[Federal Register: January 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 3)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 816-832]
[DOCID:fr06ja10-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 320

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265; FRL-9100-5]
RIN 2050-AG56

Identification of Additional Classes of Facilities for
Development of Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA
Section 108(b)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
establishes certain regulatory authorities concerning financial
responsibility requirements. Specifically, the statutory language
addresses the promulgation of regulations that require classes of
facilities to establish and maintain evidence of financial
responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk
associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous substances. In a July 28, 2009, Federal Register
notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
identified classes of facilities within the Hardrock Mining industry as
those for which the Agency will first develop financial responsibility
requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b). In that notice, EPA also
stated its belief that additional classes of facilities--that is, other
than those in the Hardrock Mining industry, also may warrant the
development of financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA
Section 108(b), and stated that EPA would publish a Federal Register
notice, by December 2009, identifying additional classes of facilities
it plans to evaluate regarding the development of financial
responsibility requirements. As a result of examining available data
and information, the Agency is identifying the classes of facilities
within three industries--that is, the Chemical Manufacturing industry
(NAICS 325), the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry
(NAICS 324), and the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution industry (NAICS 2211), as those for which the Agency plans
to develop, as necessary, a proposed regulation identifying appropriate
financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b). EPA
will carefully examine specific activities, practices, and processes
involving hazardous substances at these facilities, as well as Federal
and State authorities, policies, and practices to determine the risks
posed by these classes of facilities and whether requirements under
CERCLA Section 108(b) will effectively reduce these risks.
    In addition, this Federal Register notice identifies the Waste
Management and Remediation Services industry (NAICS 562), the Wood
Product Manufacturing industry (NAICS 321), the Fabricated Metal
Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332) industry, and the Electronics and
Electrical Equipment Manufacturing industry (NAICS 334 and 335), as
well as facilities engaged in the recycling of materials containing
CERCLA hazardous substances--as requiring further study before EPA
begins the regulatory development process. In identifying classes of
facilities within these industries in this notice, the Agency does not
intend to indicate that other classes in other industry sectors are no
longer being considered.

DATES: Submit comments on or before February 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2009-0834, by one of the following methods:
     Electronic docket at: www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-
line instructions for submitting comments.

     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-
0834. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail
system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic
public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail
address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-
mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket.
     Fax: Comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>; Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0834.
     Mail: Send your comments to the Identification of
Additional Classes of Facilities for Development of Financial
Responsibility Requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b) Docket,
Attention Docket ID No., EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0834, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies of your comments to the
Identification of Additional Classes of Facilities for Development of
Financial Responsibility Requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b)
Docket, Attention Docket ID No., EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0834, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0834. 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 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 e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 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 information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Identification of
Additional Classes of Facilities for Development of Financial
Responsibility Requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b) Docket, Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0834, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. This Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this notice,
contact Ben Lesser, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery, Mail Code 5302P, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Barbara Foster, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Mail Code 5303P,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (703) 308-
7057; or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    This Federal Register notice and supporting documentation are
available in a docket EPA has established for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0834. All documents in the docket are listed
on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, because for
example, it may be CBI or other information, the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Certain material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in
hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Identification of Additional Classes of Facilities for
Development of Financial Responsibility Requirements under CERCLA
Section 108(b) Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0834, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.

B. Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. EPA's Approach for Identifying Additional Classes of Facilities
    A. Analysis of National Priority List Information
    B. Analysis of RCRA Biennial Report and Toxics Release Inventory
Data
    C. Conclusions From the NPL/BR/TRI Analyses
    D. Additional Information Regarding the Classes of Facilities
for Which EPA Plans to Develop a Proposed Regulation
    1. Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325)
    2. Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 324)
    3. Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution
(NAICS 2211)
    E. Additional Classes of Facilities Requiring Further Study
    1. Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 562) and
Facilities Engaged in the Recycling of Materials Containing CERCLA
Hazardous Substances
    2. Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS 321), Fabricated Metal
Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332), and Electronics and Electrical
Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 334 and 335)
III. Request for Public Comment

IV. Conclusion

I. Introduction

    Section 108(b), 42 U.S.C. 9608 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, requires
in specified circumstances that owners and operators of facilities
establish evidence of financial responsibility. Specifically, it
requires the promulgation of regulations that require classes of
facilities to establish and maintain evidence of financial
responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk
associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous substances. The section also instructs that the
President: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Executive Order 12580 delegates this responsibility to the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''
or ``the Agency'') for non-transportation related facilities. (See
52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987.)

* * * identify those classes for which requirements will be first
developed and publish notice of such identification in the Federal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Register.

    On July 28, 2009, EPA published that notice (see 74 FR 37213). In
that notice, EPA identified classes of facilities within the Hardrock
Mining industry as its priority for the development of financial
responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b). For purposes
of that notice, ``hardrock mining'' was defined as the extraction,
beneficiation, or processing of metals (e.g., copper, gold, iron, lead,
magnesium, molybdenum, silver, uranium, and zinc) and non-metallic,
non-fuel minerals (e.g., asbestos, phosphate rock, and sulfur).
    The notice also stated the Agency's belief that classes of
facilities, in addition to those within the Hardrock Mining industry,
may warrant the development of financial responsibility requirements
under CERCLA Section 108(b), that the Agency would continue to gather
and analyze data on additional classes of facilities, and would
consider them for possible development of CERCLA Section 108(b)
financial responsibility requirements. The Agency indicated its plans
to publish a Federal Register notice addressing these additional
classes of facilities by December 2009.
    This Federal Register notice identifies additional classes of
facilities--the classes within three industry sectors--for which the
Agency plans to develop, as necessary, a proposed regulation
identifying appropriate financial responsibility requirements under
CERCLA Section 108(b). EPA will carefully examine specific activities,
practices, and processes involving hazardous substances at these
facilities, as well as Federal and State authorities, policies, and
practices to determine the risks posed by these classes of facilities
and whether requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b) will effectively
reduce these risks. Any financial responsibility regulations developed
by the Agency as the result of its analysis will be proposed in the
Federal Register for public notice and comment.
    This notice also identifies classes of facilities within four
additional industry sectors, as well as classes of facilities engaged
in recycling activities associated with materials containing CERCLA
hazardous substances, which do not fit within a particular industry
sector, as those classes for which the Agency plans to conduct further
in-depth study before deciding whether to begin development of a
proposed regulation.
    Today's notice, its identification of classes, and its announcement
of further study of other classes is not itself a rule, and does not
create any binding duties or obligations on any party. Additional
research, outreach to stakeholders, proposed regulations, review of
public comments, and finalization of those regulations are needed
before any facilities are subject to any financial responsibility
requirements.

II. EPA's Approach for Identifying Additional Classes of Facilities

    EPA has worked to determine which classes of facilities it should
identify in this notice for evaluation regarding financial
responsibility requirements. In contrast to the statutory mandate under
CERCLA Section 108(b)(1) to publish the priority notice (that EPA
satisfied in July 2009), there is no statutory requirement for EPA to
publish today's notice. However, EPA is doing so as announced in the
July 2009 notice.\2\ As was the case with the July 2009 notice, EPA
looked to the text of CERCLA Section 108(b) to inform its
identification of facility classes. To begin with, the last sentence of
Section 108(b)(1) states that ``[p]riority in the development of such
requirements shall be accorded to those classes of facilities * * *
which the President determines present the highest level of risk of
injury.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 74 FR 37213 at 37219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examination of CERCLA Section 108(b) as a whole also reveals
repeated references to the concept of ``risk.'' The first sentence of
paragraph (b)(1) refers to ``requirements * * * that classes of
facilities establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility
consistent with the degree and duration of risk'' and paragraph (b)(2)
states that ``[t]he level of financial responsibility shall be
initially established, and, when necessary, adjusted to protect against
the level of risk which the President in his discretion believes is
appropriate * * *.'' (emphasis added). Accordingly, EPA chose to look
for indicators of risk and related effects to inform the selection of
classes of facilities for developing requirements under CERCLA Section
108(b).
    The Agency indicated in the July 2009 notice that it ``may take
into account factors such as: (1) The amounts of hazardous substances
released to the environment; (2) the toxicity of these substances; (3)
the existence and proximity of potential receptors; (4) contamination
historically found from facilities; (5) whether the causes of this
contamination still exist; (6) experiences from Federal cleanup
programs; (7) projected costs of Federal clean-up programs; and (8)
corporate structures and bankruptcy potential.'' EPA also indicated
that it would ``* * * consider whether financial responsibility
requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b) will effectively reduce these
risks.'' While some of the factors reflect the basic elements of risk
evaluation (i.e., the probability of release, exposure, and toxicity
\3\), others more closely relate to the severity of consequences that
result when risks are realized, such as the releases' duration and the
exposures that can result if releases are not prevented or quickly
controlled (e.g., as a result of economic constraints). Finally, the
Agency identified the following specific classes of facilities for
examination: hazardous waste generators,\4\ hazardous waste recyclers,
metal finishers, wood treatment facilities, and chemical

manufacturers.\5\ The Agency indicated that the list of additional
classes of facilities ``may be revised as the Agency's evaluation
proceeds.'' (See 74 FR 37213, at 37219, July 28, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National Research Council, ``Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process,'' National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 1983.
    \4\ In the July 2009 notice, EPA identified hazardous waste
generators, a diverse group of facilities, defined by the RCRA
regulations, as a class of facilities it would consider as part of
its analysis leading up to this Federal Register notice. However, to
conduct its analysis for purposes of this notice, the Agency relied
primarily on NAICS codes to define groups of facilities for purposes
of comparison. The Agency believes those classes of facilities
within NAICS codes 325 and 324 (identified for the development of
financial responsibility requirements in this notice), and those
within the Hardrock Mining industry (identified for financial
responsibility requirements in the July 2009 notice), effectively
cover the vast majority of hazardous waste generated (see Table 2).
The Agency, therefore, believes that this is a more workable
approach to addressing this diverse group of facilities.
    \5\ Although EPA did not solicit comment on the notice, it did
receive correspondence related to this notice from a number of
sources--Earth Justice; the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials; Treated Wood Council; Southern
Pressure Treaters' Association; Superfund Settlements Project and
RCRA Corrective Action Project; American Chemistry Council; American
Petroleum Institute; and the Society of Chemical Manufactures and
Affiliates.
    Through this correspondence, the Agency received a number of
comments on a range of issues related to development of financial
responsibility requirements under CERLCA Section 108(b) including,
but not limited to:
    Suggestions regarding additional sectors to identify for
financial responsibility requirements,
    Concerns about the Agency's overall approach under CERCLA
Section 108(b),
    Suggestion regarding interpretation of the statutory language,
    Suggestions for effective implementation of financial
responsibility requirements,
    Suggestions regarding the focus of rulemaking efforts under
CERCLA Section 108(b), and
    Industry-specific factors to consider in developing regulatory
requirements.
    This correspondence can be found in the docket for this Federal
Register notice. The Agency will consider and address any comments
received as part of its proposed and final rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop the list of classes of facilities discussed in this
notice, EPA's analysis used information related to sites listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL), data on hazardous waste generation from
the 2007 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Biennial Report
(BR), and data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).\6\ These
information sources will be explained below. EPA chose these sources
because they are well-established, reliable sources of information on
facilities associated with hazardous substances, and were readily
available to the Agency. Moreover, these data sources generally address
all of the factors noted in the July 2009 notice and cited above,
either directly or indirectly. More specifically,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ TRI estimates include all on-site releases of CERCLA
hazardous substances to the land, air and surface water, including
those disposed of in RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste land disposal
units and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) permitted underground
injection (UIC) wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The NPL information addresses the following factors
(either directly or indirectly): (1) The amounts of hazardous
substances released to the environment; (2) the toxicity of these
substances; (3) the existence and proximity of potential receptors; (4)
contamination historically found from facilities; (5) whether the
causes of this contamination still exist; (6) experiences from Federal
cleanup programs; (7) projected costs of Federal cleanup programs; and
(8) corporate structures and bankruptcy potential.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While CERCLIS, the Superfund program's data base, and NPL
site files do not account for corporate structures or bankruptcy
potential, EPA notes that, as a practical matter and consistent with
EPA's ``enforcement first'' policies, the lack of a viable party at
a site is often a consideration that goes into the decision to list
a particular site on the NPL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The BR information addresses (either directly or
indirectly) (1) the amounts of RCRA hazardous wastes \8\ generated or
managed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ RCRA hazardous wastes are, under CERCLA Section 101(14),
defined as CERCLA hazardous substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The TRI information addresses the following factors
(either directly or indirectly): (1) The amounts of hazardous
substances released to the environment; (2) the toxicity of these
substances; and (5) whether the causes of this contamination still
exist.
    EPA recognizes that the NPL data reflects activity that, in some
cases, pre-dates CERCLA, RCRA, and other legal requirements. In our
request for comment about risks at the end of this notice, the Agency
welcomes information about current releases of hazardous substances to
the environment to help inform EPA's future actions.
    The following sections describe EPA's evaluation and its results.
However, EPA notes that while, in general, the Agency chose to identify
those classes of facilities comprising a relatively large percentage or
amounts of hazardous substances, it should not be assumed that other
industry classes are no longer being considered and will not be
identified for future rulemakings.

A. Analysis of National Priority List Information

    The NPL is a list of national priorities for cleanups among the
known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the U.S. (In addition to the list of sites on
the NPL, file information about individual sites was also considered in
developing today's notice.) The Hazard Ranking System, the scoring
system EPA uses to assess the relative threat associated with releases
or potential releases of hazardous substances from a site, is the
primary method used to determine whether a site should be placed on the
NPL.\9\ The HRS takes into account the three elements of environmental
and human health risk: (1) Probability of release; (2) exposure; and
(3) toxicity. EPA generally will list on the NPL sites with scores of
28.50 or above. The HRS is a proven and accepted tool for evaluating
and prioritizing the releases that may pose threats to human health and
the environment throughout the nation. As of October, 2009, there were
1,495 proposed, final, and deleted non-Federal sites on the NPL. For
purposes of this analysis, the Agency assigned each of the NPL sites
the three-digit NAICS code 10 11 that best identified the
activities at the site, using available data and best professional
judgment. The analysis thus identified the relative prevalence of
industry sectors on the NPL.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA 2007. ``Introduction to the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS).'' Available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/npl_
hrs/hrsint.htm.
    \10\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)--the
standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying
business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing,
and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business
economy. NAICS codes are available at: http://www.census.gov.
    \11\ This information can be found in the docket for this
Federal Register notice.
    \12\ In this analysis, EPA excluded sites identified within
those classes of Hardrock Mining already discussed in the July 2009
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, the Agency identified six industry sectors,
and one group of facilities, on which to focus further: (1) The Waste
Management and Remediation Services industry (NAICS 562) (including
municipal and industrial landfills), with 465 sites; (2) the Chemical
Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325), with 181 sites; (3) facilities
engaged in the recycling of materials containing CERCLA hazardous
substances, with 138 sites; \13\ (4) the Wood Product Manufacturing
industry (NAICS 321), with 94 sites; (5) the Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturing industry (NAICS 332), with 91 sites; (6) the Electronics
and Electrical Equipment Manufacturing industry (NAICS 334 and 335),
with 71 sites; \14\

and (7) the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry (NAICS
324), with 30 sites. EPA focused on these seven industry categories
because they comprise 1,073 sites, or approximately 70 percent of all
non-Federal, proposed, finalized, and deleted sites on the NPL. The
findings of the NPL analysis are shown in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the Agency's Superfund program database, some facilities
were simply classified in categories that do not directly correspond
with NAICS. Recyclers (REC), Transportation-related facilities (TS)
and Product Storage facilities (PS) are included in these
categories.
    \14\ In CERCLIS, the Superfund program's data base, NPL sites
are not categorized by NAICS codes. Rather, CERCLIS uses ``site
types'' to describe each of the NPL sites. These site types include
the fields: manufacturing/processing/maintenance, recycling, waste
management, and other. Within each site type, there are various
``subtypes.'' Manufacturing/processing/maintenance contains the
following subtypes: chemicals and allied products, electronic/
electrical equipment, lumber and wood products, oil and gas
refining, and other. When assigning NAICS codes to facilities within
the subtype ``electronic/electrical equipment,'' the Agency could
not, based on information from the data base, distinguish between
facilities within NAICS 334 (Computer and Electronic Product
Manufacturing), and NAICS 335 (Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and
Component Manufacturing), so conducted its analysis treating them as
one industry sector (hereinafter referred to as ``the Electronics
and Electrical Equipment Manufacturing'' industry). An analysis more
detailed than that performed by the Agency for purposes of this
notice will be necessary to further delineate the prevalence of each
of these two industry sectors on the NPL.

              Table 1--Top Industries Listed on the CERCLA National Priorities List From 1981-2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percentage
                                                                                Total       of total
            Category or NAICS code                 Includes NPL sites identified as:     number of    number of
                                                                                sites        sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
562 Waste Management and Remediation Services.  Industrial waste facility (non-                 465         30.7
                                                 generator), municipal solid waste
                                                 landfill; co-disposal landfills
                                                 (municipal and industrial).
325 Chemical Manufacturing....................  Chemicals/chemical waste recovery.....          181         11.9
REC Recycling of Materials Containing CERCLA    Recycled oil/reclaimed copper; solvent          138          9.1
 Hazardous Substances.                           recovery/reclamation; reprocessed
                                                 solvent; recovered metals; used oil
                                                 recycling, drums/tanks recycling.
321 Wood Products Manufacturing...............  Lumber, wood and paper bag products;             94          6.2
                                                 wood preservers.
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing....  Metal fabrication/finishing/coating              91          6.0
                                                 and allied industries.
334 Computer and Electronic Product             Electronic/electrical equipment.......           71          4.7
 Manufacturing.
335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and
 Component Manufacturing*.
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing.  Oil and gas refining, coke production.           30          1.9
TS Transportation-related Facilities..........  Trucks/ships/trains related components           25          1.6
PS Product Storage............................  Product storage/distribution..........           20          1.3
812 Personal and Laundry Services.............  Dry cleaners..........................           19          1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Agency's CERCLA database does not differentiate facilities in NAICS 334 from those in NAICS 335 (see
  footnote 14).

    The Agency next considered BR and TRI data. Those analyses are
explained below.

B. Analysis of RCRA Biennial Report and Toxics Release Inventory Data

    EPA, in partnership with the States, biennially collects
information from large quantity hazardous waste generators,
transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities regarding
the generation, management, and final disposition of hazardous waste
regulated under RCRA. The BR data, which includes the reporting
facilities' NAICS codes, shows that in 2007 there are two industry
sectors that generate the majority of hazardous waste \15\--the
Chemical Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325) (approximately 19.8 million
tons), and the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry
(NAICS 324) (approximately 4.2 million tons). These two industry
sectors comprise more than 24 million tons, or approximately 74 percent
of the total amount of hazardous waste generated annually (see Table
2), and with the Hardrock Mining industry, represent approximately 80
percent of all RCRA hazardous waste generated by large quantity
generators. While the next three industry sectors--Waste Management and
Remediation Services, Electronic and Electric Equipment Manufacturing,
and Fabricated Metals Product Manufacturing--would include an
additional 4.4 million tons (or approximately 14 percent) of additional
hazardous waste, as is discussed later in this notice, the Agency
believes, for the reasons discussed later in this notice, that it needs
to conduct further investigation of these three industry sectors before
it makes the decision to develop financial responsibility requirements
for these classes of facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ It should be noted that CERCLA hazardous substances include
RCRA hazardous wastes.

Table 2--RCRA 2007 Biennial Reporting Data on Waste Generation of NPL-Identified Industrial Sectors--Top Ranking
                                                   NAICS Codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percentage of
                                                                                total amount of
              NAICS code                              Description                Generated tons  hazardous waste
                                                                                generated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
325...................................  Chemical Manufacturing................       19,767,608            61.10
324...................................  Petroleum and Coal Products                   4,189,468            12.95
                                         Manufacturing.
331...................................  Primary Metal Manufacturing \16\......        2,706,145             8.37
562...................................  Waste Management and Remediation              2,690,809             8.32
                                         Services.
334-335...............................  Computer and Electric Product                 1,155,014             3.57
                                         Manufacturing/Electrical Equipment,
                                         Appliance and Component Manufacturing.
332...................................  Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing          621,739             1.92
336...................................  Transportation Equipment Manufacturing          188,102             0.58
928...................................  National Security and International             140,946             0.43
                                         Affairs.
424...................................  Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods           76,678             0.24
326...................................  Plastics and Rubber Products                     62,887             0.19
                                         Manufacturing.
327...................................  Nonmetallic Mineral Product                      55,031             0.17
                                         Manufacturing.
333...................................  Machinery Manufacturing...............           52,117             0.17

321...................................  Wood Product Manufacturing............           48,923             0.15
541...................................  Professional, Scientific, and                    45,288             0.14
                                         Technical Services.
561...................................  Administrative and Support Services...           43,846             0.13
339...................................  Miscellaneous Manufacturing...........           38,970             0.12
493...................................  Warehousing and Storage...............           33,443             0.10
488...................................  Support Activities for Transportation.           29,989             0.10
531...................................  Real Estate...........................           29,740             0.10
323...................................  Printing and Related Support                     27,810             0.08
                                         Activities.
322...................................  Paper Manufacturing...................           18,272             0.06
611...................................  Educational Services..................           16,684             0.05
2211..................................  Electric Power Generation,                       15,703             0.05
                                         Transmission and Distribution.
                                                                               -----------------================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TRI is a database that contains detailed information on nearly 650
chemicals and chemical categories, many of which are hazardous
substances under CERCLA, that over 23,000 industrial and other
facilities manage through disposal or other releases, recycling, energy
recovery, or treatment. The TRI data, which includes the reporting
facilities' NAICS codes, shows that in 2007 two industry sectors
identified in the NPL analysis were also among those reporting the
largest quantities of on-site releases of hazardous substances (not
including the Hardrock Mining industry)--i.e., the Chemical
Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325) (reporting the largest quantity);
and the Waste Management and Remediation Services industry (NAICS 562).
In addition, another sector emerged from the TRI analysis--the Electric
Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution industry (NAICS 2211),
and was the sector reporting the second-largest quantity of on-site
releases of hazardous substances. (See Table 3.) These three industry
sectors comprise approximately 530 million pounds, or approximately 25
percent, of the total amount of on-site releases of hazardous
substances, and with the Hardrock Mining industry represent over 75
percent of the total amount of on-site releases of hazardous
substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ When the Agency assigned NAICS codes to the NPL sites (see
Section II.A.), it included within the definition of Hardrock Mining
many activities that fall within NAICS 331 Primary Metal
Manufacturing. Thus, while Primary Metal Manufacturing ranks high in
the TRI and BR analysis conducted for this notice, the Agency had
already considered those releases in identifying the classes within
Hardrock Mining for financial responsibility requirements in the
July 2009 notice.

  Table 3--2007 TRI On-Site Releases of CERCLA Hazardous Substances for NPL-Identified Industrial Sectors--Top
                                               Ranking NAICS Codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                On-site      Percentage of
               NAICS code                              Description                  releases      total on-site
                                                                                (1,000 lbs)       releases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2122...................................  Metal Ore Mining......................       1,099,573             51.1
325....................................  Chemicals Manufacturing...............         220,246             10.2
2211...................................  Electric Power Generation,                     161,053              7.5
                                          Transmission and Distribution.
331....................................  Primary Metal Manufacturing...........         156,811              7.3
562....................................  Waste Management and Remediation               152,397              7.1
                                          Services.
311....................................  Food Manufacturing....................         107,406              5.0
324....................................  Petroleum and Coal Products                     46,052              2.1
                                          Manufacturing.
322....................................  Paper Manufacturing...................          43,491              2.0
326....................................  Plastics and Rubber Products                    32,612              1.5
                                          Manufacturing.
                                         No TRI NAICS code.....................          28,578              1.3
336....................................  Transportation Equipment Manufacturing          25,921              1.2
327....................................  Nonmetallic Mineral Product                     17,669              0.8
                                          Manufacturing.
323....................................  Printing and Related Support                    11,798              0.5
                                          Activities.
332....................................  Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing          10,292              0.5
337....................................  Furniture and Related Product                    7,180              0.3
                                          Manufacturing.
321....................................  Wood Product Manufacturing............           6,479              0.3
334-335................................  Computer and Electric Product                    5,840              0.3
                                          Manufacturing/Electrical Equipment,
                                          Appliance and Component Manufacturing.
2121...................................  Coal Mining...........................           5,473              0.2
3274...................................  Lime and Gypsum Product Manufacturing.           3,459              0.2
333....................................  Machinery Manufacturing...............           2,690              0.1
339....................................  Miscellaneous Manufacturing...........           2,488              0.1
313....................................  Textile Mills.........................           1,996              0.1
                                                                                ----------------
4247...................................  Petroleum and Petroleum Products                 1,388              0.1
                                          Merchant Wholesalers.

    Total..............................  Amount of On-Site Releases of                2,151,723  ...............
                                          Hazardous Substances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conclusions From the NPL/BR/TRI Analyses

    As described in Section II.A. above, the analysis of the NPL
provided the Agency with six industry sectors, and one group of
facilities, to consider further--(1) The Waste Management and
Remediation Services industry, (2) the Chemical Manufacturing industry,
(3) facilities engaged in the recycling of materials containing CERCLA
hazardous substances, (4) the Wood Product Manufacturing industry, (5)
the Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing industry, (6) the
Electronics and Electrical Equipment Manufacturing industry, and (7)
the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry.
    The Agency then evaluated data from the BR and TRI to determine
whether any of the seven industry categories provided by the NPL
analysis emerged as classes of facilities for further consideration
because of the quantities of hazardous substances generated and
managed. Finally, the Agency considered additional factors, which will
be discussed below, to determine whether to begin the regulatory
development process.
    Analysis of the BR data, which is described in Section II.B. above,
shows that two of the industry sectors identified in the NPL analysis
generate the majority of hazardous waste--the Chemical Manufacturing
industry, and the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry.
Further, the TRI data, also described in Section II.B. above, shows
that in 2007, two industry sectors identified in the NPL analysis were
also among those reporting the largest quantities of on-site releases
of hazardous substances--the Chemical Manufacturing industry, and the
Waste Management and Remediation Services industry.
    Therefore, classes of facilities within two industry sectors
emerged as clearly appropriate for consideration based on the results
of the analysis--the Chemical Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325) and
the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry (NAICS 324).\17\
Specifically, the Chemical Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325) was
ranked second on the NPL analysis (representing approximately 12
percent of the NPL sites), ranked first on the BR analysis
(representing approximately 61 percent of the total amount of hazardous
waste generated), and ranked second on the TRI analysis (representing
approximately 10 percent of the total on-site releases of hazardous
substances). With respect to the Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing industry (NAICS 324), it ranked second on the BR analysis
(representing approximately 13 percent of the total amount of hazardous
waste generated), and sixth on the TRI analysis (representing
approximately 2 percent of the total on-site releases of hazardous
substances). While this industry sector did rank lower on the NPL
analysis, we note that many petroleum refineries, as part of their
operations, have released and are likely continuing to release
hazardous substances to the environment, and thus, the actual number of
facilities in this industry sector that have environmental releases is
much larger than as measured by the NPL. Based on these data, the
Agency believes it is appropriate to identify the classes within these
two industry sectors as among those for which it plans to develop, as
necessary, a proposed regulation identifying appropriate financial
responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Waste Management and Remediation Services industry also
seems, at first glance, to emerge from this analysis as appropriate
for development of a proposed rule but, for reasons described in
section II.E. of this notice, the Agency believes more information
is needed regarding this category of facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Agency believes it is appropriate to also identify
classes of facilities within the Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution industry (NAICS 2211) as among those for
which it will consider a proposed rulemaking regarding financial
responsibility under CERCLA Section 108(b). Our basis for this is
several-fold. Specifically, this industry sector ranked third in the
TRI analysis, representing approximately 7.5 percent of total on-site
releases of hazardous substances. Further, although it did not rank
high in the BR analyses, it would not be expected to produce these
results since coal combustion residuals (CCRs) are ``Bevill exempt''
\18\ wastes, and thus not subject to BR reporting requirements. In
addition, while this industry sector was not identified in the NPL
analysis, the Agency has documented evidence of proven damages to
groundwater or surface water in 27 damage cases \19\ involving these
wastes--17 cases of damage to groundwater, and ten cases of damage to
surface water, including ecological damages in seven of the ten.\20\
Finally, a recent catastrophic release in Tennessee of about one
billion gallons of coal ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority's
Kingston Plant has demonstrated the significant cleanup costs that can
be generated by this industry sector. (This is so even though this
industry sector was not identified as a relatively common presence on
the NPL in the analysis above.) This additional information, discussed
more fully in Section II.D.3 of this notice, supplements the NPL, BR,
and TRI analyses to indicate that development of proposed financial
responsibility requirements for this industry sector is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The ``Bevill'' exemption is codified at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7).
    \19\ Per the May 2000 Regulatory Determination (see 65 FR
32224), proven damage cases are those with (i) documented
exceedances of primary MCLs or other health-based standards measured
in groundwater at sufficient distance from the waste management unit
to indicate that hazardous constituents have migrated to the extent
that they could cause human health concerns, and/or (ii) where a
scientific study demonstrates there is documented evidence of
another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g.,
ecological damage), and/or (iii) where there has been an
administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of
specific damage to human health and the environment.
    \20\ The 24 cases identified in EPA's ``Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Case Assessments,'' July 9, 2007, available at: http://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=Document
Detail&d=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796-0015 with the addition of Martins
Creek, Pennsylvania, where in August, 2005, a dam confining a 40-
acre CCR surface impoundment failed, resulting in the discharge of
100 million gallons of coal ash and contaminant water; Gambrills,
MD; and Kingston/TVA, TN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of evaluating this information, the Agency is today
identifying classes of facilities within three industries--the Chemical

Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325), the Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing industry (NAICS 324), and the Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution industry (NAICS 2211) as those for which
the Agency plans to develop, as necessary, a proposed regulation
identifying appropriate financial responsibility requirements under
CERCLA Section 108(b). In identifying classes of facilities within
these industries in this notice, the Agency does not intend to indicate
that other classes in other industry sectors are no longer being
considered. (See Section II.E. for discussion of additional classes of
facilities that EPA plans to study further before deciding whether to
initiate the development of a proposed regulation.)

D. Additional Information Regarding the Classes of Facilities for Which
EPA Plans To Develop a Proposed Regulation

    As was discussed above, the Agency is identifying in this Federal
Register notice the classes of facilities within the Chemical
Manufacturing (NAICS 325), Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
(NAICS 324), and Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution (NAICS 2211) industries as those for which EPA plans to
develop, as necessary, a proposed regulation identifying appropriate
financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b). EPA
identified the classes within these industry sectors based on the
analyses and information described above.
    As was also discussed above, the Agency identified, in the July
2009 notice, eight factors it would take into consideration when
evaluating any additional classes of facilities. To take these factors
into account in its analysis, the Agency relied on readily available,
reliable sources of information that reflected the factors--i.e., the
NPL, BR, and TRI (see discussion in Section II of this notice).
    After identifying the classes of facilities in the Chemical
Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and Electric
Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution industries, the Agency
further evaluated those industry sectors by gathering additional
information related to the eight factors, to the extent it was
practicable to do so. The results verified the Agency's analysis. The
following discussion describes the results for each of the industry
sectors, in turn.
1. Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325)
    For purposes of this Federal Register notice, EPA has included the
following classes of facilities, which are encompassed by the NAICS
code 325 definition of the ``Chemical Manufacturing'' industry:
facilities involved in the transformation of organic and inorganic raw
materials by a chemical process and in the formulation of products.\21\
As is explained below, chemical manufacturing facilities share common
characteristics, and are thus being identified as a group. At the same
time, those facilities included in the definition above differ such
that ``chemical manufacturing facilities'' are properly considered to
encompass multiple ``classes'' of facilities. The various classes in
this Federal Register notice's definition of chemical manufacturing are
primarily involved in one or more of three general activities: (1)
Preparation of raw material inputs, (2) chemical reactions and
synthesis, and (3) recovery of reaction products through purification,
isolation, separation, drying, and a variety of other methods, to
create a good that can be either sold as a finished material or as an
intermediate for further processing by other manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Within NAICS 325 belong the following: Basic Chemical
Manufacturing (NAICS 3251); Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial
Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing (NAICS 3252);
Pesticides, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical
Manufacturing (NAICS 3253); Pharmaceutical and Medicine
Manufacturing (NAICS 3254); Paint, Coating, and Adhesive
Manufacturing (NAICS 3255); Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet
Preparation Manufacturing (NAICS 3256); and Other Chemical Product
and Preparation Manufacturing (NAICS 3259).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The chemical industry is an integral part of the United States'
(U.S.) economy, converting various raw materials into more than 70,000
diverse products. These raw material inputs are generally either
organic (oil, natural gas) or inorganic raw materials (ores or natural
elements taken from the earth).\22\ In many instances, these raw
material inputs need to undergo chemical or physical processes before
they are introduced in the chemical reaction, and these processes tend
to be a large source of hazardous substances. For example, in the
production of chlorine, raw brine requires the removal of impurities,
such as calcium, magnesium, and other trace metals, to obtain the
process input sodium chloride.\23\ The removal of impurities leads to
the formation of brine muds, a large waste stream containing the
hazardous substances sulfate, chloride, and carbon tetrachloride.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Industrial
Technologies. (2000). ``Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.S.
Chemical Industry.'' Columbia, MD: ENERGETICS Inc. Available at:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/chemicals/tools_profile.html.
    \23\ EPA 1995. ``Office of Compliance Sector Notebook: Profile
of the Inorganic Chemical Industry.'' EPA/310-R-95-004 SIC Code:
281. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/
publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/inorganic.html.
    \24\ International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group 2007.
``Environment, Health, and Safety Guidelines: Large Volume Inorganic
Compounds Manufacturing and Coal Tar Distillation.'' Available at:
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/
EnvironmentalGuidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next step in chemical and allied products manufacturing
process, chemical reaction and/or synthesis, exhibits variety both
across and within sectors in the chemical manufacturing industry,
although with the common characteristic of using a chemical process to
formulate a product. Some examples of chemical reactions include
halogenation in the formation of chlorinated solvents, and
polymerization in the formation of plastic resins. Inputs will often go
through more than one reaction. In many sectors, a reactor vessel acts
as a host to the reaction, as well as sometimes acting as a
crystallizer, heater, mixer, or evaporator.\25\ Chemical synthesis can
be responsible for significant emissions of hazardous substances,
including ammonia, ethylene, aromatics, alcohols, oxides, acids, and
chlorine.\26\ In organic chemical manufacturing, inputs are generally
added by either a batch process, in which all reactant chemicals are
added to a reaction vessel at the same time and the products are
emptied completely when the reaction is finished, or by a continuous
process, in which reactants are added and products are removed at a
constant rate. Chemicals may be emitted more at the beginning and end
of the reaction during operations, such as vessel loading and product
transfer.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ EPA 1997. ``Office of Compliance Sector Notebook: Profile
of the Pharmaceutical Industry.'' EPA/310-R-97-005: 283. Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/
sectors/notebooks/pharmaceutical.html.
    \26\ EPA 2002. ``Office of Compliance Sector Notebook: Profile
of the Organic Chemical Industry.'' EPA/310-R-02-001 SIC Code: 286.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/
sectors/notebooks/organic.html.
    \27\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The desired end products are rarely obtained in pure form out of
the reaction or synthesis process, and by-products and unreacted inputs
must be removed. Once the reaction occurs, the targeted product or
products must be isolated and purified, and this

purification process will vary based on inputs, processes, and the
targeted product. For example, common separation methods used by the
organic chemical manufacturing industry include filtration, extraction,
or distillation, the latter a method used to separate or purify
volatile components from less volatile components. Some environmental
concerns associated with distillation include releases to the air from
condenser vents, waste streams, and wastes from cleaning.\28\
Pharmaceutical manufacturers typically utilize a series of separation,
crystallization, purification, and drying stages in formulating a
product.\29\ These steps can lead to the emission of hazardous
substances from uncontained filtering systems and dryers, and
wastewaters may be formed from equipment cleaning, spills, leaks, and
spent purification solvents. In the production of chlorine and caustic
soda, classified under the inorganic chemical manufacturing industry,
recovered chlorine gas is processed with sulfuric acid, which may then
be released to water or disposed of on the land.\30\ Other wastes from
the production of chlorine and caustic soda include chlorine gas
emissions (both fugitive and point sources); spent acids; Freon (both
fugitive and point source); and pollutants originating from
electrolytic cell materials and other system parts.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Ibid.
    \29\ EPA 1997. ``Office of Compliance Sector Notebook: Profile
of the Pharmaceutical Industry.'' EPA/310-R-97-005: 283. Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/
sectors/notebooks/pharmaceutical.html.
    \30\ EPA 1995. ``Office of Compliance Sector Notebook: Profile
of the Inorganic Chemical Industry.'' EPA/310-R-95-004: 281.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/
assistance/sectors/notebooks/inorganic.html.
    \31\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both because of the way that the facilities covered by this Federal
Register notice fit together, and because of the range of activities
that they cover, EPA believes chemical manufacturing is properly
identified as a group and considered to include multiple classes of
facilities.
a. Releases and Exposure to Hazardous Substances
    The Chemical Manufacturing industry typically operates on a large
scale, with releases to the environment and, in some situations,
subsequent exposure of humans, organisms, and ecosystems to hazardous
substances on a similarly large scale. As was previously discussed, the
Agency's TRI data revealed that the Chemical Manufacturing industry
released large quantities of CERCLA hazardous substances, approximately
220 million pounds, or approximately 10 percent of the total on-site
releases of hazardous substances reported under TRI. This overall
percentage, while declining, has still remained large since 2001,
ranging from 291 million pounds of total on-site releases of hazardous
substances in 2001 to 233 million pounds in 2006. In 2007, the majority
of on-site releases of hazardous substances from the Chemical
Manufacturing industry were to underground injection, with additional
releases to the air, water, and land.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See TRI data from Bill Kline, EPA. ``On-site Releases of
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) Hazardous
Substances Reported to TRI for 2001 through 2007, by Industry and
Year,'' October 8, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, according to the 2007 RCRA BR, the Chemical Manufacturing
industry generated approximately 19.8 million tons of hazardous waste,
or approximately 61 percent of the total amount of hazardous waste
reported by large quantity generators. This waste can take a variety of
forms, including spent solvents, distillation bottoms and side-cuts,
off specification or unused toxic chemicals, wastewater, wastewater
treatment sludge, emission control sludges, filter cake, spent
catalysts, by-products, reactor clean out wastes, and container
residues.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ European Commission. Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control (IPPC). ``Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in
the Large Volume Organic Chemical Industry.'' 2003. European
Commission Joint Research Centre. Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/
eippcb/doc/lvo_bref_0203.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are a large number of active facilities operating in the
U.S., and thus, there is potential for releases of and exposure to
hazardous substances. While estimates of the number of active chemical
manufacturing facilities vary, in 2007, the Census Bureau estimated
that there were approximately 13,000 chemical manufacturing facilities
in the U.S.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ American Fact Finder. 325 Chemical Manufacturing. U.S.
Census Bureau. 2007 Economic Census. Last Updated: March. Accessed
at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-ds_
name=EC0700CADV1&-NAICS2007=325&_-lang=en Accessed: September 9,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some cases, these wastes have led to ground and surface water
contamination when improperly managed.\35\ In particular, EPA's review
of its NPL site information underscores the risk of chemical
manufacturing facilities. To begin with, that review showed over 180
facilities with sites included on the NPL. Pemaco Maywood, a four-acre
facility in Maywood, California, that housed a chemical blending plant
operating between the 1940s and 1991, is a prominent example of a
facility with high risk to the environment and human health. During its
years of operation, hazardous chemicals were stored in both above- and
below-ground tanks, and drums included chlorinated and aromatic
solvents, flammable liquids, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs). In a later study of contamination of the
site, several VOCs were identified as infiltrating soil and wells
drawing from groundwater. Aqueous samples taken from the wells
contained toxic hydrocarbons, such as vinyl chloride, trichloroethene
(TCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), 1,1- and 1,2-dichloroethenes, and
1,1-dichloroethane, all listed on the 2007 CERCLA Priority List of
Hazardous Substances.\36\ The site is of particular concern because 13
water purveyors draw groundwater from 78 wells within four miles of the
site to supply drinking water to approximately 339,000 people.
Furthermore, the site is in a mixed industrial and residential
community, with a residential tract across the street.\37\ Similarly,
the Woolfolk Chemical Superfund site, in Fort Valley, Georgia, a full-
line pesticide plant formulating products in liquid, dust, and granular
forms for the agricultural, lawn, and garden markets emitted a large
amount of chemicals throughout its years of operation. Monitors
detected metals and pesticides, including lead, arsenic, chlordane,
DDT, lindane, and toxaphene, in on-site soil and groundwater, and in an
open ditch south of the plant. Three of the five Fort Valley municipal
water supply wells are within 1,000 feet of the facility, and an
estimated 10,000 people obtain drinking water from municipal wells
within three miles of the site.38 39
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, for example, the NPL Site Narrative for Diaz Chemical
Corporation, available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/
nar1708.htm, or the NPL Site Narrative for Standard Chlorine
Chemical Company, available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/
npl/nar1672.htm.
    \36\ ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry).
2007. ``CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances.'' U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cercla/. CERCLA Section 104 (i), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), requires ATSDR
and EPA to prepare a list, in order of priority, of substances that
are most commonly found at facilities on the NPL and that are
determined to pose the most significant potential threat to human
health due to their known or suspected toxicity and potential for
human exposure at these NPL sites.
    \37\ EPA 2009. NPL Site Narrative for Pemaco Maywood. Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1517.htm.
    \38\ EPA 2009. NPL Site Narrative for Woolfolk Chemical Works,
Inc. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/
n0401315.pdf.
    \39\ Facility Detail Report for Woolfolk Chemcial Works.
Available at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_master.fii_
retrieve?fac_search=handler_id&fac_value=GAD003269578&fac_
search_type=Beginning+With&postal_code=&location_address=&add_
search_type=Beginning+With&all_programs=YES&univ_
search=0&univA=1&univB=1&LIBS=&procname=&program_
search=2&report=1&page_no=1&output_sql_switch=TRUE&database_
type=RCRAINFOAccessed: September 4, 2009.

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

b. Severity of Consequences Resulting From Releases and Exposure to
Hazardous Substances.
    These situations, as well as others, EPA believes, have led to, and
may continue to lead to, impacts to public health and the environment
as a result of releases and exposure of hazardous substances.
Specifically, the severity of consequences posed by some chemical
manufacturing facilities is evident in the large costs associated with
some past and estimated future actions necessary to protect public
health and the environment through what are often extensive and long-
term remediation efforts. In other words, the documented expenditures
for cleanup reflect efforts to correct the realized risks from chemical
manufacturing facilities. As noted earlier, chemical manufacturing
facilities release, and have the potential to release, large quantities
of hazardous substances, which can affect the environment and
populations. Groundwater and soil contamination require long-term
management and treatment. Remediation of these chemical manufacturing
facilities has therefore been historically costly. For the NPL sites
identified in the NAICS 325 category, EPA has spent approximately $2.7
billion through FY 2009.40 41 For example, Whitmoyer
Laboratories, a veterinary and pharmaceutical manufacturing plant,
produced, stored, and disposed of arsenic on its 22-acre site. Over the
years, the laboratory changed ownership and in 1964 detectable levels
of arsenic were found in the soil, groundwater and surface water. This
site was added to the NPL in 1987, and remediation efforts included
demolishing the 17 abandoned buildings and the removal of more than
50,000 tons of arsenic-contaminated waste and soils, with a projected
cost of $124 million.42 43
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ This number is in constant 2009 dollars, and represents the
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation's (OSRTI)
analysis of end of FY 2009, cumulative, site-specific, agency-wide,
direct expenditures of Superfund appropriated and reimbursable
resources extracted from the EPA Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS). Expenditure data include all direct costs, including,
but not limited to site assessments, remedial, removal, enforcement,
and oversight costs. Data do not include indirect costs, costs
incurred by private or other parties performing response actions, or
future costs to be incurred at these sites and may not be used for
cost recovery purposes. See Memorandum from Elaine Eby, EPA, to The
Record, Re: ``Superfund Cost Estimates for Selected Classes of
Facilities,'' November 30, 2009.
    \41\ Expenditure data are converted into 2009 constant dollars
using GDP deflation factors derived from: Table 10.1--Gross Domestic
Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2009, from
the Budget of the U.S., FY 2005. Online via GPO access.
    \42\ Congress of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. A CBO
Study. 1994. ``The Total Cost of Cleaning Up Non-Federal Superfund
Sites,'' at p. 22. Available at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/
doc4845/EntireReport.pdf.
    \43\ EPA. Mid-Atlantic Superfund Site, Whitmore Laboratories,
Current Site Information. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/
npl/PAD003005014.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, EPA's past experience with some NPL sites leads it to
conclude that chemical manufacturing facilities are likely to and
continue to present a substantial financial burden that could be met by
financial responsibility requirements.
    EPA believes that common corporate structures and interrelated
corporate failures within the Chemical Manufacturing industry also
increase the likelihood of uncontrolled releases of hazardous
substances being left unmanaged, increasing risks. In particular, the
existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship can present several
risks. First, corporate structures may allow parent corporations to
shield themselves from liabilities of their subsidiaries.\44\ In a 2005
study, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) cited chemical
manufacturing as an example of businesses at risk of incurring
substantial liability and transferring the most valuable assets to a
parent that could not be reached for cleanup.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ United States v. Bestfoods, 542 U.S. 51, 61(1998).
    \45\ U.S. Government Accountability Office 2005. ``Environmental
Liabilities: EPA Should Do More to Ensure That Liable Parties Meet
Their Cleanup Obligations.'' Report to Congressional Requesters.
GAO-05-658, pp. 21-24. Accessed at: http://www.gao.gov/highlights/
d05658high.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, EPA believes that chemical manufacturing sites tend to
change ownership, making the assignment of appropriate responsibility
for remediation costs difficult. For instance, a 500-600 acre
Brunswick, Georgia site that was most recently owned by LCP Chemicals
has a long history of turnover between owners. The site was originally
owned and operated by a petroleum refinery from 1919 until 1930, while
portions of the site were also owned by a paint manufacturer and an
energy provider. Allied Chemical bought the site in the mid-1950s and
manufactured caustic soda, chlorine, and hydrochloric acid, until the
site was purchased by LCP Chemicals in 1979. Investigation of the area
has found on-site contamination of mercury, lead and PCBs. Since being
added to the NPL, several different potentially responsibility parties
have been identified.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ EPA 2009. NPL Site Narrative for LCP Chemicals Georgia.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1458.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, there have been a number of bankruptcies in the
Chemical Manufacturing industry that resulted in or will likely require
significant Federal responses, such as:
     When the owner/operator of Vertac Chemical Company filed
for bankruptcy, it left behind nearly 29,000 drums of chemical waste in
Jacksonville, Arkansas. EPA's remediation efforts included the
incineration and off-site shipment of these drums, as well as clean-up
of contaminated soil and destruction of the remaining industrial
structures. These efforts resulted in a cost to EPA of over $127
million and ongoing disputes over legal responsibility.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ EPA 2007. ``Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results:
FY2007 Superfund Enforcement.'' Available at: http://www.epa.gov/
compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2007/2007-sp-
superfund.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chemical releases from a Delaware chlorinated benzene
manufacturing facility that went bankrupt in 2002 have led to
contamination of soil, sediment, a groundwater aquifer, and nearby
surface water. Cleanup at this site has included the completion of a
groundwater barrier and pump-and-treat system and treatment of
contaminated soils. As of 2005, EPA estimated that it had incurred
about $28 million in cleanup costs, and that the total cost will
eventually rise to up to $100 million.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005.
``Environmental Liabilities: EPA Should Do More to Ensure That
Liable Parties Meet Their Cleanup Obligations.'' Washington, DC GAO-
05-658, p.37. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
05-658.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering all of this information, EPA concludes that the classes
of facilities within the Chemical Manufacturing industry are among
those for which EPA should develop, as necessary, a proposed regulation
identifying appropriate financial responsibility requirements under
CERCLA Section 108(b).
2. Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 324)
    For purposes of this Federal Register notice, EPA has included the
following classes of facilities that are encompassed by the NAICS code
324 definition of the ``Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing''
industry:

facilities that transform crude petroleum and coal into usable products
(e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base and coatings, heating oil,
kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas).\49\ The dominant process in
this industry sector (which we discuss in this notice) is petroleum
refining which involves the separation of crude petroleum into
component products through such techniques as fractionation,
distillation, and/or cracking. (However, this industry sector includes
activities, such as the production of coke oven products that are not
produced at steel mills, including tar derivatives, ammonia, light oil
derivatives, and coke oven gas.) Facilities in this industry sector
share common characteristics, and are, thus, being identified as a
group. At the same time, facilities included in the class differ, and
thus, are properly considered to encompass multiple classes of
facilities. The various classes in this Federal Register notice's
definition of petroleum refining are involved in one or more of three
general activities: (1) Fractionation; (2) straight distillation of
crude oil; and (3) cracking. Depending on the product sought, any or
all of these processes may be used. The operations that comprise this
industry sector are all part of a sequential process of converting
crude petroleum into marketable petroleum-based products, even though
the intermediate and end products may differ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Within NAICS 324 belongs the following: Petroleum
Refineries (NAICS 32411); Asphalt Paving, Roofing, and Saturated
Materials Manufacturing (NAICS 32412); and Other Petroleum and Coal
Products Manufacturing (NAICS 32419).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both because of the way that the facilities covered by this Federal
Register notice fit together, and because of the range of activities
that they cover, EPA believes petroleum and coal products manufacturing
is properly identified as a group and considered to include multiple
classes of facilities. Facilities not considered to be part of the
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry--that is, not part
of NAICS 324--include establishments that focus primarily on the
further processing of refined petroleum products to produce products,
such as petrochemicals. For example, facilities that are exclusively
involved with any of the following processes are not considered to be
part of NAICS 324--the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
industry:
     Manufacturing paper mats and felts and saturating them
with asphalt or tar into rolls and sheets (NAICS code 322121);
     Manufacturing synthetic lubricating oils and greases
(NAICS code 325998); \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ It should be noted, however, that some of these processes
fall within classes identified elsewhere in this Federal Register
notice--in this case, the classes within NAICS 325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Recovering natural gas and/or liquid hydrocarbons from oil
and gas field gases (NAICS code 21111);
     Manufacturing acyclic and cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(i.e., petrochemicals) from refined petroleum or liquid hydrocarbons
(NAICS code 325110);
     Manufacturing cyclic and acyclic chemicals (except
petrochemicals) (NAICS code 32519); and
     Manufacturing coke oven products in steel mills (NAICS
code 331111).
a. Releases and Exposure to Hazardous Substances
    EPA's research indicates that while the petroleum refining industry
has facilities throughout the U.S., it is also geographically
concentrated, with the highest number of facilities located in Texas
(27 facilities), California (20 facilities), and Louisiana (19
facilities).\51\ Releases to the environment have resulted, in some
situations, in subsequent exposure of humans, organisms, and ecosystems
to hazardous substances on a regional scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Energy Information Administration. U.S. Department of
Energy. ``Refinery Capacity Report 2009.'' Released June 25, 2009.
Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_
publications/refinery_capacity_data/refcapacity.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As was previously discussed, the Agency's TRI data revealed that
the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry released
approximately 46 million pounds of CERCLA hazardous substances, or
approximately 2.0 percent of the total on-site releases of hazardous
substances by U.S. industry reporting to TRI.\52\ This overall
percentage has remained relatively stable since 2001, ranging from
approximately 41 million pounds of total on-site releases of hazardous
substances in 2003 to approximately 47 million pounds in 2006. In 2007,
the majority of on-site releases of hazardous substances were to
surface water and air, with additional releases to the land and
underground injection.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See TRI data from Bill Kline, EPA. ``Onsite Releases of
ATSDR Hazardous Substances Reported to TRI for 2001 through 2007, By
Industry and Year,'' October 8, 2009.
    \53\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are a large number of active facilities operating in the
U.S., and thus, there is potential for releases of and exposure to
hazardous substances. In 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the
number of active petroleum and coal products manufacturing facilities
at approximately 2,300. Of this total, there are approximately 190
operating petroleum refining facilities.\54\ Currently operating
petroleum refining facilities tend to be very large, high-volume
facilities. For example, the aggregate output of the 93 U.S. petroleum
refineries listed on the Financial Reporting System (FRS) \55\ was
14.17 million barrels per calendar day in 2007.\56\ Because refineries
tend to be operated for decades, there is a long timeframe for
potential releases and exposure of hazardous substances to occur. In
addition, because of their need for large amounts of cooling water for
operations, refineries tend to be located near navigable waterways or
on the seashore, which likely increases the potential to impact
groundwater, surface water, aquatic biota, and aquatic vegetation.
Other impacts to terrestrial vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, soils,
air, cultural resources, and humans that use these resources
recreationally or for subsistence also are likely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. 2007 Economic Census. Accessed
at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-ds_
name=EC0731I1&-NAICS2007=324110&-ib_type=NAICS2007&-geo_id=&_-
industry=324110&_-lang=en.
    \55\ FRS is a reporting system operated by the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) through which major energy-
producing companies based in the U.S. annually report their
worldwide financial and operating data on a uniform and standardized
basis via Form EIA-28.
    \56\ EIA Official Statistics from the U.S. Government, 2009.
U.S. and Foreign Petroleum Refining Statistics for FRS Companies.
Accessed at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/frs/
frstables.cfm?tableNumber=28&startYear=1998&endYear=2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Facilities in the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
industry also generate significant quantities of hazardous wastes,
which may increase the risk of releases of hazardous substances.
According to the 2007 RCRA BR, approximately 4.2 million tons of
hazardous waste was generated by this industrial sector (second only to
the Chemical Manufacturing industry). These wastes, which include
primary and secondary sludges, spent catalysts, filter cakes, sour
water, heavy ends (distillation bottoms), dissolved air/nitrogen
flotation (DAF/DNF), flotation debris, waste soils, oily sludge, tank
bottom sludge, clarified slurry oil, and tank bottoms \57\ have the
potential to result in adverse environmental consequences if released
to the environment. Hazardous wastes generated by the Petroleum and
Coal Products Manufacturing industry can contain significant
concentrations of

certain toxic chemicals (benzene, arsenic, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See ``Wastes Description Generated by Petroleum Refineries
(NAICS 3241xx).'' November 4, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some cases, these wastes have led to ground and surface water
contamination when improperly managed. In particular, EPA's analysis of
NPL sites shows that 30 currently listed NPL sites have been attributed
to petroleum and coal products manufacturing processes; of this total,
22 have been attributed to petroleum refinery operations. Sites
contaminated by these processes typically contain a number of different
contaminants, including toxic organics, such as benzene,
polychlorinated biphenyls, phenol, and VOCs; and heavy metals, such as
barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, selenium, and zinc. The Falcon
Refinery provides an example of contamination resulting from petroleum
refining.\58\ The Falcon Refinery site occupies approximately 104 acres
in San Patricio County, Texas. The site was proposed to be added to the
NPL based on evidence that hazardous substances (including arsenic,
barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium,
vanadium, zinc, and PAHs) have migrated or could potentially migrate
from the facility to active fisheries and sensitive environments within
the adjacent wetlands of Redfish Bay, Aranas Bay, and Corpus Christi
Bay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ EPA. NPL Site Narrative for Falcon Refinery. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1667.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Falcon Refinery operated intermittently since 1980, and is
currently inactive. When in operation, the refinery operated at a
capacity of 40,000 barrels per day with primary products consisting of
diesel, fuel oil, jet fuel, kerosene, and naphtha. The Falcon Refinery
processed material that consisted of not only crude oil, but also
contained RCRA hazardous wastes, including EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
K048 (dissolved air flotation float), K049 (slop oil emulsion solids),
K050 (heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge), and K051 (API separator
sludge). Other hazardous wastes at the site include: (1) Vinyl acetate,
(2) cooling tower sludges containing chromium, (3) non-crude oil
constituents detected in a pipeline spill, (4) untreated wastewater
released inside tank berms, and (5) leaking drums.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example demonstrating the release of hazardous substances
at such facilities is the Tennessee Products site in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.\60\ The site consists of two distinct source areas of
contamination: (1) Certain areas in the flood plain containing
uncontrolled coal-tar constituents; and (2) sediments along
approximately 2.5 miles of Chattanooga Creek that were contaminated
with coal-tar constituents. Contamination in the creek was caused, in
part, by a former coal carbonization facility (coke plant). This
facility was operated from approximately 1918 until 1987. Various
companies operated the facility throughout its history. The Tennessee
Products Corporation operated it the longest, from 1926 to 1964.
Uncontrolled dumping of coal-tar wastes contaminated the facility, the
groundwater underlying the facility, and sediments and surface water in
Chattanooga Creek downstream of the facility. These coal-tar wastes
contained high levels of various PAHs. Residents from nearby housing
projects and homes in this urban area used Chattanooga Creek for
swimming, playing, and fishing by both children and adults. After the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a health
advisory for the Creek in 1983 and a fish consumption advisory in 1992,
EPA fenced a section of the Creek to prevent public access. After the
site was listed on the NPL in 1995, EPA conducted a removal action that
included removal of approximately 25,350 cubic yards of coal-tar and
contaminated sediment from the site at a cost of $12 million
dollars.\61\ From 2005 to 2007, a remedial action excavated
approximately 107,000 tons of stabilized sediment from the creek
channel and transported it for disposal at an off-site landfill. A
protective barrier also was installed over 5,740 linear feet of creek
channel to guard against potential recontamination.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ EPA Superfund Update. August 2002. Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
for Cleanup of Chattanooga Creek--Tennessee Products Superfund Site,
Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee. Available at: http://
www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/npltn/tnprod/chtgcrkppf.pdf.
    \61\ Ibid.
    \62\ EPA. Site Summary for Tennessee Products (Chattanooga
Creek). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/Region4/waste/npl/npltn/
tennprtn.htm#progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to sites that have been listed on the NPL, EPA notes
that many petroleum refineries, as part of their operations, have
released and may be continuing to release hazardous substances to the
environment, including to groundwater.\63\ In certain instances, the
amount of hydrocarbons released to the groundwater is such that these
refineries are actually pumping out the hydrocarbons from the
groundwater table, and recovering them back in the refinery,\64\ which
demonstrates the significant extent to which these materials have been
released to the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ RCRA Facility Investigations (RFIs) document releases to
the environment from regulated units subject to corrective action
under Subtitle C of RCRA. These RFIs are used to characterize the
nature, extent, and rate of migration of contaminant releases to
soils, ground water, subsurface gas, air, and surface water. They
also provide guidance to the regulatory agency to determine if
interim corrective measures may be necessary. EPA has reviewed RFIs
from petroleum refineries and finds that released hydrocarbons are
being recovered from the groundwater and recovered and reprocessed
into the facilities oil refining process. See, for example, the
Closure and Corrective Action Permit of an Oklahoma Refinery, which
includes a ``Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) Recovery Plan''
(OKD058078775-PC), and which is available in the docket for this
Federal Register notice.
    \64\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Severity of Consequences Resulting From Releases and Exposure to
Hazardous Substances
    The severity of the consequences impacting human health and the
environment as a result of releases and exposure of hazardous
substances at petroleum and coal products manufacturing processes is
evident by analyzing a number of factors. Specifically, the severity of
consequences posed by this industry sector is evident in the large
costs associated with past and estimated future costs necessary to
protect public health and the environment through what are often
extensive and long-term remediation efforts. In other words, the
documented expenditures reflect efforts to correct the realized risks
from petroleum and coal products manufacturing facilities. These
facilities release hazardous substances, which have, in some instances,
resulted in contamination that requires long-term management and
treatment. Remediation of these sites, therefore, has been historically
costly. For the NPL sites identified as petroleum refineries in the
NAICS 324 category, EPA has spent approximately $250 million through FY
2009.\65\\,\\66\ Thus, EPA's past

experience with these sites leads it to conclude that petroleum and
coal products manufacturing facilities may be likely to continue to
present a substantial financial burden that could be met by financial
responsibility requirements. Examples include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ This number is in constant 2009 dollars, and represents the
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation's (OSRTI)
analysis of end of FY 2009, cumulative, site-specific, agency-wide,
direct expenditures of Superfund appropriated and reimbursable
resources extracted from the EPA Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS). Expenditure data include all direct costs, including,
but not limited to site assessments, remedial, removal, enforcement,
and oversight costs. Data do not include indirect costs, costs
incurred by private or other parties performing response actions, or
future costs to be incurred at these sites and may not be used for
cost recovery purposes. See Memorandum from Elaine Eby, EPA, to The
Record, Re: ``Superfund Cost Estimates for Selected Classes of
Facilities,'' November 30, 2009.
    \66\ Expenditure data are converted into 2009 constant dollars
using GDP deflation factors derived from: Table 10.1--Gross Domestic
Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2009, from
the Budget of the U.S., FY 2005 Online via GPO access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Indian Refinery--Texaco Lawrenceville site, located in
Lawrenceville, Illinois, was active as a petroleum refinery from the
early 1900s until 1995. The refinery has been inactive since November
1995, and demolition activities began in June 1998. During its
operation, the refinery produced many products. A variety of waste
products was also generated and disposed of or released on and off-
site. Petroleum products and hazardous substances, including an acidic
sludge (lube oil acid sludge and lube oil filter cake sludge), PAHs,
benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, xylene, cadmium, lead, and other
metals have been detected in surface waters, soil, and in groundwater
on or adjacent to the site. This site is being addressed in two
stages--immediate actions and long-term actions, focusing on cleanup of
the entire (approximately 900 acre) site. The remedial investigation
and feasibility study are still ongoing.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ EPA. 2009. NPL Fact Sheet for Indian Refinery-Texaco
Lawrenceville. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/region5superfund/npl/
illinois/ILD042671248.htm; Public Health Assessment, Indian
Refinery--Texaco Lawrenceville (a/k/a. Texaco Incorporated
Lawrenceville Refinery) Lawrenceville, Lawrence County, Illinois,
CERCLIS No. ILD042671248. Prepared by Illinois Department of Public
Health under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. March 31, 2000. Summary accessed
at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/indian/ind_p1.html#summary;
and U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Final Preassessment Screen Determination for the
Former Indian Refinery NPL Site, June 27, 2003. Accessed at: http://
www.fws.gov/midwest/LawrencevilleNRDA/documents/PASD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Double Eagle Refinery and Fourth Street Abandoned
Refinery, located adjacent to each other in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma,
were proposed for listing on the NPL in 1988, subsequently remediated,
and deleted from the NPL in 2008. The Double Eagle Refinery operated
through 1980 and the Fourth Street Refinery ceased operating in the
late 1960s or early 1970s. Both facilities collected, stored, and re-
refined used oils. The principal hazardous substances found at the 12-
acre Double Eagle Refinery site in contaminated soils and sediments
were xylene, ethlybenzene, and trichloroethane, and lead was found in
contaminated sludge. Principal hazardous substances found at the 27-
acre Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery site in contaminated soils and
sediments were phenanthrene and naphthalene, and lead and chrysene were
found in contaminated sludge. Cleanup costs were estimated at around
$31 million, with over $21 million for the Double Eagle Refinery site
and over $11 million for the Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery site.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ EPA. 2009. NPL Site Status Summary for Double Eagle
Refinery. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/pdffiles/
0601029.pdf; U.S. EPA. 2009. NPL Site Status Summary for Fourth
Street Abandoned Refinery. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/
6sf/pdffiles/0601297.pdf; and Final Close Out Report, Fourth Street
Abandoned Refinery Superfund Site, EPA Region 6 Superfund Division,
March, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering all of this information, EPA concludes that the
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry (NAICS 324) consists
of classes of facilities for which EPA should develop, as necessary, a
proposed regulation identifying appropriate financial responsibility
requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b).
3. Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution (NAICS
2211)
    For purposes of this Federal Register notice, EPA has included the
following classes of facilities that are encompassed by the NAICS code
2211 definition of the Electric Power Generation, Transmission and
Distribution (NAICS 2211): Facilities primarily engaged in generating,
transmitting, and distributing electric power. Establishments in this
industry group may perform one or more of the following activities: (1)
Generate electric energy; (2) operate transmission systems that convey
the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution
system; and (3) operate distribution systems that convey electric power
received from the generation facility or the transmission system to the
final consumer.
    Various sources of energy can be converted into electric energy or
electricity. The major, or dominant, sources include fossil fuels,
uranium, and water. About 72 percent of electric power generation in
the U.S., however, comes from fossil fuels (i.e., coal, oil, or gas).
Coal and natural gas are currently the dominant fossil fuels used by
the industry. The use of coal results in large quantities of solid
waste, including coal combustion residuals (CCR).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. ``Electric Power Industry Overview 2007.'' Available
at: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/toc2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of the electricity generated in the U.S. is produced
by facilities that employ steam turbine systems. The process of
generating electricity from steam comprises four parts: A heating
subsystem (fuel to produce the steam), a steam subsystem (boiler and
steam delivery system), a steam turbine, and a condenser (for
condensation of used steam). Heat for the system is usually provided by
the combustion of coal, natural gas, or oil. The fuel is pumped into
the boiler's furnace. The boilers generate steam in pressurized vessels
in small boilers or in water-wall tube systems in modern utility and
industrial boilers. High-temperature, high-pressure steam drives
turbine blades, which power the generator to produce electricity.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ EPA. September 1997. ``Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric
Power Generation Industry.'' Available at: http://www.epa.gov/
compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/
fossil.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wastes from the combustion of fossil fuels include fly ash, bottom
ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials. Fly ash is
lightweight, uncombusted material that is carried out of the boiler
with flue gases. The fly ash is captured in the exhaust stack by
electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, mechanical collectors, or
scrubbers. Bottom ash is heavier uncombusted material that settles to
the bottom of the boiler. Bottom ash does not melt and, therefore,
remains in the form of unconsolidated ash. Boiler slag is uncombusted
material that settles to the bottom of the boiler. Slag, unlike bottom
ash, forms when operating temperatures exceed ash fusion temperature,
and remains in a molten state until it is drained from the boiler
bottom. Flue gas desulfurization material is produced during the
process of removing sulfur oxide gases from the flue gases using wet or
dry scrubbers.\71\ In addition, non-combustion wastes, such as cooling,
process, and storm water containing hazardous substances, such as
chlorine and heavy metals are also generated and discharged into
surface waters. Burning of fossil fuels also creates air emissions of
hazardous substances, such as VOCs, organic hydrocarbons, and
metals.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ EPA. March 1999. ``Report to Congress: Wastes from the
Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Volume 2, Methods, Findings, and
Recommendations'' (EPA530-R-99-010). Available at: http://
www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/volume_2.pdf.
    \72\ EPA. September 1997. ``Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric
Power Generation Industry,'' Available at: http://www.epa.gov/
compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/
fossil.html.

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

a. Releases and Exposure to Hazardous Substances
    EPA's research indicates that the Electric Power Generation,
Distribution, and Transmission industry operates on a large scale, with
releases to the environment (and, in some situations subsequent
exposure to humans, organisms, and ecosystems) of hazardous substances
on a similarly large scale. As an indication of the scope or scale of
this industry, the Electric Power, Generation, Distribution, and
Transmission industry reported high levels of on-site releases of
hazardous substances to TRI--third in quantity after Hardrock Mining
and Chemical Manufacturing. That is, the Agency's 2007 TRI data \73\
revealed that the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution industry (NAICS 2211) reported 161 million pounds of on-
site releases of hazardous substances, or approximately 7.5 percent of
the total on-site releases of hazardous substances by U.S. industry
reporting to TRI.\74\ Of this total, 93.8 percent (or approximately 150
million pounds) was released from fossil fuel electric power
generation, primarily to the land, with additional on-site releases to
the air and surface water. This overall quantity of on-site releases of
hazardous substances has been declining somewhat, ranging from
approximately 175 million pounds of total on-site releases of hazardous
substances in 2005, to approximately 163 million pounds in 2006.\75\
The types of hazardous substances that have been released include
hydrogen fluoride; vanadium, zinc, copper, and lead compounds; ammonia;
and arsenic, cobalt, barium, and selenium compounds; a number of the
hazardous substances that are released or potentially released,
including hydrogen fluoride and arsenic, are very toxic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The analysis for this notice was conducted based on 2007
data. Though more recent data became available before publication of
this Federal Register notice, the Agency did not repeat its
analysis--rather, the Agency plans to include more recent data when
it develops the proposed rule.
    \74\ See TRI data from Bill Kline, EPA. ``On-site Releases of
ATSDR Hazardous Substances Reported to TRI for 2001 through 2007, by
Industry and Year,'' October 8, 2009.
    \75\ See TRI data from Bill Kline, EPA. ``Onsite Releases of
ATSDR Hazardous Substances Reported to TRI for 2001 through 2007, by
Industry and Year,'' October 8, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The industry reported approximately 16,000 tons of RCRA hazardous
waste generated in the 2007 RCRA BR. However, coal combustion residuals
are a very large industrial waste stream containing arsenic, selenium,
mercury, and other toxic metals, and dwarfing the volume of hazardous
waste generated in the U.S. In 2007, 131 million tons of CCRs were
generated in the U.S., with 75 million tons being disposed of in
landfills and surface impoundments, 49.3 million tons being
beneficially used, and 6.7 million tons being placed in minefilling
operations. These materials, which include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler
slag (all composed predominantly of silica and aluminosilicates), and
flue gas desulfurization materials (predominantly Ca-SOx
compounds), have the potential to result in adverse environmental
consequences if not properly managed.
    There are a large number of facilities operating in the U.S., and
thus, there is potential for releases of and exposure to hazardous
substances. While estimates of the number of active facilities in this
class vary, in 2007, the Census Bureau estimated that there were 9,642
such facilities in the U.S., including 1,270 fossil fuel electric power
generation facilities.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. Available at:
http://factfinder.census.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some cases, these wastes have led to ground and surface water
contamination when improperly managed. In particular, the Agency's
assessment of CCRs has documented evidence of proven damages \77\ to
groundwater or surface water in 27 damage cases involving CCRs--17 to
groundwater, and 10 to surface water, including ecological damages in
seven of the ten cases.\78\ Sixteen of the 17 proven damages to
groundwater involved disposal in unlined units (for the remaining unit
it is unclear whether a liner was present), which continues to occur.
EPA also has identified 40 cases of potential damage \79\ to
groundwater or surface water.\80\ In one recent damage case example,
BBBS Sand and Gravel Quarries, in Gambrills, Maryland, a consent order
was filed to settle an environmental enforcement action that was taken
against the owner of a sand and gravel quarry and the owner of two
Maryland coal fired power plants (defendants) that generated the wastes
that contaminated the public drinking water wells in the vicinity of
the sand and gravel quarry. Beginning in 1995, fly ash and bottom ash
from the two power plants were used to fill excavated portions of two
sand and gravel quarries. Groundwater samples collected in 2006 and
2007 from residential drinking water wells near the site indicated
that, in certain locations, hazardous substances, including heavy
metals and sulfates, were present at or above groundwater quality
standards. Under the terms of the consent order, the defendants are
required to pay a fine, remediate the groundwater in the area, and
provide replacement water supplies for 40 properties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See footnote 19.
    \78\ The 24 cases identified in EPA's ``Coal Combustion Waste
Damage Case Assessments,'' July 9, 2007, available at: http://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=Document-
Detail&d=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796-0015; with the addition of Martins
Creek, Pennsylvania, where in August 2005, a dam confining a 40-acre
CCR surface impoundment failed, resulting in the discharge of 100
million gallons of coal ash and contaminant water. Gambrills, MD;
and Kingston/TVA, TN.
    \79\ Per the May 2000 Regulatory Determination (see 65 FR
32224), potential damage cases are those with (i) documented
exceedances of primary MCLs or other health-based standards only
directly beneath or in very close proximity to the waste source,
and/or (ii) documented exceedances of secondary MCLs or other non-
health-based standards on-site or off-site.
    \80\ The 39 cases of potential damages from CCR identified in
EPA's ``Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments,'' July 9,
2007 are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/main?main=Document-Detail&d=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796-0015;
excluding the four damage cases from oil combustion wastes, but
including Battlefield Golf Course, Chesapeake, Virginia. This site
is a 216-acre site contoured with 1.5 million tons of fly ash as
fill material (considered a beneficial use under Virginia's
Administrative Code, without a liner, as long as the fly ash was
placed at least two feet above groundwater and covered by an 18-inch
soil cap).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these cases of proven or potential damage, EPA's
analysis of the NPL shows that four sites containing CCRs have been
listed on the NPL: (1) Chisman Creek, Virginia; (2) Salem Acres,
Massachusetts; (e) Lemberger Landfill, Wisconsin; and (4) U.S.
Department of Energy Oakridge Reservation, Tennessee. At these sites,
groundwater and surface water contaminated with a variety of hazardous
substances, including arsenic, nickel, selenium, sulfate, as well as
VOCs, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and methylene chloride, have
been documented.
b. Severity of Consequences Resulting From Releases and Exposure to
Hazardous Substances
    The severity of the consequences impacting public health and the
environment as a result of releases and exposure of hazardous
substances posed by the Electric Power Generation, Distribution, and
Transmission industry is evident in the large costs associated with
past and estimated future costs necessary to protect public health and
the environment through what are often extensive and long-term
remediation efforts. That is, these facilities release hazardous
substances which have, in some instances, resulted in contamination
that requires long-term management and treatment. Remediation of these
sites, therefore,

has been quite costly. For example, the costs to clean up the damage
from the recent catastrophic release in Tennessee of over one billion
gallons of coal ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston
Plant has been estimated to range from $933 million to $1.2
billion.\81\ In addition, for the Chisman Creek NPL site, EPA has spent
approximately $1.4 million through September 2009.82 83
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See ``TVA Reports 2009 Fiscal Year Third Quarter Results.''
Available at: http://www.tva.gov/news/releases/julsep09/3rd_
quarter.htm.
    \82\ This number is in constant 2009 dollars, and represents the
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation's (OSRTI)
analysis of end of FY 2009, cumulative, site-specific, agency-wide,
direct expenditures of Superfund appropriated and reimbursable
resources extracted from the EPA Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS). Expenditure data include all direct costs, including,
but not limited to site assessments, remedial, removal, enforcement,
and oversight costs. Data do not include indirect costs, costs
incurred by private or other parties performing response actions, or
future costs to be incurred at these sites and may not be used for
cost recovery purposes. See Memorandum from Elaine Eby, EPA, to The
Record, Re: ``Superfund Cost Estimates for Selected Classes of
Facilities,'' November 30, 2009.
    \83\ Expenditure data are converted into 2009 constant dollars
using GDP deflation factors derived from: Table 10.1--Gross Domestic
Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2009, from
the Budget of the U.S., FY 2005. Online via GPO access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering all of this information, and considering that many
facilities within the Electric Power Generation, Distribution and
Transmission industry generate coal combustion residuals, EPA believes
that this industry consists of classes of facilities for which EPA
should develop, as necessary, a proposed regulation identifying
appropriate financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section
108(b).

E. Additional Classes of Facilities Requiring Further Study

    As mentioned previously in this notice, EPA has identified classes
of facilities within four industry sectors--the Waste Management and
Remediation Services industry (NAICS 562); the Wood Product
Manufacturing industry (NAICS 321); the Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturing industry (NAICS 332); and the Electronics and Electrical
Equipment Manufacturing industry (NAICS 334 and 335)--as well as
facilities engaged in the recycling of materials containing CERCLA
hazardous substances as those for which the Agency plans to conduct
further in-depth study before deciding whether to begin the regulatory
development process. The classes of facilities within these industry
sectors comprise a large portion of the sites on the NPL (see Table 1),
and ranked high, in some cases, in the Agency's analyses of the BR and
TRI data (see Tables 2 and 3). However, for the reasons described
below, EPA is not prepared at this time to identify these classes of
facilities as those for which the Agency will begin the regulatory
development process. The Agency believes that a more robust analysis of
the NPL information, and review of data from State cleanup and other
types of remediation programs (e.g., EPA's Brownfields program), as
well as any other relevant data, should first be conducted.
1. Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 562) and Facilities
Engaged in the Recycling of Materials Containing CERCLA Hazardous
Substances
    The Waste Management and Remediation Services industry ranked
highest in the Agency's NPL analysis (with 465 sites), and ranked high
on both the BR and TRI analyses (see Tables 1, 2 and 3). This would
appear, at first glance, to indicate that the classes of facilities
within this industry sector should also be considered for development
of proposed regulations. However, because of the way that this category
is tracked by the Superfund program (see footnote 14), the industrial
categories that fall within it are not as clearly delineated as was the
case for some of the other sectors and, as a result, the data analyzed
for purposes of this notice provided only a limited categorization of
the types of facilities that are included in this category.
    Likewise, facilities that recycle materials containing CERCLA
hazardous substances presented a similar situation. As classified on
the NPL, this sector includes an assortment of operations, which EPA is
not currently prepared to characterize.
    Therefore, before EPA decides to develop a financial responsibility
regulation under CERCLA Section 108(b), we believe more information is
needed regarding the types of facilities included in these categories,
and the risks that they might present. Thus, the Agency is identifying
these sectors as among those it plans to further evaluate regarding
financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b).
2. Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS 321), Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturing (NAICS 332), and Electronics and Electrical Equipment
Manufacturing (NAICS 334 and 335)
    The three remaining industry sectors identified in the NPL
analysis--the Wood Product Manufacturing industry, the Fabricated Metal
Product Manufacturing industry, and the Electronics and Electrical
Equipment Manufacturing industry--are among the industry sectors that
have undergone significant structural or operational changes in recent
years. For example, regulatory changes have affected the types of
chemical substances used to treat wood and the process operations at
wood preserving sites.\84\ In the case of each of these three sectors,
EPA believes it is necessary to further investigate the extent to which
these changes have affected the risks that each of these sectors
present. Thus, the Agency is identifying these sectors as among those
it plans to further evaluate regarding financial responsibility
requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ EPA. September 1995. ``Profile of the Lumber and Wood
Products Industry.'' Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
EPA 310-R-95-006. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/
resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/lmbrwdsn.pdf;
and EPA. April 17, 1996. ``Final Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Wood Preserving Wastes
FO32, FO34, and FO35.'' Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waste/
hazard/tsd/ldr/wood/bdat_bd.pdf, and EPA. October 2001. ``RCRA,
Superfund & EPCRA Call Center Training Module.'' Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waste/inforesources/pubs/hotline/training/
drip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Public Comment

    Consistent with the Agency's approach in the July 2009 notice, EPA
is not requesting comment in this Federal Register notice on its
methodology for determining that the Chemical Manufacturing industry,
the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry, and the
Electrical Power and Generation, Transmission, and Distribution
industry represent classes of facilities for which EPA plans to
develop, as necessary, a proposed regulation identifying appropriate
financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b). The
Agency is, however, interested in receiving comments on several issues.
    With respect to the classes within those industries--the Chemical
Manufacturing industry, the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
industry, and the Electrical Power and Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution industry--the Agency requests information on whether EPA
should develop a proposed regulation under CERCLA Section 108(b) for
any class or classes, or for the industry as a whole, including
information demonstrating why such financial responsibility
requirements would not be appropriate for those particular class(es).
    The Agency also requests the following information (for any or all
of

the industry categories discussed in this notice), which could inform
its future actions:
     Data on facility operations within these industries, and
on the classes within these industries.
     Data on the risk profile for facilities in the various
industries, including data addressing the scope of past and expected
future environmental responses.
     Data on the risk evaluation approaches used by various
industries (or by industry insurers) when seeking (or providing)
insurance or bonding coverage.
     Data explaining how frequently various financial assurance
mechanisms are used by the various sectors, and the factors causing
some to be chosen over others.
     Information demonstrating the extent to which facilities
within the industry categories are currently subject to financial
responsibility provisions under other federal or state requirements,
and the manner in which these requirements are posed.
     Information about existing Federal, State, Tribal, and
local environmental requirements for the various industries, and how
these might affect the environmental risks posed.
     Information about financial responsibility instruments,
particularly, information on the type and duration of financial
instruments currently used to demonstrate financial responsibility, and
on the default rates of those instruments.
     Information EPA may consider in setting levels of
financial responsibility under CERCLA 108(b) on the payment experience,
including voluntary settlements, of:
    [cir] commercial insurance,
    [cir] surety bond industries, and
    [cir] State cleanup programs and their participants.
    For purposes of developing any proposed regulations, EPA expects
that it will be most useful to receive payment amounts on a site-
specific basis (including site locations, facility type, and usage),
the basis on which these payments were calculated (including the
specific types of incidents and circumstances), and the types of
liabilities for which the payments were made.
     Information and advice from the insurance and surety
industries, and from their regulators and customers, on how they think
they can best inform EPA as it pursues the regulatory development
process. For example:
    [cir] Are there particular companies, associations, producers,
policyholders, or regulators EPA should contact in the development of
these requirements?
     What policy or other contractual terms should EPA consider
specifying, and how will these support a sound financial responsibility
program under CERCLA 108(b)?
     What are the maximum amounts of coverage that insurers or
sureties offer for the various classes noted above, how have these
varied over time, and what caused the variations?
     Information on the reliability, availability, and
affordability of existing financial responsibility mechanisms. For
example:
     What has been the experience of environmental financial
assurance program regulators who have attempted to access funds or
compel performance assured by insurance, guarantees, surety bonds,
letters of credit and self insurance?
     What data have shown some of these mechanisms to be more
effective than others?
     If there were payment delays, what caused them?
     If the payment of funds or desired performance did not
occur, what factors contributed to this?
     For regulators who do not accept self insurance, what
experience or other information supports your reasons?
     For regulators who do accept self insurance, what criteria
(such as financial test ratios, and please be specific), ratings, or
other criteria have been most effective in terms of striking an
appropriate balance between allowing companies to use self-insurance
when they can fulfill their obligations, and disallowing those that
later could not or would not meet their obligations?
     Can regulators provide data on specific sites that show
that guarantees, or other instruments, have been difficult to enforce
or are otherwise problematic?
     Are there particular regulatory requirements that may
affect (either by increasing or decreasing) the numbers and types of
issuers, e.g. banks or insurers, that would be willing to offer
coverage under CERCLA 108(b)?
     What factors, including those that may be beyond the
Agency's control, affect the availability of mechanisms and how do
these factors operate?
     What information should the Agency consider in assessing
incremental, annual increases in the requirements?
     Are there specific qualifications or other requirements
for issuers that are necessary to ensure the payment of funds when
needed? If so, how, if at all, would these qualifications affect the
availability of coverage?
     For the various mechanisms, how are prices, for example,
collateral requirements and fees, or insurance premiums, determined,
and what information should EPA use to assess the costs of such
coverage?
     What factors or information are used by issuers to
determine the amounts of coverage provided?
     How do issuers determine what types of costs should be
covered or excluded?
     How are fees or coverage amounts adjusted to account for
risk information, such as from risk assessments, site-specific
exemptions, or positive risk management incentives?
     Are there particular environmental financial
responsibility programs that EPA should look to as models in the design
and implementation of CERCLA 108(b). If so, what factors lead to their
effectiveness or efficiency, and what independent assessments support
these conclusions?
     Alternatively, are there examples of practices that EPA
should seek to avoid and what documentation supports these conclusions?