EPA Final Rule Adds Gelman Sciences Inc. to National Priorities List

Content

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among
the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States.
The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection
Agency (“the EPA” or “the agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations
will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-authorized remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds one site, Gelman Sciences
Inc., to the General Superfund section of the NPL.

DATES:

The rule is effective on April 13, 2026.

ADDRESSES:

Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:

• Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW; William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, telephone number: (202) 566-1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vanessa Van Note, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Project Oversight Branch, Assessment and Cleanup Division, Office
of Superfund and Emergency Management (Mail Code 5203T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number:
(202) 564-4830, email address: vannote.vanessa@epa.gov.

The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:

• Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), Information Services Section Supervisor & Interim U.S. EPA Superfund Records Officer, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (MI-10J), Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 886-4465.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

B. What is the NCP?

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

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

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

I. What is state/Tribal correspondence concerning NPL Listing?

II. Availability of Information to the Public

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

B. What documents are available for review at the EPA Headquarters docket?

C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets?

D. How do I access the documents?

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

J. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

K. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA”
or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases
or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial
danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”),
40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August
20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent
or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive
revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases
or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable,
taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are
defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

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

The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities”
and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which
sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with
a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance, however, as it does
not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean
that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA
(the “General Superfund section”) and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities
section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal
agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible
for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible
for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):

(1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of
the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532),
the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017 (82
FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous
substances or pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures through subsurface intrusion when evaluating
sites for the NPL. The current HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure and subsurface intrusion,
and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.

(2) Each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest
danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set
out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).

(3) Certain sites may be listed according to the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3). This provision provides that a site can be listed
without an HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.
• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release. The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”)
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent
with a permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions” (40 CFR 300.5).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2),
placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities
to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be

  neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
  evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.

Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (42
U.S.C. 9601(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases.
Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe
the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.

When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area
(usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the
NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation
or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the
area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where
that contamination came.

In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the “Jones Co. Plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited
to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property
(e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”).
The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name,
and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary
of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination;
and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. plant site,” does
not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site. So, NPL listing does not
assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. And if a party does not believe it is liable for releases
on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice that
it is a potentially responsible party.

EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally
performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release
may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and any migration
of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of
the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination
“has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries
of a release with absolute certainty.

For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination
or release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at
40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider
whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented, and no further response action is required; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and
taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

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

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

I. What is state/Tribal correspondence concerning NPL Listing?

In order to maintain close coordination with states and Tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to
determine the position of the states and Tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation
process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state and Tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web
and where appropriate more structured state and Tribal correspondence that: (1) explains the concerns at the site and the
EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the
NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their
responses will be publicly available.

A model letter and past correspondence between the EPA and states and Tribes, where applicable, is available on the EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

II. Availability of Information to the Public

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

Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the site in this final rule are contained in dockets located both
at the EPA headquarters and in the EPA regional offices.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through https://www.regulations.gov (see table below for Docket ID Nos.). Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facilities identified in section II.D.

| Site Name | City/county, state | Docket ID No. |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Gelman Sciences Inc | Ann Arbor, MI | EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0067. |

B. What documents are available for review at the EPA Headquarters docket?

The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score sheets, the documentation record describing the information used
to compute the score, a list of documents referenced in the documentation record for each site and any other information used
to support the NPL listing of the site. These documents are available online at https://www.regulations.gov.

C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets?

The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the headquarters docket, plus the actual documents referenced in the
documentation record containing the data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score. These
reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

D. How do I access the documents?

You may view the documents that support this rule online at https://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the EPA headquarters docket or appropriate regional docket. See
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section in the beginning portion of this preamble for docket contact information. The hours of operation for the headquarters
docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please contact the individual regional
dockets for hours. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see
ADDRESSES
section in the beginning portion of this preamble.

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?

You may obtain a current list of NPL sites online at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name.

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

This final rule adds the following site to the General Superfund section of the NPL. This site is being added to the NPL based
on an HRS score of 28.50 or above.

| State | Site name | City/county |
| --- | --- | --- |
| MI | Gelman Sciences Inc | Ann Arbor. |

B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?

The EPA is adding one site to the National Priorities List (NPL) in this final rule. The Gelman Sciences Inc. site in Ann
Arbor, MI was proposed for addition to the NPL on March 7, 2024 (89 FR 16498). The public comment period on the proposed rule
to add this site to the NPL closed on May 6, 2024.

The EPA reviewed and considered all public comments received following the proposed rule publication and responded to all
comments in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0067 (Gelman Sciences Inc., MI).

Through the process of addressing the public comments received on proposing the Site to the NPL, the EPA is proceeding with
adding the Gelman Sciences Inc. site to the NPL through this final rule. The public comments received on the proposal of the
Gelman Sciences Inc. site to the NPL are being addressed in a response to comment support document that has been made available
in the public docket concurrently with rule. To view the compilation of public comments received on the proposal of the Gelman
Sciences Inc. site to the NPL, as well as EPA's response to these comments, please refer to the support document available
at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0067.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(“OMB”) for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any
obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small
entity must meet and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response
costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA section 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or Tribal governments or the
private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily
will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or Tribal governments
or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.

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

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL

  does not impose any costs on a Tribe or require a Tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
  to this action.

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

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or
safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory
action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself
is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health
and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.

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

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Provisions of the CRA may alter
the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress
enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802. If action by Congress under
the CRA calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will publish a document of clarification in the

  Federal Register
  .

K. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

This rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because it is not a significant regulatory
action subject to OMB review. This rulemaking is published in accordance with direction provided in CERCLA to address the
cleanup of the Nation's most highly contaminated sites.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

John Busterud, Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 300, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN

Regulatory Text 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351;
E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

1. In appendix B to part 300, table 1 is amended by adding the entry “MI, Gelman Sciences Inc.” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List

| State | Site name | City/county | Notes a |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | |
|                                                       * | | | |
| MI | Gelman Sciences Inc | Ann Arbor | |
| | | | |
|                                                       * | | | |
| a A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not
be greater than or equal to 28.50). | | | |

---

[FR Doc. 2026-04904 Filed 3-12-26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Download File

Download