted (postmarked) on or 
before January 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate Docket Number from the table below.

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Site name                    City/county, state                     Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macmillan Ring Free Oil...............  Norphlet, AR.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0630
Keddy Mill............................  Windham, ME..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0632
Smurfit-Stone Mill....................  Missoula, MT.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0200
PCE Southeast Contamination...........  York, NE.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0633

[[Page 75535]]

 
PCE/TCE Northeast Contamination.......  York, NE.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0634
Troy Chem Corp Inc....................  Newark, NJ...............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635
Unimatic Manufacturing Corporation....  Fairfield, NJ............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0637
Wolff-Alport Chemical Company.........  Ridgewood, NY............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0638
Walker Machine Products, Inc..........  Collierville, TN.........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0639
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket number, 
by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: superfund.docket@epa.gov.
     Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket 
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA 
Docket Office; (Mailcode 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no 
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 
Constitution Avenue NW., William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 
3334, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during 
the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding federal holidays).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate Docket number 
(see table above). The EPA's policy is that all comments received will 
be included in the public Docket without change and may be made 
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system; that means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public Docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your 
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional Docket addresses and 
further details on their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/
Public Comment,'' of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this 
preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, 
email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, 
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation 
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the 
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are 
cleaned up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure?
    K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
    B. How do I access the documents?
    C. What documents are available for public review at the 
headquarters docket?
    D. What documents are available for public review at the 
regional dockets?
    E. How do I submit my comments?
    F. What happens to my comments?
    G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
    H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is 
over?
    I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
    J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed 
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
    B. Additional Comments Being Accepted on the Smurfit-Stone Mill 
Site Based on New References Added to the HRS Documentation Record
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866 
Review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How has the EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
apply to this proposed rule?
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    1. What is Executive Order 12898?

[[Page 75536]]

    2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this proposed rule?

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

    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 releases or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or 
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant 
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to 
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, 
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public 
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil 
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR 
Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 
105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP 
sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and 
threatened releases of hazardous substances or releases or substantial 
threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or 
contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the 
public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several 
occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 
(55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also 
includes ``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 of hazardous substances, 
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants 
throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP 
(40 CFR Part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, 
as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of 
``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires that 
the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to 
guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation 
to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental 
risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or 
contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it 
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific 
property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any 
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of 
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the 
``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or 
operated by other federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities 
Section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, 
these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. 
Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA 
section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most 
response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or 
control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking 
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed 
on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for 
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site 
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, 
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR Part 300). 
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential 
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to 
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 
(55 FR 51532), the 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. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or 
greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a single site as its top 
priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision 
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one 
facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public 
health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. 
This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP 
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any 
HRS score, 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.
     The EPA determines that the release poses a significant 
threat to public health.
     The 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.
    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    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). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with 
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. . 
. .'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing 
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The 
EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the 
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; 
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of 
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further 
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of 
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any 
area where a hazardous substance 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 (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL 
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at 
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as 
part of that HRS analysis.

[[Page 75537]]

    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the 
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the 
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site 
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily 
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the 
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the 
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all 
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well 
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, 
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate 
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property 
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not 
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due 
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full 
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of 
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of 
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its 
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is 
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the 
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to 
help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not 
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For 
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the 
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant 
site.
    The EPA regulations provide that the Remedial Investigation 
(``RI'') ``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and 
extent of the problem presented by the release'' as more information is 
developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an 
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5). 
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(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS 
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the 
boundaries of the release need not be exactly 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 known boundaries 
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most 
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release 
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to 
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party 
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of 
property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any 
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research 
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or 
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    The 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). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with 
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the 
following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been 
implemented and no further response action is required; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of 
remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are 
cleaned up?

    In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of 
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). 
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may 
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    The 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). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal 
significance.
    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) the 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. For the most up-to-date information on the 
CCL, see the EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.

J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called 
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund 
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA 
places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy 
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies 
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup 
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are 
in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out 
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the 
environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows 
contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic 
vitality. For further information, please go to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/sitewide_a.pdf.

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL Listing?

    In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in 
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the 
position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is 
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two 
memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/policy/govlet.pdf. The EPA is 
improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal 
input is solicited. The EPA will be using the Web and where appropriate 
more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) Explains the 
concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) 
requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if 
placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent 
nature of the process by informing states that information on their 
responses will be publicly available.
    A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between 
the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the 
EPA's

[[Page 75538]]

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplstcor.htm.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and 
scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public 
Dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in 
the Regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic 
access at www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the Addresses 
section above).

B. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the 
Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this 
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding federal 
holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters 
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William 
Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/
566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments 
to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:
     Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, 
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
     Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
     Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), 
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 
19103; 215/814-3355.
     Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, 
TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 
30303; 404/562-8799.
     Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA 
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe 
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.
     Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/
665-7436.
     Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 
Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7335.
     Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. 
EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/
312-6484.
     Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. 
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 
415/947-4250.
     Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th 
Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
    You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the 
Regional Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written 
request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary 
procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note 
that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized 
maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not 
equipped to either copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send 
them out electronically.
    You may use the Docket at www.regulations.gov to access documents 
in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the Addresses 
section above). Please note that there are differences between the 
Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those differences are 
outlined below.

C. What documents are available for public review at the headquarters 
docket?

    The Headquarters Docket for this proposed rule contains the 
following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; 
Documentation Records describing the information used to compute the 
score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory 
requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents 
referenced in the Documentation Record.

D. What documents are available for public review at the regional 
dockets?

    The Regional Dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the 
information in the Headquarters Docket plus the actual reference 
documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the 
EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These 
reference documents are available only in the Regional Dockets.

E. How do I submit my comments?

    Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at 
the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note 
that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. 
There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are 
sent by express mail or by postal mail.

F. What happens to my comments?

    The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. 
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that 
the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document 
if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

    Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials 
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the 
specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects 
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside 
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA 
will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS 
or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless 
they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what 
particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

    Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can 
guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the 
close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally 
not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate 
consideration of late comments.

I. May I view public comments submitted by others?

    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 
Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper 
form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic 
public Docket at www.regulations.gov http://www/epa/goc/edocket as the 
EPA receives them

[[Page 75539]]

and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public Dockets system, 
select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate Docket ID number.

J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the 
NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA 
concerning sites that 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.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In today's proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add eight sites 
to the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in 
this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 
28.50 or above.
    The sites are presented in the table below.
    General Superfund section:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         State                  Site name               City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR.....................  Macmillan Ring Free Oil  Norphlet.
ME.....................  Keddy Mill.............  Windham.
NE.....................  PCE Southeast            York.
                          Contamination.
NE.....................  PCE/TCE Northeast        York.
                          Contamination.
NJ.....................  Troy Chem Corp Inc.....  Newark.
NJ.....................  Unimatic Manufacturing   Fairfield.
                          Corporation.
NY.....................  Wolff-Alport Chemical    Ridgewood.
                          Company.
TN.....................  Walker Machine           Collierville.
                          Products, Inc..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Additional Comments Being Accepted on the Smurfit-Stone Mill Site 
Based on New References Added to the HRS Documentation Record

    For the Smurfit-Stone Mill site, proposed May 24, 2013 (78 FR 
31464), one commenter claimed several documents not available for 
review in the docket during the public comment period should have been 
available. Specifically, the commenter noted that the Analytical 
Results Report (ARR) includes the statement that ``[t]his ARR is 
intended to be read in conjunction with the Smurfit-Stone Mill 
Preliminary Assessment (PA) (UOS 2011a), the Smurfit-Stone Mill Field 
Sampling Plan (FSP) (UOS 2011b), and the Smurfit-Stone Mill Sampling 
Activities Report (SAR) (UOS 2011c).'' The ARR (Reference 5 to the HRS 
documentation record at proposal) is the report of a large sampling 
investigation (the combined Site Inspection/Remedial Investigation or 
SI/RA) encompassing the site and vicinity; it serves as the primary 
source of site and analytical data supporting the HRS scoring, 
equivalent to an Expanded Site Investigation. The commenter also stated 
that ``the laboratory analytical reports associated with the ARR were 
not available for review . . .''
    The EPA has examined this issue and decided to make several 
documents available as references to the HRS documentation record. 
These additional references are the FSP for the Combined SI/RA, the 
SAR, and the laboratory analytical reports. The PA was available for 
review during the comment period; it is reference 48 to the 
documentation record at proposal
    The EPA is providing these three additional references for public 
review and comment. They are available at the regional office in 
Denver. Anyone wishing to comment on information in these references 
and the impact this has on the HRS score for the proposed Smurfit-Stone 
Mill site should do so within the next 30 calendar days (see DATES 
section at the beginning of this notice). Additional comments will not 
be accepted on other HRS scoring issues which could have appropriately 
been raised during the original comment period and are not based on 
information provided in these additional references.
    Please contact Sabrina Forrest at (303) 312-6484 if you are 
interested in either arranging a time to review these additional 
documents or receiving electronic copies of the documents. Comments 
should be submitted pursuant to instructions in the ADDRESSEES section 
of this preamble; they may be submitted electronically, by mail or by 
express mail. The docket number for this site is EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0200 
and should be identified in any correspondence/electronic submission.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of 
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety or state, local or tribal governments or communities; 
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the 
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or 
the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations 
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory 
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA 
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined 
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB 
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

[[Page 75540]]

seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB 
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final 
rules, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
The EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule 
does not contain any information collection requirements that require 
approval of the OMB.
    Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended 
by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide 
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
2. How has the EPA complied with the regulatory flexibility act?
    This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would 
not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This 
proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or 
requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no 
direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or 
otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous 
substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 
107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is 
listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if 
promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities. 
For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by state, local and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. Before the EPA promulgates a rule 
where a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates and informing, educating and advising small 
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one 
year. Proposing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. 
Proposal does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial 
action. Nor does proposal require any action by a private party or 
determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site 
responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to 
take, not directly from the act of proposing a site to be placed on the 
NPL. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 
and 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned 
above, site proposal does not impose any costs and would not require 
any action of a small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''

[[Page 75541]]

2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it does not contain any 
requirements applicable to states or other levels of government. Thus, 
the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed 
rule.
    The EPA believes, however, that this proposed rule may be of 
significant interest to state governments. In the spirit of Executive 
Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote 
communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA 
therefore consulted with state officials and/or representatives of 
state governments early in the process of developing the rule to permit 
them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. All 
sites included in this proposed rule were referred to the EPA by states 
for listing. For all sites in this rule, the EPA received letters of 
support either from the governor or a state official who was delegated 
the authority by the governor to speak on their behalf regarding NPL 
listing decisions.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have tribal implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to 
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or 
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government 
and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Proposing a site to the NPL does not impose any 
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive 
Order 12866, and because the agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule 
present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) requires federal agencies to prepare a ``Statement 
of Energy Effects'' when undertaking certain regulatory actions. A 
Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of a 
``significant energy action'' on energy supply, distribution and use, 
reasonable alternatives to the action and the expected effects of the 
alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. Further, 
the agency has concluded that this rule is not likely to have any 
adverse energy impacts because proposing a site to the NPL does not 
require an entity to conduct any action that would require energy use, 
let alone that which would significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution or usage. Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not apply to 
this action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to 
this proposed rule?
    No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this proposed rule?
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations

[[Page 75542]]

because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human 
health or the environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable 
duty upon state, tribal or local governments, this rule will neither 
increase nor decrease environmental protection.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, 
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water 
supply.

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

    Dated: November 27, 2013.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2013-29349 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


