United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/540/8-91/013
June 1991
Superfund
Superfund Desk
Reference for
Municipalities
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 20 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Superfund Desk Reference for Municipalities
From: Bruce M. Diamond, Director
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
To: CERCLA Enforcement Branch Chiefs
The "Superfund Desk Reference for Municipalities" is
attached for your use. The manual is a compilation of existing
documents relating to municipalities and Superfund. The manual's
purpose is to assist municipalities who have been or might be
identified as PRPs to work through the Superfund process. It
will also be useful to those municipalities who are not PRPs, but
who may otherwise have an interest in a Superfund site.
The manual contains fundamental background information on
topics such as the NCP, the NPL, the municipal settlement policy
and sources for additional information pertaining to the
Superfund process. My staff compiled the manual, and we intend
to distribute it widely. But, you should also provide copies of
this manual to municipalities as you learn of their potential
involvement or interest at a Superfund site. The manual does not
establish new policy for municipalities under CERCLA; it is only
a reference document.
We are unable to provide you with a large supply of the
manual due to the prohibitive printing costs. However, the
manual will be available, for a fee, from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS). NTIS' address is U.S. Department of
Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161.
They maintain a 24-hour recorded message service at (703) 487-
4650 for telephone orders. If you need assistance when ordering,
you may cal (703) 487-4780 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., EST
Monday through Friday.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
I hope you find the manual useful. For more information
about the manual, please contact Natalie Eades at FTS 475-6113,
cc: National League of Cities
International City Manager's Association
National Institute of Municipal Law Officers
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
National Association of Towns and Townships
United States Conference of Mayors
-------
About This Manual
The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency developed this desk reference to
provide municipalities with background information about the
enforcement process under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, as Amended, (CERCLA, also known as
11 Superfund"). This law gives the U.S. EPA the authority and the
necessary tools to respond directly or to compel potentially
responsible parties to respond to releases or threatened releases
of hazardous substances.
This manual is a compilation of existing information and
guidance on the Superfund enforcement process. The manual should
assist . municipalities in learning the fundamental aspects of
Superfund and in obtaining additional information about the
Superfund program.
This manual is divided into nine sections. Each section
consists of several documents. The sections are divided by blue
sheets and the individual documents are divided by yellow sheets.
The first section consists of introductory documents about
Superfund. The second section includes EPA's municipal settlement
policy and fact sheets describing the policy. The third section
includes reports on municipal wastes. The fourth section contains
an overview of the National Contingency Plan, (EPA's regulations
implementing CERCLA and the Superfund program). The fifth section
addresses applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) for Superfund clean-ups. The sixth section contains
documents that describe removal actions. The seventh section
describes how records of decision are prepared. The eighth section
contains the February, 1991 publication of the National Priorities
List (NPL), which includes a list of municipal landfills. Finally,
the ninth section includes a compendium and a catalogue of
documents relating to Superfund.
Additional copies of this manual are available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of
Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161. NTIS
maintains a 24-hour recorded message service at (703) 487-4650 for
telephone orders. If you need assistance when ordering you may
call (703) 487-4780 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., EST Monday
through Friday. There is a charge for reproduction of the
document. If you have questions about the contents of this manual,
please call the Guidance and Evaluation Branch of the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement at (202) 475-6770.
-------
-------
SUPERFUND DESK REFERENCE
FOR MUNICIPALITIES
April 1991
Acknowledgement
This document was developed through the joint efforts of the
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and PRC Environmental
Management, Inc. under contract number 026-0544-00. The
people who assisted in developing this document include Paul
Connor and Arthur Weissman in the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, and Claudia Barber and Mark Johnson at PRC
Environmental Management, Inc.
Disclaimer
The policies and procedures set forth in this document are
intended solely for the guidance of government personnel.
They are not intended, nor can they be relied on, to create
any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any
party in litigation with the United States. The Agency
reserves the right to act at variance with these policies
and procedures and to change them at any time without public
notice.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUPERPUND DESK REFERENCE FOR MUNICIPALITIES
Publication No.
SECTION I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Title
1. ENVIRONMENTAL FACT SHEET - THE
SUPERFUND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS:
HOW IT WORKS
2. HOW TO OBTAIN SUPERFUND INFORMATION
3. THE SUPERFUND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
BACKGROUND PAPER ON THE MAJOR
PROVISIONS OF SUPERFUND
REAUTHORIZATION
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION INVOLVEMENT
IN -SUPERFUND
None (Summer 1988)
OSWER No. 9200.5 -
405/FS (January 1990)
OSWER/OWPE/CED
Excerpts from EPA's
Guidance and Oversight
Branch Orientation
Manual/ (December
1988)
None (January 1987)
OSWER No. 9375.5 -
03/FS (April 1990)
SECTION II. INTERIM CERCLA MUNICIPAL SETTLEMENT POLICY
Title
6.
INTERIM CERCLA MUNICIPAL SETTLEMENT
POLICY —• Environmental Fact Sheet
TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM OF INTERIM
POLICY ON CERCLA SETTLEMENTS
INVOLVING MUNICIPALITIES AND
MUNICIPAL WASTES & ATTACHMENTS:
a.) INTERIM CERCLA MUNICIPAL
SETTLEMENT POLICY FACT SHEET
b.) INTERIM POLICY ON CERCLA
SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING
MUNICIPALITIES OR MUNICIPAL
WASTES
None (December 1989)
(December 6, 1989)
(December 1989)
(OSWER No. 9834.13/
December 6, 1989)
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
SUPERFUND DESK REFERENCE FOR MUNICIPALITIES
(continued)
SECTION III. REPORTS ON MUNICIPAL WASTE
Title
8. REPORT ANALYZES MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTION ASH, ASH EXTRACTS, AND
LEACHATES — Environmental Fact Sheet
9. CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE IN THE UNITED STATES: 1990
Update — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Publication No. (Date)
OSWER /530-SW-90
029C (April 1990)
OSWER/530-SW-90-
042A (June 1990)
SECTION IV. NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
Title
10. THE FINAL NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN:
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR SUPERFUND
11. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING THE
1990 NCP
None (February 1990)
None (February 1990)
SECTION V. ARARS
Title
12. CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS
MANUAL — GUIDE TO MANUAL
13. CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS
MANUAL — CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE REQUIREMENTS
14. CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS
MANUAL OVERVIEW OF ARARs — Focus
on ARAR Waivers
15. ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE QUARTERLY REPORT
16. ARARs Q's & A's
OSWER NO. 9234.2 -
02/FS (September 1989)
OSWER No. 9234.2 -
05/FS (December 1989)
OSWER No. 9234.3 -
03/FS (December 1989)
OSWER No. 9234.3 -
001 (March 1990)
OERR No. 9234.2 -
01/FS (May 1989, May
1990)
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
SUPERFUND DESK REFERENCE FOR MUNICIPALITIES
(continued)
SECTION VI REMOVAL ACTIONS UNDER SUPERFUND
Title
17. CHAPTER II OF OWPE'S "ENFORCEMENT
PROJECT MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK" —
REMOVAL ACTIONS
18. THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE NOTIFICATION
SYSTEM
Publication No. (Date)
None (November 1989)
OERR No. 9360.0-21
(August 1989)
19. REIMBURSEMENT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR OSWER Dir. 9225.3 -
EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO HAZARDOUS 01/FS (November 1989)
SUBSTANCE RELEASES
SECTION VII DEVELOPING RECORDS OF DECISION
Title
20. THE FEASIBILITY STUDY — DEVELOPMENT
AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES
21. GETTING READY — SCOPING THE RI/FS
22. A GUIDE TO DEVELOPING SUPERFUND
RECORDS OF DECISION
23. A GUIDE TO DEVELOPING SUPERFUND
PROPOSED PLANS
OSWER Dir. 9355.3 -
01/FS-3 (November
1989)
OSWER Dir. 9355.3 -
01/FS-l (November
1989)
OSWER Dir. 9335.3 -
02/FS-l (May 1990)
OSWER Dir. 9335.3 -
02/FS-2 (November
1989)
SECTION VIII. NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
Title
24. NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL)
(FEBRUARY 1991)
None (February 1991)
-------
25. LISTING MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS ON THE OSWER Dir. 9320.1 -
NPL 09 (August 21,1987)
26. NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST, SUPPLEMEN- OERR/HW - 10.14S
TARY LISTS AND SUPPORTING MATERIALS (August 1990)
SECTION IX OTHER DOCUMENTS
Title
27. COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELEC- OSWER Dir. 9833.4-la
TION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS - USERS
MANUAL (REVISED - MARCH 1991)
28. CATALOG OF SUPERFUND PROGRAM . OERR No. 9200.7-02A
PUBLICATIONS (October 1990)
-------
c
c
SECTION I
GENERAL INFORMATION
-------
o
-------
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, O.C. 20460
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement OWPE-9800.1FS
Summer 1988
Environmental
Fact Sheet
The Superfund Enforcement
Process: How It Works
INTRODUCTION
1m W60, Caognet passed the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), commonly called Superfund. This law pro-
vides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
with the authority and necessary tools to respond directly or
to compel potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to respond
to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. CERCLA created two parallel
and complementary programs aimed at achieving this goal.
The first program involves the creation of a trust fund
financed through a special tax on the chemical and petro-
leum industries. This trust fund, known as the Superfund,
may be available for site remediation when no viable PRPs
are found or when PRPs fail to take necessary response
actions. PRPs are defined as parties identified as having
owned or operated hazardous substance sites, or who have
transported or arranged for disposal or treatment of hazard-
ous substances, pollutants or contaminants at such sites. The
second program provides EPA with the authority to negoti-
ate settlements, to issue orders to PRPs directing them to
take necessary response actions, or to sue PRPs to repay the
costs of such actions when the Trust Fund has been used for
these purposes. The actions EPA takes to reach settlement
or to compel responsible parties to pay for or undertake the
remediation of sites are referred to as the Superfund enforce-
ment process. CERCLA was reauthorized and amended on
October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and
Keauthorization Act (SARA). SARA provides EPA with
new authorities and tools that strengthen the enforcement
program.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
IAG: Interagency Agreement
NBAR: Non-binding Allocation of Responsfcity
NPL: National Priorities List
PRP: Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
as Amended
RD/RA: Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RI/FS: Remedial Investigatfon/Feasbflity Study
ROD: Record of Decision
SARA: Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorizatton Act of 1986
This fact sheet describes the enforcement authorities and the
process that is followed under the Superfund program. It de-
scribes the options available to EPA for remediating hazard-
ous waste sites; the tools and mechanisms mat EPA may use
in negotiating settlements with PRPs, and describes the
decision-making process at enforcement sites.
OVERVIEW OF THE ENFORCEMENT
PROGRAM
A major goal of the Superfund program is to encourage PRPs
to remediate hazardous waste sites. The enforcement proc-
ess normally used by EPA to enlist PRP involvement may
include five major efforts.
1
-------
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL/ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
11JJ^ll^!«^'l^;:Jl«>,to,«-„T^,^,i,,,,/:^-:,»^^^>;A^fc^'"^«lfW!^
-------
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES
The original Supertax! program was reauthorized and expanded
on October 17,1986. when President Reagan signed into law the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA). TheseamendmentsincreasedthsSuperfundTnistFund
to $8.5 billion and clarified and expanded enforcement
authorities:
• Accecc and Information Gathering - SARA strengthens
EPA's ability to obtain access to investigate sites and to
obtain information from parties with knowledge of the site.
• Settlement Authorities - CERCLA authorizes EPA to
compel a PRP to undertake necessary actions to control the
threat of imminent and substantial endangerment to human
health or the environment. To accomplish this, EPA may
either issue an administrative order or bring a civil action
against the PRP in court SARA outlines specific procedures
for negotiating settlements with PRPs to conduct voluntary
response actions at hazardous waste sites.
• Cost Recovery - Once a Fund-financed response has been
undertaken, EPA can recover costs from the responsible
parties. Pastandpresentfacility owners and operators, as well
as hazardous substance generators and transporters, can all be
liable under Superfund for response costs and for damage to
natural resources. EPA may recover Federal response costs
from any or all of the responsible parties involved in a
remedial action. The monies recovered go back into the Fund
for use in future response actions.
• Criminal Authorities - SARA increases criminal penalties
for failure to provide notice of a release and makes submitting
false information a criminal offense.
• CitizoiStdts-SARAauthorizesacitizentosueanyperson,
the United States, or an individual State for any violation of
standards and requirements of the tow, under certain
conditions.
Federal Facilities
SARA also adds a section dealing with releases of hazardous sub-
stances at Federal facilities. This provision clarifies that Super-
fund apoUes to Federal agencies and that they must coaiply with
its requirements. SARA clearly defines the process Federal
agencies must follow in undertaking remedial responses. At
NPL sites, EPA makes the final selection of the remedy if the
Federal agency and EPA disagree. A Federal agency must
remediate a Federal facility through an interageacy agreement
GAG), except in emergency situations. lAGs are enforceable
agreements between Federal agencies that are subject to the
citizen suit provisions in SARA and to section 109 penalties, if
the responding agency does not comply with the terms of the
agreement
SARA also provides a schedule for response actions at Federal
facilities, including a schedule for preliminary assessments,
listing on the National Priorities List, remedial investigations/
feasibility studies, and remedial actions. State and local officials
also must be given the opportunity to participate in the planning
and selection of any remedy, including the review of all data.
States are given a formal opportunity to review remedies to
ensure mat they incorporate State standards. Public participa-
tion in addressing releases at Federal facilities is enhanced by
SARA, which establishes a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket This docket functions as a repository of in-
formation for the public and is available for public inspection.
Every six months after establishment of the docket, EPA will
publish in the Federal Reristey a list of the Federal facilities that
have been included in the docket during the preceeding six-
month period.
This interaction is important because it provides the oppor-
tunity to share information about the site and may reduce
delays in conducting response actions.
The enforcement process begins with the search for PRPs,
concurrent with NPL listing.
Once identified, PRPs are typically issued a general notice
letter. The general notice informs PRPs of their potential
liability. The general notice also may include a request for
and a release of information on PRPs and the substances at
the site. The overall purposes of the general notice are to
provide PRPs and the public with advance notice of possible
future negotiations with EPA, to open the lines of commu-
nication between EPA and PRPs, and to advise PRPs of
potential liability.
In addition to the general notices, EPA may issue a "special
notice," which invokes a temporary moratorium on certain
EPA remedial and enforcement activities. An RI/FS special
notice initiates a 90-day moratorium and an RD/RA special
notice initiates a 120-day moratorium. The moratorium
provides a period of time during which EPA and PRPs ne-
gotiate. The goal of negotiations is for EPA and PRPs to
reach a settlement where the PRPs agree to conduct and/or
finance response activities. Negotiations may be terminated
after 60 days for either the RI/FS or RD/RA if PRPs do not
provide EPA with a "good faith" settlement offer.
-------
Negotiations for the RI/FS
The PRPmay conduct the RI/ES if EPA detennincs the PRP
1$ qualified to conduct the RI/FS and if the PRP agrees to
reimburse EPA for die cost of oversight The terms of this
agreement to conduct the RI/FS are outlined in either an
Administrative Order on Consent or a Consent Decree, both
of which are enforceable in court If negotiations do not
result in an order or a decree, EPA may use Trust Fund
monies to perform the RI/FS and seek reimbursement for its
costs.
Negotiations for the RD/RA
"Where a special notice is used, the moratorium for RD/RA
may be extended to a total of 120 days. The terms of the
agreeaoa to conduct the RD/RA are outlined in a Consent
JDtCtte. which all parties sign and is entered in court Ifne-
gotiatioosdonwresultinasettlement, EPA may conduct the
remedial aetfvityusing Trust Fund monies, and sue for reim-
bursement of its costs with the assistance of the Department
of Justice (DOJ). Or EPA may issue a unilateral administra-
tiveorderor directly file suit to force the PRPs to conduct the
remedial activity.
i
Administrative Record
The information used by EPA to select a remedy at a site
must be made available to the public. This information, in-
cluding public comments, is compiled and maintained in the
administrative record files. The administrative record
serves two main purposes. First, it ensures an opportunity
for public involvement in the selection of a remedy at a site.
Second, it provides a basis for judicial review of the
selection.
TOOLS FOR ENFORCEMENT
In addition to outlining the procedures for the enforcement
process, CERGLA provides tools that are designed to help
EPA achieve settlements. The CERCLA settlement authori-
ties may be used by EPA to foster negotiations with PRPs
instead of taking them to court EPA believes that PRPs
should be involved early in the Superfund process at a site.
It is in the best interest of PRPs to negotiate with EPA and to
conduct the RI/FS, as this can keep the process smooth and
costs can be controlled. EPA actively promotes settlements
with PRPs using tools in SARA and is continuing to work
towards improvements in the settlement process itself.
These new SARA tools include, but are not limited to:
Mixed Funding
CERCLA authorizes the use of "mixed funding." Inn,
funding, settling PRPs and EPA share the costs of tht
sponse action and EPA pursues viable non-settlers for the
costs EPA incurred. Through guidance, EPA discusses the
use of three types of mixed funding arrangements. These are
"preauthorization," where the PRPs conduct the remedial
action and EPA agrees to reimburse the PRPs for a portion
of their response costs; "cash-outs," where PRPs pay for a
portion of the remedial costs and EPA conducts the work;
and "mixed work," where EPA. sad PRPs both agree to
conduct and finance discrete portions of a remedial action.
EPA prefers a "preauthorized" mixed-funding agreement,
where PRPs conduct the wo*.
EPA encourages the use of mixed funding to promote
settlement and site remediation, but will continue to seek
100 percent of response costs from PRPs where possible.
Use of mixed funding does not change EPA's approach to de-
termining liability. PRPs may be held jointly and severally
liable and EPA will seek to recover EPA's mixed funding
share from non-settling PRPs whenever possible.
JQ& Minimis Settlements
Ds minimis. settlements are smaller agreements sepa
from the larger settlement for the chosen remedy. Unde
minimis settlements, relatively small contributors of waste
to a site, or certain "innocent" landowners, may resolve their
liability. Innocent landowners are parties who bought prop-
erty without knowing that it was used for hazardous waste
handling. Or EPA may enter into dfi minimis. settlement
agreements with a party where the settlement includes only
a minor portion of the response costs and when the amount
of waste represents a relatively minor amount and is not
highly toxic, compared to other hazardous substances at the
facility. De minimis settlements also may be used where the
PRP is a site owner who did not conduct or permit waste
management or contribute to the release of hazardous sub-
stances. De minimis settlements are typically used in con-
junction with covenant not to sue agreements. These agree-
ments generally will be in the form of administrative orders
on consent and are available for public comment
Covenants Not To Sue
A covenant not to sue may be used to limit the present and
future liability of PRPs, thus encouraging them to
settlement early. However, agreements generally i
"reopeners" that would allow EPA to hold parties liable
-------
conditions unknown at the time of settlement or for new in-
formation indicating that the remedial action is not protec-
tive of human health and the environment. In some cases,
such as dfi minjmia settlements, releases may be granted
without reopeners. Covenants not to sue are likely to be
used only in instances where the negotiating PRP is respon-
sible for only a very small portion of a site, and, therefore,
EPA is assured that any future problems with the site are not
likely to be the result of mat PRFs contribution
Non-binding Allocations of Responsibility (NEAR)
NEAR is a process for EPA to propose a way for PRPs to
allocate costs among themselves. EPA may decide to
prepare an NB AR when the Agency determines this alloca-
tion is likely to promote settlement An NEAR does not bind
the government or PRPs and cannot be admitted as evidence
or reviewed in any judicial proceeding, including citizen
suits. Since each PRP may be held liable for the entire cost _.
of response, regardless of the size of its contribution to a site,"
knowing EPA's proposed allocation scheme may encourage
.the PRPs to settle out of court rather than run the risk of being
held fully responsible.
STATE PARTICIPATION
The Superfund program allows for and encourages State
participation in enforcement activities. First, EPA is re-
quired to notify the State of negotiations with PRPs and
provide the opportunity for the State to participate. States
may be a party to any settlement in which they participate.
m addition, EPA is authorized to provide funds to States to
allow State participation in enforcement activities and to
finance certain State-lead enforcement actions.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
EPA policy and the Superfund law establish a strong pro-
gram of public participation in the decision-making process
at both Fund-lead and enforcement sites. The procedures
and policy for public participation at enforcement sites are
basically the same as for non-enforcement sites. This fact
sheet is limited to those special differences in community
relations when the Agency is negotiating with* or pursuing
litigation against PRPs. The contact listed below has nu-
merous fact sheets on the Superfund program, including a
fact sheet on Public Involvement
Community relations at enforcement-lead sites may differ
from community relations activities at Fund-lead sites
because negotiations betweeoEPA, DOJ ap£PKRt-gener-
ally focus pathe issue ef liability. Hie negotiation process,
' thus, requires that some informatiea>^e kept confidential
and is not usually open to die public.
When these discussions deal with new technical informa-
tion that changes or modifies remedial decisions, this infor-
mation will be documented and placed in the administrative
record files. This process provides the public with critical
information and enables the Agency to move quickly to-
wards settlement Information on enforcement strategy;
details of the negotiations, such as the behavior, attitudes, or
legal positions of responsible parties; and evidence or attor-
ney work product material developed during negotiations,
must remain confidential.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
OFFICE OF WASTE PROGRAMS ENFORO-TIENT
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, Southwest (OS-500)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-4814
-------
-------
HOW TO OBTAIN SUPERFUND INFORMATION
-------
-------
HOW TO OBTAIN SUPERFUND DOCUMENTS
Documents issued by EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR, or Superfund) may be ordered from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
800-336-4700
or
703-487-4650
If you need help identifying a document in which you are interested, call:
RCRA/Superfund Industrial Assistance Hotline
800-424-9346
or
202-382-3000
The Hotline can give you the precise title, the date of the most current
version, and the "PB number" that you will need when ordering from
NTIS. You may also request a catalog of Superfund publications, for your
future reference.
-------
-------
THE SUPERFUND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
-------
-------
OWPE-9800.1
The Superfund Enforcement Process
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
OWPE-9800.1
THE SUPERFUND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
The CERCLA Enforcement Process
The Superfund enforcement process is based on the liability standard established in the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability
standard. CERCLA liability is strict, joint, several, and retroactive. The three major thrusts of the
enforcement program are as follows:
• Achieving private-party responses
• . Overseeing private-party responses
• Recovering the costs of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-lead cleanups
Private-party response actions may be achieved through settlements or enforcement actions
brought by EPA. All private-party responses are subject to oversight by the Agency to verify the
correctness and thoroughness of the potentially responsible party's (PRP's) actions. PRPs may be
held liable for the entire cost of cleanup since their liability begins with site discovery and continues
during operation and maintenance — long after the remedial action is complete. The Agency will
taken cost recovery action to obtain reimbursement for the costs of cleanups funded by the Trust
Fund (Superfund).
The following is a brief description of the Superfund enforcement process. An appendix has
been included, which consists of flowcharts outlining several Superfund enforcement activities.
PRP Search
PRPs are parties liable for payment of Superfund cleanup costs. PRPs include companies
that generate any hazardous substances found at a site, present and former owners and operators, and
certain transporters who dispose of hazardous substances at a site. Early identification of PRPs
supports EPA policy to secure cleanup by PRPs in lieu of Superfund financing, where such cleanup
can be accomplished in a timely and effective manner.
The initiation of a PRP search is concurrent with the initiation of the National Priorities List
(NPL) listing process. At the time of site discovery, a preliminary search is conducted to identify
obvious PRPs. This step is essential, especially at removal sites where immediate action is needed.
The extent of a PRP search depends on several factors: NPL status, site complexity, and amount
of funds expended at the site. The PRP search efforts include review of state and agency records,
title searches, interviews with site operators, and financial assessment of PRPs.
-------
OWPE-9800.1
Notice Letters, Negotiations, and Information Exchange
Important mechanisms for promoting interaction and facilitating communication between
EPA and PRPs include issuing notice letters, entering into negotiations, and exchanging information
with PRPs. Upon identification of a PRP, EPA must notify the PRP of its liability. In the past, this
notification has been accomplished through a "general notice" letter to the PRPs. Following the
reauthorization of CERCLA, EPA began using special notice procedures that establish a 90- to 120-
day moratorium and formal negotiation period. The PRPs must respond to EPA's special notice
letter by either declining within the time specified to participate in the cleanup or by offering a good
faith proposal to EPA to clean up the site. If the PRPs decline to participate, or the time specified
lapses, EPA will either take administrative or judicial action to compel cleanup, or will obligate
funds for performing the cleanup. If a good faith proposal is submitted and accepted, EPA will
continue negotiating with the PRPs.
An information exchange between the PRPs and EPA facilitates negotiations. EPA may
request information about PRP involvement with a site under CERCLA Section 104, through
information requests, or through EPA's Section 122 subpoena authority. It is Agency policy- to
release information to PRPs, allow them to assess the nature of their waste contribution, identify
other PRPs, coalesce, and develop good faith offers. Agency information summaries are routinely
included with general notice letters.
Several settlement tools may be used to encourage settlements during negotiations. These
tools include de minimis settlements, mixed-funding settlements, and nonbinding preliminary
allocations of responsibility (NBARs). These tools may expedite more complete settlements.
Settlements, Noncompliance, and Oversight
If negotiations are successful, the agreement between the PRPs and EPA will be embodied
in a consent administrative order or a consent decree (CD). Consent administrative orders are
negotiated and agreed upon by both the PRPs and EPA. They are usually used for removal actions
or remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs). They are issued by EPA and specify due
dates and the exact cleanup work to be conducted. If PRPs do not comply with the agreement, EPA
may refer the case to the Department of Justice for enforcement. CDs are also negotiated and agreed
upon by both the PRPs and EPA. They are the.preferred judicial documents for conducting remedial
design/remedial action (RD/RA) and must be filed with a court by the Department of Justice.
Courts can enforce CDs when PRPs refuse to comply with them.
Once a settlement agreement has been reached with the PRPs, a federal representative is
necessary to oversee the private-party cleanup. Oversight is critical to ensuring that the PRP cleanup
-------
OWPE-9800.1
is performed properly and expeditiously. Typical oversight activities include analyzing split samples,
reviewing PRP reports, and approving PRP work plans.
Enforcement Authorities and Fund Financing
Unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) are issued under Section 106(a) of CERCLA if the
PRP is unwilling to settle. UAOs tell the parties to conduct the cleanup. Failure to comply with the
UAO may result in the imposition of fines, damages, and court orders to conduct the cleanups. If
EPA believes the site requires immediate action, EPA may obligate the Trust Fund and proceed
with a Fund-financed cleanup. However, Fund-financed cleanups are followed by cost recovery
actions.
Cost recovery involves all documented costs relating to the cleanup action. Demand letters
form the basis for cost recovery negotiations. Under the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), EPA can recover its' costs, if they total less than $500,000, in an
administrative action. Administrative actions give PRPs a right to a hearing, without involving the
courts. However, when more than $500,000 is sought, EPA must go to court to recover its expenses.
-------
OWPE-9800.1
APPENDIX
-------
OWPE-9800.1
t. D1SCOYMT TRIUUCX
At
CAI seen
(0313)
IVNBCM II PAIIITXESES IIDICATI
CUIDAICC II OSVCt D11ICTIVES STSIIM
-------
PI
v£>
00
O
O
-------
o
o
00
cr.
I
w
PM
§
-------
OWPE-9800.1
4. RD/IA IOTICI LZTTXIS TK100SM 0 t
IOT1CI LETTE1S
ARO ,
UrOllMATIIJII /
EICHAXCE /
IET
- uput. autPtft
- PIOCESS, PUPAIATIOI
II PAIIIIXESES lIDICAtt
ii osvn DUICIUU STSIW
-------
-------
BACKGROUND PAPER ON THE MAJOR PROVISIONS
OF SUPERFUND REAUTHORIZATION
-------
-------
BACKGROUND PAPER ON THE
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF SUPERFUND REAUTHORIZATION
PUBLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES~
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
! January 1987
INTRODUCTION
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was
enacted in 1980. This law provided broad Federal authority to
respond directly to releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances that may endanger public health or welfare
or the environment. Costs for this program were originally
covered by a $1.6 billion Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund. This fund was designed to pay for cleanup operations,
enforcement action, and the recovery of costs from responsible
parties.
On October 17, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
These Amendments increase Superfund revenues to $8 5 billion,
and strengthen the EPA's authority to conduct short-term
(removal), long-term (remedial) and enforcement actions. The
Amendments also strengthen State involvement in the cleanup
process and the Agency's commitment to research and
development, training, health assessments, and public
participation. A number of new statutory authorities, such as
Community Right-to-Know are also established.
This background paper summarizes the major provisions of
the new Superfund law. Figure 1 provides a comparison of the
original law and SARA.
THE REMOVAL PROGRAM
A "removal action" is generally a short-term action
intended to stabilize or clean up a hazardous incident or site
threatening human health and welfare or the environment.
Specifically, removal actions may include removing and
disposing of hazardous substances; constructing a fence around
a site; collecting and analyzing soil, air and water samples;
providing alternative water supplies to local residents; or
temporarily relocating residents from the area. Removal
actions were originally limited to 6 months and a total cost of
-------
$1 million. Exemptions to these limits could be granted if
continued Federal response was necessary to prevent, limit, or
mitigate an emergency, if there was an immediate risk to public
health, welfare or the environment, and if such assistance was
not otherwise available on a timely basis.
New Statutory Requirements
The Superfund Amendments of 1986 raise the dollar amount
and time limitations on removal actions to $2 million and 12
months. In addition, the law adds a fourth independent
condition under which EPA may waive these limitations. A
removal action may continue beyond the $2 million/12 month
limits if it meets the three exemption requirements outlined
above or if it is consistent with the long-term remedial action
to be taken .at the site.
THE REMEDIAL PROGRAM
A "remedial action" is a long-term remedy for a release or
threatened release of a hazardous substance at a hazardous
waste site. Specific remedial actions may include the removal
of drums or soil containing wastes from the site; the
construction of a cap over the site; the construction of dikes
to control surface water; incineration of wastes; subsurface
cleanup of contamination; treatment of contaminated water or
provision of alternate water supplies; or the permanent
relocation of residents from the area. Superfund-financed
remedial actions may be taken only at sites included on the
National Priorities List (NPL), the Agency's list of the
Nation's most serious hazardous waste sites. The Superfund
Amendments of 1986 provide new requirements for the remedial
program.
Cleanup Standards
The original Superfund law did not address cleanup
requirements but directed EPA to analyze the cost-effectiveness
of the -remedial action alternatives. The revised National
Contingency Plan did establish a compliance with other
environmental statutes policy and directed EPA to consider the
use of alternative technologies in choosing a remedial action.
Under the new Superfund Amendments, EPA must continue to
consider the cost-effectiveness of the clean-up alternatives as
well as the following new statutory requirements:
-2-
-------
Standards: EPA is required to select remedies
that meet standards under any Federal or State
environmental law that apply to the hazardous
substance being addressed or are relevant and
appropriate under the circumstances. These
standards may be waived under certain limited
conditions.
Permanent Solutions: EPA must select
cost-effective remedial actions consistent with
the National Contingency Plan (NCP).* These
actions must also, to the maximum extent
practicable, be permanent solutions to protect
human health and the environment, and use
alternative treatment or resource recovery
technologies.
Off-Site Actions; All hazardous substances
transported from hazardous waste sites must be
taken to a facility that is operating in
compliance with the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), or other applicable Federal and State
laws.
Mandatory Schedules
The Superfund Amendments establish goals for the evaluation
of sites contained in CERCLIS (an inventory of potentially
hazardous waste sites), as well as mandatory schedules for
beginning new Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies
(RI/FS) and new remedial actions for sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL). For example, EPA must start Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study work at 275 Superfund sites by
October 1989. In addition, actual remedial cleanup activities
must begin at 175 sites by October 1989, with an additional 200
remedial cleanup activities during 1990 and 1991.
Health-Related Authorities
These new provisions significantly expand the health-
related authorities under SARA to include a list of hazardous
substances, toxicological profiles, health effects research and
health assessments at all NPL sites. The responsibility for
* Officially known as the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, the NCP is the central
Superfund regulation and outlines the responsibilities and
authorities for responding to releases into the environment of
hazardous substances and other pollutants and contaminants
under the statutory authority of CERCLA and section 311 of the
Clean Water Act.
-3-
-------
conducting these tasks rests primarily with the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) within the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in consultation
with EPA. Specifically, these new provisions include:
List of Substances: Within six months of
enactment, EPA and ATSDR must prepare a list of
at least 100 hazardous substances, commonly found
at NPL sites, posing the most significant threat
to human health.
Toxicological Profiles; ATSDR must prepare
toxicological profiles for each of the listed
substances according to a mandatory schedule. A
toxicological profile includes a summary of
available information on the toxic effects to
humans from exposure to a substance.
Health Effects Research: If ATSDR and EPA
determine that adequate information is not
available for any of the listed substances, ATSDR
must undertake a research program, including
laboratory studies, to determine the health
effects of those substances.
Health Assessments: ATSDR must perform health
assessments at every NPL site according to a
mandatory schedule. ATSDR, in consultation with
EPA, sets the priorities for health assessments
at NPL sites based upon potential risk to human
health, adequacy of existing data, and EPA's NPL
and RI/FS schedules.
Citizens also may petition ATSDR to perform a health
assessment at any site based upon exposure to the public
and environment from a release. As a result of an
assessment, followup activities may include pilot health
effects studies, full-scale epidemiological studies,
development of a registry of exposed persons and health
surveillance programs. If the health assessment determines
a significant risk to human health, EPA is required to act
to reduce exposure and mitigate risk.
State Involvement
SARA expands an already extensive State participation
process. Under the new law, States are more formally
involved in the initiation, development and selection of
remedial actions . State involvement regulations will
provide for a number of opportunities to participate
including:
-4-
-------
Participation in pre-remedial activities to
assess and investigate sites prior to listing on
the NPL
Participation in identification of and long-term
planning for all remedial actions in a State
Opportunity to review and comment on planning
documents, technical data, engineering designs or
proposed findings and decisions to waive
requirements
Opportunity to participate in negotiations
Notification of and opportunity for comment on
the proposed plan for remedial action
Concurrence in deleting sites from the NPL
States are also more formally involved in the settlement
process. If the State disagrees with EPA's settlement decision
not to require compliance with certain State standards, the
State may legally challenge EPA's decision.
ENFORCEMENT AND LEGAL ISSUES
Enforcement is a major EPA activity under Superfund. When
Congress passed the original Superfund law, it intended that
polluters who create environmental problems should correct them
whenever possible. EPA can obtain cleanup action by taking the
potentially responsible parties
-------
Penalties: The new law increases the criminal
penalties for failure to provide notice of a hazardous
waste release and makes the submission of false or
misleading information a criminal offense.
Administrative Record; The Superfund Amendments
require EPA to establish an Administrative Record upon
which the selection of a response action will be
based. The record must be available to the public at
or near the facility at issue. EPA must promulgate
regulations for public participation in the
development of the Administrative Record for removal
and remedial actions.
Access and Information Gathering; The new law
strengthens EPA's ability to obtain access to sites to
perform investigations and site cleanup.
Federal Facilities
The Superfund Amendments add a new section to CERCLA
dealing with hazardous substance releases at Federal
facilities. This provision confirms CERCLA's applicability to
Federal agencies and requires Federal agency compliance with
CERCLA requirements. The Amendments clearly define the process
Federal agencies must follow in undertaking remedial action,
including a requirement that EPA make the final selection of
the remedy if .there is a disagreement between the Federal
agency and EPA. State and local officials also must be given
the opportunity to participate in the planning and selection of
any remedial action, including the review of all relevant
data. States are given a formal opportunity to review remedies
to ensure that State standards are incorporated. The
Amendments also set forth a schedule for response actions at
Federal facilities including a schedule for preliminary
assessments, listing on the National Priorities List, remedial
investigations/feasibility studies and remedial actions.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The original Superfund law did not explicitly address the
issue of community involvement and public participation in the
Superfund program. Agency policy, however, has established a
citizen participation program. The Superfund Amendments
strengthen existing procedures for public participation.
Public Participation Requirements
The Amendments require EPA to:
Publish a notice and brief analysis of the proposed
remedial action plan and make the plan available to
the public
-6-
-------
Provide a reasonable opportunity for submission of'
written and oral comments and an opportunity for a
public meeting
Keep a transcript of the public meeting and provide it
to the public
Publish a notice of the final remedial action plan and
make it available to the public before the beginning
of any remedial action
Prepare a response to each of the significant
comments, criticisms and new data submitted on the
proposed remedial action plan.
Technical Assistance Grants
This provision represents new program authority under
SARA. The Superfund Amendments allow EPA to make grants
available to communities affected by a release or threatened
release at a National Priorities List (NPL) site. Community
members may use these grants to obtain assistance in-
interpreting technical information on the nature of the hazard
and recommended alternatives for investigation and cleanup
throughout each stage of the Superfund process. Grants are
limited to $50,000 per site. In addition, the grant recipient
is required to contribute at least 20 percent of the total cost
of the expert advice.
OTHER ISSUES
The Superfund Amendments of 1986 mandate several ongoing
program initiatives that will expand the scope of cleanup
operations and EPA's planning and response authorities.
Research and Development (R&D) and Training
The Amendments establish a comprehensive Federal program
for research and development, demonstration and training. SARA
promotes the development of alternative and innovative
treatment technologies for Superfund response and directs EPA
to improve capabilities for evaluating human health effects
from exposure to hazardous substances.
The provisions represent new and/or expanded authorities for
training and R&D not found in the original law. While many
training and R&D activities have been ongoing for the past five
years, these new provisions clearly increase and define the
scope of future activities and provide new research
authorities.
-7-
-------
Emergency Planning/Community Riqht-To-Know
Chemical release incidents such as Institute, West Virginia
and Bhopal, India, heightened Congressional awareness of the
critical need for effective emergency planning. EPA also has
recognized this need by establishing the Chemical Emergency
Preparedness Program (CEPP). These efforts are mandated in a
separate title of the CERCLA Reauthorization Amendments, known
as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986. This title, Title III, includes provisions related to
emergency planning, notification and reporting requirements.
Emergency Preparedness
Planning Entities: States are required to establish
State emergency response commissions, emergency
planning districts and local emergency planning
committees to coordinate and provide technical
expertise in planning for responses to emergency
releases of hazardous chemicals.
- List of Substances; EPA must publish a list of
extremely hazardous substances and publish in
regulation form a threshold planning quantity for each
substance that if released at a facility would likely
pose a hazardous substance emergency. This list
provides a focus for local emergency response plans.
Facility Participation in Planning: Facilities that
produce, use or store extremely hazardous substances
in excess of established thresholds must notify the
State emergency response commission that they are
subject to Title III planning requirements. Such
facilities must designate a facility emergency
coordinator to work with and provide information to
the local emergency planning committee.
Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans; Each local
emergency planning committee must prepare an emergency
plan within two years of enactment and review that
plan at least once a year.
Emergency Notification; Facilities are required to
provide immediate notice of the release of a hazardous
substance to the local planning committee and the
State commission.
-8-
-------
Right-to-Know
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS); Any facility
which is required to prepare or have available an MSDS
under Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) regulations must submit an MSDS or a list of
MSDS chemicals to the appropriate local emergency
planning committee, State emergency response
commission and fire department. The MSDS contains
information on chemical name, chemical characteristics
and health hazards.
Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms: Any
facility required to prepare or have available an MSDS
under OSHA regulations shall also complete and submit
annually to the appropriate emergency planning
entities an inventory form. This form contains
information on the amount and general location of
chemicals at the facility.
Toxic Chemical Release Forms; Any facility which
produces, processes or otherwise uses "toxic
chemicals" in amounts over the published threshold
quantity must submit a form to EPA and the designated
State official describing all releases that occurred -
during the year. "Toxic chemicals" are the combined
Maryland and New Jersey lists.
-9-
-------
Figure 1
Comparison of the Original Law to SARA
ORIGINAL LAW
Removal Program
Sets limits at 6 months
and $1 million.
Includes waiver to limits
based upon three criteria,
No provision.
SARA
Removal Program
Raises limits to 1 year
and $2 million.
Adds additional waiver
criterion for
consistency with long-
term remedial action.
Requires removals to
contribute to the
efficient performance
of any long-term
remedial action.
Remedial Program
No mandatory schedules
or goals.
Requires the development
and use of criteria and
methods for determining extent
of remedy. Remedial actions
must also be cost-effective
and consistent with the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
Remedial Program -
Contains goals for pre-
liminary assessments and
site inspections and
mandatory schedules for
new RI/FS starts and
new remedial action
starts.
Requires remedies to:
- Be protective of
human health and the
environment
- Be cost-effective
- Attain applicable
Federal and State
standards
- Utilize permanent
solutions and
alternative tech-
nologies to the
maximum extent
practicable.
Treatment which reduces
the volume, mobility
and toxicity of the
waste is preferred.
-10-
-------
Figure 1 (page 2)
ORIGINAL LAW
Provides for ATSDR to
establish disease registry,
health effects literature
inventory, list of
restricted areas and to
provide health screening and
medical care.
Provides for State involvement
in response actions through
cooperative agreements and
contracts.
SARA
Requires ATSDR (with EPA)
to prepare list of
hazardous substances, to
prepare toxicological
profiles, and to con-
duct health effects
research and health
assessments. A disease
registry may also be
established.
Requires establishment
of formal State par-
ticipation regulations
providing for docu-
ment review and comment
and participation in
every phase of the
program.
Enforcement Program
No provision.
No specific provisions in
statute. Settlements
authorized under Agency
policy.
No specific provisions in
statute. Review of remedy
decisions has been on the
record.
Authorizes criminal
penalties for failure to
provide required notifi-
cations .
Enforcement Program
Authorizes citizen suits.
Authorizes settlement
agreements with PRPs and
establishes procedures
and tools for reaching
settlements.
Establishes an admini-
strative record upon
which a response action
will be based.
Provides civil and
increases criminal penal-
ties for these
activities.
-11-
-------
Figure 1 (page 3)
ORIGINAL LAW
Prohibits the use of Fund
money for remedial action at
Federal facilities:
SARA
Confirms CERCLA's
applicability to Fed-
eral agencies and
requires Federal agency
compliance with CERCLA
requirements. Also
prohibits use of Fund
money for remdial
actions.
Community Relations
No specific provisions
in statute. Community
relations is authorized
under Agency policy.
Establishes public par-
ticipation requirements
and authorizes techni-
cal assistance grants.
Research and Development and
Training
No specific provisions in
statute.
Research and Development Land
Training
Establishes a comprehen-
sive research, develop-
ment and demonstration
program for alternative
technologies; training
programs for hazardous
substance response; and
hazardous substance
research. •
Emergency Planning/Community
Riqht-to-Know
No "specific provisions
in statute. Emergency
planning and preparedness
activities are authorized
by the NCP and Agency
policy.
Emergency Planning/Community
Riqht-to-Know
Establishes a State and
local planning structure,
emergency notification
and reporting require-
ments for facilities.
-12-
-------
BACKGROPNP PAPFJ?
SnPF.RFUND INNOVATIVE TFCHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The Fnvironmental Protection Agency's off ice.of Research and
Development fORD), joining with the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWFR), has initiated the S_uperfund ^Innovative
Technology ^valuation (SITE) Program. The SITF Program will help
EPA find, test, and encourage the use of new ways to destroy,
stabilize or otherwise treat hazardous wastes, rather than just
burying them in the ground.
The overall goal of the SITE Program is to maximize the use of
alternatives to land disposal and containment at Superfund sites.
To accomplish this goal, the program will orovide reliable cost
and performance information on technologies that offer an alternative
to land disposal. This information will be generated by conducting
pilot-scale or full-scale demonstrations of alternative technologies
at Superfund sites.
BACKGROUND
EPA's Superfund program is designed to clean up hazardous w*ste
sites around the country. It has been underway for six years
with action taken at over 450 Superfund sites to address long-tsr"
problems created by hazardous wastes. wOre t^an half of these
sites have involved burying the hazardous wastes in specially
prepared landfills — a process called land disposal. While land
disposal can be a good way to handle wastes, in some instances it
does not provide a permanent solution to the problem. The wastes
in the landfill may still be dangerous, and may potentially leak
through the confines of -the burial site.
Recently, members of the scientific community, the public, and
Congress expressed concern that it was time to move away from
reliance on land disposal for handling hazardous wastes. These
views are reflected in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1985 (HSWA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA). The Agency responded by altering certain
policies and developing regulations regarding hazardous waste
disposal in landfills and the expanded use of alternative tech-
nologies.
More specifically, the Land Disposal Restriction provisions
of HSWA stipulate that certain wastes cannot be land disposed
unless they meet specific concentration-based treatment standards
that represent best demonstrated available technology. Similarly,
the new SARA sets a clear preference for the use of cost-effective
DECEMPFR i,
-------
-2-
treatment remedies which permanently and significantly reduce
the toxicity, mobility or volume of wastes at ^uperfund site*;.
In addition to these provisions, SAPA directs EPA to carry out a
program of research, evaluation, testing, development and demon-
stration of alternative or innovative technologies to achieve
more per-nanent protection of human health and welfare and the
environment. These laws, regulations, and policies' clearly
provide the impetus toward the use of treatment alternatives for
the management of hazardous waste". Technical and policy guidance
on the use and availability of alternative technologies in both
the Superfund removal and remedial programs is expected soon.
siTp PR'OGRAM PHASES
The four phases of the SITE Program listed below are being conducted
simultaneously. They will be integrated so that information from
one phase can he used in another. Fach phase is designed to meet
a particular objective of the SITE Program. The SITE program
will be periodically reviewed to determine how information generated
from all phases may be used to encourage the selection of new
technologies at Suoerfund sites.
o Phase It Identify and Remove Impediments
Trained engineers, economists and policy analysfs will
identify the obstacles to the orderly development and
use of alternative technologies to manage hazardous
wastes. Resolving issues dealing with permit requirements,
treatment residue disposal, liabilities, procurement
requirements, and public interest will help pave the way
to increased use of treatment alternatives. Recommendations
on how EPA can remove or limit obstacles to the use of
alternative technologies will be complete by mid l^S"'.
o Phase lit Conduct a Demonstration Program
EPA will conduct a demonstration program for innovative
technologies at selected Super.fund sites. From these
demonstrations, EPA will provide performance and cost
information for the new technologies. This information
will help EPA decide when, and under what circumstances,
to us« the technology at other hazardous waste sites.
Th« demonstration progam will be an ongoing effort.
EPA plans to start several demonstrations as soon as
possible to obtain information on the most advanced
technologies. Demonstrations will then occur on a
yearly schedule. An annual SITE demonstration plan will
be published for public comment and will discuss the
proposed technologies to be demonstrated and the Superfund
sites identified for u
-------
-3-
o Phase III; Applications Analyses
Applications analyses will he conducted for technoloates
that warrant further investigation after completion of
the demonstration. Such analyses will examine the
applicability of the technology to other SUperfund sites
and include factors such as cost, appropriate site
conditions, efficiency characteristics, and waste types.
Policies and procedures that need to be taken into account
in applying promising new technologies to Superfund sites
will be examined.
o Phase IV; Fmerginq Technologies Development
ORD will establish a research program to continually
evaluate and encourage the develooment of emerging
alternative technologies through pilot testing to full
scale demonstrations. This phase will be initiated in
the spring of 1987 and will be ongoing thereafter.
THE DFMQNSTRATION PHASE; A SUMMARY
Phase II, the Demonstration Phase, will be the most publicly
visible of the four phases. Actual work will begin at Superfund,
sites during the demonstration phase and new technologies will he
evaluated. Key events in the demonstration nhase are summarized:
o Advertise in Commerce Business Daily
A notice requesting proposals will be placed in the
Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on or before January 15,
1987, and annually thereafter. Developers of new and
innovative technologies are asked to obtain from FPA the
information necessary to submit proposals for demonstrating
their technology. Proposals submitted in response to the
CRD announcement can be made through February. Informa-
tion about the Request for Proposals (RFP) can be obtained
from Mr. Steve James (OPD) by calling 513-"569-7877
(commercial) or 684-7877 ( FTS ) .
In addition to choosing technologies based on the
advertisement, EPA has set up a second mechanism whert
innovative technologies may also be demonstrated as part
of routine response actions. Superfund or other cleanup
sites on which FPA is planning to use treatment tech-
nologies as part of the response action may be adapted
for SITE demonstrations.
-------
-4-
Select Technologies
Potential new technologies will be carefully screened by
OSWER and ORD. The screening process will be competitive
and must be completed within 90 days of receiving the
completed application. In selecting technologies to be
lemons tr=i ted , EPA must consider, at a minimum, the
following criteria:
1. The potential for contributing to solutions to
waste problems which pose the greatest threat to
human health, which cannot be adequately controlled
under present technologies, or which otherwise pose
significant management difficulties.
2. The availability of technologies which have been
sufficiently developed for field demonstration and
which are likely to be cost-effective and reliable.
3. The availability and suitability of sites for demon-
strating such technologies, and the capability to
conduct demonstration projects in such a manner as
to assure the protection of human health and the
environment.
4.- The likelihood that the data to be generated ^com
the demonstration project at the site will be
applicable to other sites.
Match Technologies to Sites
Many of the new technologies may only be suited for
specific kinds of wastes at a specific site. Using the
expertise and knowledge in EPA Headquarters, laboratories,
and the EPA Regions, technologies will be matched with
wastes at available Superfund sites. The new Superfund
law requires EPA to conduct a minimum of ten technology
demonstrations each year, while most demonstrations
will take place at Superfund sites, some technologies
may be tested at commercial hazardous waste sites or at
special test and evaluation facilities operated by EP*
or the developer. Factors such as risk, public interest,
expense, disposal of residues and involvement of
potentially responsible parties will be considered when
matching sites and wastes with technologies.
-------
-5-
Develop Annual SITE Demonstration Plan
The annual SITE demonstration plan will discuss
technology demonstration projects planned, how and when
the projects will be carried out, the tentative sites
selected, the resource requirements for conducting the
demonstrations, and the means for public involvement
and input. This plan will be published for public
review and comment.
Implement Site-Specific Community Delations Programs
Once a site and technology have been tentatively
selected, EPA will develop and implement a community
relations plan to seek the ideas and suggestions of
local residents. In accordance with the plan, EPA will
introduce the community to the SITE Program and its role
at their local site, and will provide information on the
specific technologies. Public comment will he sought
throughout the demonstration project and community
relations activities will continue for the duration of
the demonstration.
Conduct Demonstration
After reviewing and incorporating comments on the SIT?
demonstration plan, EPA will enter into a contract,
letter agreement, or cooperative agreement with the
developer of the technology. The demonstration will
begin and probably last several months, depending upon
the time required to gather information on the effective-
ness and reliability of the technology. The developer
will provide the equipment and be responsible for set-up
and operation at the demonstration site. The technology
will treat Superfund wastes during the test, but since
it is only a demonstration, it will not be expected to
clean up all of the wastes at the Superfund site. If
necessary, another standard technology will be used to
handle th« remaining wastes. EPA's role will be to ensure
credible results by providing the testing protocols *nd
procedures and preparing the analytical and quality
assurance/quality control work plans so the performance
data can be consistently and accurately interpreted.
Complete Evaluajtigri_and Distribute Information
At the close of each demonstration, EPA will evaluate
the results of all tests. If the results are positive,
the technology could be applied at other similar Superfund
sites. J?PA will modify Agency policies and procedures
to encourage the use of these and other alternative
technologies.
-------
-6-
EPA will make available the results of the evaluation
of each new technology to the hazardous waste cleanup
industry, regulatory agencies and the public. The
Agency is developing a technology transfer program to
ensure the distribution of accurate information as
quickly as possible. ^
THE PROGRAM TO DATE
The Superfund reauthorization calls for a minimum of ten field
demonstrations per year through 1991. Congress authorized ?20
million per year for the demonstration program, including demon-
strations of innovative monitoring equipment. The alternative
technology demonstration program is limited to ?10 million per
year/ with a $3 million cap for a single demonstration.
In anticipation of rsauthorization, EPA began setting up the SITE
Program in 1936. In March of 1986, the first notice requesting
proposals was placed in the Commerce Business Daily. In response
to RFP SITE-001, twenty proposals were received representing the -
following technologies:
10 Incineration/Thermal
3 Biological Treatment
2 Containerization
1 Solidification/Stabilization
1 In-Situ Vapor Extraction
1 Chemical Detoxification
1 Robotics
1 Vapor Condensation
The proposals were evaluated and ranked according to the specified
criteria. In addition, EPA identified several potential demon-
strations through the second mechanism — routine response actions,
A listing of firms, tentative sites (where determined), and a-
brief description of the technologies which are potentially
proposed for demonstration during 1937 is attached.
CONTACTS
OSWERt Don Vihite 202-475-8600 (commercial) or
475-8600 (FTS)
For information on Superfund wastes and
sites and other general information.
ORD; Ron Hill 513-569-7861 (commercial) or
! 684-7861 (FTS) or Steve James
513-569-7877 (commercial) or G84-7877 (FTS)
For information related to applications
of treatment technologies, the Commerce
Business Daily announcement, and the
Request for Proposals.
Superfund/RCRA Hotline 800-424-9346
202-382-3000
-------
SUPSSFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY RVALLJATIOM (SITE) PROGRAM:
PROPOSED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AS OF ^VETOER ?5,
Main Track fCRD)
Developer
Waste-Tech Services, Inc.
18400 west 10th Avenue
Golden, Colorado 80401
Contacts Eliot Cooper
303-279-9712
Advanced Combustion
Technologies Inc.
P.O. Box 940498
Atlanta, Georgia 30340
Contact: Thomas McGowan
404-662-5360
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.
1195 Empire Central
Dallas, Texas 75247
Contact: Scott Berdine
214-630-7511
Hazcon, Inc.
P.O. Box 947
Katy, Texas 77492
Contact: Ray Funderburk
713-3^1-1085
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Waste Technology Services
Division
P.O. Box 286
Madison, Pennsylvania 15663
Contact: Carei« Psraian
412-722-5701
Contact: William Fssd
412-722-5303
Technology
"" Tentative
Location of
Demonstration
Mobile thermal combustor- Ccors Company
fluidized bed Golden, Colorado
Pure oxygen burner
Electric infrared
incinerator
Solidification/
stabilization process
ORD Test
and Evaluation
Facility
To be determined
To be determined
(1) Pyroplasm system
Electric pyrolyzer
be determined
To be determined
Terra Vac, Inc.
P.O. Box 550
Dorado, Puerto Rico 00646
Contact: Jamas Malot
809-723-9171
In-situ vacuum extraction To be determined
-------
Through Responaa Actions
Developer
New York State Department
of-Environmental
Conservation
(Plasma Systems, Inc.)
50 Wblf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Contact: Norman Nosenchuck
518-262-1338
GA Technologies, Inc.
P.O. Box 85608
San Diego, California 92138
Contact: Harold Diot
619-455-2383
Technology
Plasma pyrolysis thermal
unit
Circulating bed conbustoc
Tentative
Location of
Demonstration
Hove Canal
J-liagara Falls,
>few
GA Technologies'
facility; test on
waste from McColl,
Fullerton, CA
(remedial action)
Resources Conservation
Company
3101 M.S. Northup Way
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Contact: Paul McGough
206-828-2455
General Electric
One River Road
Schenectady, New York 12345
Contact: John Harrsen
518-385-0045
and
International ofcste
Technologies
807 ^rth Waco, Suite 31
Wichita, Kansas 67203
Contact: Jeff Newton
316-262-1338
Basic Extraction Sludge
Treatment (BEST): solvent
extraction technology
In-situ solidification/
fixation process
General Refinery, Inc.
Savannah, Georg-ia
(rewoval action)
General Electric
Haileah, Florida
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS USED
AA (Assistant Administrator): Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER).
ANPRM (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking): An announcement appearing in the Federaj
Register that notifies the public of EPA's intent to publish a specific proposed rule.
AOC (Administrative Order of Consent): An agreement reached between EPA and a potentially
responsible party that is used to agree on the roles, responsibilities, and payment for conducting
removal and RI/FS actions.
AOC (Area of contamination): A continuous (significant) extent of contamination at a Superfund site.
For the purposes of ARARs, is used as the equivalent of a RCRA land-based unit to determine
whether disposal occurs.
ARARS (Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements): Those cleanup standards, standards
of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under Federal or State law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, or that address
problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is
well-suited to the particular site.
ARCS (Alternative Remedial Contracts Strategy): A contracting initiative intended to promote the
continuity of contractor performance from RI/FS to construction management (or remedial action),
increase the level of competition for contract awards, and facilitate the delegation of contract
management to the Regions.
ATS (Action Tracking System): A data base that tracks the development of major regulations,
guidance, and policy for all EPA programs.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry): An Agency within the Department of
Health and Human Services that conducts health assessments at Superfund sites.
CA (Cooperative Agreement): A Federal assistance agreement with States and/or its political
subdivisions to transfer Federal funds and/or responsibilities. Cooperative agreements are required
for State-lead, fund-financed Superfund actions.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control): An operating health agency within the Public Health Service of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that develops and implements programs to deal
with environmental health problems, including responding to environmental, chemical, and radiation
emergencies.
CEPP (Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program): As part of EPA's Air Toxics Strategy, provides
guidance, training, and technical assistance to States and local communities to help them in
preparing for and responding to chemical accidents.
CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act): A Federal law
passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). The Acts created a special tax that goes into a Trust Fund, commonly known as Superfund,
G-1
-------
to investigate and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the program,
EPA can either: (1) Pay for site cleanup when parties responsible for the contamination cannot be
located or are unwilling or unable to perform the work; or (2) Take legal action to force parties
responsible for site contamination to clean up the site or pay back the Federal government for the
cost of the cleanup.
CERCLJS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System):
EPA's comprehensive data base and management system that inventories and tracks releases
addressed or needing to be addressed by the Superfund program.
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations): All Federal regulations in force are published annually in codified
form in the Code of Federal Regulations. The NCP is found at 40 CFR Part 300.
CLP (Contract Lab Program): Laboratories under contract to EPA that analyze soil, water, and waste
samples taken from areas at or near Superfund sites.
CMS (Case Management System): A data base that contains general information on all enforcement
activities, with information on cost recovery and settlements.
CMS (Corrective Measures Study): The portion of a RCRA corrective action that is generally
equivalent to an FS taken under Superfund.
COE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): A branch of the U.S. Department of Defense that has
specialized equipment and personnel for maintaining navigation channels for removing navigation
obstruction, for accomplishing structural repairs, and for performing maintenance to hydropower
electric generating equipment The Corps can also provide design services, perform construction,
and provide contract writing and contract administrative services for other Federal agencies, such as
EPA for Superfund actions.
Cost-Effective Alternative: The cleanup alternative selected for a site on the National Priorities List
(NPL) based on protectiveness, technical feasibility, permanence, reliability, and cost. The selected
alternative does not require EPA to choose the least expensive alternative. It requires that if there are
several cleanup alternatives available that deal effectively with the problems at a site, EPA must
choose the remedy on the basis of the criteria mentioned above.
CRP (Community Relations Plan): A plan that is prepared at the start of most Superfund response
activities to direct activities that will allow the community affected by the site to be kept informed of
EPA, State, and PRP activities.
CWA (Clean Water Act): A statute under which EPA promulgates Water Quality Criteria and
administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, as well as
regulates discharges to or dredging of wetlands.
DoD (Department of Defense): A Federal department that operates many military facilities that are
potentially subject to CERCLA actions.
DOE (Department of Energy): A Federal department that operates many nuclear weapons and
research facilities that are potentially subject to CERCLA actions.
DO! (Department of the Interior): A Federal department that is responsible for Federal lands on which
Superfund sites may be located.
G-2
-------
DOJ (Department of Justice): A federal department that is responsible for bringing legal actions to
court on behalf of EPA against potentially responsible parties.
DQO (Data Quality Objectives): Qualitative and quantitative statements that are developed before
sampling begins to allow EPA to identify the quality of data that must be collected during Superfund
actions.
EA (Endangerment Assessment): A study conducted as a supplement to a remedial investigation to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site and the risks posed to public
health and/or the environment. EPA or State agencies conduct the study when legal action is
pending to require potentially responsible parties to perform or pay for the site cleanup.
EE/CA (Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis): Performed to evaluate alternate removal actions or
expedited response actions (ERAs) in terms of their effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
EERU (Environmental Emergency Response Unit): Provides emergency response support to
hazardous waste sites or spills posing an immediate threat
ERA (Expedited Response Actions): Actions taken by the remedial program using removal program
contract authorities. ERA'S generally require an EE/CA and are designed to remove immediate
threats discovered during a remedial investigation.
ERGS (Emergency Response Cleanup Services): Together with TAT and EERU, these contracts
provide the technical assistance and cleanup service that EPA needs to implement an effective
removal program.
ERD (Emergency Response Division): Under the supervision of a Director, who reports to the Director
of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), ERD is made up of three subordinate
units: Response Operations Branch, Response Standards and Criteria Branch, and Environmental
Response Team (ERT).
ERNS (Emergency Response Notification System): A central data base that provides EPA with a more
comprehensive perspective on release notifications nationwide because it includes, in addition to the
National Response Center (NRC) reports, notifications of releases reported directly to EPA Regional
offices and to the U.S. Coast Guard district offices.
ERT (Environmental Response Team): EPA hazardous waste experts who provide 24-hour technical
assistance to EPA Regional offices and States during all types of emergencies involving releases at
hazardous waste sites and spills of hazardous substances. ERT also provides hazardous site
response training for all EPA employees.
ESAT (Environmental Services Assistance Teams): Contractor teams that provide laboratory,
analytical, and review services to all areas of the Superfund program.
ESD (Environmental Services Division): Regional divisions that often provide data validation and
qualify assurance/quality control functions.
FIT (Field Investigation Team): Contracts that provide support for pre-remedial activities, often by
conducting PAs and Sis.
G-3
-------
FR (Federal Register): Each Federal working day, the Government Printing Office publishes current
Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders, Federal agency regulations having general
applicability and legal effect, proposed agency rules, and documents that are required by statute to
be published in the Federal Register.
FS (Feasibility Study): A study undertaken by the lead agency to develop and evaluate options for
remedial action. The feasibility study emphasizes data analysis, implementability of alternatives, and
cost analyses, as well as compliance with mandates to protect human health and the environment
and attain regulatory standards of other laws. The FS is generally performed concurrently and in an
Interactive fashion with the remedial investigation, using data gathered during the remedial
investigation.
FTE (Fulltime Equivalent): Represents the level of effort or labor for one person for one year.
FY (Fiscal Year): For the U.S. government, begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. For
example, FY88 began on October 1, 1988 and ended on September 30, 1989.
GAD (Grants Administration Division): Made up of the following four branches: Grants Operations
Branch; Grants Information and Analysis Branch, which handles Interagency Agreements and the
Asbestos-in-SchooIs Grants; Compliance Branch, which manages environmental and suspension
activities for both grants and contracts; and Grants Policies and Procedures Branch, which oversees
the regulations, policies, and procedures for EPA assistance agreements.
GOB (Grants Operations Branch): As part of the Grants Administration Division, awards EPA
Headquarters grants and research and development grants to the public.
HRS (Hazard Ranking System): A scoring system used to evaluate potential relative risks to public
health and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. EPA and
States use the HRS to calculate a site score, from 0 to 100, based on the actual or potential threat of
a release of hazardous substances to air, surface water, or groundwater. This score is the primary
factor used to decide if a hazardous waste site should be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
HSCD (Hazardous Site Control Division): Under the supervision of a Director, who reports to the
Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), HSCD is made up of five
subordinate units: Remedial Planning Staff, Site Policy and Guidance Branch, Remedial Planning and
Response Branch, Design and Construction Management Branch, and State and Local Coordination
Branch. This Division also includes the Fund-lead Regional Coordinators.
HSED (Hazardous Site Evaluation Division): Under the supervision of a Director, who reports to the
Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), HSED is made up of four
subordinate units: Site Assessment Branch, Analytical Operations Branch, Hazard Ranking and Listing
Branch, and Toxfcs Integration Branch.
HSWA (Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments): Amendments to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) that Congress passed in 1984. HSWA added the land disposal restrictions,
minimum technology requirements, and expanded corrective action authorities to the RCRA statute.
Hazardous Substance: Section 101(14) of CERCLA, as amended, defines "hazardous substance"
chiefly by reference to other environmental statutes, such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Air Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act. The term excludes
petroleum, crude oil or any fraction thereof, natural gas, natural gas liquids, or synthetic gas usable
G-4
-------
for fuel. Under the Act, OERR also may include other substances that it specifically designates as
•hazardous."
IAG (Interagency Agreement): A comprehensive document that addresses all hazardous waste
activities that will be conducted at a Federal facility or with another Federal Agency (e.g., Corps of
Engineers), from the RI/FS through the implementation of the remedial action. An IAG formalizes the
procedure and timing for submittal and review of documents and establishes a mechanism to resolve
disputes.
IG (Office of the Inspector General): Responsible for overseeing the implementation by EPA of Federal
environmental legislation; conducting internal management audits, financial management and indirect
costs audits, and operation and maintenance audits of EPA programs and operations; overseeing the
accounting systems and procedures of EPA contractors and subcontractors; and conducting criminal
investigations of EPA personnel, contractors, and subcontractors.
LDRs (Land Disposal Restrictions): A RCRA program that restricts the land disposal of RCRA
hazardous wastes and requires treatment to promulgated treatment standards. The LDRs may be an
important ARAR for Superfund actions.
LIRA (Long Term Response Actions): Actions such as ground-water pump and treat operations that
require extensive timeframes to achieve remedial cleanup objectives.
MCLs (Maximum Contaminant Levels): Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the maximum permissible
level of a contaminant in water that is delivered to any user of a public water system that serves 15
or more connections and 25 or more people. The standards set as MCLs take into account the •
feasibility and cost of attaining the standard.
MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goals): A non-enforceable goal established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act for drinking water that considers only health-based factors.
MOU (Memorandum of Understanding): A statement agreed to by two or more parties that recognizes
the interrelationship of their functions and specifies appropriate interactions between or among the
parties.
NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards): Standards established under the Clean Air Act that
regulate the ambient air quality for six priority pollutants. These may be potential ARARs for
Superfund sites.
NCR (National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan): The Federal regulation (40
CFR 300) that guides the Superfund program. The revised NCP was newly signed on February 2,
1990.
NESHAPS (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants): Standards set under the
Clean Air Act that regulate the release of hazardous substances from specific sources. These
standards may be ARARs for Superfund actions.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): A Federal administration that may provide
assistance on coastal zone or atmospheric issues.
NPL (National Priorities List): EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial response using money from the Trust Fund.
G-5
-------
The list fs based primarily on the score a site receives on the Hazard Ranking System (MRS). EPA is
required to update the NPL at least once a year.
NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking): A document published in the Federal Register that sets
forth proposed regulatory language, provides notice of issues to be commented on, and presents
other supplementary and background information about the rulemaking.
NRG (National Response Center): The center operated by the U.S. Coast Guard that receives and
evaluates reports of oil and hazardous substance releases into the environment and notifies the
appropriate agency(s). The NRC can be contacted 24-hours a day, toll-free at (800) 424-8802..
NRT (National Response Team): Representatives of 12 Federal agencies that coordinate Federal
responses to nationally significant pollution incidents and provide advice and technical assistance to
the responding agency(s).
NSF (National Strike Force): Consists of the Strike Teams established by the U.S. Coast Guard on
the Pacific and Gulf Coasts. These teams can provide a variety of response support services
including communications, technical advice and assistance, specialized equipment, training, and
contingency planning.
OECM (Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring): Coordinates civil and criminal
enforcement actions with the U.S. Department of Justice and provides Superfund enforcement support
through the activities of the National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC). The. NEIC performs
special environmental monitoring work, evidence audit control processes to ensure proper chain-of-
custody procedures, cleanup of Federal facility sites, and nonbinding preliminary allocations of
responsibility (NBARs).
OERR (Office of Emergency and Remedial Response): Under the supervision of a Director, is
responsible to the Assistant Administrator for the emergency and remedial response functions of the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). The Director is responsible for developing
national strategy, programs, technical policies, regulations, and guidelines for the control of
abandoned hazardous waste sites and response to and prevention of oil and hazardous substance
spills. ,, '
OHMTADS (Oil arid Hazardous Material Technical Assistance Data System): An automated ,
Informational repository data base containing 126 fields of information on physical, chemical,
biological, toxicological, and commercial data on approximately 1,400 oil and hazardous materials that
are potentially harmful to human health and welfare and/or the environment.
O&M (Operation and Maintenance): Activities conducted at a site, generally by States, after a
response action occurs to ensure that the cleanup or containment system is .functioning properly.
OPM (Office of Program Management): Under the supervision of a Director, who reports to the
Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), OPM is made up of three
subordinate units: Policy and Analysis Staff, Management and Evaluation Staff, and Resources
Management Staff.
OSC (On-Scene Coordinator): The Federal official who coordinates and directs superfund removal
actions.
G-6
-------
OSW (Office of Solid Waste): As part of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER), is responsible for managing and implementing the RCRA program.
OSWER (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response): Provides policy, guidance, and direction
for EPA's hazardous waste and emergency response programs. The functions of these programs
include the development and enforcement of policies, standards, and regulations for solid and
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal; national management of Superfund; and the
development of guidelines for the Emergency Preparedness, 'Community Right-to-Know,' and
Underground Storage Tank programs.
OU (Operable Unit): An action taken as one part of an overall site cleanup. For example, a carbon
adsorption system could be installed to haft rapidly spreading groundwater contaminants while a
more comprehensive and long-term remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to investigate soil
contamination is underway. A number of operable units can be used in the course of a site cleanup.
OWPE (Office of Waste Programs Enforcement): As part of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), provides enforcement policy and support for the Superfund and RCRA
programs.
PA (Preliminary Assessment): The process of collecting and reviewing available information about a
known or suspected hazardous waste site or release. EPA or States use this information to
determine if the site requires further study. If further study is needed, a Site Inspection (SI) is
undertaken.
PIAT (Public Information Assist Team): A U.S. Coast Guard organization available through the NRC to
assist OSCs and Regional offices in meeting demands for public information and participation.
PRP (Potentially Responsible Party): Any individual or company (such as an owner, operator,
transporter, or generator) potentially responsible for, or contributing to, the contamination problems at
a Superfund site. Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPs, through administrative and legal actions,
to clean up sites contaminated by hazardous substances.
QA/QC (Quality Assurance/Quality Control): A system of procedures, checks, audits, and corrective
actions used to ensure that field work and laboratory analysis during the investigation and cleanup of
Superfund sites meet established standards.
RA (Remedial Action): The actual construction or implementation phase that follows the remedial
design of the selected cleanup alternative at a site on the National Priorities List (NPL).
RAC (Response Action Contractor): Any person who agrees, by contract, to provide a removal or
remedial action at a facility listed on the NPL, or to provide evaluation, planning, engineering,
'surveying and mapping, design, construction, equipment, or any ancillary services related to a
removal or remedial action.
RAS (Routine Analytical Services): RAS are routine laboratory analyses of samples by contract labs
as part of the Contract Lab Program (CLP). RAS activities are managed by the Analytical Operations
Branch of the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (HSED), Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR).
RC (Remedial Construction): The actual construction that occurs during the remedial action (RA)
phase at a site on the National Priorities List (NPL).
G-7
-------
RCMS (Removal Cost Management System): Ah automated system used to track removal costs and
produce management reports on site costs and utilization of personnel, equipment, and materials.
RCMS can also be used to project the cost of a removal action and to assist the OSC in rapidly
reviewing contractor invoices.
RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976): A Federal law that established a structure
to track and regulate hazardous wastes from the time of generation to disposal. The law requires
safe and secure procedures to be used in treating, transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The law also
regulates the disposal of solid waste that may not be considered hazardous.
RD (Remedial Design): An engineering phase that follows the Record of Decision (ROD) when
technical drawings and specifications are developed for the subsequent remedial action (RA) at a site
on the National Priorities List (NPL).
REM (Remedial Planning): A type of contract that is awarded on an east-west zone basis and used
to promote the continuity of contractor performance from RI/FS to construction management (or
remedial action), increase the level of competition for contract awards, and facilitate the delegation of
contract management to the Regions. The ARCS contracts will replace the REM contracts.
RFA (RCRA Facility Assessment): The first step in the RCRA corrective action process, generally
equivalent to a PA/SI taken in Superfund.
RFI (RCRA Facility Investigation): The second step of a RCRA corrective action, generally equivalent
to the Rl portion of the Superfund process.
Rl (Remedial Investigation): A process undertaken by the lead agency to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the release. The remedial investigation emphasizes data
collection and site characterization, and is generally performed concurrently and in an interactive
fashion with the feasibility study (FS). The remedial investigation includes sampling and monitoring,
as necessary, and includes the gathering of sufficient informafon to determine the necessity for
remedial action (RA) and to support the evaluation of remedial alternatives.
RI/FS (Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study): Two distinct but related studies. They are usually
performed at the same time, and together referred to as the -RI/FS.' They are intended to (1) Gather
the data necessary to determine the type and extent of contamination at a Superfund site; (2)
Establish criteria for cleaning up the site; (3) Identify and screen cleanup alternatives for remedial
actfon; and (4) Analyze in detail the technology and costs of the alternatives.
ROD (Record of Decision): A legal document that explains which cleanup altemative(s) will be used
to cleanup Superfund remedial sites. The Record of Decision is based on information and technical
analysis generated during the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
RP (Responsible Party): A party that admits to or that EPA or the DOJ prove was responsible for
contamination at a Superfund site.
RPM (Remedial Project Manager): The official designated by the lead agency to coordinate, monitor,
or direct remedial or other response activities.
G-8
-------
RQs (Reportable Quantities): Established under CERCLA section 102 as triggers for notification of the
Federal government when hazardous substances are released. The release of a hazardous
substance that equals or exceeds its RQ must be reported immediately to the National Response
Center (NRC).
RRC (Regional Response Center): Provides facilities and personnel for communications, information
storage, and other requirements for coordinating response.
RRT (Regional Response Team): Representatives of Federal, State, and local agencies who may
assist in coordination of activities at the request of the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) or Remedial
Project Manager (RPM) before and during response actions.
RS (Responsiveness Summary): A summary of oral and/or written public comments received by EPA
during a comment period on key EPA documents, and EPA's responses to those comments. The
responsiveness summary is especially valuable during the Record of Decision (ROD) phase at a site
on the National Priorities List (NPL) when it highlights community concerns for EPA decision makers.
RTS (Removal Tracking System): Provides a comprehensive removal data base that includes start
date, location, lead agency, and NPL status.
Remedial Response: A long-term action that stops or substantially reduces a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances that is serious, and poses an immediate or future threat to public
health and/or the environment.
Removal Action: An immediate action taken over the short-term to address a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances.
Response Action: A CERCLA-authorized action at a Superfund site involving either a short-term
removal action or a long-term remedial response that may include, but is not limited to, the following
activities: (1) Removing hazardous materials from a site to an EPA approved, licensed hazardous
waste facility for treatment, containment, or destruction; (2) Containing the waste safely on-site to
eliminate further problems; (3) Destroying or treating the waste on-site using incineration or other
technologies; and (4) Identifying and removing the source of groundwater contamination and halting
further movement of the contaminants.
Risk Assessment: An evaluation performed as part of the remedial investigation to assess conditions
at a Superfund site and determine the baseline risks posed to public health and/or the environment.
SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act): Modifications to CERCLA enacted on
October 17, 1986.
SAS (Special Analytical Services): Provide special laboratory analyses of samples as part of the
Contract Lab Program (CLP). SAS activities are managed by the Analytical Operations Branch of the
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (HSED), Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR),
which surveys labs, evaluates bids, and selects labs.
SCAP (Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan): The planning mechanism that provides
data on all response activities and drives the allocation of resources for remedial activities. With the
incorporation of SCAP into the CERCUS management system, the Regions become responsible for
the planning and reporting that determine the adequacy of budgetary allotments and how Regional
accomplishments are reported.
G-9
-------
SERA (Superfund Emergency Response Actions): A three-volume compilation of Fund-financed
removal descriptions that ERD updates annually. Each description provides basic facts about the
sfte, the nature of the problem, and mitigative actions taken.
SI (Site Inspection): A technical phase that follows a Preliminary Assessment (PA), designed to collect
more extensive information on a hazardous waste site. The information is used to score the site with
the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to determine whether response action is needed.
SITE (Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation): A program intended to accelerate the
development, demonstration, and use of new or innovative treatment technologies and to demonstrate
and evaluate new, innovative measurement and monitoring technologies.
SMCRA (Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act): An act that controls and regulates the
reclamation of coal and other ore mining areas.
SMOA (Superfund Memorandum of Agreement): A voluntary, non-binding agreement executed by an
EPA Regional Administrator and the head of a State agency establishing the nature and extent of
EPA and State interaction during the pre-remedial, remedial, and enforcement response process.
SNIP (Site Management Plan): A site-specific schedule or action plan, usually prepared by the
Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
SOW (Statement of Work): A document that specifies the scope of work and procedures that will be
used to undertake a discrete step of a Superfund investigation or action.
SPCC (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure): A program that establishes procedures to
prevent discharges of oil from non-transportation-related facilities into or upon the waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines.
SPMS (Strategic Planning and Management System): An accountability system used in conjunction
with SCAP to identify projects that could slip or issues that could affect project schedules, such as
State cost assurances, site access, disposal capacity, or property acquisition.
SSC (Scientific Support Coordinator): Available at the request of the OSC to assist with responses to
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The SSC also provides scientific
support for the development of Regional and local contingency plans,
SSC (Superfund State Contract): A contract signed between EPA and the State that provides a legal
obligation for the State to meet the assurances that are specified in Section 104 of CERCLA.
Superfund: The common name used for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), also referred to as the Trust Fund.
TAGs (Technical Assistance Grants): Designed to provide funds to communities for the purpose of
hiring advisors to interpret technical information related to cleanup of Superfund sites listed on the
NPL
TAT OechnteaJ Assistance Team): Serves as an adjunct to ERGS, providing initial site response
support, determinations of the size and nature of the site, and support for OSCs during actual
cleanup.
G-10
-------
TBC (To-Be-Considered): Guidance, advisories, or criteria that are not promulgated (and therefore
cannot be considered ARARs), but that may be used to establish protective Superfund remedies.
TES (Technical Enforcement Services): Contracts that provide EPA Headquarters or Regions with
assistance during enforcement-related activities, such as PRP searches or oversight of PRP-conducted
investigations or actions.
TPQ (Threshold Planning Quantity): The amount of an Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS) which,
if present at a facility, subjects that facility to the emergency planning requirements of SARA sections
302 and 303.
TSDF (Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility): A facility regulated under RCRA that manages in
one of the ways mentioned RCRA hazardous wastes.
USCG (U.S. Coast Guard): An agency in the U.S. Department of Transportation that is the
predesigned OSC in the Coastal Zone and has the authority under CERCLA to respond to any
release or threatened release of hazardous substances involving the Coastal Zone, Great Lakes
waters, ports, and harbors. The USCG shares with EPA responsibility for the emergency response
activities under the NCP.
WQC (Water Quality Criteria): A non-enforceable standard that EPA promulgates under the Clean
Water Act and is used as a basis for States to set enforceable water quality standards for surface
water bodies. «
G-11
-------
-------
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION INVOLVEMENT IN SUPERFUND
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication No.
9375.5-03/FS
ApriM990
Political Subdivision
Involvement in Superfund
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division (OS-220)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Political
Subdivisions
May Include:
• Counties
• Towns
• Water Districts
• Parishes
INTRODUCTION
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CER-
CLA), as amended, allows EPA to provide funds to States, political subdivisions thereof,
and federally recognized Indian Tribes for S uperfund response. The definition of political
subdivision varies from State to State, so each State determines what units of government
meet its legislative definition. A political subdivision can participate in Superfund cleanup
as a lead of support agency when EPA and the State agree that this enhances the cleanup
process and results in an efficient, economical, and well-coordinated use of resources.
A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION CAN LEAD A SUPERFUND RESPONSE
A political subdivision can participate in Superfund as the lead agency, the primary party
planning and implementing the response action, or as a support agency, furnishing data,
reviewing documents, and assisting the lead agency as requested. EPA, the State, and the
political subdivision work together to gauge when a political subdivision is best suited to
lead Superfund cleanups. To determine this, EPA and the State assess the political
subdivision's involvement and agree that
• It is economical and advantageous to designate the political subdivision as
lead
• The political subdivision has the authority to enter into a Cooperative
Agreement with the Federal Government and to administer Federal dollars
• The political subdivision is able to conduct the response activities.
To receive CERCLA funds directly from EPA in a Cooperative Agreement, a political
subdivision acting as lead agency must meet Federal regulatory requirements and be
accountable for the S uperfund cleanup. A political subdivision can also receive CERCLA
funds through the State to perform cleanup activities under the State's Cooperative Agree-
ment with EPA. In this case, the State remains accountable to EPA under 40 CFR Part 35
Subpart O for the successful completion of the task.
When the political subdivision receives funds as the lead agency, EPA and the State are
required by law to fulfill certain roles. Toclearly define the role of each party, EPA requires
a 3-party Superfund State Contract.
Role of Political
Subdivision
Prl rtecf on Recycled Paper
-------
HOW DOES THE 3-PARTY PARTNERSHIP WORK?
Political
Subdivision-Lead
EPA
State
Even when apolitical subdivision is authorized to undertake the lead, S tate involvement must be ensured
in a Superfund State Contract. Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(f), States must be involved in the
decision-making process, and must have an opportunity to:
• Review political subdivision planning documentation
• Consult on the remedy
• Respond to decisions made by the political subdivision.
In addition, CERCLA Section 104 requires that, once a remedy is selected, States must provide certain
assurances prior to Fund-financed remedial actions at a site. A three-party Superfund State Contract
entered into by EPA, the State, and the political subdivision is the mechanism that provides for these
assurances when a political subdivision takes the lead for Superfund activities. CERCLA requires EPA
to accept these written assurances only from the State, not from a political subdivision or any other
entity, even if the political subdivision will implement them. The State must guarantee EPA that it will
share in the cost of cleanup, and provide for O&M after the remedy is in place. If necessary, the State
must accept title to interest in real property acquired to do the response activities, and ensure the
availability of a facility(ies) for disposal of hazardous materials removed from a site during cleanup.
Finally, before entering into a Superfund State Contract, EPA must find that the State has adequate
disposal capacity for all hazardous waste (not just Superfund hazardous waste) to be generated within
its borders for 20 years.
WHAT IS THE LOCAL REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM?
In addition to funding through Superfund Cooperative Agreements, local governments may also receive
reimbursement from EPA for expenses incurred (up to $25,000) in carrying out temporary emergency
measures in response to hazardous substance threats, pursuant to CERCLA Section 123. Temporary
measures may include such activities as erecting security fences to limit access to a site, and responding
to fires and explosions. To be eligible for reimbursement under this program, these measures must be
necessary to prevent or mitigate injury to human health or the environment EPA allocates funds available
under the local reimbursement program to applicants who demonstrate the greatest financial burden.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Opportunities and requirements for political subdivision involvement in the Superfund program are
described in detail in EPA regulations and directives. These include:
• Subpart F of the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, which outlines the requirements for State,
local, and Indian Tribal involvement as lead or support agency in all phases of Super-
fund response
• 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O, which describes the administrative procedures for entering
into Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund response
• 40 CFR Part 310, which describes the procedures for reimbursement to local govern-
ments that respond to hazardous substance releases in emergencies
• OSWER directives in the 9375.5 series which pertain to State, political subdivision,
and Indian Tribal involvement in the Superfund program.
For additional information on political subdivision involvement in the Superfund program, contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 202-382-3000 or 1-800-424-9346. For a complete list of directives and
publications, contact the Superfund Docket and Information Center (SDIC) at 202-382-6940.
-------
SECTION II
INTERIM CERCLA MUNICIPAL SETTLEMENT POLICY
-------
-------
INTERIM CERCLA MUNICIPAL SETTLEMENT
POLICY — Environmental Fact Sheet
-------
-------
INTERIM CERCLA
MUNICIPAL SETTLEMENT
POLICY FACT SHEET
DECEMBER 1989
OFFICE OF WASTE PROGRAMS ENFORCEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
IV. NOTIFICATION
This fact sheet summarizes certain key provisions of
the "Interim Policy on CERCLA Settlements Involving
Municipalities or Municipal Wastes" (OSWER Directive
#9834.13); it does not cover all aspects of the interim
policy nor provide definitions of key terms. The Municipal
Settlement Policy has been developed to provide the Regions
with national guidance on how to involve municipalities and
municipal wastes (i.e., municipal solid waste (HSU) or
sewage sludge) in the Superfund settlement process. It also
addresses how the treatment of municipalities and municipal
wastes affects the treatment of private parties and certain
kinds of commercial, institutional, or industrial wastes.
II. CERCLA LIABILITY
CERCLA does not provide an exemption from liability for
municipalities nor for municipal wastes. Municipalities may
be potentially responsible parties (PRPs) like private
parties if they fall within the categories of liability
specified under Section 107(a) of CERCLA (e.g., if they are
owners/operators of facilities, or generators/transporters
of hazardous substances). Municipal wastes may be
considered hazardous substances if they are covered under
the definition of hazardous substances in Section 101(14) of
CERCLA and if they are the subject of a release or
threatened release. The interim policy does not provide an
exemption from legal liability for any party or any
substance; potential liability continues to apply in all
situations covered under Section 107 of CERCLA.
III. INFORMATION
GATHERING
All owners/operators and generators/transporters should
generally be included in the information gathering process
(e.g., they should all generally receive Section 104(e)
information request letters). This includes municipal
owners/operators of facilities as well as municipal and
private party generators/transporters of municipal wastes.
Owners/operators; Both municipal and private party
past and present owners/operators should generally receive
notice letters.
Generators/transporters of municipal solid waste;
Municipal and private party generators/transporters of MSU
will not generally be notified as PRPs unless:
o the Region obtains site-specific information that
the MSU contains a hazardous substance; AND
o the Region has reason to believe that the
hazardous substance is derived from a commercial,
institutional, or industrial process or activity.
Notwithstanding this general policy, EPA may consider
notifying generators/transporters for MSW containing a
hazardous substance derived only from households in truly
exceptional situations where the total contribution of
commercial, institutional, and industrial hazardous waste by
private parties is insignificant when compared to the MSW.
Generators/transporters of sewage sludge: Municipal
and private party generators/transporters of sewage sludge
will not generally be notified as PRPs unless:
o the Region obtains site-specific information that
the sewage sludge contains a hazardous substance;
AND
o the Region has reason to believe that the
hazardous substance is derived from a commercial,
institutional, or industrial process or activity.
Generators/transporters of trash from a commercial.
institutional, or industrial entity; Parties who are
generators/transporters of trash from a commercial,
institutional, or industrial entity will not generally be
notified as PRPs if such parties demonstrate to the Region
that:
o none of the hazardous substances contained in the
trash are derived from a commercial,
institutional, or industrial process or activity;
AND
-------
o the amount and toxicity of the hazardous
substances contained in the trash do not
exceed those which one would expect to find
in comnon household trash.
fieoejators/transporters °* »w other hazardous
subtttnce. including low-hazardous industrial wastes:
Municipalities and private parties who are generators/
transporters of any hazardous substance or any substance
that contains a hazardous substance (except those discussed
above) will generally be notified as PRPs. This includes
loM'hazardous industrial wastes like certain paint sludges
and industrial wastewaters.
V. SETTLEMENTS
The overall process and goals for reaching settlements
at sites involving municipalities or municipal wastes is the
ssoe as for other Super fund sites (e.g., to reach one
settlement agreement), although separate settlements like de
settlements may be used where appropriate.
Nonetheless, there are some settlement provisions that
may be particularly suitable for municipal PRPs (e.g.,
delayed payments, delayed payment schedules, and in-kind
contributions). These settlement provisions are not
routinely available to municipal PRPs, but may be considered
where a municipality has successfully demonstrated to EPA
that they are appropriate. These settlement provisions may
be separate settlements or may be folded into a larger
settlement that includes private parties. Although these
settlement provisions may be particularly appropriate for
municipalities, they may be available to private parties,
such as certain small businesses, where appropriate.
-------
TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM OF INTERIM POLICY
ON CERCLA SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING
MUNICIPALITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTES
& ATTACHMENTS:
a) INTERIM CERCLA MUNICIPAL SETTLEMENT POLICY FACT SHEET
b) INTERIM POLICY ON CERCLA SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING
MUNICIPALITIES OR MUNICIPAL WASTES
-------
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
December i.989
Solid Waste And Emergency Response (OS-510) 9834.13FS
Environmental Fact Sheet
Interim CERCLA
Municipal Settlement Policy
OverView The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has developed an interim policy on
how municipalities and municipal waste
will be included in the Superfund settle-
ment process under Section 122 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA or Superfund) as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauth-
orization Act of 1986 (SARA). This in-
terim policy focuses on situations where
EPA is seeking voluntary settlement of
cleanup at Superfund sites that involve
municipalities or municipal wastes. It also
addresses EPA's treatment of private par-
ties and certain kinds of commercial,
institutional, or industrial wastes. Its pub-
lication follows nearly two years of dis-
cussions with state and local governments
and organizations, industry and
Content The interim policy generally provides that
wastes from households will not be
included by EPA in the Superfund settle-
ment process, and that, when municipali-
ties are potentially liable for cleanup,
they will be treated in the same manner
as private parties.
EPA generally will continue to pur-
sue both municipal and private-party
owners or operators of facilities that have
become Superfund sites. EPA generally
will also continue to pursue both munici-
pal and private-party generators or trans-
porters of hazardous substances.
EPA generally will not pursue muni-
cipalities and private parties who are gen-
erators or transporters of municipal solid
waste or sewage sludge to help pay for
Superfund cleanup costs when the waste
is believed to be derived from house-
holds, except in some truly exceptional
situations. EPA may pursue such parties,
however, if either waste contains a
environmental groups, as well as Congres-
sional staff. EPA has listened to all points
of view in developing the new approach,
which it believes is both fair and man-
ageable.
EPA is publishing the interim policy
at this time to inform the public about
the proposed new nationwide approach
and to solicit public comment. The pol-
icy provides EPA's Regional offices for
the first time with nationally consistent
guidelines for exercising their enforce-
ment discretion in dealing with munici-
palities and municipal wastes in the
Superfund settlement process. It also
provides municipalities and private par-
ties who may be potentially liable for the
cost of Superfund cleanups with a sense
about how EPA will treat them in the
settlement process.
hazardous substance from a commercial,
institutional, or industrial process or
activity. EPA generally will not pursue
generators or transporters of trash from a
commercial, institutional, or industrial
entity when the content of the waste is
believed to be very similar to that derived
from households. EPA generally will
pursue generators or transporters of low-
hazardous industrial wastes such as
certain paint sludges and industrial waste-
waters because such wastes are derived
from a commercial, institutional, or
industrial process or activity.
When municipalities are considered
to be potentially liable for cleanup costs,
they will be treated essentially the same
as private parties in the Superfund settle-
ment process although delayed payments,
delayed payment schedules, and in-kind
contributions may be available to some
municipalities under certain circum-
stances.
-------
Significance
Public
Involvement
Comments
Sought
Who To Contact
Involving municipalities and municipal
wastes in the settlement process is an
issue because questions have been raised
about how such parties and wastes should
be treated in the settlement process.
Until the development of this interim
policy, EPA had not addressed these
questions from a national perspective.
This issue is important because about
25 percent of the sites proposed for or
actually included on EPA's National Pri-
.orities List (NPL) for Superfund cleanup
are sites that involve municipalities or
municipal wastes. Of those, about one in
five sites is a municipal landfill. EPA
expects the number of NPL sites involv-
ing municipalities or municipal waste to
increase in the future. This issue is par-
ticularly complex because sites that typ-
ically involve municipalities or municipal
waste are often municipal landfills that
include multiple responsible parties
In March 1988, EPA sponsored a Munici-
pal Settlement Conference that was
attended by over 100 representatives of
state and local governments and organiza-
tions; industry, environmental, and other
groups; as well as Congressional staff. To
continue this dialogue with interested
parties, EPA established the Municipal
Settlement Discussion Group which met
in June, August, and October 1988.
These forums have been open to the pub-
lic and have been organized primarily as
information exchange mechanisms; EPA
has used these forums to inform inter-
ested parties about the issues EPA is
addressing as part of the interim policy as
well as to stimulate public debate on these
issues.
The interim policy is expected to be pub-
lished in the Federal Register for public
comment on December 12, 1989. The
public will be provided with 60 days
from the date of publication to review
and comment on the interim policy. EPA
For further information on this interim
policy, please contact Kathleen
MacKinnon in the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement at 202-475-6771.
(sometimes hundreds of parties), mul-
tiple sources of wastes (often municipal
and industrial wastes), as well as diverse
waste streams (in terms of amount and
toxicity).
The important questions addressed in
the interim policy are who should he
included in the information gathering
process, who should be considered poten-
tially responsible for cleanup costs by
EPA, how municipalities should be treat-
ed in the settlement process once they arc
considered potentially liable by F.PA, and
how the treatment of municipalities and
municipal wastes affect EPA's treatment
of private parties and certain kinds of
commercial, institutional, or industrial
wastes. Private parties and certain kinds
of commercial, institutional, or industrial
wastes are an issue for this interim policy
because private parties sometimes handle
municipal waste or generate waste streams
that may be considered to be similar to
municipal wastes, and because municipal
and industrial wastes are often co-
disposed at individual sites.
Forum Participants have included: the National
League of Cities; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; the
National Association of Towns and Township Officials;
National Association of Counties; the International City
Managers Association; the Government Refuse
Collection and Disposal Association; the National
Governors' Association: the National Association of
Attorneys General: the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials; the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; the National Solid Waste
Management Association; the National Association of
Manufacturers; the Chemical Manufacturers Association;
the American Petroleum Institute; Waste Management,
Inc.; Browning-Ferris, Inc.; the Natural Resources
Defense Council; the Conservation Foundation: and
Congressional staff. Other representatives from private
companies, individual state and local governments, and
law firms representing municipal and private party
clients have either attended and participated in these
forums or have been kept informed through EPA's
minutes of these meetings.
may change the interim policy at a later
date or address additional issues in re-
sponse to public comment or as EPA
gains experience in implementing it over
the next several months.
-------
1
y""""^
/JfiL*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460-
DEC -6
OSWER Directive # 9834.13
E OF
MEMORANDUM SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Transmittal of "Interim Policy on CERCLA Settlements
Involving Municipalities and Municipal Wastes"
(referred to as the "Municipal Settlement Policy")
FROM: Don R. Clay _
Assistant Administ
TO: Regional Administrators
Attached is a package containing the interim "Municipal
Settlement Policy" and other related documents as follows:
o The "Interim CERCLA Municipal Settlement Policy Fact
Sheet" which summarizes certain key provisions of the
interim policy.
o The "Interim Policy on CSRCLA Settlements Involving
Municipalities or Municipal Wastes" which provides
guidance to the Regions on how to involve
municipalities and wastes in the Superfund settlement
process and other related issues.
o The "Federal Register Notice" which explains to the
.public the process the Agency used for developing this
interim policy, the Agency's rationale for this interim
decision, and how they may provide the Agency with
formal comment.
Attachments
cc:
Directors, Waste Management Divisions, Regions I, IV, V, VII, and
VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region III ~
Directors, Air and Waste Management Division, Regions II and VI
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division, Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X
CERCLA Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
CERCLA Section Chiefs, Regions I - X
Regional Counsels, Regions I - X
Regional Counsel Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
f
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OSWER DIRECTIVE
#9834.13
DEC -6
OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Interim Policy on CERCLA Settlements Involving
Municipalities or Municipal Wastes
FROM: Don R. Clai ^ .
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I - X
I. INTRODUCTION
A) Focus of Interim Policy
This memorandum establishes EPA's interim policy on
settlements involving municipalities or municipal wastes under
Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA). In particular, this interim policy indicates how
EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion when pursuing
settlements which involve municipalities or municipal wastes.1
The municipal wastes addressed by this interim policy are
municipal solid waste (MSW) and sewage sludge as defined below.
This interim policy has been developed to provide a consistent
Agency-wide approach for addressing municipalities and municipal
wastes in the Superfund settlement process.
This interim policy does not provide an exemption from
potential CERCLA liability for any party; potential liability
continues to apply in all situations covered under Section 107 of
CERCLA.
Prinltd on Rtcycltd Paper
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
Although this interim policy focuses on municipalities and
municipal wastes, it addresses how private parties and certain
kinds of commercial, institutional, or industrial wastes will be
handled in the settlement process as well. It is important to
address private parties and certain kinds of commercial,
institutional, or industrial wastes in this interim policy
because private parties sometimes handle municipal wastes or
wastes of a similar nature and because municipal and private
party waste streams are sometimes co-disposed at sites,
particularly municipal landfills. The kinds of commercial,
institutional, or industrial wastes covered by this interim
policy include "trash from a commercial, institutional, or
industrial entity" and "low-hazardous industrial wastes" as
defined below.
There are three fundamental issues addressed by this interim
policy. First is whether to notify generators/transporters of
MSW or sewage sludge that they are considered to be potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) and to include them in the Superfund
settlement process. Such parties are usually municipalities,
although they may include private parties as well. Second is how
municipalities should-be handled in the Superfund settlement
process when the decision is made to notify them that they are
PRPs under Section 107(a) of CERCLA. Third is how the treatment
of municipalities and municipal wastes under this interim policy
affects the treatment of private parties and certain kinds of
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
commercial, institutional, or industrial wastes in the Superfund"
settlement process.
Key questions specifically addressed as part of this interim
policy include the following:
o Information Gathering; Should municipalities be
included in the Agency's information gathering process?
Should generators/transporters of MSW or sewage sludge
be included in the information gathering process?
o Notification! Should municipalities be notified that
they are PRPs? Should generators/transporters of MSW
or sewage sludge be notified as PRPs?
o Settlements; How should municipalities be handled in
the Superfund settlement process? What settlement
process and settlement tools should be used to
facilitate settlement involving municipalities or
municipal wastes?
o " Private Parties; How does the treatment of
municipalities and municipal wastes affect the Agency's
treatment of private parties and certain kinds of
commercial, institutional, or industrial wastes?
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
B) Kev Terms Used in Interim Policy2
The following defines the key terms used in this interim
policy:
o The term "municipalities" refers to any political
subdivision of a State and may include cities,
counties, towns, townships, and other local
governmental entities.
o The term "municipal solid waste" refers to solid waste
generated primarily by households, but may include some
contribution of wastes from commercial, institutional
and industrial sources as well. As defined under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), MSW
contains only those wastes which are not required to be
managed as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA
(e.g., non-hazardous substances, household hazardous
wastes (HHW), or small quantity generator (SQG)
wastes). Although the actual composition of such
wastes varies considerably at individual sites, MSW is
generally composed of large volumes of non-hazardous
substances (e.g., yard waste, food waste, glass, and
2 The definitions provided under this section are for the
purpose of this interim policy only. Where possible, this
interim policy includes already existing definitions used under
other Federal environmental programs (e.g., under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act or the Clean Water Act). However,
nothing in this interim policy affects the regulatory efforts of
these other programs.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
aluminum) and may contain small quantities of household
hazardous wastes (e.g., pesticides and solvents) as
well as small quantity generator wastes.3 Many
industrial solid wastes and some commercial and
institutional solid wastes are managed separately from
household wastes, but may enter the MSW waste stream.
The term "municipal landfill" refers to any landfill,
whether publicly or privately owned, that has received
municipal solid waste for disposal.
The term "sewage sludge" refers to any solid, semi-
solid, or liquid residue removed during the treatment
of municipal waste water or domestic sewage.4 .
The term "trash from a commercial, institutional, or
industrial entity" refers to waste which is very
All household wastes, including household hazardous
wastes, are unconditionally exempt from the Federal hazardous
waste regulations promulgated under Subtitle C of RCRA (See 40
CFR Section 261.4. (b)(l)). With regard to non-household sources
of solid waste, if such waste is not a listed or characteristic
hazardous waste accumulated in quantities exceeding the small
quantity generator limitations (i.e., less than 100 kg/month of
hazardous wastes and less than 1 kg/month for acute hazardous
wastes), such waste is not required to be managed in a RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facility (See 40 CFR Section 261.5). "Household hazardous
wastes" refers to those wastes which are generated by households
and would be managed as hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C if
they were generated by a non-household in quantities exceeding
the small quantity generator limitations.
4 The definition of sewage sludge is contained in the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Sewage Sludge
Permit Regulations published in the Federal Register as a final
rule May 2, 1989 (See 40 CFR Part 122.2).
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
similar to the MSW that is derived from households.
This term covers only those wastes that are essentially
the same as what one would expect to find in common
household trash. This term does not include hazardous
substances that are derived from a commercial,
institutional, .or industrial process or activity.
o The term "low-hazardous industrial wastes" refers to
high volume wastes that contain small quantities of
hazardous substances derived from an industrial,
commercial, or institutional process or activity.
Examples may include certain paint sludges or
industrial wastewaters. . •
II. CERCLA LIABILITY
Important questions have been raised about whether
municipalities may be PRPs and whether municipal wastes (i.e.,
MSW and sewage sludge) may be considered hazardous substances
under CERCLA.
A) Municipalities as PRPs
The statute does not provide an exemption from liability for
municipalities. Municipalities may be PRPs like private parties
if municipalities fall within the categories of liability
specified under Section 107(a) of CERCLA. In general, Section
107(a) establishes liability for past and present owners or
operators of facilities as well as generators or transporters of
hazardous substances for the release or threatened release of
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
hazardous substances. Such parties may be liable for the costs
of responding to a release or threatened release of hazardous
substances as well as for resulting damages to natural resources.
The specific categories of liable parties under Section 107(a)
are:
1. the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility,
2. any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous
substance owned or operated any facility at which such
hazardous substances were disposed of,
3. any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise
arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a
transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of
hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person,
by any other party or entity, at any facility or
incineration vessel owned or operated by another party
or entity and containing such hazardous substances,
[commonly referred to as "generators"5], and
4. any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous
substances for transport to disposal or treatment
Persons who fall into this category are commonly referred
to as "generators," although liability under this Section extends
beyond "true generators" of hazardous substances to include
persons who arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous
substances owned or possessed by such party or another party.
The term "generator" is used throughout this document to refer to
any party who is potentially liable under Section 107(a)(3).
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
facilities, incineration vessels, or sites selected by
such person [commonly referred to as "transporters"].
Section 107(a) describes liable parties as "persons" and the
definition of "person" under Section 101(21) includes municipal-
ities and political subdivisions of a State. Municipalities may,
therefore, be PRPs as part of CERCLA's broad definition of who is
potentially liable.
B) Municipal Wastes as Potential CERCIA Hazardous
Substances
Similarly, the statute does not provide an exemption from
liability for municipal wastes. Municipal wastes may be
considered hazardous substances if they are covered under the
definition of hazardous substances in Section 101(14) of CERCLA.
As indicated under the definitions of MSW and sewage sludge,
these municipal wastes are generally characterized by large
volumes of non-hazardous substances and may contain small
*
guantities of household hazardous or other wastes, although the
actual composition of the waste streams vary considerably at
individual sites. To the extent municipal wastes contain a
hazardous substance that is covered under Section 101(14) of
CERCLA and there is a release or threatened release, such
municipal wastes may fall within the CERCLA liability framework.
III. INFORMATION GATHERING
The Regions should include all municipal and private party
owners/operators and generators/transporters in the information
8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
gathering process, including the generators/transporters of
municipal wastes. This means that municipal owners/operators as
well as municipal generators/transporters should generally
receive Section 104(e) information request letters and should
otherwise be fully included in the information gathering process
like private parties. Information obtained through such letters
or through other means is important for determining (among other
things) whether it is appropriate to notify a party as a PRP,
including whether to notify a generator/transporter of MSW or
sewage sludge as discussed below.6
IV. NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL RESPONSIBILITY
A) Owners/Operators
The same approach will be used for both municipalities and
private parties when determining whether to notify them as
owners/operators. Specifically, such parties will generally be
notified where they were past owners or operators of facilities
at the time of disposal of hazardous substances, or they are
present owners or operators of facilities where hazardous
substances have been released or there is a threatened release.
The Regions may accept and consider credible site-
specific information from any party to supplement their own
information gathering efforts as appropriate.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
B) Generators/Transporters7
1. Municipal solid waste; Municipalities and private
parties will be treated the same when determining whether to
notify them as PRPs when they are generators/transporters of MSW.
Specifically, such parties will not generally be notified unless:
o • the Region obtains site-specific information that the
MSW contains a hazardous substance;8 AND
o the Region has reason to believe that the hazardous
substance is derived from a commercial, institutional,
or industrial process or activity.
This means that EPA will not generally notify municipalities or
private parties who are generators/transporters of MSW if only
household hazardous wastes (HHW) are present, unless the truly
exceptional situation discussed below exists. The general policy
7 The categories of wastes discussed below, i.e., relating
to municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, trash from a commercial,
institutional, or industrial entity, and low-hazardous industrial
wastes, are defined in the "Introduction" to this interim policy
(See I.E.).
8 The term "site-specific" information refers to
information pertaining to a particular Superfund site. "Site-
specific" information does not generally include, for example,
"general studies" conducted by EPA or other parties which draw
general conclusions about whether MSW or sewage sludge typically
contain a certain percentage of hazardous substances, unless the
"general study" includes "site-specific" information obtained
from the PRP or Superfund site in question. "General studies"
may nonetheless be used to supplement "site-specific"
information.
10
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
of not notifying parties who are generators/transporters of HHW
extends to "HHW collection day programs" as well.9
This also means that such parties may be notified as PRPs if
the MSW contains hazardous substances from non-household sources.
Non-household sources include, but are not limited to. small
quantity generator (SQG) wastes from commercial or industrial
processes or activities, or used oil or spent solvents from
private or municipally-owned maintenance shops.
Notwithstanding the above general policy, there may be
truly exceptional situations where EPA may consider notifying
generators/transporters of MSW which contains a hazardous
substance derived only from households. Such notification may be
appropriate where the total contribution of commercial,
institutional, and industrial hazardous waste by private parties
to the site is insignificant when compared to the MSW.10 In this
9 ' '
The term "HHW collection day programs" refers to programs
that have generally been sponsored by municipalities or community
organizations whereby residents voluntarily remove their HHW from
their household waste. The HHW is then typically disposed of in
a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste facility and the household
waste is typically disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D solid waste
facility.
10 The Regions should consider both the volume and the
toxicity of the commercial, institutional, and industrial
hazardous waste when determining whether it is insignificant when
compared to the MSW. In determining whether the volume is
insignificant, the Regions should consider the total volume of
such waste contributed by all private parties. In determining
whether the toxicity is insignificant, the Regions should
consider whether such waste is significantly more toxic than the
MSW and whether such waste requires a disproportionately high
treatment and disposal cost or requires a different or more
costly remedial technique than that which otherwise would be
11
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
situation, the Regions should seriously consider notifying the
generators/transporters of MSW containing a hazardous substance
from households as PRPs and include them in the settlement
process where it would promote either settlement or response
action at -the site.
2.. sewage sludae: Municipalities and private parties will
be treated the same when determining whether to notify them as
PRPs when they are generators/transporters of sewage sludge.
Specifically, such parties will not generally be notified unless:
o the Region obtains site-specific information that the
sewage sludge contains a hazardous substance; MB
o the Region has reason to believe that the hazardous
substance is derived from a commercial, institutional,
or industrial process or activity.
3. Trash from a commercial, institutionalf or industrial
entity; Parties who are generators/transporters of trash from a
commercial, institutional, or industrial entity will not
generally be notified as PRPs if such parties demonstrate to the
Region that:
o none of the hazardous substances contained in the trash
ar« derived from a commercial, institutional, or
industrial process or activity; MB.
technically adequate for the site.
12
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
o the amount and toxicity of the hazardous substances
contained in the trash does not exceed that which one
would expect to find in common household trash.
4- Anv other hazardous substance, including low-hazardous
industrial wastes; Municipalities or private parties who are
generators/transporters of "any other hazardous substance" will
generally be notified as PRPs if the Region obtains information
that the substance is hazardous or that it contains a hazardous
substance. This includes notification of private parties who are
the generators/transporters of low-hazardous industrial wastes.
"Any other hazardous substance" in this category refers to any •
hazardous substance covered under Section 101(14) of CERCLA other
than hazardous substances that may be contained in MSW, sewage
sludge, or trash from a commercial, institutional, or industrial
entity (as discussed under IV.B.l., IV.B.2., or IV.B.3. above).
The generators/transporters of hazardous substances that may be
contained as part of the waste streams discussed under IV.B.l.,
IV.B.2., or IV.B.3. should be addressed as specified above.
V. SETTLEMENTS
A) Settlement Process
Once the notification decision is made, the general goal and
overall process for reaching settlement at sites involving
municipalities or municipal wastes is the same as for other
sites. The general goal remains to negotiate with PRPs to reach
one settlement agreement that provides complete resolution of all
13
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
pending CERCLA claims, and is consistent with both applicable
statutory requirements and EPA's Interim CERCLA Settlement
Policy.11 This means that at sites where both municipal and
private PRPs exist, EPA will attempt to include both types of
parties in one settlement agreement.
Although one settlement agreement is the goal for each site,
separate settlement agreements may be used at any site to
facilitate settlement, where appropriate. This includes sites
involving municipalities or municipal wastes. Separate
settlements are not automatically available to municipalities and
are generally available to such parties under the same conditions
as for private parties. Examples of separate settlements are
*
Section 122 (g) de_mio_iBjLs settlements and cash-outs which may be
used when they are consistent with applicable statutory
requirements and existing EPA guidance. 12_
B) Settlement Provisions That May Be Particularly Suitable
Certain Municipalities
As indicated, once parties are notified as PRPs, the overall
process and goals for reaching settlement at sites involving
municipalities or municipal wastes is the same as for other
Superfund sites. Nonetheless, there are some settlement
provisions (e.g., delayed payments, delayed payment schedules,
11 "Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy", February 5, 1985,
50 FR 5034.
12 For example, see "Interim Guidance on Settlements with
De Minirois Waste Contributors," June 30, 1987, 52 FR 24333.
14
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
and in-kind contributions) that may be particularly suitable for
facilitating settlement with certain municipal PRPs because they
take into account a municipality's status as a governmental
entity.13
Such settlement provisions are not routinely available to
municipalities. As a general rule, they may be considered where
a municipality has successfully demonstrated to EPA that they are
appropriate (e.g., where valid ability to pay or procedural
constraints that affect the timing of payment exist). These
settlement provisions may be embodied in separate settlements or
they may be folded into a larger settlement that includes private
•
parties. In addition, although these settlement provisions may
*
be particularly suitable for municipalities, they may also be
available to private parties, such as certain small businesses,
where appropriate.
The following discusses how delayed payments, delayed
payment schedules, and in-kind contributions may be used:
1. Delayed payment: If a municipality has demonstrated
difficulty providing a lump-sum payment upfront for past costs or
In some circumstances a municipality's governmental
status may impose practical constraints on its ability to carry
out its legal obligation as a PRP under CERCLA. For example, a
municipality may need to hold a special vote involving its
legislative body or its citizens to gain approval to issue a bond
or arrange other financing to cover cleanup costs at a Superfund
site where it is a PRP. These settlement provisions are designed
to take into account these types of unavoidable constraints that
may exist.
IS
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
for cleanup needs, the settlement could be structured to allow
the municipality to pay at a specified future date. This would
allow the municipality time to raise the money needed to cover
its contribution. This may include an interest payment.
2. Delayed payment schedules (payments over time^; An
alternative to a delayed payment is to allow a delayed payment
schedule where the settlement is structured to allow the
municipality to pay over time based upon a predetermined schedule
of payments. The payment schedule would be adjusted in such a
way that the discounted present value of the payment would be
greater than or equal to the settlement.14
•
3. in-kind contributions; The settlement could be
%
structured to allow for an in-kind contribution, especially where
a municipality can provide only a portion of its share of costs
or is unable to provide a monetary payment. In-kind
*
contributions may be made in conjunction with or in lieu of cash.
Factors the Regions may use in considering the appropriateness of
an in-kind contribution may include the overall financial health
of the municipality, the amount of the municipality's share, the
14 Delayed payment schedules may include "structured
settlements" which are settlements paid over time generally
through an annuity. EPA is currently developing guidance, titled
"Interim Guidance on the Use of Structured Settlements Under
CERCLA," which will establish criteria for evaluating whether a
particular site is a good candidate for a structured settlement.
EPA expects to issue this interim guidance in the Spring of 1990.
16
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
value of the in-kind contribution, and the effect of- the in-kind
contribution on the overall effort to achieve settlement.
One mechanism for allowing an in-kind contribution could be
a "carve-out" order when, for example, the municipal PRP has
agreed to provide the operation and maintenance at the facility.
Other in-kind contributions could include the use of trucks and
equipment to carry out cleanup activities, the installation of
fences and the provision of other security measures to control
public access to the site, or the use of the municipality's
sewage treatment plant.
C) .Contribution Protection
Nothing in this interim policy affects the rights of any
party in seeking contribution from another party, unless such
party has entered into a settlement with the United States or a
State and obtained contribution protection pursuant to Section
113 (f) of CERCLA.15
VI. DISCLAIMER
This interim policy is intended solely for the guidance of
EPA personnel. It is not intended and can not be relied upon to
create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any
party in litigation with the United States. The Agency reserves
Under Section 113(f), where EPA determines that
settlement is in the best interests of the Federal government,
CERCLA provides contribution protection to the settling parties
for matters covered by the settlement. This may include a party
who has not been notified as- a PRP by EPA but wishes to settle
its potential CERCLA liability.
17
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
the right to act at variance with this policy and to change it at
any time without public notice.
VII. FOR FUKTHER INFORMATION
For further information or questions about this interim
policy, the Regions may contact Kathleen MacKinnon in the office
of Waste Programs•Enforcement at FTS-475-9812. Inquiries by
other persons should be directed to Ms. MacKinnon at
202-475-6771.
18
-------
DEC -6 1989
OSWER DIRECTIVE
#9834.13
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
Superfund Program; Interim Municipal Settlement Policy
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Request for Public Comment
SUMMARY: The Agency is publishing the "Interim Policy on CERCLA
Settlements Involving Municipalities or Municipal Wastes"
(referred to as the Municipal Settlement Policy) today to inform
the public about this interim policy and to solicit public
comment. This interim policy focuses on settlements involving
municipalities or municipal wastes under Section 122 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). It also
addresses how the treatment of municipalities and municipal
wastes affects the treatment of private parties and certain kinds
of commercial, institutional, or industrial wastes in the
Superfund settlement process as well.
DATE: Comments must be provided no later than 60 days after
publication of this interim policy.
ADDRESS: Comments should be addressed to Kathleen MacKinnon,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, Guidance and Oversight Branch (OS-510), 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. CONTACT: Kathleen MacKinnon at the above
address or at (202) 475-6771.
SUPPLEMENTAL. INFORMATION:
The following supplemental information is provided to assist
the public in reviewing and commenting on EPA's interim policy:
I.• Effective Date of Interim Policy and Role of Public
Comment
II. Purpose of Interim Policy
III. Focus of Interim Policy
IV. Why Settlement Involving Municipalities or Municipal
Wastes Is An Issue
V. Discussion of Interim Policy
A. Public Input
B. EPA Consideration of Competing Public Interests
I. Effective Date of Interim Policy and Role of Public.Comment
This interim policy is effective immediately. However, the
Agency emphasizes that this is an interim policy and that there
is an important role for public comment. We are providing the
public with 60 days to review and submit comments in writing.
Based upon public comment or on our experience in implementing
the interim policy, the Agency may address additional issues or
revise the interim policy accordingly.
H. Purpose of Interim Policy
The primary purpose of this interim policy is to provide
interim guidance to EPA Regional offices on how they should
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
exercise their enforcement discretion in dealing with
municipalities and municipal wastes in the Superfund settlement
process. An additional purpose is to provide municipalities and
private parties who may be potentially liable under Section
107(a) of CERCLA with information about how EPA will handle them
in the settlement process. We believe this interim policy is
important for establishing a national framework that will help
facilitate our ability to reach settlements and will ensure that
sites involving municipalities or municipal wastes are addressed
consistently throughout the country.
III. Focus of Interim Policy
The interim policy focuses on how EPA will proceed in
attempting to reach settlements at sites involving municipalities
or municipal wastes. Focusing on settlements means the interim
policy indicates how EPA will attempt to reach voluntary
agreements for responsible party financing and/or cleanup of
sites involving municipalities or municipal wastes. Nothing in
the interim policy affects any party's potential legal liability
under CERCLA. Any decision EPA makes in exercising its
enforcement discretion under this interim policy does not mean
that potential CERCLA legal liability no longer applies. In
particular, nothing in the interim policy precludes a third party
from initiating a contribution action.
Focusing on settlements involving municipalities or
municipal wastes means that the primary intent of the interim
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
policy is to address questions about how EPA should handle
municipalities or municipal wastes in the Superfund settlement
process. However/ in the process of addressing those questions
we found it necessary to address other issues relating to private
parties and certain kinds of commercial, institutional, or
industrial wastes. We have addressed these related issues
because private parties sometimes handle municipal wastes,
••private parties generate some waste streams that are similar in
nature to municipal wastes, and municipal and industrial wastes
ar© sometimes co-disposed at the same site (particularly
municipal landfills).
Specific questions that have been examined by EPA as part of
this interim policy relate to who should be included in the
information gathering process, who should be notified as.
potentially responsible parties, how municipalities should be
handled in the settlement process, and how the treatment of
municipalities and municipal wastes affects the Agency's
treatment of private parties and certain kinds of commercial,
institutional, or industrial wastes.
IV. Whv Settlement Involving Municipalities or Municipal Wastes
Is An Issue
Involving municipalities and municipal wastes in the
Superfund settlement process is an issue because questions have
been raised about how such parties and wastes should be treated
in the settlement process. Until the development of this interim
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 19834.13
policy, EPA had not addressed these questions from a national
perspective. This issue is important because there are a
significant number of proposed and final sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL) that involve municipalities or municipal
wastes, and EPA expects more of these sites to be added to the
NPL in .the future.
EPA has identified 320 (about 25%) of the 1219 proposed and
final NPL sites that may involve municipalities or municipal
wastes. Of those sites, 236 (about 20%) have been classified as
municipal landfills. EPA defines a municipal landfill as any
landfill, either publicly or privately owned, which has received
municipal solid waste. Although it is difficult to accurately
predict how many of those sites involving municipalities or
municipal wastes may be added to the NPL, historically about 20%
of each NPL update has included municipal landfills. Municipal
landfills are particularly complex sites to address because they
typically involve multiple responsible parties (sometimes
hundreds of different parties), multiple sources of wastes (often
municipal and industrial wastes), as well as diverse waste
streams (in terms of amount and toxicity).
V. Discussion of Interim Policy
In the development of this interim policy, EPA has examined
a variety of issues and options for addressing these issues.
We have also made an effort to provide meaningful opportunities
for interested parties to participate in the debate about
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
municipal settlements. EPA has listened to all sides of the
debate and has attempted to develop an approach that is both fair
and manageable.
A. Public Input
Throughout the development of this interim policy, EPA has
established and maintained an extensive dialogue with a full
range of interested parties. For example, in March of 1988
EPA sponsored a Municipal Settlement Conference attended by over
100 representatives from State and local governments and
organizationsJL industry/ environmental, and other groups; as well
as Congressional staff. EPA sought input from all interested
parties to facilitate our efforts to develop a fair assessment of
*
the issues^ particularly from municipal and industrial
representatives who are most directly affected by the interim
policy. Both municipalities and private parties are affected by
this interim policy because, as mentioned above, both
municipalities and private parties handle municipal waste,
private parties generate waste streams that have similar
characteristics to municipal waste streams, and municipal and
industrial waste streams are often co-disposed at individual
sites.
As a followup to this conference, EPA established the
Municipal Settlement Discussion Group. The discussion group met
in. June, August, and October of 1988 and was generally comprised
of the same groups and interests that participated in the March
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
conference. All discussion group meetings were open to the
public and a notice of each meeting was published in the Federal
Register.
The purpose of this dialogue has been for EPA to inform the
public about the issues that the Agency is addressing as part of
our effort to develop the Municipal Settlement Policy. At the
same time, the Agency has sought to stimulate the public debate
about these issues by providing a public forum for the exchange
of ideas. The conference and discussion group activities have
been conducted as an information exchange and public debate
exercise. EPA has not requested recommendations nor attempted to
*
reach a consensus among the various parties. Minutes of all
meetings have been prepared and are available to the public upon
request.
A final meeting of the discussion group is expected to be
held in January 1990, before the close of the 60 day public
comment period. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss
the interim policy and to further facilitate public comment. A
notice of this meeting will be published in the Federal Register.
Minutes of this meeting will be kept and made available to the
public upon request.
B. EPA Consideration of Competing Public Interests
Input from the public has played an important role in EPA's
development of this interim policy. Within,the context of
CERCLA's statutory language and objectives, EPA has considered
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
the competing interests and objectives of the various parties
interested in this issue, especially municipalities and private
parties who are directly affected by the interim policy. EPA has
developed an interim policy which the Agency believes is
appropriate, is in the interests of the public, and is fair to
both municipalities and private parties as well as one which can
be managed and implemented by EPA's Regional offices. The
following examples highlight how EPA considered competing
interests on key issues. The discussion below only summarizes
(and sometimes paraphrases) certain key aspects of the interim
policy; readers should refer to the interim policy itself for an
*
indication or clarification of how EPA will proceed.
1. Treatment of municipalities as owners/operators; Some
interested parties expressed uncertainty about whether potential
CERCLA liability should apply to municipal owners/operators of
facilities where hazardous substances are present. In addition,
there are different views about how municipal owners/operators
should be handled in the settlement process. For example, some
municipal representatives have suggested that when potential
owner/operator liability applies that municipalities should be
given "special treatment" (e.g., provided with an early
opportunity to meet with EPA to resolve their potential
liability). Industry representatives have indicated that
municipal owners/operators should be handled the same as other
3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
PRPs and should be part of the larger settlement process that may
involve other parties, including private parties.
EPA's interim policy clarifies that municipal owners/
operators may be potentially liable just like private parties,
and that such parties will generally be notified and handled in
the same manner during the settlement process as private parties.
2- Treatment of generators/transporters of municipal
wastes and certain kinds -of commercial. institutional. or
industrial wastes: There are different views on whether the
generators/transporters of municipal wastes (e.g., municipal
solid waste and sewage sludge) (usually municipalities) should be
notified that they are considered to be potentially responsible
parties and brought into the Superfund settlement process.
Municipalities and some States do not believe it is appropriate
to include the generators/transporters of municipal wastes as
potentially responsible parties. Industry representatives have
generally taken the opposite view.
EPA's approach to this issue is as follows: when the source
of the municipal waste is believed to come from households,
regardless of whether household hazardous waste may be present,
the general policy is to exclude such municipal wastes from the
Superfund settlement process, unless the Region obtains site-
specific information that the municipal solid waste or sewage
sludge contains a hazardous substance from a commercial,
institutional, or industrial' process or activity.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 19834.13
The only exception to this general policy is that EPA may
consider bringing generators/transporters of municipal solid
waste that contains a hazardous substance derived only from
households into the settlement process as potentially responsible
parties if the total privately generated commercial,
institutional, and industrial waste at the site is insignificant
compared to the municipal solid waste. EPA expects this
exception to be sparingly applied.
When we are dealing with industrial wastes (including low-
hazardous industrial wastes), the generators/transporters of the
wastes will generally be notified as potentially responsible
parties because the source of the waste is a commercial,
institutional, or industrial process or activity.
One question raised by the interim policy relates to how EPA
will handle trash from a commercial, institutional, or industrial
entity which is very similar to municipal solid waste that is
derived from households. Although the source of the waste in
this situation- is not households, when the generator/transporter
shows EPA that its waste is very similar to that generated by
households and that it is not the result of a commercial,
institutional, or industrial process or activity, the
generator/transporter generally will not be notified as a
potentially responsible party by EPA and brought into the
Superfund settlement process.
10
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
In carrying out this approach, EPA is exercising its
enforcement discretion in determining whether we will treat
generators/transporters as potentially responsible parties for
certain categories of wastes. EPA believes this approach is fair
and manageable. For example, this approach treats municipalities
and private parties that handle the same waste streams in the
same manner (e.g., municipal generators/transporters of municipal
solid waste are treated the same as private party generators/
transporters of such waste).
This approach also treats different waste streams in a
logical and consistent manner. A key factor in determining
whether to notify generators/transporters of municipal solid
waste, sewage sludge, trash from a commercial, institutional, or
industrial entity, or low-hazardous industrial wastes is tied to
whether a hazardous substance is present that is derived from a
commercial, institutional, or industrial process or activity.
Finally, this approach is one that can be effectively
managed and implemented by EPA's Regional offices. For example,
based on our experiences at Superfund sites, especially municipal
landfills, we believe that it is generally not a cost-effective
use of our enforcement resources to pursue those generators/
transporters whose only contribution at a Superfund site appears
to have been substances that may have been contaminated only with
relatively small quantities of household hazardous waste (e.g.,
municipal solid waste). The resource-intensive nature of
11
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
obtaining sufficient evidence to demonstrate the presence of
household hazardous waste* as well as the potentially increased
transaction costs of settlement and/or litigation far outweigh
the possible benefit the Government may derive from obtaining
cleanup costs from such parties. The Agency believes that its
enforcement resources are better spent on pursuing other
potentially responsible parties to achieve the cleanups needed to
effectively implement the Superfund program and to protect human
health and the environment.
3. Role of municipalities in the settlement process:
There are also different views on the appropriate treatment of
municipalities vis-a-vis private parties in the settlement
process (i.e., whether municipalities should receive "special
treatment" because they are governmental entities).
Municipalities generally believe they should be treated
differently than private potentially responsible parties while
industry generally believes they should not.'
EPA believes that municipalities and private parties should
generally be handled in the same manner in the settlement
process. Handling municipalities and private parties the same
means that EPA will seek information in appropriate circumstances
from all parties, including municipalities. This also means that
all parties who are owners/operators of facilities will generally
be notified as potentially responsible parties.
12
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9834.13
Relating to municipal solid waste or sewage sludge, all
parties who are generators/transporters (either municipalities or
private parties) are generally exempt from notification unless we
obtain site-specific information that the waste contains a
hazardous substance from a commercial, institutional, or
industrial activity or process. In instances relating to
notification as a potentially responsible party, we focus on the
nature/source of the waste, not whether the party is a
municipality or private party.
The interim policy also handles municipalities arid private
parties essentially in the same manner once they are notified as
potentially responsible parties by attempting to negotiate and
settle with such parties as one group, unless separate
settlements such as de minimis settlements pursuant to Section
122(g) of CERCLA are appropriate. Nevertheless, EPA does
recognize that municipalities have unique characteristics as
governmental entities which EPA may take into account when
designing specific settlements (e.g., by considering delayed
payments, delayed payment schedules, or in-kind contributions
under appropriate circumstances).
81
Date Don R. Clay/yAssistant
Administrate^:, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response
13
-------
-------
SECTION III
REPORTS ON MUNICIPAL WASTE
-------
-------
REPORT ANALYZES MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTION ASH, ASH EXTRACTS,
AND LEACHATES -- Environmental Fact Sheet
-------
-------
Un Red State* Solid Wist* and
Environmental Protection Emergency Response . EPA/530-SW-90-029O
Aflency (OS-30S) Apni 1990
OffteeefSoHdWMte ~"
Environmental
Fact Sheet
REPORT ANALYZES MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTION ASH, ASH
EXTRACTS, AND LEACHATES
BACKGROUND
Incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW) has become an important
part of integrated waste management. Besides being an effective
means of reducing the volume of MSW. incineration is also a source of
energy recovery. As incineration of MSW has increased in recent years.
so has concern over the management of municipal waste combustion
(MWC) ash. EPA and the Coalition on Resource Recovery and the
Environment (CORRE) cosponsored this study to characterize ash and
to gain a better understanding of how it behaves in the environment.
The study was conducted to characterize MWC ash, laboratory extracts
of MWC ash. and leachates from ash disposal facilities. Combined
bottom and fly ash samples from five state-of-the-art mass burn
municipal waste combustion facilities were collected. Leachate
samples from the companion ash disposal facilities also were collected.
The ash samples were subjected to six laboratory extraction
procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
— Ash frequently fails EPA-approved tests for determing whether
wastes are regulated as hazardous, because it leaches lead
and cadmium at levels of concern.
— The disposal of ash in a well-designed monofill greatly reduces
the teachability of constituents of concern such as lead and
Although the data indicate that ash frequently fails the test used to
determine whether a waste is hazardous, there has been considerable
controversy over whether Congress intended to exempt ash from energy
recovery MWCs from hazardous waste controls. Two recent court
decisions ruled that ash is exempt from regulation as a hazardous
waste. These cases are expected to be appealed.
r.plmss...
-------
Regardless of the outcome of these cases. Congress is considering
legislation that would regulate all ash as a special waste and require
stringent management controls for ash from the point of generation
through disposal or recycling. EPA continues to support such
legislation so that all ash can be handled in a manner which protects
human health and the environment.
AVAILABILITY
The full report. Characterization of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash,
Ash Extracts, andLeachates (EPA/530-SW-90-029A). can be pur-
chased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). U.S.
Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161: telephone
703-487-4650. The document number is PB 90-187-154. A limited
number of copies of the Executive Summary (EPA/530-SW-90-029B)
and copies of this Fact Sheet can be obtained free of charge.
All publications can be ordered by contacting the RCRA Hotline,
Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., EST. The national, toll-free
number is (800) 424-9346; TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing impaired).
In Washington. D.C.. the number is (202) 382-3000; TDD (202)
475-9652. Send written requests to: RCRA Docket Information Center
(RIC). Office of Solid Waste (OS-305). U. S. EPA, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460.
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES: 1990 Update —
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OS-305)
EPA/530-SW-90-042A
June 1990
Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 1990 Update
Executive Summary
-------
-------
EPA/530-SW-90-042A
Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United
States: 1990 Update
Executive Summary
June 13,1990
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
-------
Acknowledgements
The report, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update,
was developed under EPA contract No. 68-01-7310 under the direction of Paul Kaldjian at EPA
Appreciation is extended to the many individuals in the Office of Solid Waste who reviewed and.
commented on drafts of the report. EPA also wishes to give special thanks to Jo Nord, the artist
of the cover illustration.
Ordering Information
The complete report is available through the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS). To order, call NTIS at (703) 487-4650. A fact sheet highlighting the major
findings of the report is also available. To obtain additional copies of this Executive
Summary (EPA/530-SW-90-042A) or the fact sheet (EPA/530-SW-90-042B) at no charge,
call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346; TDD (800) 553-7672 for the hearing
impaired. In Washington, DC, the number is (202) 382-3000; TDD (202) 475-9652.
Printed on Recycled Paper
J
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES
1990 Update
Executive Summary
Many areas of the United States currently face serious problems in
safely and effectively managing the garbage they generate. As a nation, we are
generating more trash than ever before. At the same time, we are finding
that there are limits to traditional trash management practices. As the
generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) continues to increase, the
capacity to handle it is decreasing. Many landfills and combustors have
closed, and new disposal facilities are often difficult to site. As a result, many
communities face hard choices when weighing trash management options.
Some communities end up paying premium prices to transport their garbage
long distances to available facilities. Others try to site facilities nearby and
encounter intense public conflict. Of course, not all communities face such
problems; numerous communities have found creative solutions through
source reduction and recycling programs. Still, for much of the nation, the
generation and management of garbage presents problems that require our
focused attention.
Identifying the components of the waste stream is an important step
toward solving the problems associated with the generation and management
of garbage. MSW characterizations, which analyze the quantity and
composition of the municipal solid waste stream, involve estimating how
much MSW is generated, recycled, combusted, and disposed of in landfills.
By determining the makeup of the waste stream, waste characterizations also
provide valuable data for setting waste management goals, tracking progress
toward those goals, and supporting planning at the national, state, and local
levels. For example, waste characterizations can be used to highlight
opportunities for source reduction and recycling and provide information on
any special management issues that should be considered.
Features of This Report
This report is the most recent in a series of reports released by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to characterize MSW in the United
States. It characterizes the national waste stream based on data through 1988
and includes:
• Information on MSW generation from 1960 to 1988.
• Information on recovery for recycling, composting, and
combustion from 1960 to 1988.
• Information characterizing MSW by volume as well as by
weight.
ES-1
-------
• Projections for MSW generation to the year 2010.
• Projections for MSW combustion through 2000.
• Projections (presented as a range) for recovery and recycling
through 1995.
Unlike previous EPA characterization reports, this report does not
include long-range projections for materials recovery. This is due to the
significant uncertainties in making those projections. For example, rapid
changes are now taking place at the federal, state, and local level that may
have profound effects on such projections. In addition, shifts in consumer
attitudes and behaviors, industry practices and efforts, and technological
advances will greatly influence recovery and recycling. The potential impact
of all of these changes is very difficult to predict.
Readers should note that this report characterizes the municipal solid
waste stream of the nation as a whole. The information presented here may
not, therefore, correlate with individual state or local estimates of waste
generation and management.
DEFINITIONS %,
Municipal solid waste includes wastes such as durable goods, nondurable goods,
containers and packaging, food wastes, yard wastfs, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes
from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. Examples of waste
from these categories include appliances, newspapers, clothing, food scraps, boxes,
disposable tableware, office and classroom paper, wood pallets, and cafeteria wastes.
MSW does not include wastes from other sources, such as municipal sludges, combustion
ash, and industrial nonhazardous process wastes that might also be disposed of in
municipal waste landfills or incinerators.
Generation refers to the amount (weight, volume, or percentage of the overall waste
stream) of materials and products as they enter the waste stream and before materials
recovery, composting, or combustion (incineration) takes place.
Recovery refers to materials removed from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling
and/or composting. Recovery does not automatically equal recycling and composting,
however, for example, if markets for recovered materials are not available, the
materials that were separated from the waste stream for recycling may simply be
stored or, in tome cases, sent to a landfill or incinerator.
Placard* include the municipal solid waste remaining after recovery for recycling and
composting. These discards are usually combusted or disposed of in landfills, although
some MSW is littered, stored, or disposed of on site, particularly in rural areas.
ES-2
-------
Methodology
There are two primary methods for conducting a waste characterization
study. The first is a site-specific approach in which the individual
components of the waste stream are sampled, sorted, and weighed. Although
this method is useful for defining a local waste stream, extrapolating from a
limited number of studies can produce a skewed or misleading picture if used
for a nationwide characterization of waste. Any errors in the sample or
atypical circumstances encountered during sampling would be greatly
magnified when expanded to represent the nation's entire waste stream.
The second method, used in this report to estimate the waste stream on
a nationwide basis, is called the "material flows methodology." EPA's Office
of Solid Waste and its predecessors in the Public Health Service sponsored
work in the 1960s and early 1970s to develop the material flows methodology.
This methodology is based on production data (by weight) for the materials
and products in the waste stream, with adjustments for imports, exports, and
product lifetimes.
Report Highlights
This report underscores the problems we face in municipal solid waste
management: the generation of MSW continues to increase steadily, both in
overall tonnage and in pounds per capita. In addition, the report indicates
that materials recovery for recycling and the combustion of MSW have
increased in recent years, while discards to landfills have decreased. Major
findings include the following:
• In 1988,180 million tons, or 4.0 pounds per person per day of
MSW were generated. After materials recovery for recycling,
discards were 3.5 pounds per person per day. Virtually all of
these discards were combusted or sent to a landfill.
• Without source reduction, the amount of waste generated in
1995 is expected to reach 200 million tons, or 4.2 pounds per
person per day. By 2000, generation is projected to reach 216
million tons, or 4.4 pounds per person per day. The per capita
figure for the year 2000 is a 10 percent increase over 1988 levels.
• Based on current trends and information, EPA projects that 20 to
28 percent of MSW will be recovered annually by 1995.
Exceeding this projected range will require fundamental changes
in government programs, technology, and corporate and
consumer behavior.
ES-3
-------
• Recovery of MSW materials for recycling was 13 percent in 1988.
Combustion was 14 percent of total generation, and the
remaining 73 percent of the municipal solid waste stream was
sent to landfills or otherwise disposed of.
• For the first time in this series of characterization reports, MSW
is also characterized by volume. The results indicate which
materials in MSW occupy the greatest proportion of volume in
landfills, and compare these percentages to those by weight For
example, paper and paperboard products make up 34 percent of
the discards (after recovery) by weight and 34 percent by volume;
plastics account for 9 percent by weight and 20 percent by
volume; and yard wastes make up 20 percent by weight and 10
percent by volume.
Municipal Solid Waste in 1988
In 1988, generation of municipal solid waste totaled 179.6 million tons.
Figure ES-1 provides a breakdown by weight of the materials generated in
MSW in 1988. It shows that paper and paperboard products are the largest
component of municipal solid waste by weight (40 percent of generation) and
prard wastes are the second largest component (roughly 18 percent of
^generation). Four of the remaining materials in MSW — glass, metals,
plastics, and food wastes — range between 7 and 9 percent each by weight of
total MSW generated. Other materials in MSW include rubber, leather,
textiles, wood, and small amounts of miscellaneous wastes, which each made
up less than 4 percent of MSW in 1988.
The breakdown of how much waste went to recycling, combustion, and
landfills is shown in Figure ES-2. Recovery of materials for recycling and
composting was an estimated 13 percent in 1988. That amount varied
significantly according to the type of waste (Table ES-1). For example, nearly
26 percent of waste paper was recovered in 1988, while less than 2 percent p£
plastic wastes were recovered!/*^ ';" '"" • ' -.
'' ~ ' " ''* " ' ' '
The broad categories of materials in MSW are made up of many
individual products. The products are grouped into major product categories
as shown in Ffgure ES-3. In 1988, containers and packaging were the largest
single product category generated in MSW by weight, at roughly 32 percent of
the total. Nondurable goods (such as newspapers and disposable food service
items) were the second largest category, at 28 percent of the total. Yard wastes
were approximately 18 percent and durable goods (such as furniture and tires)
were 14 percent of total generation in 1988.
ES-4
-------
MATERIALS GENERATED IN MSW
BY WEIGHT, 1988
Yard Wastes, 17.6%
31.6 million tons
Paper, 40.0%
71.8. million tons
Metals, 8.5%
15.3 million tons
Glass, 7.0%
12.5 million tons
Plastics, 8.0%
14.4 million tons
Other, 11.6%
20.8 million tons
Food Wastes, 7.4 %
13.2 million tons
TOTAL WEIGHT - 179.6 million tons
FIGURE ES-1
ES-5
-------
MANAGEMENT OF MSW IN U.S.,
1988
Landfill, 72.7%
130.5 million tons
Recovery, 13.1%
23.5 million tons
Incineration, 14.2%
25.5 million tons
TOTAL WEIGHT - 179.6 million tons
FIGURE ES-2
ES-6
-------
TABLE ES-1
Generation of MSW, Recovery of Materials
and Composting of Food and Yard Waste, 1988
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other
Total Nonfood Product Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Wastes
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wa«ta»
Total MSW
Weight
Generated
(in Millions
of Tons)
71.8
12.5
11.6
2.5
1.1
15.3
14.4
4.6
3.9
6.5
3.1
132.1
13.2
31.6
47.5
179.6
Weight
Recovered
(in Millions
of Tons)
18.4
1.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
2.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
-M-
23.1
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
23.5
Percent of
Generation
of Each
Material
25.6
12.0
5.8
31.7
65.1
14.6
1.1
2.3
0.6
0.0
21.7
17.5
0.0
1.6
0.0
1.1
13.1
ES-7
-------
PRODUCTS GENERATED IN MSW
BY WEIGHT, 1988
Durable Goods, 13.9%
24.9 million tons
Other, 1.5%
2.7 million tons
Containers/Packaging, 31.6%
56.8 million tons
Nondurable Goods, 28.1%
50.4 million tons
Food Wastes, 7.4%
13.2 milion tons
Yard Wastes, 17.6%
31.6 million tons
TOTAL WEIGHT « 179.6 million tons
FIGURE ES-3
ES-8
-------
MSW Volume Estimates
Although solid waste is usually characterized by weight, information
about volume is important for such issues as determining how quickly
landfill capacity is being filled and identifying the rate at which the volumes
of various materials in the waste stream are changing.
Volume estimates of solid waste, however, are far more difficult to
make than weight estimates. A pound of paper is a pound of paper whether
it is in flat sheets, crumpled into a wad, or compacted into a bale, but the
volume occupied in each case will be very different. The figures in this report
are estimations of the volume of materials as they would typically be found
in a landfill (a significant amount of compaction occurs in a landfill). These
estimates are based largely on empirical data that are then used to estimate
density factors (pounds per cubic yard) for components of solid waste under
simulated landfill conditions, with corroboration from actual landfill studies.
Figure ES-4 shows the materials in MSW by volume as a percent of
- total MSW discards in 1988. The paper and paperboard category ranks first in-
I volume of MSW discarded (34 percent). Plastics rank second in volume, at 20
|percent of the total, and yard wastes are third, at 10 percent. Paper and plastics
tcombined account for over one-half of the volume of MSW discarded in 1988.
Table ES-2 compares 1988 volume and weight estimates for materials
in MSW contained in the report The right-hand column shows the ratio of
volume to weight for each material. A ratio of 1.0 means that the material
occupies the same proportion by volume as by weight. Values greater than 1.0
mean that the material occupies a larger proportion of volume than weight.
Four materials have ratios greater than 2.0: plastics, rubber and leather,
textiles, and aluminum. By contrast, yard wastes, food, and glass each have
ratios of 0.5 or less/ indicating that these materials are quite dense and occupy
proportionately less volume in landfills.
Figure ES-5 shows the product categjpes that make up MSW by
volume of total discards in 1988. Nondurable goods rank first in volume
percentage at 34 percent. Containers and packaging are second in volume
(roughly 30 pecent), and durable goods are third (approximately 22 percent).
Trends in MSW Generation, Recovery, and Discards
Generation of municipal solid waste grew steadily between 1960 and
1988, from 88 million to nearly 180 million tons per year. Per capita
generation of MSW increased from 2.7 pounds per person per day in 1960 to
4.0 pounds per person per day in 1988. Between 1986 and 1988, generation
increased from 3.8 to 4.0 pounds per person per day (167 million to 180
million tons per year). By 2000, projected per capita MSW generation is 4.4
ES-9
-------
LANDFILL VOLUME OF DISCARDS
IN MSW, 1988
Metals, 12.1%
48.3 million cubic yards
Yard Wastes, 10.3%
41.3 million
cubic yards
Glass, 2.0%
7.9 million cubic yards
Paper, 34.1%
136.2 million cubic yards
Plastics, 19.9%
79.7 million
cubic yards
Other, 18.4%
73.4 million
cubic yards
Food Wastes, 3.3 %
13.2 million cubic yards
TOTAL VOLUME * 400 million cubic yards
FIGURE ES-4
ES-10
-------
TABLE ES-2
Volume of Materials Discarded in MSW, 1988
Paper and Paperboard
Plastics
Yard Wastes
.Ferrous Metals
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Food Wastes
Other
Aluminum
Glass
TOTALS
1988
Discards
(mil tons)
53.4
14.3
31.0
10.9
4.4
3.8
6.5
13.2
5.6
1.7
11.1
156
Weight
(%ofMSW
total)
34.2
9.2
19.9
7.0
2.9
2.5
4.2
8.5
3.6
1.1
100
Volume
(% of MSW
total)
34.1
19.9
10.3
9.8
6.4
5.3
4.1
3.3
2.5
23
-M.
100
Ratio
(vol %/
wt%)
1.0
2.2
0.5
1.4
2.3
2.1
1.0
0.4
0.7
2.1
0.3
1.0
ES-11
-------
PRODUCTS DISCARDED IN MSW
BY VOLUME, 1988
Durable Goods, 22.2%
88.5 million
cubic yards
Other, 0.6%
2.2 million
cubic yards
Containers/Packaging, 29.6%
118.1 million cubic yards
Food Wastes, 3.3%
13.2 million
cubic yards
Yard Wastes, 10.4%
41.3 million
cubic yards
Nondurable Goods 34.0%
135.6 million cubic yards
TOTAL VOLUME * 400 million cubic yards
FIGURE ES-5
ES-12
-------
pounds per person per day (216 million tons). Projected MSW generation in
the year 2010 is-over 250 million tons, or 4.9 pounds per person per day.
Figure ES-6 shows the generation (in millions of tons) of materials in MSW
between 1960 and 1988 with projections to 2010.
Recovery has increased gradually from about 7 percent of the waste
generated in 1960 to 13 percent in 1988. Recovery is projected to reach
between 20 percent and 28 percent of MSW generated in 1995. These
projections are presented as a range because of the many unpredictable factors
that might influence the growth of recovery and recycling over the next 5
years. These factors include possible changes in the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), which regulates the treatment, storage, and
disposal of the nation's solid waste; other federal and state legislative
proposals; deposit bills; bans; regional and local efforts; municipal waste
combustion and landfill source separation proposals; municipal source
reduction and recycling programs; industry efforts and recycling technology.
While specific predictions about recycling might be misleading, EPA believes
that with fundamental changes in activities and programs related to recycling,
we can achieve even higher recycling rates than those projected.
Combustors handled an estimated 30 percent of MSW generated in
1960, most of them with no energy recovery and no air pollution controls. In
the 1960s and 1970s, combustion dropped steadily as the old incinerators were
dosed, reaching a low of less than 10 percent of MSW generated by 1980.
More recently, combustion of MSW has been increasing again (to 25.5 million
tons, or roughly 14 percent of generation, in 1988). All major new facilities
have energy recovery and are designed to meet air pollution standards.
The report projects that more than 45 million tons of MSW will be
combusted in 1995, and 55 million tons will be combusted in 2000. It should
be noted that because of the long lead time in planning, permitting, and
constructing incineration facilities, projections for combustion are easier to
make than projections for recovery. Estimates of combustion projections are
based on assumptions that assume the facilities will operate at 80 percent of
capacity.
Landfilfrvae fluctuates with changes in the use of alternative solid
waste management methods. For example, when the use of incineration for
MSW management declines and recovery rates are low, the MSW percentage
sent to landfills increases. Alternatively, when recovery and combustion of
MSW increase, the percentage of MSW discarded to landfills declines. In
1960, approximately 62 percent of MSW was sent to landfills. This increased
to 81 percent in 1980, then decreased to 73 percent in 1988 due to changing
trends in municipal solid waste management
ES-13
-------
U.S. MSW GENERATION,
1960-2010
300
1970
Paper
Other
1980 1988 2000
YEAR
• Glass/Metal CZH Food/Yard
HI Plastics
2010
FIGURE ES-6
ES-14
-------
As we approach the twenty-first century, integrated waste management
is clearly the solution to our growing waste needs. Through source reduction
and recycling, we can reduce generation and increase recovery, and, in turn,
reduce our reliance on combustors and landfills.
ES-15
-------
-------
SECTION IV
NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
-------
-------
THE FINAL NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN:
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR SUPERFUND
-------
-------
February, 1990
oEPA
The Final National Contingency Plan:
New Directions For Superfund
Today EPA is issuing the final revisions to the National Contingency Plan (NCP), the regulatory
blueprint for implementing the Superfund law. The Superfund program - the nation's effort to
clean up abandoned toxic waste sites - has evolved significantly since its start nearly ten years ago.
In 1986, Congress amended the Superfund law, adding major new authorities and responsibilities
to the program. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook a thorough self-
appraisal, the Superfund "Management Review," which includes a series of recommendations on
how the program could be improved. EPA believes that together the final NCP and the
Management Review provide a firm basis for progress in cleaning up the nation's worst toxic
waste problems.
The NCP embodies the essential points of the Management Review of Superfund conducted last
year. The Management Review establishes a management framework for Superfund. With the
promulgation of the NCP, EPA has revised its policy and regulatory framework for Superfund.
Both documents describe what the program realistically can accomplish and emphasize the need
for taking action at sites -- rather than prolonged investigation and analysis. The documents also
recognize the importance of increased state participation and public involvement in the Superfund
program.
While the Management Review focuses on EPA's internal management, the NCP sets forth the
legal requirements for how all federal agencies, states and private parties respond to toxic releases
and oil spills. The NCP provides for a national system to respond to hazards caused by toxic
waste and oil spills, a process for investigating and cleaning up toxic waste sites, environmental
standards for cleanup, and a structured analytical process to promote consistency in deciding on
cleanups across the country.
Assuring long-term protection.
The NCP confirms EPA's commitment to seek long-term solutions to toxic wastes problems
near Superfund sites. Consistent with the Superfund law, the NCP emphasizes using
treatment to eliminate or reduce to safe levels the threat posed by highly toxic waste. Treatment
is given preference over covering up highly toxic waste or moving it to another location. Another
important emphasis is on restoring contaminated resources - such as ground water which
may be a source of drinking water - so that such valuable resources can be used safely.
Taking action quickly.
The Management Review recognizes the importance of making sites safer in the near-term by
controlling acute threats Immediately. The NCP provides the framework for taking early
action at sites. Early actions are encouraged to stabilize or reduce the high-risk threats at a site.
Longer-term investigations and analyses can then proceed. These investigations and analyses will
still, however, be tailored to the scope and complexity of the site so that the ultimate action(s) that
provide long-term protection will be taken as quickly as possible.
-------
Setting realistic expectations for Superfund.
The Management Review points out the need to have a clear statement of EPA's expectations about
what cleanup or remedy to implement at a site. The NCP includes a new program goal and lays
out a series of expectations to guide the process of deciding on remedies.
The NCP's program goal is to select remedies that protect human health and the
environment, that maintain protection over time and that minimize untreated waste.
EPA believes that treating waste is the best method to achieve long-term protection. Detailed
expectations are intended to inform the public of the types of remedies that EPA has selected, and
anticipates selecting, for certain types of sites, for example:
* Waste that poses a high level of risk, i.e., highly toxic or mobile waste, will be treated to
reduce its toxicity or mobility.
• Waste left on-site after the Superfund action, i.e., waste that poses a relatively low long-
term threat, will be controlled, generally by preventing further releases and capping the site.
• Many sites will use a combination of treatment and containment
• Ground water that is an actual or potential source of drinking water will be restored to
levels safe for drinking, where practical.
• Soil will be restored to levels appropriate for current and reasonably potential uses.
Emphasizing treatment technologies.
A major thrust of the Superfund law is to require more use of hazardous waste treatment
technologies. The Management Review points out the need to remove regulatory and policy
barriers to the use of treatment technologies. The NCP repeatedly emphasizes treatment.
Treatment Is the centerpiece of the program goal and expectations described above.
The NCP requires that preference be given to remedies that use treatment over remedies that do
not. Additionally, the NCP promotes use of Innovative technologies in order to bolster the
development of new methods to provide long-term protection.
Defining Cleanup standards.
The NCP, as directed by the Superfund law, requires that standards of protection under other
federal and state environmental laws be attained at Superfund sites. For example, standards for
drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act will be used as the cleanup level for water that is
or may be used for drinking at a Superfund site. When standards of protection under other laws
are not available, e.g., for a particular type of waste, the program will make a site-specific
determination on an appropriate cleanup level. For waste that may cause cancer, the risk posed by
the waste generally will be reduced to fall within an acceptable risk range - lO"4 to lO"6 - A range
of ID'4 to 10-6 is shorthand for a range of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 with a presumption that
cleanup targets should be set at the more protective end of the range or 10"".
Increasing public participation.
From the inception of the Superfund program, EPA has recognized that the community affected by
a Superfund site should participate in Agency decision-making and should be informed of the
status of action at the site. The Management Review recommends that EPA involve citizens even
more extensively in the process of making decisions about cleanups at Superfund sites.
-------
status of action at the site. The Management Review recommends that EPA involve citizens even
more extensively in the process of making decisions about cleanups at Superfund sites.
The NCP ensures public Involvement in decision-making by providing opportunities for
the public to Inform EPA of concerns about a site, to participate In the Investigation
and analysis of a site and to review and comment on documents used in deciding on cleanups.
The NCP requires that the public be allowed at least 30 days, which will be extended to 60 days on
request, to complete its review and submit comments before EPA will decide on a cleanup To
facilitate public understanding about the site further, a direct reference to the Technical Assistance
Grants (TAG) program is made in the NCP. These grants allow communities to obtain the
necessary technical expertise to review and comment on decision documents. Other public
involvement requirements ensure that the community is kept informed on the status of action at the
site. In addition to the minimum requirements, the NCP provides many suggestions for public
involvement activities that should be considered for implementation at individual sites, including
informing the public of the nature of discussions with potentially responsible parties.
Strengthening state Involvement.
The NCP provides opportunities for states to work with EPA to address the nation's worst toxic
waste site problems. All states are strongly encouraged to participate with EPA in deciding on
cleanups. Further, depending on a state's capability, the NCP authorizes the states to
conduct Investigations, analyze alternatives and recommend the selection of a remedy
to EPA. EPA retains the ultimate authority to decide on cleanup remedies that use federal funds.
States may also supervise design and construction of a remedy.
Ensuring sites remain safe.
The Management Review points out the need to monitor and maintain sites over the long-term. The
NCP requires a review of a site where waste is left behind at least once every five years to ensure
that the site remains safe. No site will be deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL)
after completion of the cleanup until at least one five-year review has been conducted.
Measuring success.
The Management Review notes that deletions of sites from the NPL arc not the only measure of
progress for Superfund. Major initiatives are underway within EPA to provide new measures of
success. The NCP provides that sites where the remedy is complete will be described as
"construction complete" sites to distinguish them from sites where action is either underway or
about to start.
Encouraging Private party cleanups.
One emphasis of the Management Review is on maximizing the number of private party cleanups.
Because the requirements of the NCP apply to both government and private party cleanups, EPA
believes that private parry cleanups conducted under the NCP will not compromise environmental
goals and will protect pubb'c health. EPA will provide oversight of private party cleanups
conducted under the NCP.
Conclusion.
EPA believes that the Superfund program is now making significant and meaningful progress in
reducing the hazards posed by the nation's worst toxic waste sites. The Management Review and
the final NCP provide the comprehensive management and regulatory tools needed to accomplish
the program's difficult objectives.
-------
-------
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING THE 1990 NCP
-------
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
'\ •*&*•-"_
February 1990
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING THg_1990 NCP
INTRODUCTION
What is the National Contingency Plan (NCP)?
o The NCP is the major framework regulation for the federal
hazardous substance response program. The NCP includes
procedures and standards for how EPA, other federal
agencies, states, and private parties respond under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) to releases of hazardous substances
and under the Clean Water Act to discharges of oil.
What is the purpose of the revisions to the NCP?
o CERCLA, originally enacted in 1980, was amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), which mandates that the NCP be revised to implement
the requirements of SARA, particularly with regard to
procedures and standards for remedial actions.
o The revisions also clarify 1985 NCP language, reorganize the
1985 NCP to describe more accurately the sequence of
response actions, and incorporate changes based on program
experience since the 1985 revisions to the NCP.
What is the relationship between the revised NCP and the
Management Review of the Superfund Program (the 90-day Study)?
o The 1990 for final) NCP is consistent with, and embodies the
spirit of, the 1989 Management Review of the Superfund
Program. Both documents describe what the program
realistically, can accomplish and emphasize the need for
taking action — rather than prolonged investigation and
analysis — at sites. The documents also recognize the
importance of increased state participation and public
involvement in the Superfund program. The documents differ
in that the Management Review focused on EPA's internal
management of the program and left certain national policy
decisions, e.g., the process of deciding on cleanups, to be
addressed in the NCP. EPA believes that together the 1990
-------
-2-
NCP and the Management Review provide a firm basis for
progress in cleaning up the nation's worst toxic waste
problems.
What are the major areas of change from the 1985 NCP to the 1990
NCP?
Note; More detail on each of these major changes is provided
below.
o Suboart E (Subpart F in the 1985 NCP) which addresses the
elements of hazardous substance response is significantly
revised. EPA's process implements the requirements of
CERCLA S 121 and focuses on selection of treatment
technologies, uses nine specified criteria when evaluating
and selecting remedies, provides for conducting early
actions, and encourages streamlining of remedial activities,
o suboart F on state involvement is a new subpart added to
implement the 1986 statutory mandate to promulgate
regulations for substantial and meaningful state involvemel
in CERCLA response actions. The major new concepts are
Superfund Memoranda of Agreement (SMOAs) between EPA regions
and states and EPA/state concurrence in remedy selection.
o Subpart I is a new subpart added to implement the 1986
statutory requirements for the establishment of an
administrative record. The record contains documents that
form the basis for the selection of a remedy at a CERCLA
site.
What sections from th« 1985 NCP have generally remained unchanged?
o subpart A. the introduction, defines key terms
and states the purpose, authority, applicability,
and scope of the NCP. Some definitions have been added,
e.g., "source control maintenance measures," and some
definitions have been revised, e.g. "CERCLIS" and
"cooperative agreement," but most definitions remain
unchanged. -
o subpart B describes the organization and responsibility of
federal agencies regarding response activities. For
example, roles and responsibilities of the National
Response Team (NRT) and the Regional Response Teams (RRT)
are described. The revised Subpart B combines the 1985
NCP's Subparts B and C without major revisions.
-------
-3-
o Subpart C addresses preparedness activities,
federal and regional contingency plans, and planning
responsibilities of state and local agencies. The revised
Subpart C contains information from the 1985 NCP's Subpart D
and adds information on 'SARA Title III.
o Suboart D sets forth the phases of response to discharges
of oil and contains no major revisions from the 1985 NCP.
o Subpart G contains the designations of federal trustees to
act on behalf of the President in assessing damages to
natural resources from discharges of oil or releases of
hazardous substances. Subpart G also outlines in general
the responsibilities of trustees under the NCP.
o Subpart H is a new subpart that consolidates 1985 NCP
language on participation by other persons in response
activities and recovery of their costs. Persons conducting
a cleanup may recover their costs from a party liable under
CERCLA § 107 if they substantially comply with requirements
of the NCP and conduct a "CERCLA-quality cleanup."
o Subpart J on use of dispersants for oil spills is similar to
the 1985 NCP's Subpart H; only minor clarifying revisions
have been made.
Why was the NCP on a court-ordered schedule?
o In the fall of 1988, the Natural Resources Defense
Council and several other national environmental groups
sued EPA for failure to meet the statutory deadline
(April 17, 1988) for revising the NCP. EPA's response
indicated that because of the magnitude of the project,
the number of interests involved, and the Agency's
efforts to achieve consensus among all parties, the
process was taking longer than anticipated to complete.
To resolve the litigation, the parties agreed to a
schedule for completion of revisions to the NCP that
would result in the delivery of the 1990 NCP to the
Federal Register by February 5, 1990.
How does the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) relate to the NCP?
o The HRS is Appendix A to the NCP (40 CFR Part 300). The
HRS is the mechanism used to evaluate whether releases
should be listed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The NPL is a list of releases that appear to warrant
long-term evaluation and response. EPA proposed
-------
-4-
revisions to the HRS in a separate rulemaking on
December 23, 1988 (53 IB 51962).
What are some of the common abbreviations used in the NCP?
ARARs — Applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements.
FS — Feasibility study.
HRS — Hazard Ranking System.
NPL — National Priorities List.
OSC — On-scene coordinator.
O&M — Operation and maintenance.
PRP — Potentially responsible party,
RA -- Remedial action.
RD — Remedial design.
RI — Remedial investigation.
ROD — Record of decision.
RPM — Remedial project manager.
SMOA — Superfund Memorandum of Agreement.
TBC — Criteria, advisories or guidance to-be-considered.
REMOVAL PROGRAM
Hov is the removal program modified under the 1990 NCP?
o The NCP codifies the increase in the statutory time and
dollar limits for Fund-financed removal actions from 6
months and $1 million to 12 months and $2 million.
o The NCP also codifies a statutory exemption from these
limits: where continued response is otherwise appropriate
and consistent with the remedial action to be taken. EPA
expects to use the exemption primarily for proposed and
final NPL sites, and only rarely for non-NPL sites.
o The NCP confirms EPA's policy that removal actions will
comply te the extent practicable with applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements under other federal or
state environmental laws
o Requirements relating to community relations and
administrative record are discussed in other sections
below.
-------
-5-
REMEDIAL PROGRAM
What changes does the 1990 NCP make in the remedial response
program?
o The final rule implements the statutory requirements to
select remedies that:
Protect human health and the environment.
— Comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) under federal environmental or
state environmental or facility siting laws (or invoke a
waiver).
Are cost-effective.
— Use permanent solutions and treatment to the maximum
extent practicable.
— Satisfy the preference for remedies in which treatment
that permanently reduces the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants is a principal element.
What are some of the features of the final remedy selection
process?
o In the remedy selection process, a range of alternatives
should be developed, representing distinct, viable
alternative approaches to managing the site problem. For
source control response actions, a range of alternatives
involving treatment as a principal element should be
included, as well as containment and no-action
alternatives, as appropriate. For ground-water response
actions, alternatives should be developed that restore
usable gjrpund water to beneficial uses within a time frame
that is reasonable given particular site circumstances.
o The detailed analysis uses the following nine criteria to
compare relative advantages and disadvantages of the
alternatives under consideration:
Threshold
1. Overall protection of human health and the
environment.
-------
-6-
2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and
"appropriate requirements (or invoke a waiver).
Balancing
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment.
5. Short-term effectiveness (e.g., environmental impacts of
the cleanup itself).
6. Implementability (e.g., whether technology being
considered is available within the necessary timeframe).
7. Cost.
Modifying
8. State acceptance.
9. Community acceptance.
How does EPA intend that these categories of criteria be used?
o An alternative must meet the threshold criteria in order to
be selected; these requirements are taken directly from
CERCLA and cannot be compromised.
o The balancing and modifying criteria ware developed to .
encompass other CERCLA requirements. One requirement is to
use permanent solutions and treatment to the maximum extent
practicable. By including practicability, Congress appeared
to acknowledge that not all of the waste at a site may be
treated and that judgments would be required on whether or
to what extent permanent solutions and treatment would be
used (and the extent to which waste is left on-site). EPA
believes that these judgments are dependent upon site
conditions and technological, economic and implementation
constraints.- By evaluating and comparing the alternatives
by means of the balancing and modifying criteria, the
decision-maker can make the site-specific judgments
necessary to select the most appropriate approach.
o State and community concerns, encompassed by the modifying
criteria, generally are considered in altering an otherwise
viable approach rather than in deciding between very
different approaches, e.g., treatment versus containment.
-------
-7-
How does this process differ from the process outlined in the
proposed NCP?
o The 1990 NCP process has been revised from what was
proposed in order to encourage selection of more treatment
remedies (and to comply with the CERCLA preference for
remedies that employ treatment as a principal element). The
two criteria of "long-term effectiveness and permanence" and
"reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through
treatment" are given the most weight in the balancing
process.
o Also, the threshold, balancing, and modifying labels have
been removed from the discussion of the nine evaluation
criteria during the detailed analysis of alternatives.
During the detailed analysis, each alternative approach
should be evaluated using each of the nine criteria, without
assigning greater weight to any of the criteria. The
categories of criteria are now part of the remedy selection
step.
What is the meaning of a "bias for action" stated in the NCP?
o Bias for action means that actions should be taken, as
early as possible, when necessary or appropriate to achieve
significant risk reduction quickly, when phased analysis and
response is necessary or appropriate given the size or
complexity of the site, or to expedite the completion of
total site cleanup.
What is "streamlining?"
o Streamlining means tailoring site-specific data needs, the
evaluation of alternatives, and the documentation of the
selected Remedy to reflect the scope and complexity of the
specific site problems being addressed. For example, a
streamlined RI/FS can be used when site problems are
straightforward such that it would be inappropriate to
develop a full range of alternatives.
To what extent does EPA intend to clean up ground water?
o The goal of EPA's Superfund ground-water approach is to
return usable ground waters to their beneficial uses within
-------
-8-
a timeframe that is reasonable, given the circumstances at
the site.
o EPA intends to restore contaminated ground water that is a
current or potential source of drinking water to levels that
are safe for drinking. EPA intends to attain such levels
throughout the contaminated plume, except directly below any
waste that is left in place.
What is a "risk range" and how does it relate to selection of
remedial actions?
o Contaminants that are considered carcinogenic are thought to
pose a risk at any level of exposure. This risk may be
small or large depending on the amount and duration of
exposure and the type of carcinogen involved. When
Superfund cannot entirely eliminate potential exposure to a
carcinogen, it determines that a remedy protects human '-
health when the amount of exposure is reduced so that the
risk is very small, i.e., at an acceptable level.
o The 1990 NCP states that generally acceptable levels fall
within a range of 10"4 to 10~6. This means that an
acceptable exposure is when the excess risk to an individual
of contracting cancer due to a lifetime exposure to a
certain concentration of a carcinogen falls between 10~4 to
10"6.
o The pr9posed revisions to the NCP had included a risk range
of 10~4 to 10~7. The risk range for Superfund cleanups
included in the final rule is consistent with the accepted
dc minimis level used by other EPA programs and other
federal agencies. It also reflects currently available
analytical and detection techniques.
What actions as* interpreted to fall under thtt 10-year provision
regarding the remediation of ground water?
o CERCLA section 104(c)(6) defines remedial action to include
the operatio'n of measures to restore contaminated ground or
surface water for a period of up to 10 years after the
commencement of operation of such measures. The practical
effect is that federal funds will be used to pay 90 percent
(or 50 percent for a publicly operated site) of the cost of
ground or surface water restoration for up to 10 years. The
state will pay the difference. This provision, however,
does not apply: ;.
-------
-9-
— To source control maintenance measures initiated to
prevent contamination of ground or surface waters.
~ To ground or surface water measures initiated for the
primary purpose of providing a drinking water supply,
not for the purpose of restoring ground water.
How does EPA define "on-site" for purposes of the CERCLA section
121(e) exemption from obtaining federal, state, or local permits
for activities conducted entirely on-site?
o EPA defines "on-site" as the "areal extent of contamination
and all suitable areas in very close proximity to the
contamination necessary for implementation of the response
action." Flexibility in defining "on-site" is necessary in
order to provide expeditious response to site hazards.
What are the requirements for deleting sites from the NPL?
o Sites may be deleted from or recategorized on the NPL where
no further response is appropriate and any of the following
criteria has been met:
— Responsible parties or other persons have implemented
all appropriate response actions required.
— All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has
been implemented, and no further response action by
responsible parties is appropriate.
— The remedial investigation has shown that the release
poses no significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures
is not appropriate.
o EPA Bust obtain state concurrence in order to delete a site
froa the !*PL. Also, EPA must provide the opportunity for
public comment on a proposed deletion.
What is the "Construction Completion** category.
o EPA has established a new "category" as part of the NPL,
the "Construction Completion" category. Sites may be
categorized as "construction complete" only after remedies
have been implemented and are operating properly. These may
be:
-------
-10-
— Sites awaiting deletion.
Sites awaiting five-year review and/or deletion (see
next question on five-year reviews).
— Sites undergoing long-term remedial actions (LTRAs).
LTRAs are taken at sites where activities over a
' relatively long duration are necessary in order to
attain cleanup levels identified in the ROD (e.g., pump
and treat of ground water for many years).
Hov do«s EPA ensure that sites remain safe after the remedial
action has been completed?
o The NCP requires a review of a site where waste is left
behind at least once every five years to ensure that the
site remains safe. No site will be deleted from the
National Priorities List (NPL) after completion of the "-
cleanup until at least one five-year review has been
conducted.
What contractor conflict of interest requirements are in the 1990
NCP?
o For Fund-financed remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA)
and operation and maintenance (04M) activities, the NCP
requires the lead agency to include appropriate language in
solicitations requiring potential prime contractors to
submit information about their status, as well as the status
of their subcontractors, parent companies, and affiliates,
as potentially responsible parties at a site.
o Prior to contract award, the lead agency must evaluate the
information to determine if a conflict of interest exists
that could significantly impact the performance of the
contractor the liability of the prime contractors or
subcontractors.
o The purpose of this evaluation is to decide whether more
oversight of the performance of the contract is appropriate
or whether a contractor has an unresolyable conflict of
interest such that it should be declared nonresponsible or
ineligible for contract award.
-------
-11-
DEFERPAL
The preamble to the proposed NCP solicited public comment on the
possible expansion of the Agency's policy for deferring the
listing of sites on the National Priorities List for response
under other authorities. What was EPA's decision on expanding the
policy?
o EPA decided not to establish an expanded deferral policy at
this time. EPA is still evaluating the complex issues
involved and believes that any changes in this policy are
best decided within the context of CERCLA reauthorization.
Current policies with regard to what sites are appropriate
for inclusion on the NPL will remain in effect.
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE RgQUIREME}TrS_JLASARs 1
What are applicable requirements?
o Applicable requirements are cleanup standards, standards of
control, and other substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under
federal environmental or state environmental or facility
siting law that specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other
circumstance found at a CERCLA site.
What are relevant and appropriate requirements?
o Relevant and appropriate requirements are cleanup
standards, etc. that, while not applicable, address
problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at a CERCLA site that their use is well-suited
to the particular site.
Hov does the 1990 NCP change the role of ARARs?
o Prior to the 1986 amendments, EPA required compliance with
all federal ARARs, but only consideration of state
requirements. The 1990 NCP incorporates the new statutory
requirement that remedies must comply not only with ARARs
under federal laws, but also with promulgated standards,
requirements, criteria, or limitations under state
environmental or facility siting laws that are more
stringent than corresponding federal standards. The 1990
NCP defines "promulgated" state requirements as those laws
-------
-12-
or regulations that are of general applicability and are
legally enforceable.
o The 1990 NCP provides that the lead and support agency
identify their respective federal and state ARARs in a
timely manner. "Timely manner" is defined in Subpart F as
sufficient time for the lead agency to consider and
incorporate ARARs into the remedy selection process without
inordinate delays and duplication of effort.
o The 1986 amendments establish six limited exceptions or
waivers to the general mandate that remedial actions attain
all ARARs. The NCP specifies the six waivers:
The alternative is an interim measure and will become
part of a total remedial action that will attain ARARs.
— Compliance with ARARs will result in greater risk to
human health and the environment than other
alternatives.
— Compliance with ARARs is technically impracticable from
an engineering perspective.
— Another alternative that does not comply with the ARAR
will result in an equivalent standard of performance.
— The state ARAR has not been consistently applied in
similar circumstances.
-- Attainment•of ARARs will not provide a balance between
the need for protection of human health and environment
at the site and the availability of Fund monies to
respond to other sites. The preamble to the 1990 NCP
suggests a threshold for routine consideration of this
waiver at four times the average cost of an operable
unit.
41
Can non-promulgated criteria, such as advisory levels or guidance,
be considered when determining cleanup standards?
o Criteria, advisories, or guidance that do not meet the
definition of ARARs but that may assist in determining what
is necessary to be protective or that are otherwise useful
in developing Superfund remedies are described as
information to-be-considered (TBC). Three general
categories of TBCs are: (1) health effects information with
a high degree of creditability, e.g., reference doses; (2)
technical information on how to perform or evaluate site
-------
-13-
investigations or response actions; and (3) policy, e.g.,
EPA's ground-water policy.
o The proposed NCP's description of TBCs was revised in the
1990 NCP to emphasize that they should be used on an "as
appropriate" basis and that TBCs are intended to complement
use of ARARs, not to be in competition with ARARs.
when are MCLs or MCLGs considered relevant and appropriate in the
selection of ground-water restoration levels?
o Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are enforceable standards
under the Safe Drinking Water Act for specific contaminants
in public water supplies. Maximum contaminant level goals
(MCLGs) are non-enforceable goals on which MCLs are based.
o Consistent with CERCLA's direction to use maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) as cleanup levels, the NCP
states that ground water that is or could be used for
drinking generally will be restored to MCLGs that are above
zero. When the MCLG equals zero (generally for
carcinogens), the corresponding maximum contaminant level
(MCLs) generally will be used as the cleanup level.
o The NCP explains that a cleanup level of zero is not
appropriate for Superfund because CERCLA does not require
the complete elimination of risk and because it is
impossible to detect whether "true" zero has actually been
attained.
o The proposed NCP had stated that MCLs generally will be used
as the cleanup level and stated that MCLGs would be used
only in cases where multiple contaminants or pathways posed
a risk in excess of 10~4.
Has the role of«ARARs changed significantly in going froa proposed
to final revisions?
o The role of ARARs in the 1990 NCP is essentially the same
as in the proposed rule. New language was added to the
rule, however, to clarify that requirements that are
promulgated or modified after the ROD is signed will be
attained only when determined to be ARAR and necessary to
ensure that the remedy protects human health and the
environment.
o The preamble to the 1990-NCP also states that best
demonstrated available technology (BOAT) standards under the
-------
-14-
RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDR) generally will not be
appropriate for contaminated soil and debris at a Superfund
site. This revised policy will allow Superfund sites to
attain alternative levels of cleanup to those required by
the BOAT standards.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
What: community relations activities are specified in the 1990
NCP?
o In the 1985 NCP, all community relations requirements were
set forth in section 300.67. In the 1990 NCP, community
relations requirements are incorporated into each of the
sections relating to the different phases of response, i.e.,
removal actions, remedial investigation and feasibility
study (RI/FS) and selection of remedy, and remedial design
and remedial action (RD/RA). Further, in the 1990 NCP,--new
community relations requirements are added to implement 1986
CERCLA requirements under sections 113 (administrative
record) and 117 (public participation).
1. Removal Actions
What are the administrative record and public participation
requirements for removal actions?
o These requirements depend upon the type of removal action
conducted. The three categories of removal actions are:
— Emergency, which generally refers to a release or
threat of release that requires that removal activities
begin on site within hours of the lead agency's
determination that a removal action is appropriate.
— Timeacritical. where based on the site evaluation, the
lead agency determines that a removal action is
appropriate and that there is a period of less than six•
months available before removal activities must begin on
sit*.
— Non-tine-critical. where based on th« site evaluation,
the lead agency determines that a removal action is
appropriate and that th«r« in a planning period of more
than six months before on-sit« removal activities must
begin.
-------
-15-
What are the primary public participation requirements that apply
to all types of removal actions?
o The lead agency shall designate a spokesperson to provide
information and to respond to inquiries regarding the
action.
What are the primary administrative record and public
participation requirements that apply to: (1) emergency and (2)
time-critical removal actions? ("New11 indicates a requirement not
stated in the 1985 NCP):
o (New) The administrative record shall be made available to
the public no later than 60 days after initiation of on-site
removal activities. The notice of availability shall be
published in a major local newspaper of general
circulation. The record shall be available at the office of
the lead agency or other central location and at or near'the
site. The record for emergency cleanups lasting less than
30 days need only be available at the central location.
o (New) The lead agency shall, as appropriate, provide a 30-
day public comment period to begin at the time the
administrative record is made available to the public and
respond to comments received.
What are the primary administrative record and public
participation requirements that apply to: (1) all non-time-
critical actions and (2) time-critical actions where on-site
removal activities are expected to last longer than 120 calendar
days?
o (New) Conduct interviews with state and local officials,
residents, public interest groups, or other interested or
affected parties, as appropriate.
«
o Develop a community relations plan specifying the community
relations activities that the lead agency expects to
undertake.
o (New) Establish at least one information repository at or
near the site to contain items mad* available for public
inspection. The administrative record shall be available in
at least one of the repositories.
-------
-16-
What additional administrative record and public participation
requirements apply to non-time-critical actions?
o (New) Publish a notice of availability and brief
description of the decision document, i.e., the engineering
evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA).
o (New) At the same time, make the administrative record
available for public inspection.
o (New) Provide a public comment period on the EE/CA and the
administrative record of not less than 30 days after the
EE/CA is made available. Upon timely request, the lead
agency will extend the comment period by a minimum of 15
days.
o (New) Prepare a written response to significant comments.
2. Remedial Actions
What are the primary administrative record and public
participation requirements for remedial actions?
o (New) Conduct interviews with state and local officials,
residents, public interest groups, or other interested or
affected parties, as appropriate.
o Develop a community relations plan (CRP) specifying the
community relations activities that the lead agency expects
to undertake.
-- In a revision to the proposed NCP, the 1990 NCP more
clearly states that the purpose of developing the CRP
is to provide the public opportunities to participate in
decision-making at the site and to learn about the site.
o (N«w) Establish information repositories at a central
location and at or near the site and infora the public of
its availability.
o (New) Inform the community of the availability of technical
assistance grants.
o (New) Make the administrative record available for public
inspection when the remedial investigation (RI) starts
(generally when the RI/FS workplan is available) and publish^
a notice of availability.
-------
-17-
o (New) Prepare a proposed plan that briefly describes the
remedial alternatives analyzed, proposes a preferred
remedial action alternative, and summarizes the information
relied upon to select the preferred alternative.
o (New) Publish a notice of availability of the proposed plan
and RI/FS in a newspaper of general circulation.
o (New) Make the proposed plan and supporting analyses and
information available in the administrative record.
o (New) Provide a comment period of not less than 30 days for
submission of written and oral comments (comment period in
the 1935 NCP is 21 days).
— In a change from the proposed NCP, the 1990 NCP states
that, upon timely request, the comment period may be
extended a minimum of 30 days.
o Provide the opportunity for a public meeting during the
public comment period.
o (New) Keep a transcript of the public meeting.
o Prepare a response to comments, to be a part of the record
of decision (ROD).
o (New) Include in the ROD a discussion of any significant
changes from the proposed plan with respect to scope,
performance, or cost.
o (New) Solicit additional public comment on a revised
proposed plan if the significant changes from the proposed
plan could not have been reasonably anticipated based on
existing information.
o (New) Publish a notice of availability of the ROD and make
the ROD available for public inspection and copying.
o (New) Prior to remedial design, review the community
relations plan and, when appropriate, revise the community
relations plan to describe public involvement opportunities
during remedial design/remedial action.
o (New) if, after adoption of the ROD, the remedial action
differs significantly from the ROD with respect to scope,
performance, or cost, publish and make available an
explanation of significant differences. If the changes
fundamentally alter the ROD, propose an amendment to the
ROD, issue a public notice, solicit public comment, and
-------
-18-
comply with other community relations requirements, such
public meetings, transcripts, comment response summaries,
as
o (New) Issue a final engineering design fact sheet and
provide, as appropriate, a public briefing prior to the
initiation of the remedial action.
Hov does a significant change to a remedy differ from a
fundamental change?
o Significant changes are generally incremental changes to a
component of a remedy that do not fundamentally alter the
overall remedial approach selected in the ROD (e.g.,
compliance with a newly promulgated requirement so that the
remedy remain protective but that does not change the
selected technology). A significant change requires an
explanation of significant differences. Fundamental changes
alter the ROD with respect to scope, performance, or cost in
such a manner that the proposed action, is no longer
reflective of the selected remedy in the ROD (e.g., a change
from an innovative technology to a more conventional one).
Fundamental changes require ROD amendments.
What changes were made in response to public comments on the
proposed NCP's community relations requirements?
o The purpose of developing the community relations plan is
to provide the public opportunities to participate in
decision-making at the site and to learn about the site.
o Upon timely request, the public comment period will be
extended a minimum of 30 days for remedial actions. For
non-time critical removal actions, the comment period will
be extended a minimum of 15 days, upon timely request.
o Prior to remedial design, the lead agency is required to
review the CRP to determine if it should be revised. The
proposed NCP provided for revision of the CRP in cases where
community concerns were not already addressed.
o Before initiation of remedial action, a fact sheet on the
final engineering design will be distributed and an
opportunity for a public briefing will be provided, as
appropriate.
o The preamble to the 1990 NCP describes other public
-------
-19-
participation activities in addition to the minimum
requirements that may be implemented at a site.
What is a technical assistance grant (TAG)?
o SARA section 117(e) provides that technical assistance
grants of up to $50,000 may be made available to community
groups that may be affected by a release or threatened
release at a site listed on the NPL. The grants must be
used to obtain assistance in interpreting technical material
related to site cleanups.
What changes were made in the 1990 NCP in response to public
comments about TAGs?
o The 1990 NCP requires the community to be informed of the
availability of TAGs and that information about the TAG -
application process be placed in the information repository
located at or near the site. .
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD REQUIREMENTS
What is the purpose of the administrative record?
o The two primary purposes of the record are to:
— Serve as the record for judicial review concerning the
adequacy of a response action.
— Provide interested parties, including potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), an opportunity to
participate in selection of the response through review
of and coament on documents in the record.
What documents €ypically are included in the administrative
record?
o All documents which form the basis for the selection of a
response action. Such documents typically include: factual
information/data; analysis of factual information; policy
and guidance documents; public participation documents,
including public comments; decision documents and responses
to public comments; and some enforcement documents.
-------
-20-
Where aust the administrative record be located and how will the
public be notified of its availability?
o The record must be located at or near the site (in an
information repository) and at an office of the lead agency
or another central location. The record need not be
available at or near the site, however, for emergency
removal actions that are concluded within 30 days of
initiation.
o Certain information need not be located at or near the site
where it would pose a substantial administrative burden,
e.g., sampling and testing data, guidance documents not
generated specifically for the site, publicly available
technical literature. The index to the record, however,
shall indicate the availability of such items.
o The availability of the record must be announced in a major
local newspaper of general circulation.
What documents may be added to the administrative record after the
ROD is signed?
o Documents relating to remedy selection issues that the ROD
reserves or does not address, explanations of significant
differences, and ROD amendments.
Hov does the administrative record differ from the information
repository?
o Information repositories include documents that relate to a
Superfund site and to the Superfund program in general, such
as documents on site activities, information about the site
location, and background program and policy guides. The
administrative record is the body of documents that forms
the basis, of the Agency's selection of a particular response
at a site, such as site-specific data and public comments.
Documents in the administrative record may overlap with
those found in the information repository.
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Which NCP requirements apply to state-lead response actions?
o The NCP applies to federal agencies and states that take
response actions pursuant to th« authorities under CERCLA
and section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
-------
-21-
Hov does the 1990 NCP implement the new CERCLA requirement to
provide for substantial and meaningful state involvement in
remedial planning and remedial actions?
o The 1990 NCP introduces the Superfund Memorandum of
Agreement (SMOA) and the process of EPA/state concurrence in
remedy selection. SMOAs are voluntary agreements that are
intended to ensure equitable relationships between EPA and
states and to reduce misunderstandings by clarifying the
expectations of both parties. The SMOA may be used to
establish the general framework for the EPA/state working
relationship, to define the roles and responsibilities of
the lead and support agencies, and to provide general
requirements for EPA oversight.
o The NCP provides that the state may be the lead agency for a
Fund-financed site. This allows the state to conduct the"
investigation and analysis leading up to selecting the
remedy. The state may also conduct the remedial
design/remedial action phases of the response.
o The process of concurrence, which reflects the evolution of
the EPA/state partnership in recent years, enables a state
that demonstrates certain capabilities to prepare the
proposed plan and recommend the remedy for EPA adoption for
Fund-financed actions. EPA retains the authority to select
Fund-financed remedies and sign the record of decision
(ROD), with the state's concurrence.
—. Also under the concept of concurrence, a state will
select the remedy and may request EPA concurrence for
state enforcement actions not using the Superfund (i.e.,
non-Fund-financed actions).
— On* advantage to concurrence by EPA and a state on a
remedy is that it results in a unified position when
EPA ana the state negotiate with PRPs.
o A state nay recommend a remedy for EPA concurrence even
when no SMOA is established. EPA anticipates that the
concurrence process will increase EPA involvement in state
enforcement actions and provide for greater state
involvement in the selection of reaedial actions at Fund-
financed sites.
-------
-22-
What happen* if a SMOA is not established?
o The 1990 NCP sets forth minimum requirements in the absence
of a SMOA regarding annual EPA/state consultations, review
by the support agency of lead agency documents, and
identification of ARARs.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Which NCP requirements apply to federal facility response actions?
o Requirements of the NCP apply to federal agency response
actions at NPL and non-NPL sites, except where specifically
noted that the requirements apply only to Fund-financed
activities. The requirement for joint selection of remedy
by a federal agency and EPA applies only at NPL sites.
o Subpart K of the 1990 NCP is specifically reserved for
federal facilities. EPA is currently drafting Subpart K,
which will provide a roadmap of the NCP requirements that
apply to federal facility response actions.
-------
SECTION V
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
-------
-------
CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS
MANUAL -- GUIDE TO MANUAL
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive 9234.2-02FS
September 1989
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual
GUIDE TO MANUAL
The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) adopts and expands a provision in the 1985
National Contingency Plan (NCP) that remedial actions must at least attain applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires attainment of Federal ARARs
and of State ARARs in State environmental or facility siting laws when the State requirements are promulgated, more
stringent than Federal laws, and identified by the State in a timely manner. Under EPA regulation and policy, removal
actions must comply with ARARs to the extent practicable.
To implement the ARARs provision, EPA has developed guidance, CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual:
Parts I and II (OSWER Directives 9234.1-01 and 9234.1-02, respectively). EPA is preparing a series of short fact sheets
that summarize the guidance document (OSWER Directives 9234.2 series). This Fact Sheet provides a guide to the
compliance manual. The compliance manual is based on policies set fonh in the proposed December 21,1988 revisions
to the NCP. The final NCP may adopt policies different from those covered here and should, when promulgated, be
considered the authoritative source.
I. PURPOSE OF MANUAL
The CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual is intended to assist in the identification and
evaluation of ARARs for removal and remedial actions.
The manual provides guidance to Remedial Project
Managers, On-Scene Coordinators, State personnel, and
others responsible for or assisting in response actions
under sections 104, 106, and 122 of CERCLA. The
manual is also intended to assist in the selection of on-
site remedial actions that meet the ARARs of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the
Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FEFRA), and other
Federal and State environmental laws, as required by
CERCLA section 121. In general, different ARARs for
a site and its remedial action will be identified at
various points in the remedy selection process.
II. DEFINITIONS OF ARARS
A requirement under other environmental laws
may be either "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate,"
but not both. Identification of ARARs must be done
on a site-specific basis and involves a two-part analysis:
first, a determination of whether a given requirement is
applicable; then, if it is not applicable, a determination
of whether it is nevertheless both relevant and
appropriate.
DEFINITIONS:
• Applicable requirements are those cleanup
standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under Federal or State law that
specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA
site.
• Relevant and appropriate: requirements are
those same standards mentioned above that
while not "applicable* at the CERCLA site,
address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at. the site that
their use is wen suited to the particular site.
On-site actions are required to comply with ARARs,
but must comply only with the substantive parts of an
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement.
Off-site actions must comply only with legally applicable
requirements, but must comply fully with both
substantive and administrative requirements.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
HI. CONTENTS OF MANUAL
Part I describes general procedures for identifying
ARARs and complying with ARARs in RCRA, CWA,
SDWA, and ground-water policies. Part I is organized
as follows:
* Chapter 1, General Procedures for CERCLA
Compliance with. Other Statutes - defines the
terms "applicable" and "relevant and appropriate,"
describes general procedures for identifying and
analyzing requirements, identifies waivers from
ARARs, and provides matrices listing types of
potential ARARs from RCRA, CWA, and SDWA.
• Chapter 2, Guidance for CERCLA Compliance
with RCRA - discusses RCRA hazardous waste
requirements and policies for determining when
RCRA requirements are ARARs for CERCLA
actions, including what actions at a CERCLA site
constitute "disposal," as defined by RCRA.
• Chapter 3, Guidance for Compliance with Clean
Water Act Requirements - provides guidance for
compliance with CWA substantive requirements
for direct discharges, indirect discharges, and
dredge-and-fill activities.
• Chapter 4, Guidance for Compliance with
Requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act -
provides guidance for compliance with SDWA
requirements that may be ARARs, including
drinking water standards and the requirements for
underground injection control, sole-source
aquifers, and the wellhead protection program.
* Chapter 5, Ground Water Protection Policies -
discusses ground-water classification, provides
guidance on consistency with policies for ground-
water protection, and includes a hypothetical
scenario for illustrating how ARARs are identified
and used.
• Appendix A provides an overview of the major
environmental statutes and regulations covered in
Parti.
Part II of the manual describes general procedures for
complying with ARARs in CAA, TSCA, FEFRA, other
resource protection statutes, mining waste statutes, and
State ARARS. Part II is organized as follows:
» Chapter 1, Introduction and Overview - provides
an introduction and overview of Part II of the
guidance manual and includes matrices of
potential ARARs covered in Part II.
• Chapter 2, Clean Air Act Requirements and
Related RCRA and State Requirements - provides
guidance for compliance with CAA requirements
(including the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the New Source
Performance Standards) and related RCRA and
State requirements for air emissions.
• Chapter 3, Standards for Toxics and Pesticides -
provides guidance for compliance with statutes
(i.e., TSCA and FIFRA) that address toxic
substances (particularly PCBs) and pesticides.
• Chapter 4, Other Resource Protection Statutes -
provides guidance for compliance with other
resource protection statutes, including the
National Historic Preservation Act, the
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the
Wilderness Act.
• Chapter 5, Standards, Advisories, and Guidance
for the Management of Radioactive Waste -
discusses potential ARARs and potentially useful
guidance for cleaning up radioactively
contaminated sites and buildings. Major acts
discussed include the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act, the Atomic Energy Act,
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, CAA, and CWA.
• Chapter 6, Potential ARARs For CERCLA
Actions at Mining, Milling, or Smelting Sites -
provides guidance for compliance with statutes
incorporating standards for mining, milling, or
smelting sites, including the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act and RCRA.
• Chapter 7, CERCLA Compliance with State
Requirements discusses eligibility requirements for
State programs, specific types of State laws (e.g.,
siting requirements), and procedures for
communicating State ARARs.
• Appendix A provides guidance for compliance with
CAA Part C requirements under the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration program.
• Appendix B describes Federal/State relationships
under major Federal environmental statutes,
including whether the statute allows for State
authorization of the program and whether the
State provisions are identical or more stringent
than the Federal requirements.
-------
CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS MANUAL
CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9234.2-05/FS
December 1989
CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual
CERCLA Compliance
with State Requirements
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Program Management OS-240
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) adopts and expands a provision in the 1985
National Contingency Plan (NCP) that remedial actions must at least attain applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires attainment of Federal ARARs and
of State ARARs in State environmental or facility siting laws when the State requirements are promulgated, more
stringent than Federal laws, and identified by the State in a timely manner.
To implement the ARARs provision, EPA has developed guidance, CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual:
Parts I and II (Publications 9234.1-01 and 9234.1-02). EPA is preparing a series of short fact sheets that summarize these
guidance documents. This fact sheet provides a guide to Chapter 6 of Part II, which addresses CERCLA compliance with
State requirements. The material covered here is based on SARA and on policies in the proposed revisions to the NCP.
The final NCP may adopt policies different from those covered here and should, when promulgated, be considered the
authoritative source.
I. INTRODUCTION TO STATE ARARs
Prior to SARA, the NCP classified all State
requirements as criteria that EPA should consider when
selecting a remedy. The amendments elevated to the level
of potential ARARs any "promulgated" State requirements
that are "more stringent" than Federal requirements (see
Highlight 1 for specific criteria).
Highlight It CRITERIA FOR A STATE
TO QUAOF5? AS AN AMR
In. order to qualify as a State ARAR, a State
requirement should be:
« A State law;
• ' AH. environmental or fedlity siting law,
» Promulgated?
• More stringent than the Federal requirement;
• Identified in a tfroely manner; and
« Consistently applied.
State requirements, like Federal requirements, must
also be substantive in nature to qualify as ARARs.
Administrative or procedural State requirements are not
ARARs. Elements of State ARARs are discussed below.
Generally, laws and regulations adopted at the State
level, as distinguished from the regional, county, or local
level, are considered to be State ARARs. Local laws in
themselves are not ARARs. However, requirements that
are developed by a local or regional body and are both
adopted and legally enforceable by the State may be
potential State ARARs. Potential State ARARs may
also be found where local or regional boards have
established standards that become part of a legally
enforceable State "plan."
H. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL OR FACILITY SITING
LAWS AS ARARs
Several common types of State statutes that may
provide State ARARs are described below. Guidance
on compliance with these requirements is provided.
A. State Siting Requirements (Location Standards)
State siting requirements may restrict the location
of existing and expanding or new hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities
(Highlight 2 provides the triggers for State siting
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
requirements). Siting restrictions have generally been left
to the States to implement. However, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) contains limited
siting provisions that restrict locations in fault zones, 100-
year floodplains, salt dome and salt bed formations, and
underground caves. As of 1987, 33 States had
promulgated siting requirements that were more stringent
than Federal requirements/
Highlight 2: TRIGGERS FOR STATE
SITING REQUIREMENTS
State siting requirements may be triggered as
potential ARARs when:
• An existing hazardous waste site & in a restricted
location, and a corresponding action is required
(such as a removal, remediation, design, or
modified care);
• A new hazardous waste unit is to be created in a
restricted location; or
• A non-land-based unit is brought on-site.
The application of a State siting law to a Superfund
action also depends upon the State's definition of a "new"
or "existing" site. Because Superrund sites generally
represent pre-existing (and unplanned) situations, State
restrictions for new or operating facilities may not apply
to Superfund sites.
State siting requirements are commonly found in
State laws that address environmentally sensitive areas
such as wetlands, endangered species habitats, gamelands,
parks, preserves, and underground mining/subsidence
areas. States also protect ground water and surface water
through a variety of location standards such as: (1)
prohibitions of facilities in certain locations; (2)
quantitative setback distances from water supplies or other
water bodies; (3) quantitative thickness or hydraulic
conductivity in soil barriers; and (4) designation of
acceptable soil or rock type for facility siting. Finally,
buffer zones may also contain location standards ranging
from specific setback distances to general statements that
preclude interference with population areas.
B. Discharge of Toxic Pollutants to Surface Waters
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to
identify water bodies that may be adversely affected by
toxic pollutants and to develop criteria to protect these
areas. State toxic pollutant regulations are generally pre-
Temple, Barker, and Sloane, Inc., Review of State Hazardous Waste
Facility Criteria. Revised Draft Final Report. U.S. EPA, Washington,
DC, 1987.
sented in the form of narrative goals rather than numeric
criteria. For example, State narrative requirements may
be expressed in terms predicated upon specific toxicity
testing procedures or in terms of whole effluent toxicity
limits. All substantive aspects of these narrative
requirements may be ARARs for CERCLA discharges.
In addition, general prohibitions on toxic pollutant
discharges of known carcinogens may be State ARARs
for on-site CERCLA discharges. All such State
requirements should be examined for any exemptions of
Federal activities.
C. Antidegradation Requirements for Surface Water
The CWA requires all States to adopt statutes or
regulations that prevent the degradation of high-quality
waters. In addition, States may have promulgated other
antidegradation requirements for surface waters (see
Highlight 3 for typical State antidegradation
requirements).
Highlights? TYPICAL STATE
ANTIDEGRADATION REQUIREMENTS
Typical State antidegradation requirements will
mandate the:
• Maintenance of existing in-stream designated
beneficial uses;
• Maintenance of higa-quality waters unless the
State decides to allow limited degradation where
economically or socially justifiable;
* Maintenance of the quality of Outstanding
National Resource Waters (QNRW^ and
* Use of best available technology for treatment
of new or increased pollution into high-quality
waters.
•If a CERCLA remedial action involves a point-source
discharge of treated effluent to high-quality surface
waters, these various State antidegradation requirements
may be ARARs for the discharge.
D. Antidegradation Requirements for Ground Water
Like antidegradation requirements for surface water,
antidegradation requirements for ground water are
generally prospective in nature and are designed to
prevent further degradation of water quality. If a State
has developed antidegradation requirements for ground
water, CERCLA remedial actions involving injection of
partially treated water into a pristine aquifer may be
affected. These State requirements would not, however,
require cleanup to the aquifer's original quality prior to
contamination. However, there may be a State cleanup
-------
law that specifically requires cleanup to background, which
would constitute an ARAR for the remediation.
III. "PROMULGATED" LAWS AS ARARs
A State requirement must be promulgated to quality
as an ARAR. A State requirement is promulgated if it
is: (1) legally enforceable; and (2) of general applicability
(see Highlight 4).
Highlight 4: PROMULGATED STATE LAWS
* Legal Enforceability: State requirements may be
legally enforceable m several ways. State statutes
or regulations may either; (1) have their Own
specific enforcement provisions written into them;
or {2} be enforced through the State's general
legal authority. *
• General Applicability; State requirements must
apply to a broader universe than Superfund sites.
For example, a State requirement having general
applicability ("of general applicability") would
apply to all hazardous waste sites in the State
that meet the jurisdictional prerequisites of the
requirement, not just to CERCLA sites.
Promulgated requirements are found in State statutes
and regulations that have been adopted by authorized
State agencies. Statute numbers, enactment dates, and
effective dates may indicate whether the requirements have
been promulgated. Such promulgated requirements may
be either numerical or narrative in form.
A. Criteria That Are "To Be Considered" (TBCs)
Although they are not ARARs, State advisories,
guidance and policies, etc., may help EPA define and
develop protective remedies and interpret State laws.
These State policies and guidance, known as "to be
considered" (TBCs), are not potential ARARs because
they are neither promulgated nor enforceable. It may be
necessary to consult TBCs to interpret ARARs or to
determine preliminary remediation goals when ARARs do
not exist for particular contaminants. States should
identify or communicate to EPA TBCs that they consider
to be pertinent to the remedy.
B. Narrative Standards
Occasionally, a State may submit as an ARAR a
narrative State statute. While narrative State statutes may
be ARARs, unpromulgated methodologies that are
designed to implement narrative statutes are not. EPA has
discretion to determine whether numbers obtained from
unpromulgated methodology should be met, or whether
they constitute TBCs. It is important to note, however,
that numbers derived from State narrative statutes may be
ARARs if the narrative statute is an ARAR, and has
implementing regulations that are also ARARs.
IV. "MORE STRINGENT" LAWS AS ARARs
CERCLA requires remedies to comply with State
requirements that are more stringent than Federal
requirements (see Highlight 5 for a definition of "more
stringent").
Highlight 5: CRITERIA FOR
"MORE STRINGENT"
» State requirements are more stringent than
Federal requirements if the State program has
Federal authorization and the State
requirements are "ax least" as stringent
« State programs that do not have a Federal
counterpart are generally more stringent
because they add new requirements.
• Stringency comparisons may be necessary if a
State program is not Federally authorized but
has a Federal counterpart.
It is important to note that EPA believes that if a State
is authorized to implement a program in lieu of a
Federal agency, State laws arising out of that program
constitute the ARARs instead of the Federal authorizing
legislation. A stringency comparison is unnecessary
because State regulations under Federally authorized
programs are considered to be Federal requirements.
V. IDENTIFYING AND COMMUNICATING STATE
ARARs IN A TIMELY MANNER
CERCLA requires States to identify ARARs in a
timely manner. As a result, EPA and a State may enter
into a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA)
which, among other things, establishes a schedule for
communicating ARARs. In the absence of a SMOA,
States must identify ARARs within certain timeframes
(identified below) in order for that identification to be
considered "timely". EPA is not legally required to
consider potential State ARARs that are not identified
within these timeframes. The responsibilities of a State
to communicate ARARs will vary depending upon its
role at the site (see Highlight 6 for State roles and
responsibilities).
A. Critical Points for Identifying State ARARs
There are particular points in the preremedial and
remedial processes during which the lead and support
agencies must communicate with each other. SMOAs
may identify timeframes for communicating potential
ARARs. Highlight 7 presents the critical points in the
-------
Highlight 6: STATE ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
As the support agency, the State is responsible for;
• Receiving and reviewing information about
proposed Federal ARARs and TBCs, as early as
site characterization;
• Coordinating State input on ARARs from all
State agencies;
• Identifying State ARARs during the RI/FS;
• Justifying proposed State ARARs; and
* Reviewing ARARs identified in the proposed
plan and ROD.
As the |ead agency, the State is responsible for:
• Requesting EPA's identification of Federal
ARARs;
Identifying State ARARs; during the
• Identifying ARARs and waivers fa the proposed
plan; and
• Documenting compliance with ARARs in the
draft ROD.
pre-remedial and remedial processes if no SMOA exists,
or if the SMOA fails to address such timeframes. It is
important to note that regardless of their role, EPA and
the States each have an unvarying responsibility. States
are always responsible for identifying State ARARs and
communicating them to EPA in a timely manner. EPA
is always responsible for making the final determination
on ARARs as part of remedy selection, regardless of who
conducts the RI/FS (i.e., EPA, the State, or PRP), or who
recommends the remedy (i.e., EPA or the State), except
for State-lead non-Fund-financed sites.
B. EPA Responsibilities for Communicating
Waivers
If EPA intends to waive any State-identified ARARs
in its proposed plan, or does not agree with the State
that a certain State standard is an ARAR, it must
formally notify the State either: (1) when the Agency
submits the RI/FS for State review; or (2) when the
Agency responds to the State's submission of the RI/FS.
In addition, EPA must respond to State comments on
waivers from, or disagreements about, State ARARs after
making the RI/FS and proposed plan available for public
comment.
Highlight 7: CRITICAL POINTS
FOR IDENTIFYING ARARS
Scoping of th»fil/FS
• Lead and support agencies Initial* discussion
of potential ARARs and TBCs, focusing on
chemical- and location-specific requirements.
i
r
; Sit* Charactorizatfon
• Lead agency ssnds Preliminary Site Char-
acterization Summary to support agencies to
facilitate ARAR* Identification.
• Lead agency request* potential chemlcal-
and locatlon-spsclflc ARAR* and TBC* from
support agency.
• Support agency ha* 30 days from receipt
of request to respond.
1
f
D»v«ropm*mt of Attdrr iattv«»
* Lead agency begins preliminary consideration
of action-specific ARARs.
\
"^.JlS.i^Pi
r
W&i^iS&'
• Lead agency begins Identification of
actlon-*p*clflc ARAR*.
• Lead Agency notifies the support agency of
alternative* that passed Initial screening.
1
1
• Before Comparative Analysis begins, lead
agency requests action-specific and any addi-
tional ARAR* and TBC* from support agency.
• Support agency ha* 30 day* from receipt
of request to respond.
- t
'i^ft^i'^^^S^'&^SSSSk »«psi*^' !a^-ii"'ff^
^.^5£ljl.CfIQf3F*WR-JS|^f
-------
C. State Responsibilities for Documenting State ARARs
To demonstrate that the State requirement is an
ARAR, States are required by the NCP to provide
citations to the statute or regulation number. In addition,
States should provide the requirement's effective date and
description of scope, where appropriate. Furthermore,
States should provide evidence that the requirement is
more stringent than the Federal requirement. -Finally,
States should also describe in writing the relationship
between the State requirement and the site or action, to
show that the State requirement is applicable or relevant
and appropriate to that particular site or action.
VI. STATE STANDARD WAIVERS
A. Statutory Waivers
Of the six ARAR waivers set forth in CERCLA, one
applies exclusively to State ARARs: inconsistent
application of the State standard by the State. This
waiver may be invoked when evidence exists that a State
standard has not been or will not be consistently applied
to both non-NPL and NPL sites within the State. The
waiver may be used, for example, for a State standard
that was promulgated but never applied, or for a standard
that has been variably applied or enforced. A State
standard is presumed .to have been consistently applied
unless there is evidence to the contrary.
B. State Waivers
In addition to the waivers provided by CERCLA,
many State regulations have their own waivers or excep-
tions to their requirements. When a State requirement
has a waiver that is applicable, the State requirement does
not have to be'met. EPA makes the final determination
as part of the selection of remedy.
State waivers are common components of State
siting requirements. Usually only temporary or
emergency situations qualify for waivers of, State siting
requirements. Remedial actions at Superfund sites may
qualify for State waivers depending upon their design and
the particular waiver requirements. To determine if a
remedial action qualifies for a State waiver, the State
waiver provision should be examined for its duration,
circumstances that justify its use, and- any renewal
provisions..
C. State-Wide Bans
Under CERCLA section 121(d), a State-wide ban
prohibiting land disposal of hazardous substances is not
an ARAR unless the following three criteria are met:
• The State requirement is of general applicability
and was adopted by formal means;
• The State requirement was adopted on the basis of
hydrologic, geologic, or other relevant considerations
and was not adopted for the purpose of precluding
on-site remedial actions or other land disposal for
reasons unrelated to protection of human health
and the environment; and
• The State arranges for, and assures payment of the
incremental costs of, utilizing a facility for
hazardous waste disposal.
-------
-------
CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS MANUAL
OVERVIEW OF ARARs — Focus on ARAR Waivers
-------
-------
v°xEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9234.2-03/FS
December 1989
CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual
Overview of ARARs
Focus on ARAB Waivers
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Program Management OS-240
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) adopts and expands a provision in the 1985
National Contingency Plan (NCP) that remedial actions must at least attain applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires attainment of Federal ARARs and
of State ARARs in State environmental or facility siting laws when such requirements are promulgated, are more
stringent than Federal laws, and are identified by the State in a timely manner.
To implement the ARARs provision, EPA has developed guidance, CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual:
Parts I and II (OSWER Directives 9234.1-01 and 9234.1-02). EPA is preparing a series of short fact sheets that
summarize these guidance documents. This fact sheet summarizes Chapter 1 of Part I, which provides an overview of
ARARs. The material covered here is based on policies in the proposed revisions to the NCP. The final NCP may
adopt policies different from those covered here and should, when promulgated, be considered the authoritative source.
L OVERVIEW OF ARARS
A. Statutory Provisions
CERCLA section 121(d)(2) states that for wastes left
on-site, remedial actions must comply with Federal and
State environmental laws that are legally applicable or are
relevant and appropriate under the circumstances of the
release. This section, in effect, codified and expanded on
the 1985 NCP, which required compliance with Federal
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), a provision adopted to make use of other
programs' or agencies' standards.
In addition, CERCLA requires Superfund remedial
actions to comply with State environmental or facility
siting laws provided that the State requirements: (1) are
promulgated; (2) are more stringent than Federal laws;
and (3) are identified by the State in a timely manner.
CERCLA section 121(d) also mentions two criteria
specifically — Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), and Water Quality Criteria (WQC) developed
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) - and requires that
they be attained when they are relevant and appropriate
(compliance with these criteria is discussed in a separate
fact sheet). CERCLA also specifies six circumstances in
which ARARs can be waived. The ARAR waivers are
discussed in Part II of this fact sheet.
B. Compliance with ARARs for Removal Actions
Although CERCLA requires compliance with
ARARs for remedial actions only, the current NCP
requires that removal actions also comply with Federal
ARARs, to the extent practicable. Furthermore, EPA
policy under the proposed NCP requires that removal
actions comply with both State and Federal ARARs to
the extent practicable. Until this policy is promulgated
by regulation, however, compliance with State ARARs
during removal actions must be justified based upon
protectiveness.
Factors used in determining whether removal
compliance with ARARs is practicable include: (1) the
urgency of the situation; and (2) the scope of the
removal action to be conducted, which includes
consideration of the statutory limits for removal actions.
An example of a situation where compliance with
ARARs is not practicable for a removal action would be
a site where emergency conditions call for a rapid
response, thereby preventing the on-scene coordinator
from identifying and attaining ARARs. An ARAR that
is beyond the scope of a removal to remediate top-level
soil contamination due to leaking drums might be one
that applies to lower-level soil remediation. Of course,
such a standard may still be an ARAR for any remedial
action that is subsequently taken at the site.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
C. Definitions of ARARs and TBCs
In the proposed revisions to the NCP (53 FR 51394),
EPA clarified the definitions of "applicable" and "relevant
and appropriate"-requirements (see Highlight 1).
Highlight Is DEFINITION OF
"APPLICABLE9 AND "RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE" REQUHUEMBNTS
Applicable requirements are defined as "cleanup
standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection requirements,
criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or
State law that specifically address a hazardous.
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site."
Relevant and appropriate requirements are defined
as "substantive environmental protection
requirements ... promulgated under Federal ox State
law that, while not "applicable",... address problems
or situations sufficiently similar to those
, encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is
well suited to the particular site.*
1. Applicable Requirements
An applicable requirement directly and fully addresses
the situation at the" site. In other words, an applicable
requirement is a substantive requirement that a private
party would be subject to if it were undertaking the action
independently from any CERCLA authority. For a
requirement to be applicable, all jurisdictional
prerequisites of the requirement must be met, including:
(1) the party subject to the law, (2) the substances or
activities that fall under the authority of the law, (3) the
time period during which the law is in effect; and (4) the
types of activities the statute or regulation requires, limits,
or prohibits.
2. Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
While a determination of applicability is primarily a
legal one, a determination of whether a requirement is
relevant and appropriate is site-specific and is based on
best c professional judgment, taking into account the
circumstances of the release or threatened release. This
determination should be made in conjunction with
pertinent national policies.
There is more flexibility and discretion in making
relevant and appropriate determinations than' in
determining the applicability of a requirement. Only
those requirements that are both relevant and appropriate
are ARARs. A requirement may be relevant, but not
appropriate, because of the site circumstances. Such a
requirement would not be an ARAR for the site.
Moreover, it is possible for only a portion of a
requirement to be considered relevant and appropriate,
while other parts may not. However, once a requirement
(or part of a requirement) is found to be relevant and
appropriate, it must be complied with to the same degree
as if it were applicable.
In determining whether a requirement is both
relevant and appropriate to the circumstances of the
release, the following comparisons should be made:
• The purpose of the requirement and the purpose of
the CERCLA action;
• The medium regulated or affected by the
requirement and the medium contaminated or
affected at the CERCLA site;
• The substances regulated by the requirement and
the substances found at the CERCLA site;
• The actions or activities regulated by the
requirement and the remedial action contemplated
at the CERCLA site;
• Any variances, waivers, or exemptions of the
requirement and their availability for use given the
circumstances at the CERCLA site;
• The type of place regulated and the type of place
affected by the CERCLA site or CERCLA action;
• The type and size of the structure or facility
regulated and the type and size of the structure or
facility affected by the release or contemplated by
the CERCLA action; and
• Any consideration of the use or potential use of
affected resources in the requirement and the use
or potential use of the affected resource at the
CERCLA site.
A similarity to any one factor is not necessarily sufficient
to determine that a requirement is relevant and
appropriate. Nor does a requirement have to be similar
to the site situation with respect to each factor in order
for it to be relevant and appropriate.
3. TBCs
By definition, ARARs are promulgated, or legally
enforceable Federal and State requirements. (Because
CERCLA identifies them as potentially relevant and
appropriate, MCLGs and WQC are considered potential
ARARs, even though they are not otherwise enforceable
standards.) EPA has also developed another category of
requirements, known as "to be considered" (TBCs), that
includes nonpromulgated criteria, advisories, guidance,
-------
and proposed standards issued by Federal or State
governments. TBCs are not potential ARARs because
they are neither promulgated nor enforceable. It may be
necessary to consult TBCs to interpret ARARs, or to
determine preliminary remediation goals when ARARs
do not exist for particular contaminants. However,
identification and compliance with TBCs is not mandatory
in the same way that it is for ARARs.
D. Types of ARARs
EPA has divided ARARs into three categories to
facilitate their identification:
• Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health- or risk-
based numerical values or methodologies used to
determine acceptable concentrations of chemicals
that may be found in or discharged to the
environment, e.g., MCLs that establish safe levels in
drinking water.
• Location-specific ARARs restrict actions or
contaminant concentrations in certain environmentally
sensitive areas. Examples of areas regulated under
various Federal laws include floodplains, wetlands,
and locations where endangered species or historically
significant cultural resources are present.
• Action-specific ARARs are usually technology- or
activity-based requirements or limitations on actions
or conditions involving specific substances.
Chemical- and location-specific ARARs are identified
early in the process, generally during the site investigation,
while action-specific ARARs are usually identified during
the Feasibility Study (FS) in the detailed analysis of
alternatives.
E. Compliance with ARARs for On-site and Off-site
Actions
The ARARs provision in CERCLA addresses only
on-site actions (see Highlight 2 for definition of on-site).
In addition, section 121(e) exempts on-site actions from
having to obtain Federal, State, and local permits.
Consequently, the requirements under CERCLA for
compliance with other laws differ for on-site and off-site
actions, as follows:
• On-site actions must comply with applicable and
relevant and appropriate requirements, but need
comply only with the substantive parts of those
requirements.
• Off-site actions must comply only with requirements
that are legally applicable, but must comply with
both substantive and administrative parts of those
requirements.
(See Highlight 3 for definitions of "substantive" and
"administrative".) Compliance with "relevant and appro-
priate" requirements is not required for off-site actions.
Highlight 2: DEFINITION OF "ON-SITE*
"On-site" is defined in the proposed revisions
to the NCP as the "areal extent of contamination
and all suitable areas in very, close proximity to the
contamination necessary for implementation of the
response action." See 53 PR 51477 (December 21,
1988). "Area! extent of contamination" refers to
both surface area, ground water beneath the site,
and air above the site. Examples of on-site
contamination and treatment salts or staging areas
separate from, (but in "very dose praamitj? to*} the
contamination includes
* A disposal site for treated wastes in a new
landfill outside* but in close proximity to, a
contaminated wetland;
* A point-source discharge iato a river tunning
through a-site. The discharge point would be
considered on-stte, even if tne discharge effluent
ultimately runs off-site. The action would have
to meet discharge limitations and monitoring
requirements, but would not require an NPE>ES
permit; and
• A purap-and-treat system located in the
contamination plume several miles downgradient
of the source.. The ground-water treatment
system is considered
Highlights: DEFINITIONS OF SUBSTANTIVE
•ANB
Substantive requirements are those
requirements that pertain directly to actions, or ,
conditions in the environment. Examples
include quantitative health 01 risfc&ased
standards for certain hazardous substances (e.g.,
MCLs for drinking water), and technology''
based, standards (e.g,, RCRA minimum
technology requirements for double liners and
leacbate collection systems).
Administrative requirements are those
mechanisms that facilitate the implementation
of the substantive requirements of a statute or
regulation (e.g^ requirements related to the .
approval of or consultation with administrative
bodies, documentation, permit issuances, ,
reporting, recordkeepmg, and enforcement).
-------
F. ARARs Documentation
ARARs considered for each alternative in the
detailed analysis of alternatives should be documented in
detail in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). The Proposed Plan and the ROD should
summarize how the components of an alternative will
comply with major ARARs, and should describe why the
requirement is applicable or relevant and appropriate.
The ROD should document ARARs as follows: (1)
major ARARs should be discussed in the Description of
Alternatives; (2) ARAR compliance should be summarized
in the Summary of the Comparative Analysis; and (3) all
ARARs selected for the remedy should be listed and
briefly described in the Statutory Determinations section.
When an alternative is chosen that does not attain an
ARAR, the basis for waiving the requirement must be
fully documented and explained. TBCs referred to in the
ROD should be listed and described briefly, as well as
the reasons for their use. Generally, there is no need to
document why a requirement is not an ARAR, although
documentation should be provided for both ARARs and
TBCs when the determination has been difficult or
controversial. (See Guidance on Preparing Superfund
Documents. [ROD Guidance] EPA-540/G-89/007, July
1989, and Guidance for Conducting RI/FSs Under
CERCLA. EPA 540/G-89/004, October 1988, for further
information.)
G. Policy on Newly Promulgated Requirements
"Freezing'1 ARARs at the ROD
If a requirement that would be applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action is
promulgated after the Record of Decision (ROD) is
signed and the ARARs for the selected remedy have
already been established, the remedy will be evaluated in
light of the new requirement to ensure that the remedy
is still protective.
To the extent that the remedy remains protective in
light of any new information reflected in the requirement,
the original ARARs remain "frozen" at the ROD and
nothing more needs to be done. However, if it is
determined that the new requirement must be met in
order for the remedy to be protective, the remedy must
be modified to attain the requirement through an
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) or ROD
amendment. For example, a new requirement for a
chemical at a site may indicate, through new scientific
information on which it was based, that the cleanup level
selected for the chemical corresponds to a cancer risk of
ICC2 rather than ICr5, as originally thought. The original
remedy would have to be reevaluated in terms of the new
requirement because it may no longer be protective.
H. FOCUS ON ARAR WAIVERS
CERCLA section 121(d) provides that, under certain
circumstances, an ARAR may be waived. The six
statutory waivers are provided in Highlight Box 4 and are
discussed more fully below. These waivers may not be
used for off-site actions.
Highlight 4: STATUTORY ARAR WAIVERS
•. \ ""
The six ARAR waiver* provided by CERCLA art:
1, Interim Measures Wa&erf
2» Equivalent Standard of Performance Waiver;
3, Greater Risk to Health and the Environment
Waiver;
4, Technical Impracticability Waiver;
5. Inconsistent Application of State Standard
Waiver; and
6. Fund-Balancing Wawer.
The Interim Measure waiver may be used when an
interim measure that does not attain all ARARs is
expected to be followed by a complete measure that will
attain all ARARs (see Highlight Box 5 for an example).
The interim measure should not cause additional
migration of contaminants, complicate the site response,
or present an immediate threat to public health or the
environment, and must not interfere with or delay the
Highlight 5: EXAMPLE OF INTERIM
MEASURES WAIVER
At a mining site, interim measures were used to
address drainage of contaminated water from a
mine. The actioa involved passive treatment of
mine tunnel discharges through construction of an
artificial wetland, whifih would reduce
contamination from the mine tunnel to the level of
contamination present upstream. Since the
discharge exceeded State ambient water quality
standards for the stream* the standards were waived
until the final remedy was inspleiaemed, which
would address in-sttesox contamination.
-------
final remedy. It should be noted, however, that if a
requirement relates to some portion of the long-range
site cleanup that is outside the scope of the immediate
remedial action, it is not an ARAR for this action and
a waiver is Unnecessary.
The Equivalent Standard of Performance waiver may
be used in situations where an ARAR stipulates use of a
particular design or operating standard, but equivalent or
better remedial results could be achieved using an
alternative design or method of operation. In invoking
this waiver, the alternative should be equal to or greater
than the ARAR in terms of: (1) the degree of protection
afforded; (2) the level of performance achieved; and (3)
the potential to be protective in the future. The time
required to achieve beneficial results using the alternative
should be considered; however, the duration of the
alternative should be balanced against other beneficial
factors that may ensue from using the alternative. A
technology-based requirement must be evaluated from a
technology performance perspective, not from a risk
perspective.
The Greater Risk to Health and the Environment
waiver is available for situations where compliance with an
ARAR will cause greater risk to human health and the
environment than noncompliance. The more significant
the risks, the longer they are in duration, and the more
irreversible the harm from compliance with an ARAR, the
more appropriate the use of this waiver (see Highlight 6
for an example).
EXAMPLE OF GStlATER RISK
TO HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT WAIVER
,' A pump-aad-treat system may t>e selected to
remove ground wafer contamination from landfill
releases. Analysis fouad that natural flushing
'through the landfill, after excavation of the highly
contaminated waste, would fectlitate cleanup of the '
iground water and remove residual contamination
from the landfill. The waiver for greater risk was
used to waive the applicable RCRA closure
.requirement for aa impermeable eaj>, because such-a
eap>0!u$ prevent natural Bushing and would
ssJgnJfleaatly 4elay aridVeduce the effectiveness of
the ground water cleanag, and therefore the
remedial action's effectiveness in reducing risk.
4-4 : i
The Technical Impracticability waiver may be used
when compliance with an ARAR is technically impract-
icable from an engineering perspective. The waiver can
be used if either of two criteria are met: (1) engineering
feasibility, in which current engineering methods necessary
to construct and maintain an alternative that will meet the
ARAR cannot reasonably be implemented; and (2) reli-
ability, in which the potential for the alternative to
continue to be protective into the future is low, either
because the continued reliability of technical and
institutional controls is doubtful, or because of inordinate
maintenance costs. Use of the waiver may consider cost,
although cost should not be the major factor (see
Highlight 7 for an example).
Highlight 7: EXAMPLE OF TECHNICAL
IMPRACTICABILITY WAIVER
Ground water located in bedrock fractures and
deep bedrock contained highly contaminated
pockets of liquid waste along the fractures, MCLs
were waived because their attainment was
technically impracticable for several reasons,
including; $.) difficulty in predicting the extent
and location of fractures; (2) the inability to locate
and extract all pockefs of liquid waste; (3) excessive
time frames for cleanup^ and (4) the irregular
nature of the fractures that made effective
placement of extraction weHs difficult
The Inconsistent Application of State Standard
waiver may be invoked when evidence exists that demon-
strates that a State standard has not been or will not be
consistently applied to other remedial sites within the
State, including both NPL and non-NPL sites. A waiver
may be used, for example, for a State-standard* that was-
promulgated but never applied, or for a standard that has
been variably applied or enforced. A State standard is
presumed to have been consistently applied unless there
is evidence to the contrary.
The Fund-Balancing waiver may be invoked when
meeting an ARAR would entail such cost in relation to
the added degree of protection or reduction of risk
afforded by that standard that remedial actions at other
sites would be jeopardized. This waiver should be
considered when the cost of attaining an ARAR is 20%
of the annual remedial action budget or $100 million,
whichever is greater (see Highlight 8 for an example).
Highlight 8: EXAMPLE OF FUND-
BALANCING WAIVER
The Fund-balancing waiver was invoked to'
waive compliance with state water quality.standards
because attaining these standards would have
required removal and off-site disposal of more than
4 million: cubic yards of contaminated ore, tailings>
anil bottom sediments in the streams and reservoir,
at an estimated cost of $1.4 billion. At the time of
ROD signature, the Fund had been nearly depleted,
with remaining monies reserved for ongoing
projects* The waiver allowed selection of a
protective alternative of partial capping and surface
water diversion, costing $72.2 million.
-------
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE QUARTERLY REPORT
-------
-------
United States Office of Publication 9234.3-001
Environmental Protection Solid Waste and
Agency Emergency Response December 1989
<>EPA ARARs Short Guidance
Quarterly Report
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Intermittent Bulletin
Office of Program Management OS-240 Volume 1 Number 1
The ARARs Short Guidance Quarterly Report provides an annotated description of all published short
guidance on ARARs. Short guidance documents on ARARs include Fact Sheets, Q's & A's, Memoranda
resolving ARARs issues, and the Guide to the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Each Quarterly
Report is comprehensive to date, and each item below is final unless otherwise noted. The ARARs short
guidance documents are designed to supplement, not supplant, the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual. This report will expressly note any ARARs short guidance that supercedes information provided in the
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Single copies of all of these short guidance documents may
be obtained by calling or writing the Superfund Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, OS-245, 401 M St.
SW, Washington, DC 20460; (202) or FTS 382-6940. Copies of the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual (Part I - EPA/540/G-89/006, Part II - EPA/540/G-89/009) may be obtained from CERI, U.S. EPA, 26 West
Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268; (513) 569-7562.
ARARs Q's and A's Publication 9234.2-01/PS
May 1989 4 pages
The ARARs Q's & A's Fact Sheet (first in an expected series of Q's & A's) addresses seven general
ARARs policy questions, such as: (1) the distinction between "applicable" and "relevant and appropriate"
requirements; (2) whether ARARs that are not required for protectiveness have to be met; and (3) whether
environmental resource laws such as the Endangered Species Act are potential ARARs. The Q's & A's
also discusses three RCRA ARARs issues: (1) RCRA delisting when wastes remain on-site; (2) RCRA
financial responsibility requirements as potential ARARs; and (3) the applicability of minimum technology
requirements for existing hazardous waste pits closed before 1980. Finally, the Q's & A's addresses four
ARARs questions arising from the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act; one question.
addresses ground-water antidegradation laws and three focus on MCLs and MCLGs.
Guide to Manual Publication 9234.2-02/FS
September 1989 . 2 pages
The Guide to Manual Fact Sheet describes the overall purpose of the CERCLA Compliance with Other
Laws Manual: Parts I and II. It also serves as a table of contents to the manual by describing the
contents of each chapter of both parts of the manual.
Primed on Recycled Paper
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
RCRA ARARs: Focus on
Closure Requirements
October 1989
The RCRA ARARs Fact Sheet provides an overview of RCRA Subtitle C ARARs and describes when RCRA
requirements are ARARs. The Fact Sheet also focuses on RCRA closure requirements, discussing when
RCRA closure requirements are ARARs, and what the RCRA minimum technology requirements
encompass. The elements and consequences of State authorization under RCRA are also summarized.
Superfund LDR Guide #1, Overview
of RCRALDRs
July 1989
Publication 9347.3-01 /FS
4 pages
The LDR Overview Fact Sheet defines land disposal, describes the RCRA LDR statutory deadlines, and
summarizes statutory waste categories. Other topics discussed include: types of LDR restrictions, LDR
compliance options, and soil and debris wastes. Finally, it addresses other LDR requirements, including
storage prohibitions, exemptions for treatment in surface impoundments, dilution prohibitions, and LDR
testing, notification, and compliance certification requirements.
Superfund LDR Guide #2, Complying with the
Publication 9347.3,-02/FS
California List Restrictions under LDR
The LDR California List Restrictions Fact Sheet defines California List Wastes, describes the California List
LDR restrictions, and summarizes the overlap between California List LDR restrictions and other treatment
standards. The Fact Sheet also provides a chart that sets forth prohibition levels and treatment standards
for California List Wastes.
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
Superfund LDR Guide #3, Treatment Standards Publication 9347.3-os/FS
and Minimum Technology Requirements under LDR
July 1989 4 pages
The LDR Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements Fact Sheet describes the three
types of treatment standards (concentration levels, specified technologies, and no land disposal) and
discusses the two types of tests for evaluating compliance with LDR treatment standards (the Total Waste
Analysis and the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure). The Fact Sheet also reviews treatment
standards in effect for RCRA hazardous wastes, and explains minimum technology requirements that apply
during a national capacity extension. Charts illustrate effective dates and LDR restrictions for Solvents
and Dioxins, California List Wastes, and certain First Third Wastes.
Superfund LDR Guide #4, Complying with Hammer Publication 9347.3-o4/ps
Restrictions under LDR
July 1989 4 pages
The LDR Hammer Restrictions Fact Sheet discusses soft hammer wastes, restrictions, and requirements
for notifications, certifications, and demonstrations. Other topics include the overlap between California
List Wastes, soft hammer wastes, and hard hammer wastes. The Fact Sheet also highlights soft hammor
notification, certification, and demonstration requirements, hard hammer deadlines, and the process for
identifying soft hammer waste restrictions.
Superfund LDR Guide #5, Determining when LDRs Publication 9347,3-os/FS
are Applicable
July 1989 4 pages
The LDR Applicability Fact Sheet addresses three questions: (1) Does the response constitute placement?
(2) Is the CERCLA substance a RCRA hazardous waste? and (3) Is the RCRA waste restricted under the
LDRs? In addition, the Fact Sheet provides-examples of areas of contamination (AOCs), highlights LDR
statutory deadlines, and illustrates the process of determining when LDRs are applicable requireme its.
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
Superfund LDR Guide #6A, Obtaining a Soil and Publication 9347.3-os/FS
Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions
July 1989 <' s 6 pages
The LDR Soil and Debris Treatability Variance Fact Sheet discusses the basis for a treatability variance,
describes how to obtain a treatability variance for soil and debris wastes, and summarizes compliance
with a treatability variance for soil and debris wastes. The Fact Sheet also highlights information to be
Included when documenting a soil and debris treatability variance in an RI/FS report for on-site and off-
site CERCLA response actions. Sample language concerning treatability variances is provided for the
Proposed Plan and Record of Decision (ROD). A chart illustrates alternate treatability variance levels and
technologies established by EPA for structural/functional groups. The Fact Sheet also highlights stages
in the RI/FS process when LDRs are evaluated, and the identification of treatment levels for a treatability
variance.
Memorandum of Applicability of LDRs to Publication 9234.1-00
RCRA and CERCLA GW Treatment Reinfection
December 1989 , , 5 pages
This Memorandum establishes that LDR is not applicable to underground disposal of hazardous waste
Into Class IV injection wells during CERCLA response actions or RCRA corrective actions. The
Memorandum explains that because LDR is not applicable, BDAT does not have to be met prior to each
reinjection or at the completion of the action in a pump-and-treat reinjection remediation system. The
Memorandum additionally explains why LDRs generally will not be relevant and appropriate requirements
for CERCLA response actions that involve ground-water reinjection.
Overview of ARARs — Focus on Publication 9234.2-os/FS
ARARWahrers
December 1989 . - ,- 5 pages
The Overview ARARs Fact Sheet defines ARARs and To Be Considered (TBCs). It additionally focuses
on ARARs waivers by describing each waiver and providing waiver examples. Other topics discussed
Include: (1) factors for identifying relevant and appropriate requirements; (2) freezing" ARARs at the ROD;
(3) compliance with ARARs for on-site versus off-site actions; (4) types of ARARs; and (5) ARARs
documentation.
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
CERCLA Compliance with State Publication 9234.2-os/FS
Requirements
December 1989 5 pages
The CERCLA Compliance with State Requirements Fact Sheet describes the statutory requirements for
State ARARs and defines such terms as "promulgated" and "more stringent." The Fact Sheet additionally
discusses policies with respect to the applicability of some typical State environmental or facility siting
laws. It also discusses roles of lead and support agencies with respect to the identification of ARARs,
and procedures to be followed when communicating ARARs.
-------
-------
United States Office of Publication 9234.3-001
Environmental Protection Solid Waste and
Agency Emergency Response March 1990
&ER& ARARs Short Guidance
Quarterly Report
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Intermittent Bulletin
Office of Program Management OS-240 Volume 1 Number 2
The ARARs Short Guidance Quarterly Reports provide an annotated description of all published short
guidance on ARARs. Short guidance documents on ARARs include Fact Sheets, Q's & A's, Memoranda
resolving ARARs issues, and the Guide to the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Each Quarterly
Report is comprehensive within that quarter, and each item below is final unless otherwise noted. The ARARs
short guidance documents are designed to supplement, not supplant, the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual. This report will expressly note any ARARs short guidance that supercedes information provided in the
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Single copies of the previous Quarterly Report and these short
guidance documents may be obtained by calling or writing the Superfund Docket and Information Center, U.S.
EPA, OS-245, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460; (202) or FTS 382-6940. Copies of the CERCLA
Compliance with Other Laws Manual (Part I - EPA/540/G-89/006, Part II - EPA/540/G-89/009) may be obtained
from CERI, U.S. EPA, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268; (513) 569-7562.
Superfund LOR Guide #7, Determining Publication 9347.3-os/FS
When LDRs are Relevant and Appropriate to
CERCLA Response Actions
December 1989 2 pages
The LDR Relevant and Appropriate Fact Sheet discusses the four- pertinent factors to compare when
determining the relevance and appropriateness of LDRs: (1) the action or activities regulated by the
requirement and the remedial action contemplated; (2) the purpose of the requirement and the purpose
of the CERCLA response action; (3) the substances regulated by the requirement and the substances
found at a CERCLA site; and (4) the medium regulated or affected by the requirement and the medium
contaminated or affected at the CERCLA site.
CERCLA Complance With the CWA and SDWA publication 9234.2-oe/FS
February 1989 7 pages
The CWA and SDWA Fact Sheet provides an overview of potential ARARs from the Clean Water Act for
direct and indirect discharges to surface water, as well as dredge-and-fill requirements. This fact sheet
also describes potential ARARs from the Safe Drinking Water Act such as MCLs, MCLGs. SMCLs, as well
as substantive provisions from the Underground Injection Control program. In the final section, potentially
conflicting ARARs concerning surface water from the CWA and SDWA are listed and resolutions are
provided.
-------
-------
ARARs Q's & A's
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
OERR 9234.2-01 FS
May 1989
A EPA
Superfund Fact Sheet
ARARs Q's & A's
General Policy
RCRA
CWA
SDWA
#1
The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) adopts and expands a provision in the 1985 National Contingency Plan (NCP)
that remedial actions must at least attain applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). In section 12 l(d), SARA requires attainment
of Federal ARARs. and of State ARARs in State environmental or facility siting laws when the requirements are promulgated, more stringent than
Federal laws, and idendfiedbytheStateinatimelymanner. Under EPA regulation and policy, removal actions mustcomply with ARARs to theextent
practicable.
To implement the ARARs provision, EPA has developed guidance, the CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual (OS WER Directive 9234.1 -
01), and has provided training to Regions and States on identification of andcompliance with ARARs. These "ARARs Q'sandA's"arepartofaseries
that provide answers to anumber of questions that arose in developing ARARs policies, in ARARs training sessions, and in identifying and complying
with ARARs at specific sites. Responses covered here reflect current program practice and include policies and language from the proposed NCP.
Changes resulting from finalizing the NCP following public comment may alter some policies or language quoted from the proposed NCP.
General Policy
DEFINITIONS OF "APPLICABLE" AND
"RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE"
"Applicable requirements mean those cleanup stan-
dards, standards of control, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria, or
limitations promulgated under Federal or State law
that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollut-
ant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other
circumstance at a CERCLA site." [Proposed NCP, 53
ER 51435, December 21,1988] In other words, an appli-
cable requirement is one that a private party would have to
comply with by law if the same action was being taken
apart from CERCLA authority. All jurisdictional prerequi-
sites of the requirement must be met in order for the
requirement to be applicable.
If a requirement is not applicable, it still may be relevant
and appropriate. "Relevant and appropriate require-
mfinJs mean those cleanup standards [that]~ address
problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well
suited to the particular site." [Proposed NCP, 53 FR
51436, December 21,1988] A requirement that is relevant
and appropriate may "miss" on one or more prerequisite
but still make sense at the site, given the circumstances of
the site and release.
Q1. What difference does it make if a requirement is
"applicable" or "relevant and appropriate"?
Why make that distinction?
A. While it is true that once a requirement is determined to be
relevant and appropriate, it must be complied with as if it
were applicable, there are significant differences in the
identification and analysis of the two types of require-
ments. The "applicability" determination is a legal one,
while the determination of "relevant and appropriate"
relies on professional judgment, considering environ-
mental and technical factors at the site. There is more
flexibility in the relevance and appropriateness determina-
tion: a requirement may be "relevant," in that it covers situ-
ations similar to that at the site, but may not be "appropri-
ate" to apply for various reasons, and therefore not well
suited to the site. In some situations, only portions of a
requirement or regulation may be judged relevant and ap-
propriate; if a requirement is applicable, all substantive
parts must be followed.
For example, if closure requirements under Subtitle C of
RCRA are applicable (e.g., a landfill that received RCRA
hazardous waste after 1980 or where the Superfund action
constitutes disposal of hazardous waste), the landfill must
be closed in compliance with one of the closure options
available in Subtitle C regulations. These options are
closure by removal (clean closure), which requires decon-
tamination to health-based levels, or closure with waste in
place (landfill closure), which requires impermeable caps
and long-term maintenance.
However, if Subtitle C closure requirements are not appli-
cable, then a "hybrid closure," which includes other types
of closure designs, could also be used. The hybrid closure
option arises from a determination that only certain closure
requirements in the two Subtitle C closure alternatives are
relevant and appropriate. (See proposed NCP, 53 FR
-------
OERR 9234.2-01 FS
51446, for further discussion of RCRA closure require-
ments and the concept of hybrid closure.)
Q2. Does an applicable requirement take
precedence over one that Is relevant and
appropriate? In other words, if an applicable
requirement Is available, will that be the ARAR,
rather than one that might otherwise be
relevant and appropriate?
A. No, a requirement may be relevant and appropriate even if
another requirement legally applies to that situation,
particularly when the applicable requirement is not really
designed to address the type or magnitude of problems
encountered at Superfund sites. For example, RCRA
Subtitle D requirements for covers for solid waste facilities
may be applicable when RCRA hazardous waste is not
present at the site. However, the soil cover required under
Subtitle D may not always be sufficient to limit leachate at
a Superfund site with substantial amounts of waste similar
to RCRA hazardous waste. In such a situation, some
Subtitle C closure requirements may be relevant and
appropriate to some parts of the site, even though Subtitle
D requirements legally apply.
However, one factor that affects whether a requirement is
relevant and appropriate is whether another requirement
exists that more fully matches thecircumstances at the site.
In some cases, this m ight be a requirement that was directly
intended for, and is applicable to, the particular situation.
For example, Federal WaterQuality Criteria will generally
not be relevant and appropriate when there is an applicable
State Water Quality Standardpromulgatedspecificallyfor
the pollutant and water body, which therefore "more fully
matches" the situation.
Q3. Is compliance with ARARs required for a "no
action" decision?
A. No. Section 121 cleanup standards, including compliance
with ARARs, apply only to remedial actions the Agency
determines should be taken under CERCLA Section 104
and 106 authority. A "no action" decision can only be
made when no remedial action is necessary to reduce,
control, ormitigate exposure because the site or portion of
the site is already protective of human health and the
environment. See Guidance on Preparing Superfund De-
cision Documents fQSWER Directive 9355.3-02) for
further discussion of "no action" decisions.
Q4. Does an ARAR always have to be met, even if It
is not necessary to ensure protectiveness?
A. Yes. Attainment of ARARs is a "threshold requirement"
in SARA, as is the requirement that the remedies be
protective of human health and the environment. If a
requirement is applicable or relevant and appropriate, it
musibemet, unless oneof the six waivers is used. ARARs
represent the minimum that a remedy must attain; it may
sometimes be necessary to go beyond what ARARs require
to ensure that a remedy is protective.
ON-SITE VS. OFF-SITE ACTIONS
The requirements under CERCLA for compliance with
other laws differ in two significant ways for on-site and
off-site actions. First, the ARARs provision only
applies to on-site actions; off-site actions must comply
fully only with any laws that legally apply to that action.
Therefore, off-site actions need only comply with
"applicable" requirements, not with "relevant and
appropriate" requirements; ARAR waivers are not
available for requirements that apply to off-site actions.
Second, on-site actions must comply only with the sub-
stantive portions of a given requirement, or those that
pertain directly to actions or conditions in the
environment; on-site activities need not comply with
administrative requirements, such as obtaining a permit or
recordkeeping and reporting. Off-site actions must
comply with both substantive and atlliHin'stra*'v*
requirements.
Q5. If wastes from non-contiguous sites are
combined on one site for treatment, is the
treatment viewed as off-site activity, and the
unit therefore subject to permitting?
A. Sites may be combined for remedial action if it is cost-
effective to do so and the following statutory criteria
[CERCLA Section 104(d)(4)] are met: the sites must be
geographically close or pose similar threats to public
health and the environment. Combinedremedies must also
be cost-effective and should not result in any significant
additional short-term impacts on public health and the
environment. The combined remedial action constitutes
on-site action, and compliance with permitting or other
administrative requirements would not be required. (See
OSWERDirective9347.0-l and 40 FR 37076. September
21,1984)
Q6. Are environmental resource laws, such as the
Endangered Species Act, the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, potential ARARs for
CERCLA actions?
A. Yes, requirements in these laws are potential ARARs.
However, these laws frequently require consultation with
and, under some laws, concurrence of other Agencies or
groups, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service or the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Administra-
tive requirements such as consultation or obtaining ap-
proval are not required for on-site actions. However, it is
strongly recommended that the lead agency nevertheless
consult with the administering agencies to ensure compli-
ance with substantive requirements, e.g., the NHPA re-
quirement that actions must avoid or minimize impacts on
cultural resources.
-------
Q7. Are environmental standards and requirements
of Indian tribes potential ARARs?
A. Yes. Indian tribal requirements as potential ARARs for
CERCLA actions taken on tribal lands are treated consis-
tently with State requirements. Tribal requirements that
meet the eligibility criteria for State ARARs, i.e., they are
promulgated (legally enforceable and of general applica-
bility) and more stringent than Federal requirements, are
potential ARARs.
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
Q8. How can RCRA listed waste be "delisted" when
wastes will remain on-site?
A. If a listed waste is "delisted," it is no longer considered a
"hazardous waste" and is subject to Subtitle D require-
ments for solid waste, rather than the more stringent
Subtitle C requirements.
Only the substantive requirements for delisting a RCRA
hazardous waste must be met for wastes that will remain
on-site and will not be handled as hazardous. These are the
standards in40 CFR 260.22(a)(l) and (2), which state that
a waste that "does not meet any of the criteria under which
the waste was listed as ahazardous or an acutely hazardous
waste" and for which there is no "reasonable basis to
believe that factors (including other constituents) other
than those for which the waste was listed could cause the
waste to be a hazardous waste" is 'delistable.' Administra-
tive requirements, which include requirements to undergo
a petition and rulemaking process and to develop and
supply specific information, need not be met on-site.
Wastes containing constituents at health-based levels, as-
suming direct exposure, will meet the standards for delist-
ing. Wastes with constituents at higher levels may also be
delistable, since the RCRA delisting process allows fate
and transport modeling, generally based on the waste being
managed in a solid waste facility. The models used by the
RCRA program for delisting should be used in determining
whether constituent concentrations above health-based
levels are delistable, e.g., for wastes that will be land
disposed (SeeSOfR 4886, November 27,1985 andSl ER
41082, November 13,1986). The Assistance Branch in the
Office of Solid Waste can also provide assistance and
advice in delisting a waste.
The expectation that the waste will meet delisting levels
should be documented in the RI/FS and the ROD and
supported by information comparable to that required for
delisting, as appropriate for the waste and site (see the
guidance "Petitions to Delist Hararri^ns Waste." EPA 530-
SW-85-003, April 1985). Generally, theconstituentlevels
that must be achieved in order for the waste to be consid-
OERR 9234.2-01 FS
ered non-hazardous should be identified in the ROD.
Unless treatability studies done during the RI/FS make
delisting reasonably certain, the ROD should also address
how the waste will be handled if it does not achieve
delistable levels, based on full-scale treatability studies or
actual performance of the remedy during RD/RA. If the
waste cannot be delisted, an explanation of significant
differences should be issued to notify the public that the
contingency remedy will be implemented.
Q9. Are RCRA financial responsibility requirements
potential ARARs for Superfund?
A. No, because they do not pertain directly to actions or con-
ditions in the environment. Rather, the requirements
support implementation of RCRA technical standards by
ensuring that RCRA facility owners or operators have the
financial resources available to address releases and com-
ply with closureandpost-closure requirements. CERCLA
agreements with PRPs, and ultimately the Fund itself,
achieve essentially the same purpose.
Q10. RCRA hazardous waste is placed into an
existing pit that had received hazardous waste
in the past, but is not subject to RCRA Subtitle
C regulations because the pit closed before
1980. Would the minimum technology
requirements (MTR) be applicable for the pit
because it is a "new unit"?
A. No, the pit is not considered a "new unit." MTR will not
apply when disposing of waste in an existing unit or area of
contamination, although a lateral expansion of the unit
would have to meet MTR. (Note: both new and existing
surface impoundments are subject to MTR if they receive
waste after November 1988. In addition, the land disposal
restrictions (LDR) can trigger MTR indirectly. LDR
restricts placement of a "soft hammer" waste and a re-
stricted waste under a capacity variance to units in compli-
ance with MTR. If such a waste is placed in the existing
waste pit, the pit would have to comply with MTR, even
though it is not a "new unit.")
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Q11. Do antidegradation laws for ground water,
increasingly common in State laws, mean that
the aquifer must be restored to its original
quality before contamination from the site
occurred?
A. Generally, antidegradation laws areprospectiveandarein-
tended to prevent further degradation of water quality. At
aCERCLA site, therefore, a State ground water antidegra-
dation law might preclude the injection of partially treated
-------
OERR 9234.2-01 FS
water into apristine aquifer. It would not, however, require
cleanup to the aquifer's original quality prior to contami-
nation, nor would it preclude reinjection of partially treated
water back into the already contaminated portion of the
aquifer, as long as the reinjection does not increase the
existing level of contamination.
ARARS FOR GROUND WATER CLEANUP
MCLs promulgated under SDWA generally will be the
relevant and appropriatestandardfor ground water that is or
may be used for drinking, considering its use, value, and
vulnerability as described in the EPA's Ground-water
Protection Strategy (August 1984), e.g., for Class I and II
aquifers.
Q12, There are some situations where an aquifer that
Is a current or potential drinking water source,
treatable to MCLs at the tap, cannot be
remediated to MCLs in the aquifer, e.g., where
background levels of contaminants are above
MCLs. Would MCLs still be relevant and
appropriate?
A. The MCLs are generally relevant and appropriate for any
aquifer that is a potential drinking water source. If the
MCLs cannot be attained (e.g., because of complex hydro-
geology due to fractured bedrock), an ARAR waiver for
technical impracticability should be used. The same
approach should be followed if attainment of MCLs is
impracticable because background levels of chemicals
subjecttoCERCLA authority (e.g.,man-madechemicals)
arehigherthanMCLs.andnoarea-wideremediationofthe
aquifer is feasible.
Q13. Many new MCLs will be promulgated or existing
ones revised In upcoming years. Will new or
revised MCLs, when promulgated, need to be
Incorporated Into the remedy, possibly altering
it? Should a proposed MCL be used as the
remediation goal in the ROD?
A. Under EPApolicv.if anew ARAR ispromul gated after the
RQP is signed, the remedyshould be examined in light of
the new requirement to ensure that the remedy is still
protective. If the remedy is still protective, it would not
have to be modified, even though it does not meet the new
requirement.
SinceMCLsoftenareakey component in defining protec-
tive remediation levels, new or revised MCLs may reveal
thattheremedychosenisnotprotective, Li such cases, the
remedy would have to be modified accordingly. This
could occur at any time after the ROD is signed—during
remedial design, remedial action, or at the five-year re-
view.
However, a new MCL will not always mean the remedy
must be changed. If the existing remedy is still within the
risk ranee, even considering the new MCL. the remedy
would not have to be modified because the i
protective. For example, if the new MCL represents a ris
of 10*, while the selected remediation level results in a 1O*
risk, the remedy is still protective,
At some sites, however, a new MCL will require
significant changes to the remedy, changes that can be very
costly after implementation of the remedy has begun.
Therefore, if a proposed MCL is available before the ROD
is signed, the preferred remedy should be evaluated to
determine how the MCL, if promulgated as proposed,
would affect the remedy. Will the preferred remedy
achieve the proposed MCL? Could the remedy achieve the
proposed MCL with minor design modifications? Would
the proposed MCL require significant changes, such as
requiring remediation in ground water that is currently
deemed fully protective because it meets all MCLs?
As a generaljrule^ih&proposed MCL_shoiildi)e used as a
TBC to establishlhejremediation level in the ROD when.
the proposed MCLJsjmQre stringentihanihe^existing one
or regulates a new chemical (unless the MCL is
controversial and therefore likely to change). This reflects
the importance of MCLs in Superfund's determination of
protectiveness and as a cleanup standard for the
community. It also minimizes the need for later changes to
theremedy when changes maybemore difficult and costly
to make.
Q14. If there are MCLs for some, but not all, of the
significant contaminants at a site, should the
10-*point of departure be used for all the
contaminants, or should the MCLs b& used
where available and the remediation levels for
the other contaminants adjusted accordingly?
A. Generally, the MCLs should be used to set the remediation
levels when available, provided the MCLs cumulatively
are within the risk range. The levels for other chemicals
should be set to ensure that they do not significantly
increase the total risk associated with the chemicals with
MCLs and that the cumulative risk from all chemicals is
within the risk range. The 10* point of departure is used
when there are no MCLs or, when risks are summed, when
the MCLs for the chemicals in the medium are not suffi-
ciently protective under the circumstances.
For example, if the risk from chemicals with MCLs totals
IxlO5, the remediation levels for the other chemicals
should generally be set so that the total cumulative risk
does not exceed that risk level. Final levels for the chemi-
cals without MCLs may also be driven by the treatment
necessary to attain the MCLs.
For some mixtures of chemicals, it may be necessary or
more technically practicable to adjust the remediation
levels even of those chemicals with MCLs to
stringent levels. Even in such cases, the final remediatio
levels cannot exceed the respective MCLs, since the MCLs
are ARARs.andthe total risk of all contaminants should be
within the risk range to ensure the remedy is protective.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9234.2-08/FS
May 1990
6BK ARARs Q's & A's
Compliance With the Tpxicity Characteristics Rule: Part I
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Program Management OS-240
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
requires that on-site remedial actions must at least attain (or justify a waiver of) Federal and more stringent State applicable
and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) upon completion of the remedial action. The 1990 National
Contingency Plan (NCP) requires compliance with ARARs during remedial actions as well as at completion, and compels
attainment of ARARs during removal actions, whenever practicable. See NCP, 55 FR 8666, 8843 (March 8, 1990) (to be
codified at 40 CFR section 300.415(i)(1990)), and 55 FR 8666, 8852 (March 8, 1990) (to be codified at 40 CFR section
300.435(b)(2)(1990)).
To implement the ARARs provision, EPA fias developed guidance, CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual:
Parts I and II (Publications 9234.1-01 and 9234.1-02), and has provided training to Regions and States on the identification
of and compliance with ARARs. This "ARARs Q's and A's" is part of a series that provide guidance on a number of
questions that arose in developing ARAR policies, in ARAR training sessions, and in identifying and complying with
ARARs at specific sites. This particular Q's and A's Fact Sheet addresses compliance with the recently promulgated Toxicity
Characteristics Rule (55 FR 11798 (March 29, 1990)).
H. How are wastes characterized as hazardous under
RCRA?
A RCRA Subtitle C requirements are applicable to
CERCLA response actions if the waste is a RCRA
hazardous waste, and either the waste was initially
treated, stored, or disposed of after the effective date
of the particular RCRA requirement, or the activity
at the CERCLA site constitutes treatment, storage,
or disposal, as defined by RCRA. RCRA uses the
following two procedures to define wastes as
hazardous: (1) the listing procedure, which involves
identifying specific industrial or process wastes that
pose hazards to human health and the environment;
and (2) the hazardous characteristics procedure,
which involves identifying properties or
"characteristics" that, if exhibited by any waste,
indicate a potential hazard if the waste is not
properly controlled. See 40 CFR section 261.3(a)(2).
The new Toxicity Characteristics (TC) rule concerns
one of four characteristics that indicate a potential
hazard (the others are ignitability, reactivity, and
corrosivity). A waste is a TC waste if any of the
chemicals listed in Highlights 1 or 2 are found in the
leachate at concentrations equal to or greater than
their regulatory levels.
Highlight I: NEW CHEMICALS REGULATED
UNDER THE TC RULE AND THEIR
REGULATORY
Benzene
Carbon letrachloride
Chkxdane
Chtarobeazene
Chloroform
tn-CnaoJ
o-Cresoi
p-CtaHi
l,4rDichk>robenze3e
. 1,2-DiGhJoroethane
1,1-Oichforoethylene
2,4-Dimtroloiueaa
Hepuchlor (and 'its hydroxide)
Heachkjr-l,3-t>utadiene
Hexschtorobenzcnc
HerachJoroethane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Penuchlorophenal ,
'. PyrWtne • '
Tetnchtaraethyle&e
! Tricatoroethyienfi
W-TOcHcrophewst
2,4,6-Trichtorophenot
Viayi c&Ioride
• interim regulatory level
LEVELS
0.50
0.50
0.03
100.0
6.0
200.0
200.0
200.0.
IS
0.50
0.70
0.13
0.008
0.5
0.13
3,O
200.0
2.0.
100.0
5.0
0.7
OS
4O9.0
ZO
0.20
LEACHATE
mgfl
mg/1
mg/1
fflg/i:
mgd
tagfl
mgfl
mg/1
mg/l
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
rnj/5
mg/1
mg/1
mgfl
mg/1
mgfl*
mg/l
mg/1
mgfl
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Print*Jon Ratyctod Paper
-------
Q2. What are the major provisions of the new TC rule?
A. The final TC rule adds 25 organic chemicals to the
list of waste constituents which, if present in waste at
or above the regulatory levels set in the rule (see
Highlight L), make the waste a hazardous waste.
These 25 chemicals have been added to the 8 metals
and 6 pesticides on the existing list of TC waste
constituents (see Highlight 2). The TC rule also
announced that 13 additional chemicals may be
added to the TC list after EPA establishes their
regulatory levels. Finally, the new TC rule replaces
the Extraction Procedures (EP) with another test for
determining toxicity (for both the new and existing
chemicals regulated* for the characteristic of toxicity).
The new test is called the Toxicity Characteristics
Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The impetus behind
the development of the TCLP was the need to
identify those wastes that are likely to leach
hazardous concentrations of organic compounds.
Note; To determine compliance with RCRA land
disposal regulations, the EP is still available for
wastes that are not considered wastewater (i.e., for
soils and sludges that contain more than 1% total
suspended solids) and that contain either any
amount of lead, or arsenic when it is the primary
hazardous constituent, i.e., the highest consituent
concentration in the waste (see section 3(e)(8) of the
final RCRA Third Third Rule, unpublished at the
time of this priming).
Highlight 2: CHEMICALS ALREADY
REGULATED FOR TOXICITY
CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR LEACHATE
REGULATORY LEVELS
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium,
Endrin
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Selenium
Silver
Toxaphene
2,4-Dichloro-
phenoxycetic acid
2,4,5-Trichloropheno-
xypropionic acid
5.0 mg/I
100.0 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
5.0 mg/1
0.02 mg/I
5.0 mg/1
0.4 mg/1
0.2 mg/1
10.0 mg/I
1.0 mg/l
5.0 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
10.0 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
Q3. How does the new TC rule affect the regulatory
levels of the potential TC wastes already regulated?
A. The regulatory levels of the eight metals and six
pesticides remain the same (see Highlight 2 for theisf
levels). These constituents must now be tested usiht"
the TCLP to determine whether they exceed their
regulatory levels. It is important to note that the
EP and the TCLP may produce different results;
wastes not hazardous under the EP may be
hazardous under the TCLP.
Q4. How does the TCLP differ in approach from the EP
in identifying the toxicity characteristic?
A. The primary differences between the TCLP and the
EP are: (1) the TCLP uses two leaching media
where the medium is determined by the pH of the
waste (there is no continual pH adjustment); (2) the
TCLP requires the waste to be ground or milled
(there is no structural integrity procedure); (3) th-.
TCLP requires a shorter extraction time (18 hour-'
for the TCLP versus 24 hours for the EP); and (4)
the TCLP is easier to run and the test results are
more easily reproduced.
Q5. What is the current status of the TC rule as a
potential ARAR for the Superfund program?
A' The TC rule was promulgated on March 29, 1990. It
became a potential ARAR for all decision document^
(i.e., RODs and action memoranda) signed after that
date. For actions carried out during the interim
period prior to the effective date (i.e., between March
29,1990 and September 25,1990), the TC rule would
not be applicable, but may be relevant and
appropriate.
Q6. How will the TC rule affect Superfund Records of
Decision (RODs) that have already been signed?
A. The NCP states that ARARs "freeze" at the time of
ROD signature. See 55 FR 8666, 8757, March 8,
1990, (to be codified at 40 CFR 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(B)).
TC requirements were promulgated on March 29,
1990, and thus would not be ARARs for RODs
signed before that date. For such RODs, the TC
requirements are newly promulgated requirements,
and thus should be attained only when EPA
determines that these requirements must be met for
the remedy to be protective. Newly promulgated or
modified requirements like the TC rule will be
considered during the 5-year review of the remedy, or
sooner, if appropriate, to determine whether the
remedy is still protective. Regions should review pre|
TC rule RODs to ensure that any on-site dispositic p
of wastes still meets the standard of protectivenei
(This issue will be discussed further in the forth-
-------
coming TC implementation Fact Sheet.) If EPA
determines during the remedy review that the TC
requirements must be attained, a ROD amendment
or Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD)
should be issued. See 55 FR 8666, 8757 (March 8,
1990) (to be codified at 40 CFR
300.430(f)(l)(ii)(B)).
Q7. What are some potential overall effects of the TC
rule on the Superfund program?
A. Wastes containing any of the newly-regulated
chemical constituents in the TC rule may be subject
to RCRA regulations based on the toxicity
characteristic, regardless of the source of a particular
waste or whether the waste is a RCRA listed waste.
In addition, because the TC rule expands the list of
potential TC wastes, the amount of wastes
considered to be RCRA hazardous wastes at a
CERCLA site will potentially expand. Once a waste
is considered to be a RCRA hazardous waste, other
RCRA requirements may be applicable or relevant
and appropriate, such as closure, minimum
technology, and the land disposal restrictions. In
addition, remedial alternatives involving off-site
shipment of TC wastes must involve Subtitle C
facilities, rather than Subtitle D facilities.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this memorandum
are intended solely as guidance. They are not
intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any
rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the
United States. EPA officials may decide to follow
the guidance provided in this memorandum, or to act
at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of
specific site circumstances. The Agency also reserves
the right to change this guidance at any time without
public notice.
In the near future, OERR will issue another Fact Sheet that discusses technical issues that may arise during the
implementation of the TC rule at Superfund sites. The TC implementation Fact Sheet will be Part II to this
ARARs Q's &. A's Fact Sheet on the TC rule.
-------
-------
SECTION VI
REMOVAL ACTIONS UNDER SUPERFUND
-------
-------
CHAPTER II OF OWPE'S
"ENFORCEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK" —
REMOVAL ACTIONS
-------
-------
REMOVALS
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY. i
~""''""~'"'"~.™^M.»..~-..-.-~.~.~.«".«..~~.~.~..~~..~~~~~~—.".~'—~-.~~.~~.—.™..~.. 2
Statutory Limitations and Exemptions. 3
Administrative Record and Public Participation 4
Written Response—.. 4
II. PROCEDURES AND INTERACTIONS...: , ...5
f\ , I ^lT WVfcUW li««M««««««»»M«*«««««»«»«»«*»«M«««*«««»«»«««»M«»»»*««»M«»»«««»«»*«t»»»«»«»«»M««««»«»M»«»«««««««»»««»*M»«»««M««»»««««»««»»«M*»»«««*M«»«i»««« W
PRP Response Policy. 5
PRP 9ovrii Stratsnv .. .....„...................._........._....... 5
I I U %^M*IWf I %^|H4Wi»y^•••••••*••••••»••••••••••••••»•••••••••••••*•••••••••••••*•••*•""•"•""""••••"••••""•""""""""" ™.™ .. •—
Emefgency Situation 5
Time-Critical Situation ............. . . 6
Non-Time-Critical Situation. 6
All Removals 6
PRP Search Completion. 6
B. Enforcement and Negotiations Planning 6
oite Leao MM.^.......^....~~.».~.~.~.«.~.-.«.~.~~~.~.~.~.M.~.~....~.~«.".~.~..~~.~.~..~~..«.~«~.~..~- •
Enforcement Strategy - Addendum to Action Memo 7
C. PRPNotice. ~ - - 8
Notification in Emergency Situations—.: 9
Notification in Time-Critical Situations .—9
Notification in Non-Time-Critical Situations 9
D. AOC Negotiations and AOL) Assistance 9
Administrative Orders on Consent (AOC) 10
Unilateral Administrative Ciders (AOU) 12
Issuance of AOUs-.—~~.-.~~~~~~~—.~.~.~-.~.~.~--.-~.~~~~~.~.~~~~~.--~.—~~~-~~~—12
Activation of Fund During AO Issuance , 13
Replacement of AOU with AOC. . 13
Enforcement of AO...__...._...... «.__.-™«...._...~._~~™~™».™.«..«™_™_~...™...»....~.~.-. 13
E OversightOf PRP Response...... 13
^^/'e^slCl^tCostSM..«....•.....«.^..M......w.............«......^..•..^..«..M..-.^..M..w..M..M.«..«..«......M.....M..«..M..^..... i H
F. Criminal lnvestigation......~....«......................-....»....»....-....-....-....«....»...."....-.....-..»»»»-»»»""»»-14
G. Community Relations 14
Community Relations Plan 15
Community Relations Activities 15'
III. PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 16
A. Contractor Support 16
B. Information Management Systems ; 16~
-------
.«.~»~.«.«.«.«.^^
^._^^——.^..M.M.—.^.^ •—^.^.^.^.A^^.^.—..^.^..r.^. 1 /
EPA Regional ERNS Responsttlifes. ^ „ „..—..—18
EPA Headquarters RgsponsjbffitteSi......... —-T,,.,.., ..,,,...,,,,.,,,,,,,1.i.i.,..,,,i,.,n,,,,,,.18
ERNS Phase IL-~ ._-,—»-~- . i -18
l in mill mit iu,iiiiTiit-uxmmii-J—iiiiiiiiiinmirr'Tri- ~'~ ' frri " """ IO
IV. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS/RESOLUTIONS , 19
A. Ovi Investigator SupporU—r '. .— 19
B. Detstmining PRP Financial Viab(lityM...~..~..»......~~~»~~.~.~~~~..-.~..«.««~..«.~«.».«".~.~.....19
C. Use of Information Request Letters . 19
V. REFERENCES 20
Guidance . •—2B
ManuaJs --20
-------
REMOVALS
I DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
Introduction This chapter discusses enforcement activities associated with removal actions. This
chapter applies to conventional removals rather than actions funded as removals (i.e.,
RI/FS and RD). Generally, removal activity, including activity to secure and oversee
potentially responsible party removal actions, is managed by On-Scene Coordinators
(OSCs). This chapter was written primarily to assist OSCs in planning and conducting
enforcement activities. However, depending on the particular circumstances at a site,
other program personnel may assume lead roles in removal enforcement activities. At
sites where remedial activity is ongoing, the RPM may play a key role in securing and
overseeing PRP removal response. For convenience, only the term "OSC" is used
throughout this chapter, although the information is the same for RPMs when
appropriate. Exhibit 11-1 provides a broad overview of the removal enforcement process.
Specific procedures arid guidance for the Removal program are set forth in OSWER
Directive 9360.0-03B, the Suoerfund Removal Prope
-------
Typfsof
Removals
Removal
AdMlts
and section 106 of CERCLA authorizes the President to order measures necessary to
abate imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the
environment because of an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance.
Section 106 also sets forth fines for any person who, without sufficient cause, willfully
violates or fails or refuses to comply with a section 106 order. Specific standards and
procedures for implementing CERCLA and for conforming with other statutes are set
forth in the NCP.
EPA has classified removals into the following three categories based upon the site
evaluation and the urgency of tine situation:
Emergencies-removals where the release, or threat of release, requires that on-
site cleanup activities begin within hours of the lead agency's determination that
a removal action is appropriate
Time^ritical-removals where, based on the site evaluation, the lead agency
determines that a removal action is appropriate and that there is a period of less
than six months available before cleanup activities must begin on site
Non-Timo-Critical-removals where, based on the site evaluation, the lead
agency determines that a removal action is appropriate and that there is a
planning period of more than six months available before on-site activities must
begin. The lead agency must undertake an Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis (EBCA), or its equivalent, for non-time-critical removals.
The urgency determination is a deciding factor in determining the amount of time that
can be devoted to a PRP search prior to on-site action, negotiation length, the type
and timing of public participation, whether an EE/CA must be conducted, and the
extent of compliance with other environmental statutes.
According to section 101(23) of CERCLA and section 300.65 of the NCPt, the response
activities listed below may be appropriate removal actions in certain situations. This list
is neither intended to limit response officials from taking other actions deemed necessary
under the circumstances, nor is it intended to preclude the lead agency from refemng
response actions to other appropriate Federal or State enforcement authorities.
Fences, warning signs, or other security or site control precautions-where
humans or animals have access to the release;
Drainage controls (e.g., run-off or run-on diversion)-where precipitation or runoff
from other sources (e.g., flooding) may enter the release area from other areas;
The 1985 NCP Is effective, until amended, except as modified by SARA. The proposed
ravtetons, 53 £H S1394 (December 21,1988) are not yet effective. However, they may serve as
guidance where SARA required changes to the program.
-2-
-------
Exhibit 11-1
Overview Of Removal Enforcement
Activities Relationship to Response Activities
Enforcement Activities
Preiminary PRP Search
I
Oral/Written General
Notification of Known PRPs
I
Follow up on Early Search
Activities and Notice
Enforcement Addendum to
Action Memorandum
Issue Notice
(Possibly with draft AOC)
Make Administrative
Record Available to Public
Oversight of PRP Removal
Coordination of Removal Response
Assess Removal
Response Options
Final Decision on Removal
Administrative Record File
1
Signed Action Memorandum
Initiate Fund*
Financed Removal
Public Comment Period
Written Response to
Significant Comments
' This general overview of removal enforcement may not apply in al situations, especially emergencies
-------
• Stabilization of berms, dikes, or impoundments-where needed to maintain the
integrity of the structures;
» Capping of contaminated soils or sludges-where needed to reduce migration of
hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants into soil, ground water, or
air;
Using chemicals and other materials to retard the spread of the release or to
mitigate its effects-where the use of such chemicals will reduce the spread of
the release;
• Rembval of highly contaminated soils from drainage or other areas-where
removal will reduce the spread of contamination;
• Removal of drums, barrels, tanks, or other bulk containers that contain or may
contain hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants-where it will reduce
the likelihood of spillage; leakage; exposure to humans, animals or food chain; or
fire or explosion;
• Provision of alternative water supply-where it will reduce the likelihood of
exposure of humans or animals to contaminated water.
Statutory Section 104{C) of CERCLA specifies that Fund-lead removals may not exce*ed either $2
Umftsttons million in cost or 12 months in duration. The criteria for exceeding the statutory limits
and (which do not apply to PRP-lead removal actions) include:
An immediate risk to public health, welfare or the environment exists;
•continued response actions are immediately required to prevent, limit or
mitigate an emergency; and such assistance otherwise will not be provided on
a timely basis.
• Continued response action is otherwise appropriate and consistent with the
remedial action to be taken.
OSCs who request an exemption to the statutory limits on cost or duration for a Fund-
lead removal action should first ensure that all potential avenues of securing PRP
cleanup or funding for cleanup have been pursued. Headquarters carefully reviews all
cost exemption requests for Fund-lead removal actions for evidence of activity to secure
PRP participation in the cleanup. The following enforcement-related information should
be included in the exemption request Action Memorandum: , . .
• Extent of the PRP search
• Whether PRPs have been identified
Financial status of PRPs, if PRPs have been identified
-3-
-------
• Whether notice letters (special or general) were issued
Whether previous negotiations have been held with the PRPs and the results of
those negotiations
Whether an AO has been issued to the PRPs or previous demands for
reimbursement have been made
Status of the Administrative Record
• Enforcement history of the site
• Enforcement options, discussion and recommendations.
Specific procedures for obtaining exemptions to the statutory limits on Fund-lead
removals are set forth in the Suoerfund Removal prpqejIumsJMaouai.
Mministra- Section 113(K) of CERCLA requires that the Agency establish an Administrative Record
tivs Record for selection of CERCLA response actions. The Administrative Record is the body of
and Public documents upon which the Agency bases its selection of a response action. Section
Participation 113(k)(2) of CERCLA requires that EPA develop procedures for appropriate
participation of interested parties in the development of an Administrative Record for a
removal action. The Administrative Record should consist of documents that the
Agency considered or relied on to select the response action and when appropriate,
include documents demonstrating the public's opportunity to participate in the selection of
the response action. More information on the Administrative Record is .contained in
Chapter XV, Records Management.
Among the key components of the Administrative Record are the Action Memorandum
and underlying inspection reports and data
The proposed revisions to the NCP and associated preamble constitute guidance on
development and maintenance of the Administrative Record and public participation
requirements. In addition, guidance on Administrative Records is provided in OSWER
Directive 9833.3A, "Interim Guidance on Administrative Records for Selection of
CERCLA Response Actions" (March 1,1989). Exhibit II-2 depicts the various proposed
activities EPA is considering as requirements when establishing an Administrative
Record for each of the removal categories defined earlier in this chapter. The
requirements for each removal category differ to ensure that the Administrative Record
does not unduly create delays in emergency and time-critical removal actions. OSCs and
RPMs should refer to OSWER Directive 9833.3A cited above, for information on the '
specific documents that should be included in Administrative Records for removal actions.
VWflten A written response to significant comments received during the public comment period
iaw.m~.,. should be included in the Administrative Record file along with the comments. It
serves to document how public comments have been considered during the decision-
making process and to provide answers to significant comments raised.
-4-
-------
Exhibit 11-2
Proposed Community Relations And Administrative Record Requirements For Removals
Activity
Designate spokesperson
Notify affected citizens
Establish Administrative Record (AH)
lie
Make AR available when EE/CA approval
memorandum is signed
Make AR available within 60 days of
initiation of site activity
Place AR in central location
Place AR at or near facility
Notify public of AR
Provide a 30 day comment period from
date AR is available
Prepare written response to significant
comments
Conduct community interviews
Prepare Community Relations Plan
Time-critical1
Where on-site activity lasts
(ess than 120 days
(includes emergencies)
X
X
X
X
x
X*
X
X"
X
Time-critical1
Where on-site activity lasts
mow than 120 days
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
Non-time-critical2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 Removals where; based on the 2 Removals where, based on the * The AR file for emergency removal " Where appropriate.
site evaluation, (he lead agency site evaluation, the lead agency actions where on-site activities
determines that a removal action is determines that a removal action is cease within 30 days of initiation
appropriate and that there is a appropriate and that there is a need onty be available for public
period of less than six months planning period of more than six inspection at the central location.
available before on-site activities months available before on-sfte ••
must be initiated. activities must begin.
-------
1 PROCEDURES AND INTERACTIONS
A. PRP Search PRP searches are discussed in detail in Chapter IV, PRP Search, Notification, and
Information Exchange. The urgent nature of emergency removal actions may require
response initiation prior to an extensive PRP search that goes beyond identifying the
owner/operator. This section discusses PRP searches related to removal actions.
PRP Where PRPs are known and able to perform the removal, EPA prefers that they
Response undertake the response action pursuant to an administrative order. A PRP investigation
Policy should be a part of the preliminary assessment that an OSC conducts under section
300.64 of the NCP. To the extent appropriate under the circumstances, the OSC is to
search further for responsible parties and attempt to have them perform the necessary
removal action. In addition, supplemental searches may be warranted during a
stabilization action for PRP takeover of the disposal and for cost recovery if the
removal is conducted with use of the Fund.
PRP Search A PRP search strategy is important. As background to conducting removal PRP
Strategy searches, the general steps in the PRP search process are described in Chapter IV. The
level of effort of the'PRP search and period of performance of search tasks in removals
depend on the amount of time between discovery and the execution of the Action
Memorandum, the urgency of the release situation, the likely expenditures on the
removal, and available resources. For descriptive purposes, Exhibit 11-3 shows how the
level of effort tends to vary with urgency. While the amount of removal expenditures
affects the expenditures for a PRP search, this concept is not depicted by the chart.
Information gathered during the PRP search, such as that indicated by the activities in
Exhibit l!-3, is essential to support an enforcement strategy at Superfund sites.
In many removal situations, effective PRP searches depend partially on the presence in
the field of the personnel conducting the search. To realize the advantage of having PRP
research conducted partially in the field, and as a matter of standard procedure, the
enforcement project manager, if different from the OSC, should consult with the OSC on
the PRP search as well as other aspects of the case. It is important that search
activities be well-documented even if the result is that no viable PRPs are identified.
Emergency In emergency situations where the PRP is not immediately known, the OSC usually
O(4>* **4/4» •» AAA^> . .^IA ,ii_ A n^^ n i_ • _ •..._. i. ••.*•• . .. . . *
Situation
conducts the PRP search in two phases. Initially, streamlined procedures, consisting of
oral inquiries of municipal officials and reasonably available on-site sources, as well as
reviews of readily available site records are implemented. Oral inquiries should be
documented as soon as practicable. Obvious visual information of possible PRP links to
the site should be recorded if time permits. TAT or TES support under an expedited
work assignment may be employed. The OSC should, to the extent possible, prioritize
and expedite certain search activities to support the notice, negotiation and '
administrative order process before the removal begins. Once the site is stabilized, the
second phase of PRP identification efforts should continue. This phase of the PRP
search may support cost recovery efforts and partial-work orders. Depending on
response expenditures, available resources and the site strategy, the civil investigator
and contractor (e.g., TES) may provide assistance on the follow up search.
-5-
-------
77/Tjg. In time-critical situations, the OSC should follow procedures that expand upon the PRP
Critical search activities discussed for emergency situations. Title searches and on-site
Situation interviews also should be undertaken (OSCs should coordinate with civil investigators to
determine what information needs to be obtained). OSCs also may use 104(e)
information requests that include questions pertaining to financial viability to obtain
additional evidence during the PRP search.
Afcn. At a minimum, the OSC should conduct the same preliminary PRP search measures
77/ne- discussed above. In addition, depending on the level of expenditures and the amount of
Critical time available, the OSC may take additional steps, such as further questioning of
Situation persons on or near the site and on-site investigation for names of PRPs (e.g., records
review). After the OSC has made a preliminary effort to identify PRPs, he or she may
request Regional enforcement personnel to conduct a potentially responsible party search
to identify generators and transporters. A baseline report as described in Chapter IV
should be prepared and decisions should be made on specialized tasks. Where PRPs do
" not conduct the work, an interim final report will be necessary.
Technical Enforcement Support (TES) contracts, Technical Assistance Team (TAT)
contract support, or civil investigators may be used to support PRP searches in non-time
critical situations. Other support may be available through the use of 8(a) (i.e., minority
or disadvantaged contractor set-aside) contractors. OSCs also may request the
assistance of the National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC) in conducting a PRP
search.
All Removals OSCs should be prepared to obtain the necessary approval to conduct a Fund-lead
response if no PRPs can be identified. However, the initiation of a Fund-lead response
does not mean that the search for PRPs is discontinued. During a Fund-financed
removal, OSCs should fully document possible evidence of liability at the site in
anticipation of cost recovery litigation. Documentation activities include photographing
the site to verify site conditions and obtaining evidence of PRP links to the site such as
site records identifying owners/operators. OSCs may utilize TAT contractors in
gathering information that may help establish a party's status as a PRP. Efforts to
locate PRPs should continue throughout the removal action to support cost recovery
efforts and possible PRP involvement in any future response actions.
PRP
Search
Comptetion
Entorctom*
srti
Pfenning
As noted in Chapter IV, PRP search reports usually should not be viewed as complete
PRP searches. In most multi-party cases where substantial funds are spent, specialized
tasks also will be utilized to provide adequate information beyond the baseline report.
Exhibit 11-3 shows the information that the PRP search effort should include or yield to
meet the target of a completed PRP search.
i
After initiating the search for PRPs, but prior to issuing notice, decisions must be made
regarding the site lead and enforcement strategy. Careful planning during this phase of
the removal helps ensure that negotiations and other enforcement activities will be
conducted with greater success.
-6-
-------
Exhibit 11-3
PRP Search Activities
c
o
S
Follow up search conducted later.
Preliminary search
• Gather visual evidence from site
• Conduct on-site interviews
• Consult municipal officials
• Review readily available site
records
Use TAT for preliminary activities
Issue 104(e) information requests .
Document additional evidence linking PRP to site
(e.g.. photos)
Conduct a title search (coordinate with civil
investigator)
Conduct off-site interviews
Review relevant site records
Gather visual evidence from site
Conduct on-site interviews
Consult municipal officials
Review readily available site records
Prepare interim final PRP search report
Issue 104(e) information requests regarding
generators and transporters
Prepare baseline PRP search report
Document additional evidence inking PRP to site
(e.g.. photos)
Conduct a title search (coordinate with dvi
investigator)
Conduct off-site interviews
Review relevant site records
Gather visual evidence from site
Conduct on-site interviews
Consult municipal officials
Review readily available site records
Emergency
Time-Critical
Urgency of the Situation
Non-Time-Critical
-------
Site Lead When viable PRPs have been identified, every attempt should be made to secure PRP
conduct of the removal activities. However, site lead decisions must be based on the
exigencies of the particular situation. Primary factors to be considered in making a site
lead decision include:
• Immediacy of the need to respond
• Strength of the case on PRPs' liability
Financial viability of the PRPs.
Other criteria to be considered include:
• Ability and need to precisely define the removal
• Unique technical problems, including oversight
• Technical capability of the PRP to conduct the removal
• Willingness of PRPs to conduct the removal (lack of willingness does not preclude
an AOU)
• Availability of the Fund
• Cost of the removal (very low-cost removals have low priority for enforcement).
In addition, consideration should be given to the workload of the Regional staff and the
extent of oversight activities.
Enforcement Except in true emergencies, prior to initiating the PRP notification process, the OSC
Strategy - should prepare a bn'ef strategy that details the information and activities needed to
Addendum to successfully plan a removal action. An "Enforcement Sensitive" attachment that
Action includes information on the enforcement strategy, PRP response, and previous actions
Memo should accompany the Action Memorandum for the site. If time permits, the enforcement
staff should undertake the following activities when preparing for negotiations with
PRPs:
• Review results of preliminary PRP search efforts for adequacy and accuracy
and supplement as necessary
Determine notification strategy
• Review problems posed by site - •
Develop clear statement of work to be done consisent with draft Action
Memorandum
-7-
-------
Prepare draft Administrative Order (AO)
Develop negotiations strategy.
Preparing a brief negotiations strategy prior to the initiation of negotiations helps ensure
that the OSC has considered various aspects of the situation which could affect
removal activities. For example, at a drum site the OSC should attempt to establish the
number of drums, how many are leaking, how many are overpacked, and any other
information that would affect plans for removal activities. Obtaining this information
also prepares the OSC for the first round of negotiations with the PRP, which can be
jeopardized by inadequate preparation and unclear cleanup goals. The statement of work
should be attached to the notice letter that advises PRPs of their potential liability and
possibly initiates negotiations with EPA for conducting the removal.
C. PRP Natlc* Where PRPs have been identified, EPA's general policy is to notify PRPs of their
potential liability and to advise them of the intended response action. Where the
circumstances allow, there often will be two notice letters: (1) notice of liability and (2)
notice of an opportunity to negotiate to conduct the removal (negotiations are discussed
in Section D of this chapter). In emergencies and some time-critical removals, these
notice letters and the negotiations processes may be combined. Moreover, in
emergencies, the notification process may involve oral notification of identified PRPs,
which should be confirmed with a written notice letter.
The content of notices vary depending on whether:
The notice will be used simply to notify PRPs of their potential liability; it may
further advise the PRP of an action EPA has already taken or is about to take;
The notice will be used to encourage a private party response through
negotiations;
• The notice will be used as a mechanism for invoking the section 122(e) special
notice procedures which provide for negotiations with a formal moratorium on
response. Emergency and time-critical removals do not follow special notice-
procedures due to the urgency of these situations.
Where possible, the Regional program office should send notice letters to all known PRPs
prior to the initiation of the removal action. The OSC must consult and coordinate with
Regional enforcement staff in notifying PRPs of their potential liability and requesting
removal action by the PRP. Execpt in limited emergency situations, it is inappropriate to
provide initial notice by a unilateral administrative order. Exhibit il-4 identifies the steps/
involved in securing potentially responsible party action. OSCs should refer to Chapter
V of the Suoerfund Removal Procedures Manual and OSWER Directive 9834.10, "Interim
Guidance on Notice Letters, Negotiations, and Information Exchange" (October 19,19IB7)
for policies and procedures concerning the notification process. Also, OSWER has
distributed model notice letters (OSWER Directive 9834.10, "Model Notice Letters,"
February 7,1989) and most Regions have their own models.
-8-
-------
Exhibit 11-4
Securing PRP Action for Removals
Regional Technical Enforcement
Personnel
Determine that Response
Activities may be necessary
1
Regional Technical Enforcement
Personnel
Identify PRPs
Regional Technical Enforcement
Personnel
Continue Search Follow-up
Activities
Initial
PRP Search
^Successful*,
NO
Regional Technical Enforcement
Personnel
Determine Extent of Continued
Search and Followup
Regional Technical Enforcement
Personnel
Notify (oral/written) PRP of
Liability
Regional Program Office
Prepare Action Memo & AR;
Notify PRP of Required Action
Regional Technical Enforcement
Personnel
Notify/Request PRP to Conduct
Removal and Negotiate with PRP
Regional Technical Enforcement
Personnel
Identify PRPs
Regional Administrator
Issue AOU
Region
Hold Conference with PRP
Negotiations
Result in AOC?
Regional Administrator
Issue AOC
PRP/Region
Enter into Consent Order or
Perform Removal Based on
Unilateral Agreement '*
Initiate Fund-financed
Response Followed by Cost
Recovery or Initiate § 106
Litigation to Enforce Order
PRP
Initiate Cleanup
OSC/RPM
Monitor PRP Cleanup
'* AOU does not have to be converted to AOC for PRP to initiate response actions.
-------
Notification in
Emergency
Situations
Notification in
Time-Critical
Situations
Notification in
Non-Time-
Critical
Situations
D. AOC
Negotiations
andAOU
Assistance
In emergencies, the OSC may notify known PRPs orally. The Regional program office
then should prepare and send a general notice letter to the PRP confirming the oral
notification of liability and any request for response. The Regional program office should
send the notice letter as soon as possible following the oral notification. While a written
notice letter typically precedes the initiation of an administrative order (discussed in
section D of this chapter), this is not necessary in emergencies, given the limited time
available.
In time-critical situations, the OSC may initially notify PRPs orally and follow the same
procedures as in an emergency. Whenever possible, it is preferable that notice letters be
issued before the removal action. Moreover, the OSC should conduct a review of and
follow up on preliminary PRP search activities to ensure all reasonably known PRPs
have been identified. The extent to which PRP search activities may be reviewed and
upgraded is dependent on the urgency of site conditions.
In non-time-critical situations, procedures for obtaining PRP response are more likely to
involve formal negotiations which may be invoked by issuance of a special notice or
section 122(e) letter. First, the PRP search should be reviewed and any outstanding
leads pursued during the drafting of the proposed EE/CA. 'The PRP search review and
follow-up activities should include the use of section 104(e) information requests (see
section IV of this chapter). Notice letters should be issued to PRPs and, depending on the
response, an Agency team of Regional technical and legal personnel should quickly
schedule negotiations aimed at securing PRP cleanup within an established period of time.
The use of the special notice procedure should only be considered for non-time-critical
removal actions because the issuance of a special notice triggers a 60-120 day
moratorium on EPA action and a specific time frame for negotiations. Therefore,
CERCLA section 122(e) special notice procedures should be used only for those removals
where site activity need not commence for 60-120 days following issuance of the notice
letter.
The site lead determination and enforcement strategy (see section B of this chapter) will
determine the general approach to negotiating activity at the site. Where negotiations
are part of the strategy and time allows, the preferred approach to negotiations is to
send the PRP a notice letter specifying the work to be done and establishing a time
frame for negotiation of an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC). Where possible, it
is advantageous to send the PRPs a model AOC, with the letter or as soon thereafter
as possible. While it is appropriate to advise PRPs that EPA may issue a Unilateral
Administrative Order (AOU) if they do not consent to an AOC, unilateral orders are not
preferred where an AOC is possible. In addition, informal agreements are not credited by
Headquarters. For leverage in negotiating an AOC, it often is helpful to have a signed
Action Memorandum. The preferred outcome of the negotiations is an AOC.
The time period for negotiations should reflect the exigencies of site conditions; the nature
of the work being discussed; and the response of the PRPs to prior communications. In
non-time-critical situations where EPA has issued a special notice and the PRP has
-9-
-------
responded with a good faith offer, an automatic 60-120 day moratorium on EPA activity
at the site establishes a fixed period during which negotiations may occur.
It is very important to have a detailed technical scope of work when entering into
negotiations.
Enforcement staff may take the following steps when conducting negotiations with
PRPs:
• Meet with PRPs
Negotiate language in the administrative order
• Negotiate technical points and schedules in the workplan
• Enter into an AOC, to which PRPs agree and sign, or issue an AOU, in which
PRPs do not execute their consent by signing.
Due to the time-sensitive nature of removal incidents, the negotiation process is often
accelerated and certain steps described above maybe eliminated. The negotiations
schedule should be specified to PRPs in writing. .
In some instances, it may take as little as two weeks to conduct negotiations and sign an
administrative order on consent; however, it can take several months depending on the
progress of negotiations. For simple removals, the order may detail work to be done. For
more complex removals, the order often provides the scope of work for later response
activities and requires the PRP to draft the detailed work plan as a deliverable if the
OSC has not already written the work plan. This enables the AOC to be signed and the
PRP to initiate stabilization measures at the site before a completed work plan has been
agreed upon.
In some cases, Regional personnel may find that PRPs wish to negotiate to conduct a
portion of the removal action. The PRP may be financially or technically unable to
completely address some of the contamination at the site. It may be appropriate to have
the PRP undertake simple tasks (e.g., security) as well as others that he can accomplish.
Where the PRP appears to be incompetent or lacks substantial resources, it often is
preferable to initiate a Fund-lead response. At some non-emergency removals, there
may be viable PRPs that are willing to settle by conducting only a portion of the work so
that EPA will pursue other PRPs for the remainder by unilateral order and/or cost
recovery action. If the nature of the removal and the universes of PRPs who would
settle and would not settle warrant such an order, this is known as a "carve out" order.
/
Administra- As noted earlier, the preferred product of negotiations is a CERCLA section 106(a)
tive Orders Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), also known as a consent order. Removal AOC
on Consent provisions may include the following:
(AOC)
Introduction: Establishes that the AOC is a voluntary agreement.
-10-
-------
Jurisdiction: Describes the authority under which EPA has issued the order.
Parties Bound: Lists to whom the order applies and directs them to provide
copies of the order to any successors, subsequent owners, or contractors.
Statement of Purpose: States the objectives of the order.
Findings of Fact: Provides enough factual information to establish the
Conclusions of Law and provide a predicate for the work to be performed.
Conclusions of Law: States that the respondent(s) has been identified as a
responsible party and why the Agency has determined it to be appropriate to
conduct a removal action.
Notice to the State: States that notice of issuance of this order has been
provided to the appropriate State.
Work to be Performed: Specifically describes the work to be conducted as
divided into tasks. A standard first task that should be added for unilateral .
orders is a requirement that respondents provide verbal and written notice of
their intent to comply within days of issuance of the order.
Quality Assurance: Specifies QA/QC requirements.
Modifications to the Work to be Performed: Describes how modifications may be
achieved.
Administrative Record File: States that EPA determines the content of the
Administrative Record.
Designated Project Coordinators: Requires designation of project coordinators.
Site Access, Record Availability, and Record Preservation: Requires
respondent(s) to provide or secure acces to the site, to provide access for EPA
to review any records, and to preserve site files for a minimum of nine years.
Dispute Resolution: States agreed upon dispute resolution procedures.
Delay in Performance/Stipulated Penalties: Establishes a violation list and
stipulated penalties for each such violation.
/
Force Majeure: States force majeure provisions. -
Oversight Reimbursement: Requires oversight reimbursement.
Payment of Past Costs
•11-
-------
Orders
(A OU)
• Reservation of Rights and Reimbursement of Other Costs: Reserves EPA's
right to bring action against respondent(s) to complete this work, or for other
work and for costs. Also states that nothing in the order releases the
respondent® from other claims filed by other parties.
• Disclaimer: Releases respondent(s) from admission of guilt by signing the order.
• Effective Date: Establishes the order's effective date.
Termination and Satisfaction: States that EPA will give the respondent(s)
written notification when it has determined the order to be completed.
Unilateral In emergency and some time-critical situations, Regional staff may find it necessary to
Administra- bypass negotiations and immediately issue a Unilateral Administrative Order (AOU). In
addition, if viable PRPs fail to respond appropriately to the oral/written notification and
negotiation process described above, Regions should pursue issuing a CERCLA section
106 AOU unless there is good reason not to issue an order. The following criteria must
be satisfied to issue an order:
* Liable parties have been identified
. • There is evidence of a release or threat of a release of a hazardous substance
There is evidence that the release is from a facility
* Site conditions may present an imminent and substantial endangerment (Note:'
the courts have interpreted this standard very broadly and have not required a
finding of immediate threat)
The affected State has been notified
The removal is not inconsistent with applicable law (see CERCLA and the
NCP).
Unilateral orders are an effective way to achieve PRP response in situations where
there is insufficient time to pursue thorough negotiations, or the PRP is unwilling to
conduct the cleanup pursuant to an AOC. The provisions of an AOU are similar to an
AOC, except that more detailed findings of fact are stated. Also, AOUs usually contain
a provision requiring noticed intent to comply within a specified period and the AOU
usually does not contain past costs, stipulated penalties, dispute resolution, or force
majeure clauses. ;:
Issuance of Regional enforcement staff should issue an AOU before Fund activation whenever a
AOUs PRP has been identified (unless the PRP is non-viable), provided the criteria for site lead
discussed earlier in section B are met and the order is within Regional resources. The
-12-
-------
OSC and other Regional personnel should continue the process of obtaining approval for a
Fund-financed action, providing the PRP does not comply.
Activation of If site conditions warrant, the OSC should immediately initiate on-site response activities
Fund During while the AO process continues. PRP takeovers of removals are limited. Where
AO Issuance appropriate, at a convenient break in the response activities, EPA may demobilize its
contractor and the PRP may assume responsibility for the remaining activities required.
In such cases, the AO should be revised to reflect the PRP takeover.
Replace-
ment of
AOU with
AOC
Enforce-
ment of AO
£ Oversight
Of PRP
The recipient of the AOU may agree to comply with the terms of the order. In some
cases, EPA may withdraw the unilateral order when it is replaced by an
administrative order on consent. EPA generally does not devote a significant amount
of time to a second round of negotiations.
Non-compliance with AOs is determined through the oversight process. There are two
kinds of noncompliance:
No major response to the order, and
• , A response that does not satisfy the order.
If the recipient does not comply with the terms of the order, EPA usually will proceed
with a Fund-financed response and subsequent suit for cost recovery under CERCLA
section 107 (including punitive treble damages if the PRP did not have sufficient cause for
non-compliance with an AO).
In certain situations EPA, with DOJ assistance, will enforce the terms of the order and
compel PRP response through judicial enforcement actions under section 106 of CERCLA
Although the Agency has the authority to refer a section 106 action (e.g., filing a section
106 complaint), it is often preferable not to do so when Fund monies are available and the
delays of litigation are inconsistent with program direction. Violation of an AOU will set
up a treble damage and penalties action under section 107 of CERCLA.
Guidance on the issuance of administrative orders for removals is currently being revised
by the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) and the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring (OECM) in Headquarters.
An AO prescribes the activities the PRP must undertake. It also prescribes the
completion date for the entire response as well as the discrete parts of the response
(including oversight provisions and associated costs).
Regional personnel responsible for monitoring PRP compliance should either remain on site
or visit the site periodically, whichever is appropriate given the circumstances of the
release and the nature of cleanup activities. Oversight activities by Agency/personnel
may be supplemented through the use of contract resources such as TAT or TES.
Contractors may assist Agency personnel in overseeing field activities and conducting
technical review of work plans, protocols, site data, and reports.
-13-
-------
When the PRP agrees to undertake response action, but monitoring by the OSC or
CERCLA enforcement personnel shows that the actions are not timely or appropriate,
EPA may either take action to enforce the AO by CERCLA section 106 judicial action or
take over the response and pursue cost recovery.
Oversight Costs associated with oversight of PRP response actions, including removal actions, are
Costs fully recoverable under section 107 of CERCLA. To facilitate the preparation of
potential future cost recovery actions against either PRPs conducting the removal or
other non-participating PRPs, OSCs and RPMs should comply with the cost
documentation procedures described in Chapter XII, Cost Recovery.
Recoverable costs include both intramural (e.g., EPA payroll and travel and indirect
costs) and extramural (Agency contractors' costs) oversight costs. The Superfund
Indirect Cost Manual for Cost Recojieiy-flir420£e^J:YJS3J^ (March 1986)
developed by the Superfund Accounting Branch, Financial Management Division provides
an explanation of how EPA's extramural cost rates are developed and how those rates
should be used to calculate extramural oversight costs for individual Superfund sites.
Detailed information on cost recovery is located in Chapter XII, Cost Recovery.
Information on cost management and recordkeeping is also in'the Rerrjovaj Cost
Management Manual (April 1988).
F. Criminal If at any time during removal actions criminal activity is suspected, the Special-Agent-ln-
kmstfgatfon Charge should be notified immediately to begin criminal investigative activities. In
situations where a criminal investigation has been initiated by the NEIC, the OSC or
RPM, Regional Counsel should exercise caution on becoming involved in a criminal
investigation while conducting a PRP search, administrative or civil investigation.
Additional information on criminal investigations and the role of the NEIC and Regional
personnel is provided in the memorandum "Functions and General Operating Procedures
for the Criminal Enforcement Program" (Courtney M. Price, January 7,1985).
G. Community Community relations activities are ongoing throughout removal actions, varying in
Relations extent with the urgency of the situation. The objectives of community relations
during removal actions include:
To identify citizen leaders, public concerns, and a site's social and political
history and encourage citizens to express concerns and provide information
• To take into account community, including PRP, views and concerns into the
decision-making process
/
• To provide information to the community on the health and environmental .
effects of releases and proposed response action. ;
By providing information as directly and quickly as possible, the OSC will ensure that the
community receives the information it needs about the response action and the effects of
the release on the community's health and safety. OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B, the
-14-
-------
Community Relations Handbook (June 1988) and Chapter 6 of the Community
Handbook, which was issued under separate cover as OSWER Directive 9836.0-1 A,
"Community Relations During Enforcement Activities" (November 6,1988), should be
consulted for current policy on community relations during removal actions. Regions are
encouraged to consider use.of the Regional Response Team (RRT) to assist in
community relations activities. ... ., ,
Community Under current requirements, a Community Relations Plan (CRP) should be prepared for
Relations all response actions lasting longer than 45 days. Before preparing a CRP, program and
Plan community relations staff must meet with local officials and interested citizens to obtain
information about the site and to identify public concerns. The plan should provide:
Site background
• The nature of the community concern
• The key site issues
The objectives of the community relations activities
• Specific activities to be undertaken at the site.
Responsible parties may participate in implementing elements of the CRP at the direction
of, and with oversight by, Regional staff. The lead agency develops the community
relations plan.
Community Specific types of community relations activities during removals are likely to include
Relations meeting with citizens in the community, responding to inquiries from the media, and
Activities providing local officials with site status information.
-15-
-------
1 PUNNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A, Contractor Resources available to Regional personnel to conduct PRP searches include OSCs, the
Support Technical Assistance Team (TAT) contract, the Technical Enforcement Support
(TES) contract, civil investigators, enforcement project managers, and the NEIC.
Regional personnel should evaluate the contracting support options for conducting
effective and efficient PRP searches for removals, and incorporate contractor support
into quarterly and annual budget planning procedures. When planning for this contracting
support, keep in mind that resources may be constrained by contract capacity or other
factors.
Regional experience has shown that the TAT is an efficient resource for gathering
information regarding property owners and site operators because the TAT is already in
the field responding to the removal situation. Some Regions have open-ended TES work
assignments that allow for limited PRP research to be conducted while the official
paperwork for the work assignment is being processed. This approach has proven
effective for limited research but does not allow and should not be used for the
identification of a large number of generators/transporters. Regional personnel should
note that the capacity of the TES contract may not allow its use for all removal PRP
searches because of PRP search activities for the remedial program. Generally, a
standard work assignment is used for PRP search work beyond the initial TAT work.
a Information EPA has established several distinct but interrelated systems for documenting and
Managem&tf tracking removal activities from the initial notification of the release through the
Systems completion of the response. This section identifies the various planning and tracking
systems and discusses their relevance to enforcement removals.
SCAP/ Removals are tracked by SCAP/SPMS through the Comprehensive Environmental
SPMS Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). Exhibit 11-5
summarizes SCAP/SPMS measures relevant to removals. OSCs should coordinate
with their information managers to ensure that they are entering information into
CERCLIS correctly. Exhibit 11-6 is an example of a completed CERCLIS site information
form (SIF) for a removal. OSCs should complete the SIF using the example outline of
fields and values:
A. Operable Unit (Removals always have an operable unit of 00. All post-SARA
removals must be coded 'RV as an event.)
B. Event (RV = Removal)
C. Lead (RP = Responsible Party, F = Fund)
D. Plan start/complete date (FYQ)
E Actual start/complete date (MM/DD/YY)
F. SPMS Target (P = Primary, A = Alternate, once a removal has started, it
cannot be coded as an 'A')
G. SCAP Note (Information about the removal)
H. Takeover Flag (See below)
I First Start/Complete Indicator
j. Event Start NPL Status (Y/N)
-16-
-------
Exhibit 11-5
SCAP/SPMS Targets and Measures for Removals
Targets
ACTIVITIES
RSTOOYal
NPL Removal Start
Non-NPL Removal Start
NPL Site Completions through
Removal Actions
Remediai/Rempvai
NPL Sites Addressed through removal
action or RI/FS start (S/C-2)
NPL Sites where all remedial/removal
implementation has been completed (S/C-6)
SPMS
TARGEP
X
X
SCAP
TARGET
X
X
X
QUARTERLY
TARGET
X
X
X
ANNUAL
TARGET
X
X
X
X
Measures
ACTIVITIES
Removal Completions
Removal Investigations Completed at
NPL Sites
Removal Completions
Remedial/Removal
Percent of NPL Sites Addressed
to date (S/C 2a)
SPMS
REPORTING
X
SCAP
PLAN/REPORT
X
X
QTRLY
X
ANNUAL
X
X
X
-------
ExhSbfoi-6
IVtHT/SUMVf Hl/f IWHCI Al
JHfOMttTICH IIWI/SVJ/riHI
tr/it/tt
Sampto S1F for Removals
u.t. i.r.n. supmuNi ntoouui
CIRCUS SITE iwoMuuoH FQMI ISIFJ
EHTOKCtnCMT SENSITIVE IWCMtATIOH
fat JHTfltHM U9C OM.V
•JIIE
•EPA ID HO:
«« SITE/WILL 10 1
s/i RPH-WC KU*/PHOHE>
CVEHT tECIOHAL CONTACT HUK/PHOB£s
OTHIH RIB COHTACT KMU/ntOHE:
•OP UNIT 'OP UNIT HAME
•EVIHI rtVINT HAME < START > < COMPLETE > 3PM3
T.1P1 •SUptV-tHT HAME L.J4Q PLAH «PLAH •ACTUAL PLAH »PLAH •ACTUAL JAfiitl 9CAP HQTE
im/W/VV) IFT/fll lltVDO/YYI IrtVDO/YYI «FT/HI lltVOD/TY)
<£> <£> £> ® ^> © ©
JB _/_/_ Ifi./^
_/_/_ _/_ _/_/_ _/_/_ _'_ —/—/— -
' «TAKEOV£R FlAB: (i) "URS! START: ^ © «MR9T COMPLETE: A
•EVENT QUALIFIER: _ @ "EVENT HPL INDICATOR: *1 APPROVAL AUTHORITYi _
•RCRA OTF-9ITE ID: I I I I •
COOPERATIVE A6REEHEHT NUMBER: COOPERATIVE ASREE. AMEND HO.: _, _• _• _• _ «T*TE *«
CERCLIS FINANCIAL DATA
•FIN "FUND
SE4 »FH9 "FIN B06T »FIH «PLAH "FIN «FIH PUTT «F1M HA AMND
ML US 11K KC£ »ACH aaL AMT. Ft/a BAIfi yjuuciE •CONTRACTOR _ SJAJ^ mif_
-SUMMARY FltJ FINANCIAL DATA
FIN
BD6T
SBCl ACH
NET CRK FHS
cotniT ccmiT OPEN
AMMII DATE COMMIT
NET
OBU6
ORIB
MLI8
NET
OUTLAY
ANOUHT
LAST
OUTLAY FIH CONTRACTOR NAME/
DATE VEH OBL16ATIHB DOC HP
__/__/_
•CORE DATA EtEHEHT OR CODE
ANY WESTIOHSr CALL CK CERCLU STAFF
ACTIONt
•CSC OMLYI
• NOTE: This exhibit presents page one ol (he SIF. The actual SIF includes a second page (oradditenal comments.
-------
Exhibit 11-5
SCAP/SPMS Targets and Measures for Removals
Targets
ACTIVITIES
Removal
NPL Removal Start
Non-NPL Removal Start
NPL Site Completions through
Removal Actions
NPL Sites Addressed through removal
action or RI/FS start (S/C-2)
NPL Sites where all remedial/removal
implementation has been completed (S/C-6)
ACTIVITIES
Removal Completion^
Removal Investigations Completed at
NPL Sites
Removal Completions
Remedial/Removal
Percent of NPL Sites Addressed
to date (S/C 2a)
SPMS
TARGEF
X
X
Measures
SPMS
REPORTING
X
SCAP
TARGET
X
X
X
QUARTERLY
TARGET
X
X
X
ANNUAL
TARGET
X
X
X
X
SCAP
PLAN/REPORT
X
X
QTRLY
X
ANNUAL
X
X
X
• ••x
f
•i
•-I
5
*
'•f
1
?4
"'1
''!
j
-------
Exhibit K-6
Sampte SJF for Removals
<*•»• I.P.*. «»fwtt»
cwcus tin iHrowwiGH row uiri
aetmnvc
r<* wimw. UK OHU
•SIU Mitt:
"
•"
KMK/mOHEt
' - » - -
< START > < COMPLETE >
TYPE .suptvtHl HAtlE l«fl PUH -ma SIOUUi tlfti "TUB "ACTOM IM£tI _
im/00/TT> IFY/«» lltt/00/TTI (ItVDO/TYi CFY/QI Itfl/DO/YYI
|) ej 2a^(4 IP _'_'_ M/^ 1/Jt/flB _/_/_ 1ft/l _/_-'_
1 «IAKEOV£R FIA8: © "I IRSr START: £ © •FIRST COMPLETE: A
•EVEN! WULIFIER: _ © "EWEHT HPL INDICATORS^ APPROVAL AUTHORITt: _
•RCRA Off-SITE 10: I I 1 1 '
COOPfRAYIVE AGREEMENT NUCER: '_ COOPERATIVE AGREE. AMEND HO.I _. _. _. _. _ «TATE X»
CERCLIS FINANCIAL DATA
•FIN "f"» ...
SEQ HFH3 "FIH BOCT "FIN *PLAH "FIH "F1H PUTT "FIN NA
ML us lift 9B£C MCH aaL AMT. fT/^ BAIC ^YiMJCU «COHTRACTOR _ SJAJ, HOC J«- -1«-
SUmARV Fit* FINANCIAL DATA
FIN
B06T
ACM
NET MIS fin
COmiT COtHT OPEN
DCH AnOUIT DATE COttttT
NET
MLI6
AMOUNT
WU NET
0»IW OUTU»
.. AH«Mf
UBT
OBLIBATINB HOC ND
•CORE OAf A ElEHEHT « CODE
ANT 4UESTIOMST CAU CK CEMCLIS STATF
ACTIONi
CC9C OHtTI
NOTE: This exhibit presents page one of the SIF. The actual iSIF includes a second page tor additional comments.
-------
Exhibit 11-5
SCAP/SPMS Targets and Measures for Removals
Targets
ACTIVITIES
Bgrnjoyal
NPL Removal Start
Non-NPL Removal Start
NPL Site Completions through
Removal Actions
Remedial/Removal
NPL Sites Addressed through removal
action or RI/FS start (S/C-2)
NPL Sites where all remedial/removal
implementation has been completed (S/C-6)
ACTIVITIES
Removal Completions
Removal Investigations Completed at
NPL Sites
Removal Completions
Remedial/Rempvaj
Percent of NPL Sites Addressed
to date (S/C 2a) ;
SPMS
TARGEf
X
X
Measures
SPMS
REPORTING
X
SGAP
TARGET
X
X
X
QUARTERLY
TARGET
X
X
X
ANNUAL
TARGET
X
X
X
X
SCAP
PUN/REPORT
X
X
QTRLY
X
ANNUAL
X
X
X
-------
Ii
i
i
s
S
I
Ii
> *»
!i
> »•*
I
I!
i
t
ll!
ill
^
I I I I
V s
O^
*
I !
S<
s
il*
s
u
fl
•51
» a
• M W
at S u 2
2 ft S *
: I i s
s J * s
i I s i
N!
f\
• j-
5
*
I II I
I!
i
ii
5
ss
S
•1
-d
M S
x »• «
=§3
1
I *W
:j § i
u **^
5 g
i -
i i
to
i
s
-------
K. Financial Requirements:
1. Financial Type (P * Planned Obligation)
2 Budget Source (E 3 Enforcement)
3. Financial Amount (Required for oversight)
4. Plan/Actual Financial Date (FYQ, MM/DD/YY)
S Rnancial Vehicle (TES = Technical Enforcement Support)
a Fund Priority Status (APR = Approved, ALT = Alternate).
7. Rnancial Note
A removal start date is the date the PRP/contractor/OSC begin actual on-site work
(as entered in CERCLIS).
For Fund-financed removals, completions are counted on the day the cpntractor/OSC
have demobilized and left the site. For PRP-financed removals, completions count when
the Region has certified (via CERCLIS) that the PRPs or their contractors have
completed a removal action and fully met the terms of the AO, CD or judgment.
The takeover flag is an indicator that identifies events that have had a change in lead.
The valid codes are: T = Takeover, TT = Takeover of a takeover, or EV# = An event
code (C2111) followed by a sequence number to indicate which event was taken over
that created the new event record.
ERNS The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a nationwide, centralized
database supported by EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and maintained by the Transportation Systems Center (TSC).
This information-sharing network documents every release notification received by the
National Response Center (NRC), EPA Headquarters and Regional offices, and USCG.
ERNS is a documenting system, not a tracking system. Only the initial notification of
release is documented, not the actions performed on the site. ERNS contains information
on every reported release (including releases of non-hazardous substances and releases
below RQ levels), not only those that result in removal action. ERNS also provides
assistance to Regional enforcement personnel in supporting day-to-day response
operations and enforcing release reporting requirements.
Notification System Process
Exhibit II-7 provides a diagrammatic representation of the ERNS release notification
process. Responsible parties, private citizens, or State or local officials may report a
release to the NRC. The NRC documents the notification and relays the data to the
appropriate OSC for review and response determination. In the event that EPA or
USCG is the first to be notified, the notified agency will document the release incident
data and relay the information to the appropriate OSC for response determination.
When the EPA Region is the notified agency, the release data must be transferred within
two weeks of receipt to the TSC for compilation and input into the NRC database.
-17-
-------
EPA Regional ERNS Responsibilities
EPA Regions and USCG field offices are responsible for:
• Taking calls from parties or NRC reporting oil spills or chemical releases
* Documenting the notification using standard data collection form
• Making response determination
• Relaying the release notification report within two weeks of receipt to the
TSC.
These responsibilities ensure the efficient functioning of ERNS.
EPA Headquarters Responsibilities
EPA Headquarters, in conjunction with USCG and DOT, are responsible for providing
overall direction and guidance for the development and operation of ERNS.
gflA/5 Phase II
ERNS has been fully operational since October 1987. As of January 1989, a second
phase of ERNS became operational. Phase II verifies notification data and provides a
direct link to CERCLIS.
IFMS The Integrated RnanciaJ Management System (IFMS) is a computerized database which
tracks costs associated with removal actions. Costs are categorized by site and type
of activity (e.g., oversight costs). OSCs and RPMs should use the IFMS to help monitor
costs at their site, especially if accumulated costs approach the $2 million limit on
removal expenditures set by CERCLA.
-18-
-------
EXHIBIT 11-7
ERNS Notification Process
i»
RESPOHStBLE PARTY
&&$&
DBCOVERS A REPORTS
RaEAse
¥
i
Si::.:
••¥•.
•?:=.
ttUYSAUASI
i
;*;.s?:*w?:-'-:6Ws;s
TRANSFERS DATA
SPECUKFOR
•:•;••• .OSCOCv:r-:-f:»;.;:.i:
HPUTS RELEASE DATA
(TO MSB WITH* 1 WEEK
DATA TO WE TSC
•itisS;
wtmi
JON-
MT
&$•
•
1
:••-'•:•
.5*ift :•••.•;•-•:• OSC::-:
R6CBVESP
OAT/
»
REVIEWS REU
GATHERS MC
»
UAKGSRES
DETERMM
*
C STOI
1
:.iONSE
kTMN
' i
1
*.-..«.• •.•.;.•:•.-••
C- .-:•••
StALOQi
Of DATA
. - ..'^i.. .-WWS-. . - •;••.
RajvYSRaEAa
OATATOOSC
*
••••.• ..•..:•;•;. '• NRC ..;;.•.*:•:..•
COMPUTES EWERWO
RaEASEDATAMTO
NRCOATASMC
*
^iV •.:-!:.:••••««:•.•.:.•:••, »
TO TSC DALY
TSC
NPVTSREUAU
OATAMTO
NRCOATAIASI
TST
INCORPORATES DATA
NTOREUTIONM.
DATABASE
TSff:
GENERATES OUARTERLY
/INOSPECUI. REPORTS
FOREPA
T*
J
suewrrs REPORTS
TO EPA
(
MAC .
GENERATES REPORT
Ai^E^^
*
STOP
)
EPA
RECEWB REPORTS
STOP
use*
(PA: USEi
NRC: tMtai_
TSC:' OOTi TiiiipiiiitTii tjtmm dear
IPn
-------
IV. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS/RESOLUTIONS
A, Civil Many Regions have identified civil investigators as a timely mechanism for gathering
Im&tfgator PRP liability and financial information for removal cases, and noted that civil
investigators are effective in a quality assurance capacity to oversee research being -
conducted by enforcement project managers.
Region III has recognized the need for a civil investigator to work exclusively on removal
cases, and has a full time civil investigator position to work in the field in the early
stages of a case. Regions with removal programs large enough to sustain one civil
investigator full time should investigate the possibility of creating such a position. This
position allows the investigator to become familiar with the types of investigative
situations that removals present, and prevents conflicts in which priority is required by
remedial cases. Additionally, assigning a civil investigator exclusively to removal cases
ensures the investigator's availability to conduct PRP research when required
immediately for a time-critical removal.
E Determining
PRP
financial
Viability
C. Ussof
kiformstion
Request
Letters
Effective PRP searches should yield financial information on PRPs so that the
determination can be made whether to pursue the CERCLA section 106 administrative
order option. To ensure PRP searches yield the necessary financial information, Region
IX includes a financial disclosure form with information request letters issued under
section 104 (e) of CERCLA Standard PRP search procedures in many Regions include
a Dun and Bradstreet system financial report, and review of records for bankruptcy,
property ownership, and financial status information.
The 104(e) information request letter provides a means of gathering PRP liability
and financial evidence, including information on site history, the identity of additional
PRPs, and financial information. Financial information is necessary in determining
whether to issue an administrative order. Therefore, enforcement personnel should
be involved in removal cases at the outset to facilitate gathering as much
information as possible before issuance of an administrative order. Section 104 (e)
letters also may be used in conjunction with demand letters, issued approximately 12
months after removal completion during the cost recovery stage, to gather additional
evidence and identify additional PRPs.
-19-
-------
Guidance
Manuals
V. REFERENCES
OSWER Directive No. 9836.0-1 A, "Community Relations During Enforcement Activities"
(November 6, 1988).
Courtney Price, "Functions and General Operating Procedures for the Criminal
Enforcement Program" (January 7, 1985).
OSWER Directive No. 9833.3A, "Interim Guidance on Administrative Records for
Selection of CERCLA Response Actions" (March 1, 1989).
OSWER Directive No. 9834.10, "Interim Guidance on Notice Letters, Negotiations, and
Information Exchange" (October 19, 1987).
OSWER Directive No. 9834.1 OA, "Model Notice Letters" (February 7, 1989).
Lee Thomas, "Issuance of Administrative Orders for Immediate Removal Actions"
(February 21, 1984).
Courtney Price, Lee Thomas, "Use and Issuance of Administrative Orders Under
Section 106(a) of CERCLA" (September 8, 1983).
OECM/OWPE, "Guidance on CERCLA Section 106(a) Administrative Orders" (To Be
Issued).
OSWER Directive 923Q.O-3B, Community Re.la.tio.ps.
(November 1 988).
OSWER Directive 9834.6, Potentially Responsible. .Party SeatctLMaojjai. (August 27,
1987).
OSWER Directive 9360.0-02B, Removal Cost ManagemeoLMaauai (April 1988).
Office of the Comptroller, Superfund Indirect Cost MaouaLforLCost Recovery Purposes
FY 83 Through FY 86 (March 19861.
OSWER Directive 9360.0-033, Superfund Removal Procedures. Revision Number Three
(February 1988).
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 A, SCAP Manual (updated annually).
-20-
-------
-------
THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
-------
-------
NOTICE
Emergency Response Notification - Please note that this document
is being updated. For further information on the status of the
project or for copies of the updated document, please call the
RCRA/Superfund hotline at 1-800-424-9346.
-------
-------
Urnied States EPA 9360 0-21
Environmental Protection August 1389
Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response 'OS-2iOi
wEPA The Emergency
Response
Notification
System
To report releases of oil and hazardous
>-v^ substances call the National Response
Center: 1-800-424-8802.
ITS THE LAW!
-------
WHAT IS ERNS?
The Emergency Response Notification System
(ERNS) is a national computer database and retrieval
system lhat is used to store information on releases of oil
and hazardous substances. ERNS provides a mechanism
for documenting and verifying incident notification
information as initially reported. ERNS is operational in
all ten U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Regions and is supported by the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG). Il provides a direct source of easily-accessible
data that can be used to analyze spills and to support
emergency planning efforts by Federal, Slate, and local
governments.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Response Division
OS-210
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
WHY IS ERNS NEEDED?
ERNS provides a comprehensive, national picture
of oil and hazardous substance releases. Information on
releases is readily available to anyone involved in the
response network to assess potential hazards associated
with a release, and to plan release notification and
response programs. Before ERNS was established, there
was no centralized source of information on all oil and
hazardous substance releases reported to the Federal
government. With ERNS, data from across the nation
can be gathered and analyzed by using one system. Not
only does this speed the process of data gathering, but it
provides a more solid foundation for analysis and
planning purposes because ERNS contains the most
comprehensive source of data ever compiled on releases
of oil and hazardous substances. ERNS also supports the
release notification requirements of the following
legislative and regulatory requirements:
• The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended -- Section 103
• Title HI of The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) -- Section
304
-------
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also
known as the Clean Water Act) -- Section 311
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) -- Sections
300.5 land 300.65
HOW DOES INFORMATION
ENTER ERNS?
Information is entered into ERNS when a person calls
the Federal government to report the release of oil or a
hazardous substance. The National Response Center
(NRC), the USCG, and EPA are the Federal authorities
who generally receive the initial release notifications.
The following chart illustrates the percentage of
notifications received by the NRC, EPA, and USCG.
Percentage of Notifications
Received by Each Organization
in 1988
(Total Notifications: 28,937)
The person reporting the release is asked a series
of questions about the release. If the NRC, for example,
receives the initial report, the information is immediately
transmitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office or
Coast Guard District Office. The EPA or Coast Guard
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) then transmits the informa-
tion to the appropriate State and local response authori-
ties and other parlies, as necessary. Information on all
releases originally reported to the NRC and EPA
Regional Offices is electronically transmitted from the
NRC or EPA Regional Office to the Transportation
Systems Center at the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where it becomes
part of the ERNS database. Information on releases
reported to the Coast Guard is provided to ERNS via the
Marine Safety Information System (MSIS). The NRC,
along with EPA and the USCG, provides a standardized
inter-agency system nationwide for handling incident
data, from discovery to evaluation and response.
RELEASE NOTIFICATION
INFORMATION FLOW
\
'DOT
\
-------
WHAT NOTIFICATION IS
REQUIRED FOR RELEASES?
CERCLA section 103 requires the release of a
rcportable quantity (RQ) or more of a CERCLA hazard-
ous substance to be reported immediately to the NRC.
Under the NCP, regulations implementing CERCLA,
and U.S. Coast Guard reporting regulations, the report
may be made to the predesignated Federal OSC for the
area where the release occurs if notifying the NRC is not
practicable, or to the nearest Coast Guard unit if notify-
ing cither the NRC or Federal OSC is not possible; in ,
cither event, the NRC must be notified as soon as
possible.
Under SARA section 304, the release of an RQ or
more of a CERCLA hazardous substance or a SARA
extremely hazardous substance (EHS) must be reported
to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC)
of any State likely to be affected by the release and to
the Community Emergency Coordinator for the Local
Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) of any area
likely to be affected by the release. Transporuition-
rclatcd releases may be reported to the 911 emergency
number or, in the absence of a 911 emergency number,
to the operator. Notification must be followed by a
written report as soon as practicable.
Under section 311 of the Clean Water Act, certain
oil discharges must be reported. In the oil discharge
regulations (40 CFR Part 110). EPA establishes three
categories of rcportable discharges of oil. A discharge
must be reported immediately to the NRC if it:
• Causes a sheen to appear on the surface of the
water;
• Violates applicable water quality standards; or
• Causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited
beneath the surface of the water or upon the
adjoining shorelines.
WHAT INFORMATION IS IN
ERNS?
ERNS contains a wealth of information on specific
releases of oil and hazardous substances. Examples of
notification information in ERNS include:
Discharger identification
Date of release
Material released
Cause of release
Damagc/injuries/dcaths
Amount released
Source of release
Incident location
Response actions taken
Authorities notified
Environmental medium into which the
release occurred
Information is recorded in ERNS when a release is
initially reported to the Federal government. Initial
notifications, which comprise most of the information in
ERNS, reflect preliminary information on a release, and
are cited as unverified data. Depending on the severity
of the release and any response actions taken, the EPA or
Coast Guard OSC may obtain further information
through assisting at the site of the release or discussing
the situation with State and local officials. In instances
where nolification information is verified, additional and
more detailed data on the release, including information
related to response actions can be added to ERNS.
For further descriptive information on the data
available in ERNS, please contact EPA's Emergency
Response Division (see address on inside front cover.)
When in doubt —--> Call the NRC!
-------
WHAT ARE SOME SPECIFIC USES
OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
ERNS?
Information in ERNS can be used by emergency
response personnel, enforcement personnel, and others
who want to analyze any aspect of the release notifica-
tion and response system. ERNS has been used in the
following specific applications:
Guidance and regulatory development
Congressional inquiries
Response preparedness
Compliance and enforcement support
Statistical and trend analyses
Program planning and management
Information requests from the public and
Federal, State, and local governments
WHO MANAGES ERNS?
ERNS is managed and supported by the EPA,
USCG, NRC, and DOT's Transportation Systems Center.
A systems development workgroup comprising EPA
Headquarters representatives, EPA Regional Managers
and On-Scene Coordinators, the NRC, and DOT's
Research and Special Programs Administration and
Transportation Systems Center meets regularly to
manage the development, maintenance, enhancement,
and operations of ERNS at the Regional and National
levels. The workgroup provides a comprehensive forum
for programmers, users of the system, and members of
the emergency response community to exchange ideas
and to identify potential uses of the system and the
information ERNS can provide.
HOW CAN YOU OBTAIN THE
INFORMATION IN ERNS?
Information from ERNS is made available to the
public in periodic reports published by EPA's Emer-
gency Response Division. These reports contain.
summaries of release notifications and can be obtained
from the address below or by calling the RCRA/Super-
fund Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 (in the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area, call 1-202-382-3000). Examples
of these summaries are provided on the following page.
For information concerning EPA Regional ERNS
databases, contact the Freedom of Information Act
Office of the specific EPA Region in which you are
interested. Addresses and telephone numbers of the EPA
Regional Offices are located at the end of this brochure.
Information stored in the National ERNS database
may be obtained from EPA's Emergency Response
Division through the Agency's Freedom of Information
Act Office. Address your request to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Freedom of Information Act Office
A-101
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
EXAMPLES OF INFORMATION
AVAILABLE FROM ERNS
1988 CALENDAR YEAR INFORMATION
Releases by Mode
Fixed facility
Marine
Highway
Offshore
Pipeline
Railway
Underground
Storage Tanks
Air Transport
Other
Dumber
18.824
3,796
2,353
1.713
1,633
711
363
125
3,419'
Percent
51
13
8
6
6
2
1
0.4
12
EXAMPLES OF INFORMATION
AVAILABLE FROM ERNS
Reports of PCB Releases
by Region
(1988)
Most Commonly Reported Materials
CERCLA
PCB's
Ammonia
Sulfuric Acid
Chlorine
Hydrochloric Acid
Non-CERCLA
Diesel Fuel
Crude Oil
Gasoline
Unknown Oil
Waste Oil
Number
736
612
370
303
221
3,682
2,914
1,834
1,232
1,166
Percent
15
12
8
6
5
16
12
8
5
5
Reports of Sulfuric Acid Releases
by Region
(1988)
-------
f
Reei
EPA REGIONAL CONTACTS FOR
ERNS INFORMATION
Region 1
U.S. EPA Region 1
Freedom of Information Act Office
JFK Federal Building
(RPA-2203)
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3187
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
Region 2
U.S. EPA Region 2
Freedom of Information Act Office
Office of External Programs
26 Federal Plaza
Room 905
New York, NY 10278
. (212)264-2515
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
legion 5
U.S. EPA Region 5
Freedom of Information Act Office
(SPA)
14th Floor
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-6686
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Region 6
U.S. EPA Region 6
Freedom of Information Act Office
(6M-II)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-6558
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Region 7
U.S. EPA Region 7
Freedom of Information Act Office
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 236-2803
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Region 3
U.S. EPA Region 3
Freedom of Information Act Office
(3PAOO)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-2321
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylva-
nia, Virginia, West Virginia
Region 4
U.S. EPA Region 4
Freedom of Information Act Office
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3004
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
Region 8
U.S. EPA Region 8
Freedom of Information Act Office
(80EA)
Suite 500
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 294-7599
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
10
II
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive 9225.3-01 FS
November 1989
EPA REIMBURSEMENT TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FOR EMERGENCY
RESPONSE TO HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCE RELEASES
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Emergency Response Division OS-210
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilty Act (CERCLA),
originally enacted in 1980, provides broad Federal authority and resources to respond directly
to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger human health or
the environment. The original $1.6 billion Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (the
Superfund) was designed to pay for the cleanup of releases of hazardous substances and
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. EPA is primarily responsible for implementing the Superfund
- program.
On October 17, 1986, the President signed into law the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). These amendments authorize an $8.5 billion Superfund
and broaden the Federal Government's response authority. Section 123 of the new law authorizes
EPA to reimburse local governments for expenses incurred in carrying out temporary emergency
measures in response to hazardous substance threats. These measures must be necessary to
prevent or mitigate injury to human health or the environment EPA published an interim final
regulation for reimbursing local governments in the Federal Register on October 21,1987. This
fact sheet provides a summary of the requirements and procedures set forth in this regulation,
and supersedes the October 1987 Fact Sheet.
WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THE
REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM?
The intent of the reimbursement
program is to alleviate significant financial
burden on a local government resulting from
temporary emergency measures taken in
response to hazardous substance threats.
Temporary emergency measures may include
such activities as erecting security fencing to
limit access, responding to fires and explosions,
and other actions that require immediate
response at the local level. EPA will distribute
the reimbursement money to those applicants
who demonstrate the greatest financial burden.
The law specifies that not more than 0.1 percent
of the total amount appropriated to the Fund
be used for local government reimbursement.
This represents a maximum of $8.5 million over
a four-year period, or approximately $2 million
per year for all requests received nationwide.
WHO CAN REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT?
Any general purpose unit of local
government that incurs costs in response to a
release or threatened release of hazardous
substances after the effective date of the
regulation may apply for reimbursement.
Reimbursement is available only to local
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
governments (e.gv a county, parish, city,
municipality, township, or federally-
recognized Indian Tribe). States are not eligible
for reimbursement for temporary emergency
measures and no State may request
reimbursement on its own behalf or on the
behalf of political subdivisions within the State.
Only one request for reimbursement will be
accepted for each hazardous substance
emergency requiring immediate response at
the local level. When more than one local
agency has participated in such a response,
those agencies must determine which single
agency or jurisdiction will submit the request
on behalf of them all. Since funds for this
program are limited, EPA may not be able to
reimburse local governments for all responses
that may qualify.
WHERE CAN APPLICATIONS BE
OBTAINED?
An application package can be obtained
by contacting the RCRA/Superfund Hotline
at EPA Headquarters. The toll-free telephone
number for the Hotline is 1-800-424-9346. The
application package contains detailed, line-by-
line instructions for completing the application.
WHEN SHOULD REIMBURSEMENT
REQUESTS BE FILED?
Reimbursement requests must be
received by EPA within six months of the date
of completion of the response for which
reimbursement is being requested. If, however,
a cost recovery action is pending, EPA may
waive this deadline. EPA recommends that
applications be submitted as soon as possible
after completion of the response, since response
information and reconstruction of records
becomes more difficult as time progresses.
WHAT COSTS ARE REIMBURSABLE?
All costs for which a local government
is seeking reimbursement must be consistent
with CERCLA and Federal cost principles
outlined by the Office of Management and
Budget. In general, EPA will consider
reimbursement for costs of such items as
disposable materials and supplies used during
a specific response; rental or leasing of
equipment used for specific response; special
technical services and laboratory costs; and
services and supplies purchased for a specific
evacuation. Reimbursement, however, must
APPLICATION AREAS REQURING SPECIAL ATTENTION
To facilitate application evaluation, please pay special attention to the following:
• Reimbursement requests must be received by EPA within 6 months of the "date of
completion" of the response, unless cost recovery efforts are underway. For this
program, the "date of completion" is when all field work has been completed and
all project deliverables have been received by the local government.
• The application should include the background and current status of cost recovery
efforts. It must be clear that all available sources of cost recovery (PRPs, Insurance,
State, etc.) have been or are being pursued. A copy of all related correspondence
should also be included. Potential cost recovery sources should have a minimum
of 60 days to respond before an LGR application is filed.
• The application must include a Detailed Cost Breakdown Table with supporting
documentation (invoice, sales receipts, rental agreements, etc.).
• The application must be signed by the local government's highest official (the chief
executive or his or her delegate) unless signature authority is delegated and an
official letter of delegation accompanies the application.
-------
not supplant local government funds normally
provided for emergency response. All
reimbursement applications must be
accompanied by cost documentation such as
invoices, sales receipts or leasing agreements.
Section 310.40 of the interim final regulation
contains more information on allowable costs
for reimbursement.
HOW WILL REIMBURSEMENT
REQUESTS BE EVALUATED?
EPA has developed a formula for
determining financial burden that is based
upon the ratio of eligible response costs to an
applicant's per capita income adjusted for
population. EPA also may consider other
relevant financial information provided by a
local government.
After receiving completed applications
from local governments, EPA will screen each
application for compliance with basic
reimbursement criteria and filing procedures.
Requests for reimbursement must demonstrate
that responses comply with CERCLA, the NCP
and where applicable, the local comprehensive
emergency response plan completed under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986. Each application will
be evaluated on its own merit, and with respect
to the financial burden demonstrated by other
requests. EPA will ensure that costs for which
reimbursement is being sought are allowable
and do not supplant local funds normally
provided for emergency response. Further
guidance on evaluation of reimbursement
requests can be found in section 310.60 of the
interim final regulation.
Based upon the financial burden
ranking for each request and the funds
available for reimbursement, a request may be
reimbursed, denied or held over for
reconsideration. A request may be
reconsidered during a subsequent review
period if it represents a significant financial
burden but scores lower than other requests
during a particular review period.
HOW MUCH CAN BE REIMBURSED?
CERCLA specifically limits reimburse-
ment to $25,000 per single response. This
$25,000 cap plus the limited availability of
funds for the program may not allow EPA to
reimburse local governments for all response
costs that may qualify.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
For general information on CERCLA
and reimbursement application packages
contact:
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
1-800-424-9346 (toll free)
1-202-382-3000 (in the Washington, DC area)
For specific information on the Local
Government Reimbursement Program contact
LGR Project Officer
Emergency Response Division (OS-210)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
SECTION VII
DEVELOPING RECORDS OF DECISION
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-220)
Directive 9355.3-01 FS3
November 1989
•P/EPA
The Feasibility Study
Development And Screening
Of Remedial Action Alternatives
This fact sheet is the third in a series of
four that summarizes the remedial in-
vestigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)
process. The previous two fact sheets in
this series discuss scoping the RI/FS
(OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-01FS1)
and site characterization and treatabil-
ity studies (OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-
01FS2). This fact sheet provides a sum-
mary of Chapter 4 of the Guidance for
Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (Oc-
tober 1988, OSWER Directive 9355.3-
01). which discusses the development
and screening of alternatives for reme-
dial action. In addition, this fact sheet
provides information intended to assist
the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) in
managing this portion of the feasibility
study (FS) efficiently and effectively.
The FS process consists of the develop-
ment and screening of remedial action
alternatives and a detailed analysis of a
Co. __ "N, X* sue "s.
se°P"B J \ Ch«r«et»rlxe«fcm'>7
E*UMI*h R«nodl«l Action Objective*
Setoct • RepraemtMive ProceM
for each Technology Type
DMaNexU
Develop Sampling
Stnugkt* end/or
TnMtaMily Study
Repeet Slept kiRI
StodwaeMrizMlan
•nd/oc Conduct
TfMUMWySWdlM
* Site characterization activities
are typically continued throughout
the Alternative Development and
Screening process
The need for additional data may
be determined at any time and/or a
number of times throughout the
process
limited number of the most promising
options to establish the basis for a rem-
edy selection decision.
A range of viable alternatives should be
developed that meet the remedial re-
sponse objectives developed during scop-
ing and refined as the study progresses.
This range should reflect the program
expectations to address the principal
threats posed by the site (i.e., liquids and
highly toxic and/or highly mobile waste)
through treatment, and consider engi-
neering controls (e.g., containment) to
address low-level contaminated materi-
als and wastes for which treatment is
impracticable. Institutional controls
should be considered primarily as sup-
plements to engineering controls.
In addition to the program expectations,
RPMs should consider the types of re-
sponse actions selected for other sites
with similar problems or contaminants
to identify only those remedial alterna-
tives that carry high potential of being
an effective solution for site problems.
As appropriate, the range of source
control alternatives should include op-
tions employing treatment as a principal
element, one or more containment alter-
natives, and the no-action alternative.
The major components that comprise
the development and screening process
are presented in Figure 1.
Note: The no-action alternative is
usedasabaceline to compare other
alternatives. Measures, such a*
actions taken to reduce the poten-
tial for exposure (e:f., site fencing)
should not be included as compo-
nents of no-action alternatives.
Such minimal actions' should be
studied as. a. separate, limited-ac-
tion alternative. Environmental
monitoring may be included as part
of a no-action alternative.
Figure 1. Alternative Development and Screening Process
-------
Development and
Screening Activities
Establish Remedial Action
Objectives
The preliminary remedial action objec-
tives Identified during scoping are re-
fined as necessary during this phase of
the RI/FS to develop med'lum-speclflc
goals for protecting human health and
the environment Remedial action ob-
jectives specify:
* The contamlnant(s) and media of
concern
• Theexposureroute{s)andreceptor(s)
• The remediation goal(s) for each
exposure route
An example of a remedial action objec-
tive Is reducing concentrations of TCE
In potable ground water to 5 ppb.
The contaminants, media of concern,
and exposure routes are the most Im-
portant preliminary sources of Informa-
Uonnecessaryforthe development of al-
ternatives. That Is, the Identification of
appropriate remedial technologies can
be Initiated without Identifying the final
remediation goal or the exact cleanup
requirement These requirements will
need to be identified prior to the detailed
analysis of alternatives.
During the development of alternatives.
preliminary remediation goals are es-
tablished based on readily available in-
formation such as applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
Whereas, final remediation goals take
into consideration the results of site
characterization and the baseline risk
assessment The baseline risk assess-
ment defines the risks posed by a site
and establishes thenced (or lack thereof)
for remedial action.
Note:Identificationoflocation-*nd!
chemical-specific AKARs. began
during scoping, should be com-
pleted during alternative* devel-
opment. Example* of iuch require-
ment* Include:
• Maximum contaminant levels
(MCL«)
• Water quality criteria
• State-action level* for drinking
water
•State air emlMlon standard*.
Develop General Response
Actions
General response actions are selected to
satisfy the remedial action objectives for
each medium of concern. These actions,
Initially defined during scoping, are re-
fined during this phase and relate to
basic, methods of protection such as
treatment or containment. General re-
sponse actions may be combined to
form alternatives such as treatment of
highly toxic material with containment
of the treatment residuals.
The volume or area to which general
response actions might be applied should
be identified at this time and based on:
the exposure routes, the known nature
and extent of contamination, and pre-
liminary remediation goals and a pre-
liminary list of action-specific ARARs.
Action-specific ARARs set restrictions
on particular remedial activities as re-
lated to the management of hazardous
wastes.
Identify and Screen Appropriate
Technologies
Throughout the RI/FS Guidance and
this fact sheet the term "technology"
refers to general categories of technolo-
gies, such as chemical treatment or
capping. The term "technology process
option" refers to specific alternative proc-
esses within each technology family,
such as Ion exchange or use of a soil-
clay cap.
Note:. Typical source* of Inform*"
tlon that can be used to Identify
technology needsand to determine
capabilities of technology process
option* include; , •
,,'... f is V. f->
• ORD technology expert*
« SITE program staff ^ : "
• Technology Screening Guidejbr
Treatment o/ CSRCC4 Studgt»
and Soil* (EPA/S4O/a-88/OO4,
September I088J \ -
• Appendix D of the RI/F8 Gtttd»
. one*
« Contractor process engineer*
• Equipment vendor*
mentabllity. That is, existing Informa-
tion on technologies and site characteri-
zation data are used to screen out proc-
ess options that cannot be effectively
Implemented at the site. Figure 4-4 of
the RI/FS Guidance illustrates the nec-
essary documentation for this evaluation
of process implementability and can be
Included in the FS report.
To the extent possible, design parame-
ters for the technologies being consid-
ered should be identified to focus sam-
pling efforts during the site characteriza-
tion phase. Field investigation activities
will be ongoing during the development
and screening of alternatives due to the
Interactive nature of the RI and FS, which
are conducted concurrently.
Select Representative Process
Options
To simplify the development and evalu-
ation of alternatives, one representative
process option should be selected, if
possible, for each technology type re-
maining after the technical implementa-
bility screening procedure. Effectiveness,
implementability, and cost are the crite-
ria used to evaluate and select represen-
tative process options (see page 3 for a
description of these criteria). The sources
of information used to identify the best
representative process option are the
same as those used to identify technol-
ogy types. During remedial design, other
process options may be selected if they
are found to be more advantageous.
Note? Given the performance un-
certainty often associated with
innovative technologies,!! may not
be possible to evaluate Innovative
proc*** option* on the Mine basis
a* conventten*! pjmeesce*. If avail-
aid* infozzaatfoa indicate* that
innovative technologies will pro-
vide comparable or superior treat*
ment pesfajmance^ fewer or lesser
•dvesvaimpacts* or lower cost for a
-------
quired to assess potential process limi-
tations and which data are required to
establish design criteria.
Treatability studies are typically needed
whenever treatment has been identified
as a viable alternative. These studies
provide data on technologies and their
effectiveness on a specific waste found at
a site. Treatability studies may not be
necessary in those instances where in-
formation already exists about a treat-
ment process and its performance on the
same type of waste found at the site.
Assemble Technologies Into
Alternatives
To assemble alternatives, general re-
sponse actions should be combined,
using different process options appli-
cable to different volumes of media or
areas of the site, to meet all remedial
action objectives. For example, an alter-
native might call for incinerating the
most highly contaminated soil from a
portion of the site, while capping other
less contaminated areas. When combin-
ing alternatives, it is necessary to con-
sider interactions between media, such
as the interaction between ground water
and soils through dissolution, precipita-
tion, and adsorption processes. Consid-
eration should also be given to how
general response actions can be inte-
grated in the most efficient ways. For
example, residual streams that could be
addressed by two different response
actions may be best handled together,
such as sludge from a metals precipita-
'tion process and ash from onsite incin-
eration. A description of each alternative
should be included in the FS report,
including the logic behind the assembly
of the specific remedial action alterna-
tives.
Screen Alternatives, If Required
The alternative development process
should focus only on the most viable
options for site remediation. In the event
that a large number of viable alternatives
remains at the conclusion of the assem-
bly of alternatives, an additional screen-
ing process should be used to limit the
number of alternatives that must un-
dergo the detailed analysis.
Source control alternatives retained
through the screening process should
include those options that have a signifi-
cant potential for being implemented at
the site. The range of options that may
be retained could include:
• Treatment options that minimize
long-term management require-
ments and address principal threats
• Containment options, used either in
conjunction with treatment or alone,
that reduce exposure to waste
• Ano-actionalternativefwhichshould
be maintained throughout the analy-
sis)
Note: Generally no more than five
source control alternative* should
be carried through to detailed
analyst*. Fewer alternatives may
be appropriate in the case of an
early action, where option* are
limited or obvious, or when pro-
gram guidance or ARAR» establish.
appropriate alternative*.
For ground-water response actions, al-
ternatives should not only address re-
mediation or clean-up levels but also the
estimated time frame within which these
clean-up levels might be achieved. Al-
though the goal of ground-water response
actions is to return the ground water to
its beneficial uses (i.e., health-based
levels should be achieved for potentially
drinkable water), it should be recognized
that it may not always be practicable to
attain this goal. Contingencies may need
to be planned for and discussed in the
Record of Decision (see Considerations
in Ground Water Remediation at Super-
Jund Sites. October 1989. OSWER Di-
rective No. 9355.4-O3). Information on
the range of alternatives for groundwa-
ter remedial response actions may be
found in the Guidance on Remedial Ac-
tions for Contaminated Croundwater at
Superjund Sites (December 1988,
OSWER Directive No. 9283.1-2).
During screening, each alternative
should be evaluated with regard to:
• Short- and long-term effectiveness
and reductions achieved in toxicity,
mobility, or volume
• Implementability including techni-
cal and administrative feasibility
• Grossly disproportionate cost
The "short-term" is considered to be the
remedial construction and implementa-
tion period, while "long-term" begins once
the remedial action is complete and re-
medial action objectives have been met
Technical feasibility includes the ability
to construct, reliably operate, and meet
regulations, as well as the ability to meet
the operations and maintenance, re-
placement, and monitoring requirements
after completion of the remedial action.
Administrative feasibility includes the
ability to obtain approvals from other
agencies; the availability of treatment,
storage, and disposal services; and the
availability of equipment and technical
expertise.
The objective of the cost evaluation is to
eliminate from further consideration
those alternatives whose costs are grossly
excessive for the effectiveness they pro-
vide. Cost estimates for alternatives
should be sufficiently accurate to con-
tinue to support resulting decisions when
their accuracy Improves beyond the
screening level. Capital. O&M, and pres-
ent worth costs should be determined.
Documentation of the screening proc-
ess, if conducted, is required. Figure 4-5
of the RI/FS Guidance provides an ex-
ample of adequate documentation.
Note; Potential action-specific
ARARs, identified earlier in the
process, are evaluated further with
respect to the remaining remedial
action alternatives. This process
continues until the comparative
analysis of the detailed analysis.
By this time, all action-specific
ARARs must be identified.
Development and
Screening Deliverables
Although generally no formal report is
required during this phase of the FS, it is
important that the lead and the support
agencies agree in writing on the set of al-
ternatives selected for detailed analysis.
Based on agreement between the lead
and support agencies, the following in-
formation should be documented in the
FS report, which is submitted following
the detailed analysis of alternatives:
• Chemical- and/or risk-based reme-
dial objectives
• Technologies evaluated and reasons
for exclusion or inclusion
• Process option representation ra-
tionale
. • Rationale for screening out alterna-
tives, if applicable
• Clear, concise description of each
alternative, including its respective
chemical-, location-, and action-
specific ARARs
The Detailed Analysis Fact Sheet con-
tains a further description of the con-
-------
tents of the FS report (OSWER Directive
No. 9355.3-01FS4.)
RPM Responsibilities
The RPM is responsible for managing
thfs phase of the FS and specifically to
ensure that adequate technical support
Is provided and that control of the pro-
ject's schedule and cost Is maintained.
Technical Supervision
Activities needed to .ensure that ade-
quate technical supervision Is provided
during the development and screening
of alternatives Include:
• Communication with the support
agency, the contractor, and other
technical experts (I.e., members of
the Technical Advisory Committee
[TAC]) to obtain early agreement on
the technologies/alternatives to be
considered and on ARARs.
It may be appropriate for ORD's
START team to be Included on the
TAC when treatment will be consid-
ered for complex or difficult to treat
waste. See the Scoping Fact Sheet
(OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-
01FS1) for additional Information
on the START team and other tech-
nical experts.
* Emphasize, and provide direction to
the contractor or potentially respon-
. slble parties (PRPs) (If It is a PRP-
lead RI/FS), on the need to focus the
effort to Identify and screen tech-
nologies so that only a reasonable
range of viable alternatives Is devel-
oped.
Schedule and Cost Control
Recommendations that should aid in
schedule and cost control of this phase
of the RI/FS Include the following:
• Hold frequent meetings or confer-
ence calls to monitor progress. These
meetings can be Informal, with dis-
cussion focusing on work plan ac-
tivities that need to be accomplished
in the immediate future and the
status of In-progress tasks that
should be completed. Avoid creating
delays associated with the prepara-
tion of lengthy deliverables to moni-
tor progress.
Review contractor monthly financial
statements and make sure all costs
are reasonable and Justifiable. If
appropriate, monthly financial state-
ments should be supplemented by
talking with the contractor's project
manager about the schedule and
budget.
Control the schedule for Inter- and
Intra-agency reviews, and schedule
review meetings in advance to em-
phasize the deadlines for completion
of reviews.
Understand the significance of the
labor hour cost to determine if the
most efficient staffing levels are being
used.
Anticipate cost and schedule prob-
lems based on the contractor's previ-
ous month's performance and take
actions to minimize cost overruns
and schedule delays.
Enforcement
Considerations
The development and screening of reme-
dial alternatives Is conducted much the
same whether it is being financed by the
Fund or by PRPs. If this phase of the RI/
FS is being conducted by the PRPs. they
will review, and if necessary, propose re-
finement of the remedial action objec-
tives proposed by EPA during the project
planning phase. Revision of the objec-
tives is subject to EPA approval. After re-
finement of the remedial action objec-
tives, the PRPs will typically conduct,
under the oversight of EPA, all aspects of
this phase of the FS. It Is suggested that
EPA reviews be scheduled after screen-
ing technologies and process options,
assembling alternatives, screening alter-
natives, and identifying action-specific
ARARs. Additional information describ-
ing PRP participation in the RI/FS and
EPA's oversight role can be found In
AppendlxAof the RI/FS Guidance and in
OWPE's ModelStatementofWorkforPRP-
Conducted Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies (June 2. 1989).
Points to Remember
Apply the framework provided
by the RI/FS Guidance appro-
priately, and avoid trying to
satisfy each step unnecessar-
ily.
Begin the development of alter-
natives as soon as preliminary
information on site characteris-
tics is available.
Draw on the experience of con-
tractor process engineers, ven-
dors. ORD, and other RPMs to
help Identify appropriate tech-
'' ndlbgies and process options.
Focus alternative development
only on the most viable options
for site- remediation. Generally,
no more then five sltewlde
source control options should
be analyzed in detail.
• Conduct alternatives screening
"when more alternatives have
been developed than can rea-
sonably be evaluated.
: * To the extent possible, identify
design parameters for the tech-
nologies being considered so
that relevant data can be col-
lected during site characteriza-
tion.
• Develop alternatives involving
innovative technologies and
retain for detailed analysis if
they have the potential for
comparable or superior treat-
ment performance, fewer or
lesser adverse impacts, or lower
costs for A similar level of per-
formance than a conventional
•- Communicate with key person-
. : nel. mcludingthcTAC. through-
* out thte portion of the F&
» '; Establish project management
controls such as status meet-
. .
Closely monitor PRP activities.
-------
GETTING READY — SCOPING THE RI/FS
-------
Program Goal
The goal of the remedy selection proc-
ess Is to select remedial actions that
arc protective of human health and
the environment, that maintain pro-
tection over time, and that minimize
untreated waste.
Program Expectations
• Trcatmentofprincipal threats will
be used, wherever practicable;
principal threats may include
liquids and highly mobile or highly
toxic materials.
» Englneeringcontrolsmaybeused
for waste that poses a low long-
term threat or where treatment is
Impracticable.
• Instltutlonalcontrolswillbeused
to mitigate short-term impacts or
to supplement engineering con-
trols; they will not serve as a sole
remedy unless active response
measures are impracticable.
• Remedleswilloflencomblnetreat-
mentofprincipal threats with en-
gineering and institutional con-
trols for treatment residuals and
untreated waste.
• Innovative technologies shouldbe
considered if they offerthe poten-
tial for comparable or superior
treatment performance, fewer/
lesser adverse impacts, or lower
costs for a similar level of per-
formance than demonstrated
technologies.
• Ground water will be returned to
Its beneficial uses within a
Umeframe that is reasonable,
where practicable.
forcement staff, and Individuals with
prior experience at the site or at similar
sites. During these meetings, the re-
sponsibilities for RI/FS activities will be
reviewed and/or assigned. In addition,
lines of communication should be es-
tablished among key personnel.
Scoping Activities
Conduct Site Kickoff Meetings
To Initiate the scoping process and to
begin site management planning, akick-
off meeting (or series of meetings) is or-
ganized by the RPM. Personnel attend-
ing these meetings should include:
representatives from lead and support
agencies including other program staff
(as needed), contractor personnel who
will be performing each portion of the
RI/FS or the oversight, technical experts
(see Technical Support section),
Environmental Services Division repre-
sentatives. Natural Resource Trustee
representatives (when applicable), en-
Note: Two or more scoping meet-
ings may be warranted to reduce
project start-up time and cost. The
first meetingfs) may include Fed-
eral and State technical personnel
to identify the type and optimal
sequence of site activities and to
better focus the contractor's scope
of work. Subsequent meetings may
be held after the work assignment
has been issued and the contractor
has had time to review available
site background data.
Evaluate Existing Data
As a first step to scoping, existing data
will be compiled and evaluated. A key
step in the evaluation of existing data is
the determination of its quality and
usability. Existing data does not have to
be of sufficient quality to make final
decisions but may be helpful in develop-
ing a conceptual understanding of site
dynamics. Evaluating existing data is
necessary to focus RI/FS efforts and to
avoid duplication of previous activities.
In addition, this activity helps to deter-
mine additional data needs. Data are
needed to:
• Characterize the site to the extent
necessary to support subsequent
decisions
• Define the risk posed by the site
• Identify viable remedial action al-
ternatives
• Identify applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs)
• Evaluate the need for treatability
studies
• Support enforcement activities
The types of existing data that should be
compiled and evaluated include:
Site data gathered during the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL) listing
process and the potentially respon-
sible party (PRP) search
Historical and aerial photographs
Records of disposal practices and
operating procedures
Generator manufacturing process in-
formation
Regional geology, hydrology, mete-
orology, and ecology
Demographic and land use informa-
tion
Location of sensitive environmental
areas, supply wells, and surface
water use on or near the site
Note: Information sources near the
site will provide valuable site data
and should not be overlooked. Such
sources include local land records
and deed books; representatives
from the Soil Conservation Service,
the Agricultural Extension Service,
well drilling companies, and the
Sheriffs office; and meterological
monitoring stations for local
airports or towns. In addition, inter-
views with present/past site own-
ers and employees will often
provide necessary site information.
Conduct Site Visit
The information obtained from conduct-
ing a site visit will ease the scoping task,
save time, and help to avoid mistakes
and oversights. After gaining access to
the site, the RPM should walk the site
taking field notes and photographs. Spe-
cifically, a site visit should be conducted
to: (1) identify the site's physical charac-
teristics, noting changes from the his-
torical data base which may necessitate
an early action, and (2) assist in develop-
ing an understanding of waste sources,
areas of contamination, potential expo-
sure pathways, and potential receptors
at or near the site.
Develop Conceptual Site Model
The conceptual site model is used to: (1)
develop a general understanding of the
site to evaluate potential risks to human
health and the environment and (2) assist
In identifying and setting priorities for
the activities to be conducted at the site.
The conceptual site model may be either
a pictorial or graphic representation of
site dynamics as illustrated in Figure 2
of this fact sheet or Figure 2-2 of the
RI/FS Guidance, respectively. The con-
ceptual site model identifies:
• Potential sources of contamination
• Types of contaminants and affected'
media
-------
Release mechanisms and potential
contaminant pathways
Actuai and potential human and en-
vironmental receptors
Note: A limited field investigation.
may be undertaken if insufficient
information exists to develop the
conceptual model. Normally, a
limited investigation • focuses on
easily obtainable data where re-
sults can be received in a short
time. Examples may include ac-
tivities such as geophysical sur-
veys, well water level measure-
ments, or sampling and analysis of
existing wells.
Identify Remedial Action
Objectives and Potential
Remedial Alternatives
Once a conceptual understanding of the
site is obtained, potential remedial ac-
tion objectives should be identified for
each media to be addressed. These ob-
jectives consist of medium or operable-
unit specific goals for protecting human
health and the environment. An example
of such a goal may include preventing
migration of some carcinogen in the
ground water. Following the establish-
ment of such objectives, general response
actions (e.g., treatment) for each media
of Interest are developed. Technology
types (e.g., chemical treatment) appli-
cable to eacK general response action
are then identified, followed by the iden-
tification and evaluation of process
options for each technology type. Table
4-1 of the RI/FS Guidance illustrates the
alternative development, process and
provides examples that illustrate each of
these terms.
Performing this task helps to identify the
data needs for the FS and allows for an
early determination of the need for treata-
bility studies. If remedial actions involv-
ing treatment have been identified, then
the need for treatability studies should
be evaluated during scoping because of
the impact they can have on RI/FS costs
and schedule. Specifically, literature
surveys should be conducted during
scoping to gather information on candi-
date technologies. If the technologies
have not been sufficiently demonstrated
or cannot be adequatelyevaluated, based
on the available information, treatability
tests should be performed.
Initiate Identification of
Potential ARARs
Identification of potential ARARs during
the scoping phase will assist in: (1) iden-
tifying remedial goals and alternatives
and (2) establishing communication with
the support agency. Furthermore, early
identification of potential ARARs will allow
better planning of field activities. ARAR
identification is progressive, with require-
ments identified and refined as a better
understanding is gained of site condi-
tions, site contaminants, and remedial
action alternatives. The CERCLA Com-
pliance With Other Laws Manual (Part I -
August 1988 and Part II - August 1989,
OSWER Directive Nos. 9234.1 and
9234.1-02) contains detailed informa-
tion on identifying and complying with
ARARs.
Note: When developing the pre-
liminary list of remedial action al-
ternatives, consideration should be
given to the program expectations
and to the types of response ac-
tions selected for other site* with.
similar problems or contaminants.
Note; During scoping, the empha-
sis should be on the identification
of contaminant- and location-spe-
cific requirements as well as deter-
mining the presence of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulated hazardous waste.
In addition to Federal ARARs, more
stringent State ARARs must also be
identified.
Figure 2. Example of a Conceptual Site Model
-------
Identify Initial Data Needs and
Data Quality Objectives
Thorough and focused identification of
data needs and data quality objectives
(DOQs) will help to avoid data gaps and
delays later in the RI. and should mini-
mize reviews/revisions of planning docu-
ments. Sufficient data must be obtained
to define:
• Site physical characteristics
• Physical and chemical characteris-
tics of sources of contamination
• Volume of contamination and ex-
tent of migration
• Potential receptors and associated
exposure pathways
• Expected performancerequirements
of treatment alternatives
This Information will be utilized to:
• Determine contaminant fate and
transport
• Determine the risks posed by a site
• Develop and evaluate remedial al-
ternatives
• Identify ARARs
• Identify the need for treatabillty
studies
• Support future enforcement or cost
recovery activities
Once dataneeds are identified, the strate-
gies for sampling and analysis are devel-
oped, and the DQOs are established.
DQOs specify the quality of data re-
quired during the different phases of the
RI/FS. The type and quality of data
needed are based on the intended use of
the data, which may Include health and
safety planning, site characterization,
remedial alternatives evaluation, or risk
assessment Additional information on
the establishment of DQOs can be found
in Data Quality Objectives for Remedial
Response Activities (March 1989.
OSWER Directive No. 9335.0-7B).
Note: Logistics planning should be
initiated during scoping once data
needs are identified. A» an ex-
ample, procurement of: sampling;
equipment during scoping may be
necessary as well as making ar-
rangements with the appropriate
laboratory(les) because of backlog.
Scoping Deliverables
The dellverables developed during the
scoping phase include several project
plans. These plans are derived directly
from activities and data needs Identified
during scoping.
Plan (WP)
The WP documents the decisions and
evaluations made during scoping and
describes the tasks required to conduct
the RI/FS. The WP Includes a descrip-
tion of the site management strategy,
including the remedial action goals, any
short- and long-term actions that may
be required to address site problems,
and the optimum sequence of site ac-
tions and investigative activities. In
addition, the WP describes the site's
physical setting and Includes a back-
ground summary detailing the history of
previous site activities. To document the
decisions made during scoping, the WP
should include an evaluation of existing
site data, a representation of the concep-
tual site model, and a description of
potential remedial alternatives. A com-
prehensive description of the work to be
performed, including the methodologies
to be utilized, as well as the rationale for
performing the required activities com-
prises the main body of the WP. This
section also assigns project responsibili-
ties and sets the project's schedule and
cost
The format of the WP should follow the
14 standardized tasks that are described
in Appendix B of the RI/FS Guidance.
These tasks have been developed to
provide for consistent reporting and ef-
fective monitoring of ail Fund-financed
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
1 *
Scoping
Task 1'- Project
Planning
Task 2*- Community
Relations
' Those tasks where streamin
techniques should be used
* Conducted throughout RI/FS
Site Characterization Treatabillty Investigations
Task3'- Field Investigation Task?'- Treatabil'rty Studies
Task 4'- Sample Analysis/ Tasks - RI Reports
Validation
Tasks - Data Evaluation
Task6 - Risk Assessment
Tasks - RI Reports
< ' 4 FEASIBILITY ' '
, , 1 STUDY
Development and Screening
of Alternatives
Task9- Remedial
Alternatives
Development/
Screening
ng
i '
Task 13*- Enforcement
Support
Task 14*- Miscellaneous
Support
Detailed
Analysis
Task 10- Detailed
Analysis o
Alternative
Task 11- RI/FS
Reports
To: SOR.ROD,
RD.RA
•** Task 12- Post
RI/FS
Support
Figure 3. Relationship of RI/FS Tasks to Phased RI/FS Approach
4
-------
RI/FS projects. These tasks are also
recommended for use on State- and PRP-
lead projects. Figure 3 depicts the rela-
tionships among these standardized
tasks and the role that they play during
; the RI/FS. Those tasks highlighted with
' an asterisk have been identified as areas
where streamlining techniques should
be utilized to improve the RI/FS process.
Such techniques are described in OSWER
Directives 9355.3-06 (2/14/89), 9355.3-
05 (4/25/88), and 9355.0-20 (7/22/87).
Note: Work plans may need to be
amended when additional data are
required to adequately scope later
phases of the RI/FS or before con-
ducting treatability studies. If any
significant changes to either the
budget or scope of the WP are re-
quired for Federally funded sites, a
Work Plan Revision Request is sub-
mitted for approval. When changes
to the WP do not affect the budget
or schedule. Technical Directive
Memoranda have been found to be
useful for decreasing administra-
tive time.
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
The SAP is prepared so that sample
collection activities are conducted in
accordance with technically acceptable
protocols and that the data collected in
the field meet the DQOs established
during scoping. The plan also serves as
a basis for estimating field costs for
inclusion in the WP. The SAP consists of
a field sampling plan (FSP) and a quality
assurance project plan (QAPP). The FSP
will define in detail the data-gathering
methods that will be used on the project
The FSP should be written so that a field
sampling team, unfamiliar with the site,
would be able to gather the required
information. The QAPP will describe the
project objectives and quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) protocols that
will be used to achieve the desired DQOs.
A suggested format for the SAP is in-
cluded in Table 2-4 of the RI/FS Guid-
ance. Appropriate guidance on field
methods, sampling procedures, and
sample custody requirements is found
in A Compendium, of Superfund Field
Operations Methods (August 1987,
OSWER Directive No. 9355.0-14).
Note: Standard sampling and ana-
lytical procedures may be incorpo-
rated by reference into the project
plans to avoid repeating technical
review of a procedure that has al-
ready been approved for use in a
Region. As an example, there is no
need to explain how to take a split-
spoon sample; a reference to the
appropriate American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) docu-
ment will suffice.
Health and Safety Plan (HSP)
The HSP identifies potentially hazard-
ous operations and exposures and pre-
scribes appropriate protective measures
for onsite workers, the surrounding
community, and the environment. The
HSP should include a detailed site de-
scription accompanied by site maps and
the results of previous sampling activi-
ties. The HSP must conform to the firm's
or agency's health and safety program,
which must comply with Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
regulations and protocols. Each HSP
should include, at a minimum, the
11 elements described in Appendix B of
the RI/FS Guidance.
Community Relations Plan (CRP)
The CRP documents the history of com-
munity relations and the issues of com-
munity concern at a site. It describes the
objectives of the community relations
activities and how these objectives will
be met and includes a discussion of
planned community interviews, fact
sheets, and public meetings. Discus-
sions with the community should be
initiated during scoping as relevant in-
formation may be gathered at that time.
Report preparation methods, the ele-
ments contained in a CRP. and a recom-
mended format are included in Commu-
nity Relations inSuperjund: A Handbook
(June 1988, OSWER Directive No.
9230.0-3B).
RPM Responsibilities
The RPM is responsible for managing
each phase of the RI/FS. These respon-
sibilities include ensuring that adequate
technical support is being provided as
well as schedule maintenance and fi-
nancial control of the project.
Technical Support
Techniques the RPM may use during
scoping to enhance technical supervi-
sion of this phase include:
• Identify people with the appropriate
background and experience to serve
on a Technical Advisory Committee
(TAG). The TAG is a group of person-
nel from EPA and other Federal
agencies, -States, and consulting
firms selected to serve as technical
advisors for a project based on their
areas of expertise. Members of this
committee should include person-
nel from ORD's Superfund Techni-
cal Assistance Response Team
(START) as well as personnel from
EPA or other treatability testing
laboratories.
The START is a group of engineering
technology experts from ORD whose
primary focus is to provide technical
support on remedy evaluation, se-
lection, and implementation. Such
support will be provided during
scoping in the form of identification
of potential remedial alternatives and
the evaluation of data needs In
support of identified technologies.
For more information on START,
contact Ben Blaney of ORD's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory
in Cincinnati, FTS-684-7406 or
(513) 569-7406.
Incorporate TAG participation into
the project planning phase to iden-
tify technical and/or policy issues
early in the process.
Communicate on a regular basis
with all involved parties (key deci-
sionmakers from the lead and sup-
port agencies; consultants: Federal
Trustees, as appropriate; and other
TAG members) to reach an early
consensus on the project approach.
Inform key decisionmakers of all
circumstances that relate to mak-
ing the final decisions regarding the
site management strategy.
Communicate any special concerns
associated with the site to all appro-
priate personnel, including the
members of the TAG.
Communicate with contractor per-
sonnel at each juncture of the scop-
ing process. Contractors are not
responsible for making major deci-
sions.
-------
THE DECISION SUMMARY
The Decision Summary provides an overview of the problems
posed by the conditions at a site, the remedial alternatives, and the
analysis of those options. The Decision Summary explains the
rationale for the selection and how the selected remedy satisfies
statutory requirements. The information to be presented in each
of the sections of the Decision Summary is outlined below. In
most cases, much of the information presented can be
summarized from the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS).
Site Name, Location, and Description. Briefly describe the
site in terms o£
a Name, location, address (include maps, a site plan, or
other graphic descriptions, as appropriate);
O Area and topography of the site, especially if it is located
within a floodplain or wetlands;
a Adjacent land uses;
a Natural resource uses;
a Location and distance to nearby human populations;
O Genera] surface-water and ground-water resources; and
a Surface and subsurface features (e.g., number and volume
of tanks, lagoons, drums, or other structures).
Site History and Enforcement Activities. Summarize the
following:
O History of site activities that led to current problems;
a History of Federal and State site investigations and
removal and remedial actions conducted under CERCLA
or other authorities; and
o History of CERCLA enforcement activities at the site,
including:
- The results of searches for potentially responsible
parties (PRFs); and
- Whether special notices have been issued to PRFs.
Highlights of Community Participation. Summarize the
major public participation activities, as follows:
a Describe how the public participation requirements of
CERCLA sections 113(kX2XBXi-v) and 117 were met in
the remedy selection process.
Note: Community response to the selected remedy should be
addressed under the "community acceptance" criterion in the
Comparative Analysis section of the ROD. Responses to
community concerns should be addressed in the "Responsiveness
Summary" of the ROD.
Scope and Role of Operable Unit [or Response Action]
Within Site Strategy.
D Describe the role of the remedial action within the overall
site clean-up strategy.
a Summarize the scope of the problems addressed by the
remedial action selected. Will the action address any of
the principal threats posed by conditions at the site?
Note: The Statutory Determinations section of the ROD should
explain whether or not the selected remedy satisfies the statutory
preference for remedies employing treatment that reduces
tccddty, mobility, or volume as a principal element By indicating
whether the principal threads) will be addressed by the action, the
Scope and Role section of the Decision Summary should provide
the oasis for that statutory determination. •;
Summary of Site Characteristics.
factors:
Highlight the following
a All known or suspected sources of contamination;
o Contamination and affected media, including:
- Types and characteristics (e.g., toxic, mobile,
carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic) of contaminants;
- Volume of contaminated material; and
- Concentrations of contaminants;
o Location of contamination and known or potential routes of
migration, including:
- Population and environmental areas that could be
affected, if exposed;
- Lateral and vertical extent of contamination; and
- Potential surface and subsurface pathways of
migration.
Include maps, charts, tables, and other graphic descriptions, as
appropriate.
Summary of Site Risks. Summarize the results of the baseline
risk assessment conducted for the site.
Human Health Risks:
a Identify the concentrations of the contaminants (indicator
chemicals) of concern in each medium of exposure;
a Summarize results of the exposure assessment;
a Summarize the tenacity assessment of contaminants of
concern;
a Summarize risk characterization for each pathway by
population and the total risk for the site, including:
- Potential or actual carcinogenic risks;
- Noncartinogenic risks; and
- Brief explanation of the meaning of key risk terms.
Environmental Risks:
a Summarize the effects of the contamination on critical
habitats; and
a Summarize the effects of the contamination on any
endangered species.
Note: This summary of the baseline risk assessment provides the
rationale for the lead agency's either undertaking a response
action or taking no action.
Description of Alternatives. The objective of this section is to
provide an understanding of the remedial alternatives developed
for the site and their specific components. Each alternative
should be described in terms of the components listed below.
Figure 1 is an example of elements to be addressed in this section.
o Treatment components. Describe the following, as
appropriate:
- Treatment technologies (e.g., thermal destruction)
that will be used;
- Type and volume of waste to be treated;
- Process sizing; and
- Primary treatment levels (e.g., best demonstrated
available technology [BOAT], percentage or order of
magnitude of concentration reductions expected).
a Containment or storage components. Describe the
following, as appropriate:
- Type of storage (e.g., landfill, tank, surface
impoundment, containers);
- Type of closure that will be implemented (RCRA
Subtitle C clean closure, landfill closure, Subtitle D
solid waste closure);
- Type and quantity of waste to be stored; and
- Quantity of untreated waste and treatment residuals
to be disposed off-site or managed on-site in a
,0,
- 2 -
-------
containment system (cap., minimum technology unit,
etc.) and the degree of hazard remaining in such waste.
a Ground-water component. Describe the following, as
appropriate:
- Ground-water classification (e.g., Class I, II, or III);
- Remediation goals (e.g., Maximum Contaminant
Levels [MCLsf);
- Estimated restoration timeframe; and
- Area of attainment
o General components. Describe the following, as
appropriate, for each of the three previous components:
- Contaminated media addressed (and physical location
at the site);
- Risk reduction (including initial risk);
- Whether treatability testing has been or will be
conducted;
- Implementation requirements;
- Institutional controls;
- Residual levels (e.g., delisting, BOAT);
- Assumptions, limitations, uncertainties;
- Estimated implementation timeframe; and
- Estimated capital, O&M, and present-worth costs.
n The major applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs), risk-based levels, and other "to
be considered" (TBCs) being met/utilized for the specific
components of the remedial alternative.
- The description should summarize how the specific
components of the alternative will comply with the
major ARARs, as well as briefly describe why the
standard is applicable or relevant and appropriate
(e.g., placing a RCRA characteristic waste, thus
RCRA closure is applicable).
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives. In this
section, summarize the relative performance of the alternatives by
highlighting the key differences among the alternatives in relation
to the nine evaluation criteria. An effective way of organizing Ms
section is to present a series of paragraphs headed by each
criterion. Under each criterion, the alternative that performs best
in that category should be discussed first, with other options
discussed in sequence. Refer to the RI/FS and ROD guidance
documents for additional information on the factors included in
each of the nine criteria. The nine evaluation criteria are
summarized below.
Threshold Criteria
n Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether a remedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
a Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) addresses whether a remedy will meet
all of the ARARs of other Federal and State environmental
laws and/or justifies a waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria
a Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expected
residua) risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time,
once clean-up goals have been met
a Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
is the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a
remedy may employ.
a Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period, until clean-up goals
are achieved.
a Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement a particular option.
a Cost includes estimated capital and O&M costs, as well as
present-worth costs.
Components of Alternatives to be Described AIR
I
OFF-SITE RCRA
SUBTITLE C
86.98% Destruction Removal Efficiency
OF
RESIDUALS FROM
28.000 YD3 OF
TREATED SOL
• voc*
TCE 127 ppm
BMIZWW: 52 ppm
• Long term O&M
- Ground-water
monitoring
- Cap/liner
Integrity
• Deed restriction*
• Exposure level at
io-«
• Meets LOR BOAT
concentration
• Wast* ratUICMd under LDRi
CONTAMSUTED
GROUND WATER
• $1 4.666.000
Capital
$43,700 Annual
O&M
• $14.400.000
F-raunt worth
TCeZOZppm
Bmzan*: 103 ppm
10~aCait*K>g(nlc
risk tool
Tim* Una ClMimp Oceania
• $12,527.000 Capital
$625.000 Annual O&M
• $16.300.000
Puses* worth
- 3 -
-------
Modifying Criteria
o State/Support Agency Acceptance should be used to indicate
the support agency's comments. Where the State or Federal
agency Is the lead for the ROD, EPA's acceptance of the
selected remedy should be addressed under this criterion.
O Community Acceptance summarizes the public's general
.response to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan
and RI/FS Report .The specific responses to public
comments should be addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary section of the ROD.
Notes: In addressing the long-term effectiveness and
permanence of an alternative, the term "permanence" should be
used carefully. Permanence is viewed along a continuum; an
alternative can be described as offering a greater or lesser degree
of lone-term effectiveness and permanence. Alternatives
generally should not be described as "permanent" or
"impermanent"
Only reductions achieved through treatment should be addressed
under the "reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment" criterion. Reductions of mobility accomplished
through containment should be addressed under Coverall
protection of human health and the environment"
The Selected Remedy. In this section of the ROD, identify the
selected remedy and remediation goals and state:
a The carcinogenic risk level to be attained and the
rationale for it; and
Q The specific points of compliance, as appropriate, for the
media being addressed (e.g., "MCLs will be met at the
edge of the waste management area").
The Statutory Determinations. The remedy selected must
satisfy the requirements of section 121 of CERCLA to:
a Protect human health and the environment;
a Comply with ARARs (or justify a waiver);
a Be cost-effective;
a Utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable; and
a Satisfy the preference for treatment as a principal element
or justify not meeting the preference.
A description of how the selected remedy satisfies each of the
statutory requirements should be provided. Points to address for
each of these requirements are presented in Highlight 2.
Documentation of Significant Changes. CERCLA section
117(b) requires an explanation of any significant changes from the
preferred alternative originally presented in the Proposed Plan. If
the selected remedy reflects significant changes from the
preferred alternative, the ROD should:
a Identify the preferred alternative originally presented in
the Proposed Plan;
o Describe the significant changes; and
a Explain the reason(s) for such changes.
THE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The final component of the ROD is the Responsiveness
Summary, which serves two purposes. First, it provides lead
agency decisionmakers with information about community
preferences regarding both the remedial alternatives and general
concerns about the site. Second, it demonstrates to members of
the public how their comments were taken into account as an
integral part of the decision making process.
Guidance on preparing Responsiveness Summaries is available in
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (OSWER
Directive 9230.^38, June 1988). That document details the
process of preparing the Responsiveness Summary and includes a
sample Responsiveness Summary.
Highlight 2: The Statutory Determinations
Protection Of Human Health And The Environment
O Describe how the selected remedy will eliminate, reduce,
or control risks posed through each pathway through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls,
to ensure adequate protection of human health and the
environment (including that the site risk will be reduced
to within the 10-4 to 10-6 range for carcinogens, and that
the Hazard Indices for non-carcinogens will be less than
one).
a Indicate that no unacceptable short-term risks or cross-
media impacts will be caused by implementation of the
remedy.
Compliance with ARARs
Q State whether the selected remedy will comply with
ARARs. When appropriate, state the waiver that is being
invoked and justify the waiver. Organize the ARARs ac-
cording to chemical-specific, location-specific, and ac-
tion-specific,
a List and describe the Federal and State ARARs that the
selected remedy will attain, distinguishing applicable
from relevant and appropriate requirements, as neces-
sary. Note: Cite thcspecificsection of thestarute or regu-
lation that contains the requirement and provide a brief
synopsis of the requirement
Q List and provide the rationale for using any "to be consid-
ered" (TBCs). Note: TBCs are not ARARs, but they may
be used to design a remedy or set clean-up levels if no
ARARs address the site, or if existing ARARs do not en-
sure pratectiveness.
Cost-Effectiveness
o Describe how the selected remedy provides overall effec-
tiveness proportionate to its costs, such that it represents a
reasonable value for the money to be spent
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery Technolo-
gies to the Maximum Extent Practicable ("MEP")
o Describe the rationale for the remedy selection, explaining
that the remedy selected provides the best balance of trade-
offs among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation
criteria, especially the five balancing criteria.
q Discuss those criteria that were most critical in the selec-
tion decision (i.e., those that distinguish the alternatives
most).
a Highlight the tradeoffs among the alternatives with respect
to the five balancing criteria.
a Describe the role of the State and community acceptance
considerations in the decision-making process (modifying
criteria).
a Provide a general statement that the selected remedy
meets the statutory requirement to utilize permanent solu-
tions and treatment technologies, to the maximum extent
practicable.
Note: For a remedy that does not employ any treatment or re-
source recovery technologies, the explanation of the rationale
should discuss the reasons why treatment was found to be impracti-
cable or acknowledge that treatment was not within the limited
scope of the action (e.g., an interim action).
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
a Describe how the preference for treatment is satisfied if the
remedy uses treatment to address the principal threat(s)
posed by conditions at the site; or
a Explain why the preference is not satisfied if treatment is
not used to address the principal threats. This explanation
will refer back to the explanation under the "MEP" finding
that explains why treatment of the principal threats was
found to be either impracticable or not within the limited
scope of the action.
- 4 -
-------
A GUIDE TO DEVELOPING SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLANS
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive: 9335.3-02FS-2
November 1989
dEPA
A Guide to Developing
Superfund Proposed Plans
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. requires preparation of Proposed Plans as part of the site remediation
process. The Proposed Plan is prepared after the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is completed and is made available with the
RI/FS to the public for comment. The Proposed Plan highlights key aspects of the RI/FS, provides a brief analysis of remedial alternatives
under consideration, identifies the preferred alternative, and provides members of the public with information on how they can participate in
the remedy selection process. A notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan is published in a major local newspaper of general circulation. In
addition, the Proposed Plan, the RI/FS, and the other contents of the Administrative Record are available at an information repository near
the site.
This guide outlines the major components of the Proposed Plan and suggests effective ways in which the various sections can be presented.
EPA recommends issuing the Proposed Plan in a fact sheet format. For some highly complex sites or remedies, more detailed Plans may be
appropriate. All Proposed Plans should be written in a-style that makes the material easy for the public to understand and should emphasize
that the preferred alternative identified in the Proposed Plan is a preliminary determination, and that the Agency is requesting comments on all
of the alternatives.
Detailed guidance on the preparation of the Proposed Plan is provided in Chapters 2,3, and 9 of the "Interim Final Guidance on Preparing
Superfund Decision Documents" (the "ROD Guidance") (OSWER Directive 9335.3-02, November 1989, EPA/540/G-89/007).
Introduction
Begin with a statement of the document's purpose. This
introduction should state the site name and location, identify the
lead and support agencies, and state that the Proposed Plan:
a Fulfills the requirements of CERCLA section 117(a);
n Describes the remedial alternatives analyzed for the site or
operable unit;
n Identifies the preferred alternative and explains the rationale
for the preference;
a Highlights key information jn the RI/FS and administrative
record, to which the reader is referred for further details;
p Solicits community involvement in the selection of a remedy;
and
n Invites public comment on all alternatives.
Site Background
Provide a brief description of the site, including:
a History of site activities that led to current problems at the site;
and
n The site area or media to be addressed by the selected remedy.
Figure 1 is an example of a site map that could be included.
Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response
Action
a Identify the principal threats posed by conditions at the site;
and
a Describe the scope of the problems addressed by the preferred
alternative and its role within the overall site clean-up
strategy.
Summary of Site Risks
n Provide a brief overview of the baseline risk assessment,
including the contaminated media, contaminants of concern,
exposure pathways and populations, and potential or actual
risks;
a Describe how current risks compare with remediation goals;
and
n Discuss environmental ribl/s, as appropriate.
Summary of Alternatives
Describe briefly each of the alternatives evaluated in the detailed
- analysis of the FS. Highlight the following:
o Treatment components;
a Engineering controls (noting the type of containment
controls); and
° Institutional controls.
Quantities of waste and implementation requirements related to
each component should be noted, as well as major applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), the estimated
construction, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (also
expressed in present worth), and the implementation time of each
alternative. Emphasize that these latter two evaluations are
estimates. An example is presented iv. Highlight 1.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Figure 1
EIO Industrial Site and Surroundings'
K*g HI ii -i r-— -•-—--—
SK* Boundary
^w**
-NOT TO SCALE.
Highlight 1: Summarizing an Alternative
Trealment Components:
Excavation, on-site incineration of contaminated soils, and
solidification and off-site disposal of residual metals and ash.
Estimated Construction Cost: 542,463,300
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: S26.200
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: S42.708.780
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 Months
Under this alternative, a mobile incinerator would be brought
to the site, and 28,000 cubic yards of soils contaminated with
RCRA listed wastes would be excavated and incinerated on-
site to BOAT levels established under the RCRA Land Dis-
posal Restrictions (LDR). Waste gases and water from this
process would be collected and treated off-site in a RCRA
Subtitle C treatment facility; residual metals and ash would be
solidified to achieve LDR treatment standards and disposed
off-site in a RCRA Subtitle C disposal facility.
Evaluation of Alternatives and the Preferred
Alternative.
a Identify the preferred alternative, emphasizing that the
selection of this alternative is preliminary and could change
in response to public comments or other new information.
Sample text is presented in Highlight 2.
Highlight 2: Stating the Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative is alternative number 3. Alterna-
tive 3 includes excavation and on-site incineration of con-
taminated soils, with solidification and off-site disposal of
residual metals and ash. Based on new information or pub-
lic comments, EPA, in consultation with the State of Ten-
nessee, may later modify the preferred alternative or select
another remedial action presented in this Proposed Plan
and the RI/FS. The public, therefore, is encouraged to re-
view and comment on all of the alternatives identified in
this Proposed Plan. The RI/FS should be consulted for
more information on these alternatives.
a Introduce the nine evaluation criteria used to evaluate the
alternatives.
a Summarize the expected performance of the preferred
alternative in terms of the nine evaluation criteria
explaining how the preferred alternative compares to the
other alternatives with respect to those criteria. This
description is for the preliminary preference. Sample text
for one criterion is presented in Highlight 3.
Highlight 3: Presenting the Evaluation of
Alternatives
Short-term effectiveness.
Alternative number 4 uses a treatment process for soils and
disposal of residuals in an on-site landfill that contains the
contaminated soils and reduces the possibility of direct hu-
man contact with contaminants more quickly than all of the
other alternatives except Alternative 1 (no action). Under
the preferred alternative, once the volatile organics have
been collected in canisters, there is some minor short-term
risk of exposure to the community during transportation of
the canisters to a disposal site.
Because the capacity of on-site and off-site incinerators is
limited, under Alternatives 3 and 5 contaminated soils
would be stockpiled for up to six years. Under these two
alternatives, the risks of direct contact with stockpiled con-
taminated soils would be increased until incineration has
been completed. In addition, there are some risks of expo-
sure to air emissions from the incinerators.
The nine evaluation criteria are summarized below.
Threshold Criteria:
- Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether a remedy provides adequate protection
of human health and the environment and describes how
risks posed through each exposure pathway are elimi-
nated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engi-
neering controls, or institutional controls.
- Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) addresses whether a remedy will
meet all of the ARARs of other Federal and State envi-
ronmental laws and/or justifies a waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria:
- Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to ex-
pected residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment
over time, once clean-up goals have been met.
- Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treat-
ment is the anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies a remedy may employ.
- Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time
needed to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on
human health and the environment that may be posed
during the construction and implementation period, u
clean-up goals are achieved.
- 2 -
-------
- ImplementabUity is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement a particular
option.
- Cost includes estimated capital and O&M costs, also
expressed as net present worth-costs.
Modifying Criteria:
- State/Support Agency Acceptance reflects aspects of the
preferred alternative and other alternatives that the
support agency favors or objects to, and any specific
comments regarding State ARARs or the proposed use of
waivers. The Proposed Plan should address views known at
the time the plan is issued but should not speculate. The
assessment of State concerns may not be complete until
after the public comment period on the RI/FS and
Proposed Plan is held.
- Community Acceptance summarizes the public's general
response to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan
and in the RI/FS, based on public comments received. Like
State Acceptance, evaluations under this criterion usually
will not be completed until after the public comment period
is held.
Present the lead agency's preliminary determination that the
preferred alternative provides the best balance of tradeoffs with
respect to the nine criteria. Sample text is presented in Highlight
4. The preferred alternative is anticipated to meet the following
statutory requirements to:
a Protect human health and the environment;
a Comply with ARARs (or justify a waiver);
a Be cost-effective;
a Utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment or
resource recovery technologies, to the maximum extent
practicable; and-
Satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element, or justify not meeting the preference.
Highlight 4: Summarizing the Statutory
Findings
In summary, the preferred alternative is believed to pro-
vide the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives
with respect to the criteria used to evaluate remedies.
Based on the information available at this time, therefore,
EPA and the State of Tennessee believe the preferred al-
ternative would protect human health and the environ-
ment, would comply with ARARs. would be cost-
effective, and would utilize permanent solutions and alter-
native treatment technologies or resource recovery tech-
nologies to the maximum extent practicable. The pre-
ferred alternative should/will not satisfy the preference for
treatment as a principal element.
Community Participation
The Proposed Plan is a public participation decision document. It
should include information that helps the public understand how
they can be involved. To this end, the Plan should:
n Provide notice of the dates of the public comment period;
a Note the date, time, and location of public meeting(s)
planned to be held;
a Identify names, phone numbers, and addresses of lead and
support agency contact people to whom comments should
be sent;
o State whether a special notice has been issued to the
potentially responsible parties (PRPs), if applicable; and
n List the location of the Administrative Record and other
information repositories.
- 3 -
-------
-------
SECTION VIII
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St Site Name
CT Hew London Submarine Base
CT Nutmeg Valley Road
CT Old southington Landfill
CT Precision Plating Corp.
CT Revere Textile Prints Corp.
CT Solvents Recovery Service of New England
CT Yaworski Waste Lagoon
15 Final Sites
OE Army Creek Landfill (once listed as Delaware Sand & Gravel-Llangollen
Army Creek Landfills)
OE Chem-Solv, Inc.
OE Cover's Sanitation service Landfills
OE Delaware City PVC Plant (once listed as Stauffer Chemical Co.)
OE Delaware Sand 1 Gravel Landfill (once listed as Delaware Sand &
Gravel-Llangollen Army Creek Landfills)
OE Dover Air Force Base
OE Dover Gas Light Co.
OE E.I. Du Pont d« Nemours i Co., Inc. (Newport Pigment Plant Landfill)
OE Hi I by Chemical Co.
OE Harvey t Knott Drum, Inc.
OE Kent County landfill (Houston)
OE tappers Co., Inc. (Newport Plant)
OE NCR Corp. (Hillsboro Plant)
DE New Castle Spill (once listed as TRIS Spill)
OE Sealand Limited -3
OE Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc
OE Sussex County Landfill No. 5
OE Tybouts Corner Landfill «
CE Tyler Refrigeration Pit
DE Wildcat Landfill
20 Final Sites
Fl Agrico Chemical Co.
FL Airco Plating Co.
FL Alpha Chemical Corp.
FL American Creosote Works, Inc. (Pensacola Plant)
(once listed as American Creosote Works)
FL Anaconda Aluminum Co./Hilgo Electronics Corp.
FL Anodyne, Inc.
FL SSI Chemical Co., Inc.
FL Beulah Landfill
FL SMI -Textron
FL Brown Wood Preserving
FL Cabot/Koppers
FL Cecil field Naval Air Stiffen
FL Chemfona, Inc.
fl City Industries, Inc.
FL Coleflwn-Evant Wood "ratifying Co.
FL Davit Landfill (one* listed a* Iroward County Solid waste
Disposal Facility)
FL Oupose Oil Products Co.
FL Florida Steel Corp.
FL Gold Coast Oil Corp.
FL Harris Corp. (Pal* lay Plant} (once listed as Harris Corp. /General
Development Utilities)
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St Site Name
FL Hotlingsuorth Solderless Terminal
FL Homestead Air Force Base
FL Jacksonville Naval Air Station
FL Kassauf-Kimerling Battery Disposal (once listed as Timber Lake
Battery Disposal)
FL Hadison County Sanitary Landfill
FL Miami Drum Services (once listed as part of Biscayne Aquifer)
FL Muni sport Landfill
FL Northwest 58th Street Landfill (once listed as part of Biscayne
Aquifer)
FL Peak Oil Co. /Bay Drum Co.
FL Pensacola Naval Air Station
FL Pepper Steel I Alloys, Inc.
FL Petroleum Products Corp.
FL Pickettville Road Landfill
FL Pioneer Sand Co.
FL Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Water & Sewer Department
FL Reeves Southeast Galvanizing Corp
FL Sapp Battery Salvage
FL Schuylkill Metals Corp.
FL Sherwood Medical Industries
FL Sixty-Second Street Dump
FL Standard Auto Bumper Corp.
FL Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds
FL Taylor Road Landfill
FL Tower Chemical Co.
FL uhitehouse Oil Pits
FL Wilson Concepts of Florida, Inc.
FL Wingate Road Municipal Incinerator Dump
FL Woodbury Chemical Co. (Princeton Plant)
FL Yellow Water Road Dump
FL Zellwood Ground Water Contamination
51 Final Sites
GA Cedartown Industries, Inc.
GA Cedartown Municipal Landfill
GA Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill
GA Firestone Tire t Rubber Co. (Albany Plant)
GA Hercules 009 Landfill
GA Marine Corps Logistics Base
GA Marzon* Inc. /Chevron Chemical Co.
GA Ma this Brothers Landfill (South Marble Top Road)
GA Monsanto Corp. (Augusta Plant)
GA Powers vi lie Sit*
GA Robins Air Force tat* (Landfill **/$ lodge Lagoon) (once listed as
Robins Air Fore* laa»)
GA T.H. Agriculture ft Nutrition Co. (Albany Plant)
GA Wool folk Chearical (tori*. Inc.
City/County
Fort Lauderdale
Homestead
Jacksonville
Tampa
Madison
Miami
North Miami
Hialeah
Tampa
Pensacola
Medley
Pembroke Park
Jacksonville
Warrington
Vero Beach
Tampa
Cottondale
Plant City
Del and
Tampa
Hialeah
Brandon
Seffner
Clermont
Uhitehouse
Pompano Beach
Fort Lauderdale
Princeton
Baldwin
Zellwood
Cedartown
Cedartown
Cedartown
Albany
Brunswick
Albany
Tifton
Kensington
Augusta
Peach County
Houston County
Albany
Fort Valley
Proposed or
Announced.,
10/81
7/89
7/89
10/81
6/88
10/81
12/82
10/81
10/84
7/89
9/83
4/85
10/81
10/81
6/86
10/81
10/81
12/82
12/82
12/82
6/88
6/86
10/81
10/81
10/81
6/88
6/88
6/88
9/85
10/81
6/88
6/88
1/87
6/88
9/83
7/89
6/88
1/87
9/83
9/83
: 10/84
6/88
6/88
.Final
9/83
8/90
11/89
9/83
8/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
11/89
9/84
7/87
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
10/89
10/89
9/83
9/83
9/33
3/89
10/89
8/90
6/86
9/83
2/90
3/89
8/90
10/89
9/84
11/89
10/89
3/89
9/84
9/84
7/87
3/89
8/90
Rank/
Group,
330
Gr 8F
Gr 1SF
136
577
130
863
209
55
Gr 8F
903
491
365
165
938
46
247
43
505
215
372
529
ISO
343
151
579
910
517
985
171
441
817
662
996
152
Gr 7F
986
956
658
636
Gr 4F
464
415
13 final Site*
GU Ordot Landfill *
1 Final Site*
HI Schofield Barracks
1 Final Sites
Gua«
Oahu
10/81
7/89
9/83
97
8/90 Gr 22F
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
St Site Name
IA Aidex Corp. *
IA Oes Koines TCE (once listed as OICO)
JA I.I. Ou Pont dt Nemours t Co., Inc. (County Road X23)
IA Electro-Coatings, Inc.
IA Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant
IA Farcers' Mutual Cooperative
IA tone Army Aiwunition Plant
IA John Oeere (Ottuwa Works Landfills)
I A LaSounty Site
IA Lawrence Todtz Farm
(A Lchigh Portland Cement Co.
(A Mid-Africa Tanning Co.
IA Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm
IA Northwestern States Portland Cement Co.
IA Peoples Natural Gas Co.
IA Red Oak City Landfill
IA Shaw Avenue Ouwp
IA Sheller-Globe Corp. Disposal
IA Vosel Paint t Wax Co.
IA White Farm Equipment Co. Dunp
20 Final Sites
ID Arrcom (Drexler Enterprises)
ID Bunker Hill Mining £ Metallurgical
10 Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination
10 ld»ho National Engineering Laboratory (USOOE)
ID Kerr-HcGee Chemical Corp. (Soda Springs Plant)
ID Monsanto Chemical Co. (Soda Springs Plant)
ID Mountain Home Air Force Base
ID Pacific Hide I Fur Recycling Co.
ID Union Pacific Railroad Co.
9 Final Sites
IL A & F Material Reclaiming, Inc.
IL Aor* Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. (Ho.rristoun Plant)
IL Adas* County Ouincy Landfills 213
IL Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill) '
IL Beloit Corp.
IL Belvidere Municipal Landfill
IL Syron Salvage Yard
IL Central Illinois Public Service Co.
IL Cross Brothers Pail Recycling (Pembroke)
a OuPaoa County landfUl/ilackMall Foraat Preserve
IL Galesburg/Koppara Co.
IL H.O.D. Landfill
IL Ilada Energy Co.
a Interstata Pollutian Cwtrvt, Inc.
a Johns'ManvUla Cart*.
It Joliat Any Aaaunltfan Plant Uoad-AasaafclyPacking Area)
a Joliat Anay Aaautlttan Plant (Kanufacturing Area)
a Kerr-MeOaa (Krata Crmk/Uaat Iranch of OuPaga River)
a Kerr-McG** (Read-Kepplar Park)
IL Kerr-McCe* (Residential Areas)
a Kerr-HcCe* (Sewaga Treatment Plant)
IL LtSalle Electric Utilities
IL Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
a HIG/Oewan* Landfill
I
City/County i
Council Bluffs
Des Moines
West Point
Cedar Rapids
Fairfield
Hospers
Middletown
Ottunua
Charles City
Cainanche
Mason City
Sergeant Bluff
Kellogg
. Mason City
Dubuque
Red Oak
Charles City
Keokuk
Orange City
Charles City
Rathdrun
SmelterviUe
Pocatello
Idaho Falls
Soda Springs
Soda Springs
Mountain Home
Pocatello
Pocatello
Greenup
Morristoun
Ouincy
Joliet
Rockton
Belvidere
Byron
Taylorville
Pembroke Township
Warrenvilla
Galasburg
Ant i och
East Cap* Girardeau
Rockford
Waukegan
Joliet
Joliat
DuPage County
Wast Chicago
W Chic/DuPage Cnty
West Chicago
LaSalla
Lanont
Belvidere
Date
'roposed or
trmounced^
10/81
12/82
6/88
6/88
6/88
6/88
7/89
6/88
12/82
9/85
6/88
6/88
9/85
6/88
6/88
6/86
9/85
5/89
10/84
6/88
12/82.
12/82
5/89
7/89
5/89
5/89
7/89
9/83
9/83
7/82
7/82
6/88
6/88
6/88
12/82
12/82
6/88
12/82
6/88
12/82
9/85
6/88
6/88
12/82
4/8S
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84 '
12/82
6/88'
10/89;
1
Final i
9/83
9/83
8/90
10/89
8/90
8/90
8/90
2/90
9/83
6/86
8/90
3/89
6/86
8/90
8/90
3/S9
7/87
8/90
6/86
8/90
9/83
9/33
8/90
11/39
10/89
8/90
8/90
9/84
9/84
9/83
9/83
8/90
2/90
8/90
9/83
9/83
8/90
9/83
2/90
9/83
2/90
10/89
3/89
9/83
3/89
7/87
2/91
8/90
8/90
8/90
9/81
10/89
8/90
Sank/
Group,
93
408
295
427
565
800
Gr 21F
403
8
162
68
240
882
75
284
761
997
807
921
356
1029
1"
Gr 2F
407
132
109
888
7S1
516
163
1067
777
1036
440
675
725
732
750
292
550
Gr 15F
Gr 18F
524
514
555
710
439
400
204
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St Site Name
IL NL Industries/Taracorp Lead Smelter
1L Outboard Marine Corp. "
IL Pagel's Pit
IL Parsons Casket Hardware Co. „,_„,.
IL Sangamo Electric Quip/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (USOOI)
IL Savanna Army Depot Activity
IL Southeast Bockford Ground Water Contamination
IL Tri-County Landfill Co. /Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.
IL Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Illinois)
IL Uauconda Sand t Gravel
IL Woodstock Municipal Landfill
IL Yeoman Creek Landfill
36 Final Sites
IN American Chemical Service, Inc.
IN Bennett Stone Quarry
IN Carter Lee Lumber Co.
IN Coluifcus Old Municipal Landfill #1
IN Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
IN Continental Steel Corp.
IN Douglass Road/Uni royal, Inc., Landfill
IN Envirochem Corp.
IN Fisher-Calo
IN Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
IN Galen Myers Dump/Drum Salvage
IN Himco Dump
IN Lake Sandy Jo (MSM Landfill) (once listed as Lake Sandy Jo)
IN Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc.
kIN Lemon Lane Landfill
JIN Main Street Well Field
IN Marion (Bragg) Dump
IN MIOCO I
IN MIDCO It
IN Neal's Dump (Spencer)
IN Neal's Landfill (Bloomington)
IN Ninth Avenue Dump
IN Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc
IN Prestolite Battery Division
IN Reilly Tar t Chemical Corp. (Indianapolis Plant)
IN Seymour Recycling Corp. •
IN Souths ide Sanitary Landfill
IN Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill, Inc
IN Tri -State Plating
IN Waste, Inc., Landfill
IN Wayne Waste Oil
IN wedzeb Enterprise*. Inc.
IN Whiteford Sales ft Scrvfc* Inc. /Nat ionaL ease
33 Final f
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sitts (by State)
February 1991
Date
St Site Na
HA Charles-Georga Reclamation Trust Landfill
HA Fort Dtvens
HA Fort Devens-Sudbury Training Annex
HA Grove I and Mils
HA XaverhUl Municipal UntflU
HA xocomoneo Pond
HA tndustri-Pltx Cone* Ittts* M Hark Phillip Trust)
HA Iron Horse Park
HA Nev Bedford Sit* *
HA Norwood PCts
HA Nyatua Chemical Waste Dump
KA Otis Air National Guard last/Camp EdMards
HA Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Engineering Corp. (once listed as Plymouth
Harbor/Cordage)
HA PSC Resources
HA Re-Solve, Inc.
Ci ty/County
Hutch inson
El Dorado
Cowley County
Brooks
Calvert City
Calvert City
Island
Auburn
West Point
Jefferson County
Olaton
Hayfield
Haceo
Howe Valley
Louisville
Hillsboro
Newport
Peewee Valley
Brooks
Shepherdsville
Slidell
Bayou Sorrel
Sorrento
Oenham Springs
Abbeville
Ascension Parish
Abbeville
Doyline
Oarrow
Abbeville
Scot landvi lie
Fai rhaven
Holbrook
Bridgewater
Tyngsborough
Fort Devens
Middlesex County
Grovel and
Haverhill
Uestborough
Woburn
Billarica
New Bedford
Norwood
Ashland
Falmouth
Plymouth
Palmar
Dartmouth
Proposed or
Announced.
1/87
6/88
10/84
10/81
9/83
12/82
6/88
6/88
12/82
7/82
6/88
6/88
6/88
6/86
7/82
'10/84
12/82
6/88
10/84
6/88
12/82
7/82
12/82
6/86
6/88
1/87
6/88
10/84
7/82
6/88
9/83
6/88
12/82
12/82
10/81
7/89
7/89
12/82
10/84
12/82
10/81
9/83
7/82
10/84
10/81
7/89
12/82
12/82
10/81
Rank/
Final Group.
7/87
3/89
6/86
9/83
9/84
9/83
2/90
8/90
9/83
9/83
8/90
2/90
8/90
7/87
9/83
6/86
9/83
3/89
6/86
3/89
9/83
9/84
9/83
8/90
10/89
7/87
3/89
3/89
9/83
3/89
9/84
2/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
11/89
2/90
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/83
6/86
9/83
, 11/89
9/83
; 9/83
; 9/83
,
822
993
821
96
834
844
147
749
325
736
347
845
1032
625
513
912
600
559
853
787
229
792 ^
864*|
375
Gr 20F
82
528
453
384
14
501
254
Gr 9F
Gr 14F
468
981
324
5
367
81
1021
11
Gr 6F
112
536
243
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St Site Name
MA Rose Disposal Pit
MA Salem Acres
MA Shpack Landfill
MA Si I resim Chemical Corp.
MA Sullivan's Ledge
MA W.R. Grace I Co Inc (Acton Plant)
MA wells GftH
25 Final Sites
MD
MD
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
Mt
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
MI
MI
MI
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area)
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Michaelsville Landfill)
Anne Arundel County Landfill
Bush Valley Landfill
Kane I Lombard Street Drums
Limestone Road
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers. Inc
Sand, Gravel ft Stone
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
Woodlawn County Landfill
10 Final Sites
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Loring Air Force Base
McKin Co.
O'Connor Co.
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Saco Municipal Landfill
Saco Tannery Waste Pits
Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Winthrop Landfill
9 Final Sites
Adam's Plating
Albion-Sheridan Township Landfill
Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River
American Anodco, Inc.
Anderson Development Co.
Auto Ion Chemicals, Inc.
Avenue »E» Ground Water Contamination
Barrels, Inc.
Bendix Corp./Allied Automotive
Berlin t Farro
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Burrows Sanitation
Butterworth *2 Landfill
Canntlton Industries, In*.
Carter Industrials, Im.
Cemetery DUMP
Charlevoix Municipal Wall
Chem Central
Clare Water Supply
Cliff/Dow DUMP
Duel I ft Gardner Landfill
Electrovoice
Folkertsma Refuse
Forest Waste Products
City/County
Lanesboro
Salem
Morton/Attleboro
Lowell
New Bedford
Acton
Woburn
Edgewood
Aberdeen
Glen Burnie
Abingdon
Baltimore
Cumberland
Harmons
Elkton
Hollywood
WoodIawn
Brunswick
Limestone
Gray
Augusta
Washburn
Saco
Saco
South Hope
Winthrop
Lansing
Albion
Kalamazoo
Ionia
Adrian
Kalamazoo
Traverse City
Lansing
St. Joseph
Swartz Creek
Nuskegon
Hartford
Grand Rapids
Sault Saint* Marie
Detroit
Rosa Center
Charlevoix
Wyoming Township
Clare
Marquette
Dal ton Township
Buchanan
Grand Rapids
Otisville
Proposed or
Announced .j
10/84
10/84
10/84
7/82
9/83
12/82
12/82
4/85
4/85
6/88
6/88
10/84
12/82
10/84
12/82
10/84
1/87
10/84
7/89
12/82
12/82
12/82
6/88
12/82
4/85
10/81
6/88
6/88
5/89
6/86
12/82
12/82
10/84
1/87
6/88
7/82
6/88
9/83
12/82
6/88
6/88
12/82
12/82
12/82
9/83
12/82
12/82 '
9/83
6/86.
12/82 /
Final
6/86
6/86
6/86
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
2/90
10/89
2/91
3/89
6/86
9/83
6/86
9/83
6/86
7/87
7/87
• 2/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/83
10/89
9/83
3/89
10/89
8/90
3/89
9/83
9/83
6/86
10/89
2/90
9/83
3/89
9/84
9/83
8/90
3/89
9/83
9/83
9/83-
9/84
9/83
9/83
9/84
3/89
9/83
Rank/
Group2
i
840
719
1018
377
852
38
378
Gr 3F
Or 19F
575
486
994
973
404
458
748
238
Gr 8f
Gr 15 =
33
90S
768
1016
362
873
660'.
1012
790
639
61
945
878
933
421
610
13
138
968
197
991
596
760
567
551
542
741
733
697
838
537
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St Site Name
HI G*H Landfill
Mf Grand Traversa Overall Supply Co.
MI Cratiot County Landfill *
HI H. Irown Co., Inc.
HI Kedblun Industries
HI Hi-Hill Manufacturing Co.
HI Ionia City Landfill
HI J t, I Landfill
HI KCL Avenut Landfill
HI Kaydon Corp.
HI Kent City Mobile Hone Park
HI Kentwood Landfill
HI Kysor Industrial Corp.
HI Liquid Disposal, Inc.
MI Mason County Landfill
HI HcGrau Edison Corp.
HI Hetal Working Shop
MI Mctaoora Landfill
HI Hichigan Disposal Service (Cork Street Landfill)
HI Hotor Wheel, Inc.
HI Muskegon Chemical Co.
HI Worth Sronson Industrial Area
MI Horthernaire Plating
MI Hovaco Industries
HI Organic Chemicals, Inc.
HI Ossineke Ground Water Contamination
HI Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
HI Packaging Corp. of America
HI Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.
HI Peerless Plating Co.
HI Petoskey Municipal Well Field
MI Rasirussen's Duwp
HI Rockwell International Corp. (Allegan Plant)
HI Rose Township Dump
HI Rota-Finish Co., Inc.
HI SCA Independent Landfill
HI Shiawasse* River
MI South Hacwnb Disposal Authority (Landfills #9 and *9a)
HI Southwest Ottawa County Landfill
HI Sparta Landfill
HI Spartan Chemical Co.
Ml Spiegelberg Landfill
HI Springfield Township Dunp
HI Stata Disposal Landfill, Inc.
HI Sturgis Municipal Walls
MI Tar Like
HI ThenwChe*, Inc.
MI Torch Lake
MI U.S. Aviex
MI Velsicol Chemical Carp* (Mehifan)
NI Vtrona Wall Field
MI Wash King Laundry
HI Waste Manigaaant of Michigan (Holland Lagoons)
77 Final Sitas
m Adrian Municipal Wall Fiald
MM Agate Lake Scrapyard
m Arrowhaad Refinery Co.
City/County
Utiea
Greilickville
St. Louis
Grand Rapids
Oscoda
Highland
Ionia
Rochester Hills
Oshtemo Township
Huskegon
Kent City
Kentwood
Cadillac
Utica
Pere Harquette Twp
Albion
Lake Ann
Metamora
Kalamazoo
Lansing
Whitehall
Bronson
Cadillac
Temperance
Grandville
Ossineke
Da I ton Township
Filer City
Grand Ledge
Muskegon
Petoskey
Green Oak Township
Allegan
Rose Township
Kalamazoo
Muskegon Heights
Howe 1 1
Macomb Township
Park Township
Sparta Township
Wyoming
Green Oak Township
Davisburg
Grand Rapid*
Sturgts
Manealona Township
Huskegon
Koughton County
Howard Township
St. Louis
Battle Creak
Pleasant Plains Twp
Holland
Adrian
Fairviaw Township
Hamantown
Proposed or
Announced,
7/82
12/82
10/81
4/85
12/82
6/88
12/82
6/86
12/82
6/88
9/85
12/82
9/85
7/82
12/82
12/82
1/87
9/83
10/84
10/84
6/88
10/84
7/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
7/82
12/82
6/88
6/88
12/82
12/82
4/85
7/82
10/84
12/82
12/82
10/84
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
6/88
9/83
12/82
10/84
10/84
12/82
12/82
7/82
12/82
10/84
/
10/84 ,
10/84 ;
9/83 •
Final
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
2/90
9/83
3/89
9/83
2/90
7/87
9/83
10/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/84
2/90
6/86
2/90
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
3/89
8/90"
9/83
9/83
7/87
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/84
9/83
6/36
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
6/86
6/86
9/84
Rank/
Group,
216
687
79
502
607
207
926
915
560
752
818
696
771
23
759
829
1062
688
583
222
757
778
64
552
347^
"*°B
^
924
344
- 382
908
160
189
473
723
947
805
508
887
461
129
166
422
420
232
142
268
806
155
263
494
613
819
1011
350
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
st
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HS
HS
xxxxxxxx
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NO
un
Site Name
St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood Interim Storage/Future Coatings Co.
Syntax Facility
TifiMS leach Site
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plsnt/Pits (USDOE/Army) (once listed as Weldon
Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army))
Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works
Westlake Landfill
Wheeling Disposal Service Co. Landfill
22 Final Sites
Flowood Site *
Newsom Brothers/Old Reiehhold Chemicals, Inc.
2 Final Sites
Anaconda Co. Smelter
East Helena Site (once listed as East Helena Smelter)
Idaho Pole Co.
LSbby Ground Water Contamination
Mil I town Reservoir Sediments
Montana Pole and Treating
Houat Industries
Stiver Bow Creek/Butte Area (once listed as Silver Sow Creek)
8 Final Sites
ABC One Hour Cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Duips
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Bypass 601 Ground Water Contamination
C»ffp Lejeone Hilitary Reservation (once listed as Camp Lejeune
Harine Corps Base)
Cape Fear Wood Preserving.
Carolina Transformer Co.
Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber Operations)
Charles Micon Lagoon I Drum Storage
Chemtronics, Inc.
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen Plant)
Hevi-Outy Electric Co.
Jedco-Hughes Facility
JFD Electronics/Channel Naatar
Koppers Co., Inc. (NorrfsvUl* Plant)
Hirtfn-MaHetta, Sodywc, Inc.
National starch 4V Chartcal Corp.
North Carolina State IMvamfty (Lot 66. Farm Unit *1)
New Hanover County Airpsrt turn Pit
Potter's Septic Tank ferric* Pits
22 Final Sites
Arsenic Trioxibe Sit* •
UifNStF 1 an>4«
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St Site Name
NE 10th Street Site
NE Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
NE Hastings Ground Water Contamination
NE Lindsay Manufacturing Co.
NE Nebraska Ordnance Plant (Former)
NE Waver I y Ground Water Contamination
6 Final Sites
NH Auburn Road Landfill
NH Coakley Landfill
NH Dover Municipal Landfill
NH Fletcher's Paint Works & Storage
NH Hoi ton Circle Ground Water Contamination
NH Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp. (once listed as Kearsage Metallurgical
Corp. )
NH Keefe Environmental Services (once listed as KES)
NH Mottolo Pig Farm
NH Ottati S Goss/Kingston Steel Drum (once listed as Ottati & Goss)
NH Pease Air Force Base
NH Savage Municipal Water Supply
NH Somersuorth Sanitary Landfill
NH South Municipal Water Supply Well
NH Sylvester *
NH Tibbets Road
. NH Tinkham Garage
" 16 Final Sites
NJ A. 0. Polymer
Nj American Cyanamid Co.
NJ Asbestos Diwp
NJ Beachwood/Berkley Wells
NJ Bog Creek Farm
NJ Brick Township Landfill
NJ Bridgeport Rental t Oil Services
NJ Brook Industrial Park
NJ Burnt Fly Bog
NJ Caldwell Trucking Co.
NJ Chemical Control
NJ Chemical Insecticide Corp.
NJ Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. (one* listed as Chemical Leaman
Tank Liners, Inc.)
NJ Chemsol, Inc.
NJ Ciba-Geigy Corp. (one* Hated u Tom River Chemical)
NJ CinriMinson Township (Slock 702) Ground Water Contamination
NJ Combe Fill North landfill
NJ combe Fill South Landfill
NJ Cosden Chemical Coating* Corp.
NJ CPS/Madison Industrie*-
NJ Curcio Scrap Natal, In*.
NJ O'Imperio Property
NJ Oayco Corp./L.E Carpenter Co.
NJ Da Renal Cheaiical Co.
NJ Delilah Road
NJ Oenzer t Schafer X-Ray Co.
NJ Diamond Alkali Co.
NJ Dover Municipal Well 4
NJ Ellis Property
City/County
Columbus
Hall County
Hastings
Lindsay
Mead
Waverly
Londonderry
North Hampton
Dover
Mi I ford
' Londonderry
Conuay
Epping
Raymond
Kingston
Portsmouth/New i ng ton
Mi I ford
Somersworth
Peterborough
Nashua
Barrington
Londonderry
Sparta Township
Bound Brook
Millington
Berkley Township
Howell Township
Brick Township
• Bridgeport
Bovnd Brook
Marlboro Township
Fairfield
Elizabeth
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Piscataway
Tom* River
Cimaminson Township
Mount Olive Twp
Chester Township
Beverly
Old Bridge Township
Saddle irook Twp
Hamilton Township
Wharton Borough
Kingwood Township
Egg Harbor Township
Bayville
Newark
Dover Township
Eveshan Township
Proposed or
Announced1
10/89
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/89
10/84
12/82
10/84
12/82
6/88
6/88
9/83
10/81
4/85
10/81
7/89
9/83
12/82
9/83.
10/81
4/85
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/81
6/88
10/81
12/82
10/81
10/89
9/83
12/82
12/82
10/84
12/82
12/82
1/87
12/82
1/87
10/81
4/85
9/83
9/83 ,
12/82
9/83
12/82 .
12/82 ;
Final
8/90
7/87
6/86
10/89
8/90
6/86
9/83
6/86
9/83
3/89
3/89
9/84
9/83
7/87
9/83
2/90
9/84
9/83
9/84
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
10/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
8/90
9/84
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
7/87
9/83
7/87
9/83
7/87
9/84
9/84
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
Rank/
GrouOj
1051
Gr 4F
428
241
896
585
643
1030
619
694
889
540
19
470
140
Gr 11F
603
16
659
24
457
359
1039
198
512
409
361
59
35
60
42
52
. 259
571
249
380
196
570
242
315
783
10
745
106
287
655
210
483
692
1041
735
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St Sitt Hame
MJ Ever Phillip* Leasing
MJ twin Proptrty
MJ Fair Laun U«U Field
HJ Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center
HJ Florence Land Recontogring Landfill
HJ Fort Dix (Landfill Sitt)
HJ Fried Industries
HJ Garden State Cleaners Co.
HJ GEHS Landfill
HJ Glen Ridge Radium Site
HJ Global Sanitary Landfill
HJ Goose Farm
HJ Helen Kramer Landfill
HJ Hercules, Inc. (Gibbatown Plant)
HJ Higgins Disposal
HJ Higgins Farm
HJ Hopkins Farm
HJ Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion Chemicals
HJ Industrial Latex Corp.
HJ Jackson Township Landfill
HJ JIS Landfill
HJ Kauffman t Hinteer, Inc.
HJ Kin-Sue Landfill
HJ King of Prussia
HJ Landfill t Development Co.
HJ Lang Property
HJ Lipari Landfill
HJ Lodi Municipal Well
HJ Lone Pine Landfill
HJ HtT Oelisa Landfill
MJ Mmnheim Avenue Dump
MJ Hayvood Chemical Co.
HJ Metaltec/Aerosystem*
MJ Monitor Devices/tntercircuits Ine ,
HJ Monroe Township Landfill
HJ Hontclair/Vest Orange Radium Site
HJ Montgomery Township Housing Development
HJ Kyers Property
HJ Hascolite Corp.
HJ Ha vat Air Engineering Center
HJ Naval Weapons Station Earle
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
st
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
-
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Site Name
Sharkey Landfill
Shieldalloy Corp.
South Brunswick Landfill
South Jersey Clothing Co.
Spence Farm
Swop* Oil I Chemical Co.
Syncon Resins
Tabernacle Drum Dump
U.S. Radium Corp.
Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division)
Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill
Ventron/Velsicol
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
Vineland State School
U.R. Grace i Co., Inc. /Wayne Interim Storage Site (USDOE) (once listed
as W.R. Grace & Co., Inc. (Wayne Plant))
Ualdick Aerospace Devices, Inc.
Williams Property
Wilson Farm
Witco Chemical Corp. (Oakland Plant)
Woodland Route 532 Dump
Woodland Route 72 Dump
109 Final Sites
AT S, SF (Clovis)
Cal West Metals (USSSA)
Ci macron Mining Corp.
Cleveland Mill
Homestake Mining Co.
Lee Acres Landfill (USOOt)
Pagano Salvage
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
South Valley *
United Nuclear Corp.
City/County
Par sippany/ Troy His
Newf ield Borough
South Brunswick
Minotola
Plunstead Township
Permsauken
South Kearny
Tabernacle Township
Orange
East Rutherford
Upper Deerfield Tup
Wood Ridge Borough
Vineland
Vineland
Wayne Township
Wall Township
Swainton
Plumstead Township
Oakland
Woodland Township
Woodland Township
Clovis
Lemitar
Carrizozo -
Silver City
Milan
Farmington
Los Lunas
Prewitt
Albuquerque
Church Rock
Proposed or
Announced1
12/82
9/83
12/82
6/88
10/81
7/82
7/82
9/83
12/82
12/82
9/83
9/83
9/83
12/82
9/83
10/84
12/82
9/83
6/88
9/83
9/83
10/81
6/88
6/88
6/88
10/81
6/88
6/88
6/88
7/82
10/81
Final
9/83
9/84
9/83
10/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/84
9/84
9/83
9/84
6/86
9/83
9/84
10/89
9/84
9/84
9/83
3/89
10/89
3/89
• 9/83
8/90
10/89
8/90
9/83
9/83
Rank/
Group2
227
47
133
410
307
657
354
623
595
116
810
179
41
466
Gr 6F
323
478
773
965
717
935
820
Gr IF
530
482
754
Gr 11F
679
339
88
977
10 Final Sites
NV Carson River Mercury Site
1 Final Sites
MY Action Anodizing, Plating, I Polishing Corp.
NY American Thermostat Co.
NY Anchor Chemical*
NY Applied Environmental Service*
NY Batavia Landfill
NY BEC Trucking
NY BioClinical uterMorU», Inc.
NY Brewster Well Fi«i*
NY Brookhaven lUtioml Ufemtory (USOOC)
NY Byron Barrel I On*
MY C I J Disposal L«M
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
st
NT
HI
NY
HY
NT
NY
HY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
MY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
HY
NY
HY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
HY
HY
NY
MY
Site Name
Cortes* Landfill
Endicott Villas* Wall Field
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
FHC Corp. (Dublin Road Landfill)
forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision
Fulton Terminals
GE Horeau
General Motors (Central Foundry Division)
Genzale Plating Co.
Goldisc Recordings, Inc.
Griffist Air Force Base
Havdand Complex
Hertel Landfill
Hooker (102nd Street)
Hooker (Hyde Park)
Hooker (S Area)
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer Corp
Hudson River PCBs
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Johnstown City Landfill
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Jones Sanitation
Katonah Municipal Well
Kcfwark Textile Corp.
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Liberty Industrial Finishing
Love Canal
tod lew Sand t Gravel
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Marathon lattery Corp.
Matt i ace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
Mercury Refining, Inc.
Nepera Chemical Co., Inc.
Niagara County Refuse
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Saratoga Springs Plant)
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Old iethpage Landfill
Olean Well Field
Pasley Solvents t Chemicals, Inc.
Plattsburgh Air Force Base
Pollution Abatement Services *
Port Washington Landfill
Preferred Plating Corp.
RadiuM Chtmical Co., Inc.
Ramapo Landfill
Richardson Hill Road Landfill/Pond
Robintech, Inc. /National Pip* Co.
Rosen Irothen Scrap YardTOMp
Row« Industrie* Ground UKOT Contamination
Sarnay Fan*
Staland Restoration, Inc.
Seneca An*y Oapot
Sidney Landfill
Sinclair Refinery
SMS Instruments, Inc.
Solvent Savers
Suffern Villas* U*U Field
Syc*»et Landfill
Tri-Cities larrel Co., Inc.
City/County
Vil of Narrowsburg
Village of Endicott
Elmira
Town of Shelby
Niagara Falls
Fulton
South Glen Falls
Massena
Franklin Square
Ho I brook
Rome
Town of Hyde Park
Plattekill
'Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Hicksville
Hudson River
Islip
Town of Johnstown
Caledonia
Hyde Park
Town of Bedford
Farmingdale
Horseheads
Farmingdale
Niagara Falls
Clayville
Malta
Cold Springs
Glen Cove
Colom'e
Maybrook
Wheatfield
Saratoga Springs
North Sea
Oyster Bay
Olean
Hempstead
Plattsburgh
Oswego
Port Washington
Farmingdale
New York City
Ramapo
Sidney Center
Town of Vestal
Cort land
Noyack/Sag Harbor
Amen i a
Lisbon
Romulus
Sidney
WellsvHl*
Oeer Park
Lincklaen
Vil lag* of Suff*rn
Oyster Say
Port Gran*
Proposed or
Announced^
10/84
10/84
10/81
10/84
8/89
12/82
12/82
9/83
6/86
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/84
9/83
1/87
10/84
6/88
1/87
10/84
10/84
7/82
10/84
10/81
12/82
6/86
10/81
6/88
12/82
10/84
10/81
6/88
10/84
10/81
10/81
10/84
7/89
10/81
12/82
10/84
8/89
12/82
6/86
10/84
6/88
6/86
10/84
10/89
7/39
6/88
7/82
10/84
12/82
10/84
12/82
5/89
I
Final i
6/86
6/86
9/83
6/86
11/89
9/83
9/83
9/84
7/87
6/86
7/87
6/86
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/84
3/89
6/86
2/90
7/87
6/86
6/86
9/83
6/S6
9/83
9/83
7/87
9/83
3/89
9/83
6/86
9/83
2/90
6/86
9/83
9/83
6/86
11/89
9/83
9/83'
6/86
11/89
9/83
7/87
6/86
3/89
7/87
6/86
8/90
8/90
3/89
9/8J
, 6/86
9/8J
6/86
9/83
'.0/89
?ank/
Group,
874
666
271
850
1072
638
53
469
789
831
Or 16f
812
811
974
727
176
451
115
832
233
814
153
699
909
^^^3
• 8"13
983
904
329
5C3
504
689
798
45
331
510
Cr 20F
7
313
714
1073
326
720
961
132
891
837
1024
Cr 14F
1023
127
606
723
665
122
341
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St Site Name
City/County
Proposed or
Rank/
Announce^ Final Group,
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Tronic Plating Co., Inc. Farmingdale
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 (once listed with Well 4-2 as one site) Vestal
Vestal Water Supply Well 4-2 (once listed with Well 1-1 as one site) Vestal
Volney Municipal Landfill To-n of volney
Warwick Landfill Warwick
Wide Beach Development Brant
York Oil Co. Hoira
83 Final Sites
OH Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
OH AIsco Anaconda
OH Arcanum Iron ft Metal
OH Big D Campground
OH Bowers Landfill
OH Buckeye Reclamation
OH Chem-Dyne *
OH Coshocton Landfill
OH E.H. Schilling Landfill
OH Feed Materials Production Center (USOOE)
OH Fields Brook
OH Fultz Landfill
OH Industrial Excess Landfill
OH Laskin/Poplar Oil Co. (once listed as Poplar Oil Co.)
OH Miami County Incinerator
OH Mound Plant (USDOE)
OH Nease Chemical
OH New Lyme Landfill
OH Old Mill (once listed as Rock Creek/Jack Webb)
OH Ormet'Corp.
OH Powell Road Landfill
OH Pristine, Inc.
OH Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover Plant)
OH Republic Steel Corp. Quarry
OH Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial Waste Disposal Co., Inc.)
OH Skinner Landfill
OH South Point Plant
OH Surnnit National
OH TRW, Inc. (Minerva Plant)
OH United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
OH Van Dale Junkyard
OH Wright-Patterson Air Force Bate
OH Zanesvillt Well Field
33 Final Sites
OK Compass Industrie* (Awry Drive) (once listed as Compass Industries) Tulsa
OK Double Eagle •.•finery CsV Ok I ahem City
OK Fourth Street Abardm*taffnery Oklahoma city
OK Hardage/Criner (one* ltat*tf a* Criner/Hardage Waste Disposal) Criner
OK Mosley Road Sanitary laratffU Oklahoma City
OK Oklahoma Refininf Co. Cyril
OK Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex Sand Springs
OK Tar Creek (Ottawa County) Ottawa County
OK Tenth Street Ouap/Junkyard Oklahoma City
OK Tinker Air Force iase (Soldier Creek/Building 3001) Oklahoma City
10 Final Sites
10/84
12/82
12/82
10/84
9/85
12/82
7/82
6/86
9/83
9/83
6/86
3/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/88
6/88
10/81
6/88
6/88
10/84
10/81
1/87
4/8S
9/84
3/89
3/89
9/83
2/90
2/90
6/86
9/83
7/87
7/87
317
573
411
849
1022
102
246
Ironton
Gnadenhutten
Oarke County
Kingsville
Circleville
St. Clairsville
Hamilton
Franklin Township
Hamilton Township
Fernald
Ash tabula
Jackson Township
Union town
Jefferson Township
Troy
Miamisburg
Salem
New Lyme
Rock Creek
Hannibal
Dayton
Reading
Dover
Elyria
Dayton
West Chester
South Point
Deerfield Township
Minerva
Troy
Marietta
Dayton
Zanesville
12/82
10/84
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/81
12/82
12/82
7/89
10/81
12/82
10/84
7/82
9/83
7/89
12/82
12/82
12/82
9/8S
9/83
12/82
6/88
10/84
10/84
12/82
9/83
10/81
6/86
9/83
10/84
6/88
12/82
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
11/89
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/84
11/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
7/87
9/84
9/83
8/90
6/86
6/86
9/83
9/84
9/83
3/89
9/84
6/86
10/89
9/83
262
366
28
959
194
713
83
521
740
Gr 2F
320
518
186
647
70
Gr 15F
257
934
648
280
917
707
923
1002
677
987
281
156
561
56
841
Gr 2F
663
634
955
964
188
563
294
1060
58
948
Or 9F
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St
OR
OR
Oft
Oft
OR
Oft
c*
Oft
Sit* Name
Allied Plating, Inc.
Could, Inc.
4oftph Form Product*
Hirtin-HiMetta Aluminum Co.
Teledyna Uah Chang
UeatiUa Army Depot (Lagoons)
Union Pacific Railroad Co. Tie Treating Plant
United Chrome Products, Inc.
City/County
Portland
Portland
Joseph
The Dalles
Albany
Hermiston
The Dalles
Cor vail is
Proposed or
Announced.
1/87
12/82
6/88
10/84
12/82
10/84
10/89
9/83
Final
2/90
9/83
3/89
6/86
9/83
7/87
8/90
9/84
Rank/
Group,
520
872
8S6
351
125
Gr 19F
591
941
8 Final Sites
PA A.I.U. Frank/Hid-County Mustang
PA Aladdin Plating
PA Anbler Asbestos Piles
PA AMP, Inc. (Glen Rock Facility)
PA Avco lyccmlng (Villiomsport Division)
PA Bally Ground Water Contamination
PA Sell Landfill
PA Bcndix Flight Systems Division
PA Berkley Products Co. Dump
PA Berks landfill
PA Berks Sand Pit
PA Blotenski Landfill
PA Boarhead Farms
PA Brodhead Creek
PA Brown's Battery Breaking
PA Bruin Lagoon
PA Butler Mine Tunnel
PA Butz Landfill
PA C * 0 Recycling
PA Centre County Kepone
PA CoCTTOdor* Semiconductor Group
PA Craig Farm Drum
PA Croydon TCE
PA CryoChera, Inc.
PA Delta Quarries 4 Disposal, Inc./Stotler Landfill
PA Oorney Road Landfill
PA Oouglassville Disposal
PA Drake Chemical
PA Dublin TCE Site
PA East Mount Zion
PA Eastern Diversified Metals
PA Elizabethtown Landfill
PA Fischer t Porter Co.
PA Havertown PCP
PA Hebalka Auto Salvage Yard
PA Ktlava Landfill
PA Heller town Manufacturing C».
PA Henderson Road
PA Hranica Landfill
PA Hunteratown. (toad
PA Industrial Lar*
PA Jacks Cre*k/Sltkin SMltinf I Refining, inc.
PA Keystor* Sanitation Landfill
PA Kivberton Site
PA Lackawarma Refute
PA Larttdown* Radiation Sit*
PA Lattarkanny Army Depot (Property Disposal Office Area)
PA Letterkenny An*y Depot (Southeast Area)
Exton
Scott Township
Ambler
Glen Rock
Williamsport
Bally Borough
Terry Township
Bridgewater Township
Denver
Spring Township
Longswamp Township
West Cain Township
Bridgeton Township
Stroudsburg
Shoemakersvilie
Bruin Borough
Pittston
Stroudsburg
Foster Township
State College Boro
Lower Providence Twp
Parker
Croydon
Worman
Ant is/Logan Twps
Upper Macungie Twp
Oouglassville
Lock Haven
Dublin Borough
Springettsbury Twp
Hometown
Elizabethtoun
Warminster
Haverford
Weisenberg Township
North Whitehall Twp
Hellertown
Upper Marion Twp
Buffalo Township
Straban Township
UilliaM Township
Maitland
Union Township
Kimbarton Borough
Old Forge Borough
Lansdowna
Franklin County
Chanbersburg
6/88
1/87
10/84
6/88
1/87
6/86
6/88
9/85
6/88
6/88
9/83
12/82
6/88
12/82
10/84
10/81
6/86
6/88
9/85
12/82
1/87
12/82
9/85
6/86
6/86
9/83
12/82
7/82
10/89
9/83
6/86
6/88
12/82
12/82
6/86
12/82
1/87
9/83
10/81
10/84
9/83
6/88
4/85
12/82
12/82
4/85
4/85
10/84
10/89
7/87
6/86
10/89
2/90
7/87
10/89
7/87
3/89
10/89
9/84
9/83
3/89
9/83
6/86
9/83
7/87
3/89
7/87
9/83
10/89
9/83
6/86
10/89
3/89
9/84
9/83
9/83
8/90
9/84
10/89
3/89
9/83
9/83
7/87
9/83
3/89
9/84
9/83
6/86
9/84
10/89
7/87
9/83
i 9/83
9/85
3/89
7/87
395
668
743
525
413
576
722
799
998
290
883
969
500
939
605^
1
^^
346
318
398
1066
918
1069
459
289
110
538
1047
463
944
1035
1034
544
892
199
170
450
167
237
390
481
795
1019
633
1071
Gr 13F
Gr 16F
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by state)
February 1991
Date
St Site Name
PA Lindane Dump
PA Lord-Shope Landfill
PA Malvern TCE
PA McAdoo Associates *
PA Metal Banks
PA Middletoun Air Field
PA Mill Creek Dump
PA Modern Sanitation Landfill
PA Moyers Landfill
PA MU Manufacturing (once listed as Domino Salvage Yard)
PA Naval Air Development Center (8 Waste Areas)
PA North Perm • Area 1 (once listed as Gentle Cleaners, Inc. /Granite
Knitting Mills, Inc.)
PA North Perm • Area 12 (once listed as Transicoil, Inc.)
PA North Perm - Area 2 (once listed as Ametelc, Inc. (Hunter Spring
Division))
PA North Perm • Area 5 (once listed as American Electronics Laboratories)
PA North Perm • Area 6 (once listed as J.U. Rex Co. /Allied Paint
Manufacturing Co., Inc. /Keystone Hydraulics)
PA North Perm - Area 7 (once listed as Spra-Fin, Inc.)
PA Novak Sanitary Landfill
PA Occidental Chemical Corp. /Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
PA Ohio River Park
PA Old City of York Landfill
PA Osborne Landfill
PA Palmerton Zinc Pile
PA Paoli Rail Yard
PA Publicker Industries Inc.
PA Raymark
PA Rect icon/Allied Steel Corp.
PA Resin Disposal
PA Revere Chemical Co.
PA River Road Landfill (Waste Management, Inc.)
PA Route 940 Drum Dump (once listed as Pocono Summit)
PA Saegertown Industrial Area
PA Sal ford Quarry
PA Sh river's Corner
PA Stanley Kessler
PA Strasburg Landfill
PA Taylor Borough Dump
PA Tobyhanna Army Depot
PA Tonolli Corp.
PA Tysons Dump
PA Walsh Landfill
PA Uestinghoust Electric Corp. (Sharon Plant)
PA westinghousa Elevator Co. Plant
PA Westlin* Sit*
PA Whitmoyer Laboratories}
PA William Oick Lagoons
PA York County Solid Vmtf m* lafuse Authority Landfill
95 Final Sitw
PR Barcelooeta Landfill
PR Fiber* Public Supply Walls
PR Frontara Creak
PR GE Wiring Device*
PR Juncos Landfill
PR Naval Security Group Activity
City/County
Harrison Township
Girard Township
Malvern
McAdoo Borough
Philadelphia
Middletown
Erie
Lower Windsor Twp
Eagleville
Valley Township
War-minster Township
S coder ton
Worcester
Hatfield
Montgomery Township
Lansdale
North Wales
South Whitehall Twp
Lower Pottsgrove Twp
Neville Island
Seven Valleys
Grove City
Palmerton
Paol i
Philadephia
Hatboro
East Coventry Twp
Jefferson Borough
Nockamixon Township
Hermitage
Pocono Summit
Saegertown
Sal ford Township
Straban Township
King of Prussia
Newlin Township
Taylor Borough
Tobyhanna
Nesquahoning
Upper Her ion Twp
Honeybrook Township
Sharon
Gettysburg
Wast Una
Jackson Township
Wast Cain Township
Hope we 1 1 Township
Florida Afuara
Jobos
Rio Abajo
Juana Diaz
Juncos
Sabana Seca
Proposed or
Announced 1
10/81
10/81
12/82
10/81
12/82
10/84
9/83
10/84
12/82
10/84
6/86
1/87
1/87
1/87
1/87
1/87
1/87
1/87
6/88
10/89
12/82
7/82
12/82
1/87
5/89
6/88
6/88
12/82
9/85
1/87
9/85
6/88
1/87
10/84
12/82
6/88
9/83
7/89
6/88
9/83
9/83
6/88
10/84
12/82
10/84
1/87
4/85
12/82
9/83
12/82 '
12/82
12/82
6/88 ;
Final
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/84
6/86
9/83
6/86
10/89
3/89
2/90
10/89
3/89
3/89
3/89
10/89
10/89
8/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
8/90
10/89
10/89
10/89
9/83
•7/87
10/89
7/87
2/90
8/90
6/86
9/83
3/89
9/84
8/90
10/89'
9/84
9/84
8/90
6/86
9/83
6/86
7/87
7/87
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
9/83
10/89
Rank/
Group2
177
532
>7n
C( w
26
835
656
211 '
b I 1
776
602
375
Gr 2-
669
1046
672
673
671
670
405
299
414
775
115
36S
869
44
1ji
879
598
925
363
342
816
78
288
779
963
950
Gr 12F
273
25
808
454
641
911
283 .
631
337
456
703
364
931
857
Gr 1SF
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St
PR
PR
PR
Site Ham*
RCA Del Carib*
Upjohn Facility
Vega Alts Public Supply Welts
City/County
Barcelon«ta
Barcclonata
Vega Alts
Proposed or
Announced.
12/82
9/83
9/83
.Final
9/83
9/84
9/84
Rank/
936
446
412
9 Final Sites
9.1 Central Landfill
Rt Oavis (GSR) Landfill
RI Oavis Liquid Uastt
RI Oavisville Maval Construction Battalion Center
Rl Landfill t, Resource Recovery, Inc. (LSRR)
RI Newport Naval Education & Training Center
Rl Peterson/Puritan, Inc.
RI Picillo Farm •
RI Rose Hill Regional Landfill
Rl Stamina Hills, Inc. (once listed as Forestdale-stamina Mills, Inc.)
RI Western Sand t Gravel
11 Final Sites
SC Beaunit Corp. (Circular Knit & Dyeing Plant)
SC Carolawn, Inc.
SC Elmore Waste Disposal
SC Geiger (C t M Oil)
SC Golden Strip Septic Tank Service
SC Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
SC Independent Hail Co.
SC ttalama Specialty Chemicals
SC Koppers Co., Inc. (Florence Plant)
SC Leonard Chemical Co., Inc.
SC Lexington County Landfill Area
SC Medley Farm Drum Dump
SC Palmetto Recycling, Inc.
SC Palmetto Wood Preserving
SC Para-Chen Southern, Inc.
SC Rochester Property
SC Rock Hill Chemical Co.
SC Sangano Ueston, Inc./Twelve-Mile Creek/Lake Hartuell PCS
Contamination
SC Savannah River Sit* (USOOE)
SC SCRDI Bluff Road *
SC SCRDt Dixiana
SC Townsend Saw Chain Co.
SC Wamcheia, Inc.
23 Final SftM
SO Ellsworth Air Fore*
SO vhiteuood Crwk *
SO UilliaM Pip* Lin* C*. Disposal Pit
3 Final SitM
TH American Cr*c*ot* Works, Inc. (Jackson Plant)
(one* listed as Amricsn Craoaots Works)
TH Axnicola Ouap
TH Arlington Handing t Packaging
TH Carrier Air Conditioning Co.
TH Gallauay Pits
Johnston
Glocester
Smithfield
North Kingstown
North Smithfield
Newport
L i ncoIn/CumberIand
Coventry
South Kingstown
North Smithfield
Burrillville
.Fountain Inn
Fort Lawn
Greer
Rantoules
Simpsonvilie
Fairfax
Beaufort
Beaufort
Florence
Rock Hill
Cayce
Gaffney
Columbia
Dixiana
Simpsonvilie
Travelers Rest
Rock Hill
Pickens
Aiken
Columbia
Cayce
Pontiac
Burton
Rapid City
wnitawood
Sioux Falls
Jackson
Chattanooga
Arlington
CoUiervill*
Gal Iaway
10/84
4/85
10/81
7/89
12/82
7/89
12/82
10/81
6/88
12/82
10/81
6/88
12/82
6/88
9/83
1/87
6/88
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/88
6/86
1/87
9/83
10/89
6/86
6/88
1/87
7/89
10/81
7/82
6/88
9/83
10/89 8/90 Gr 17F
10/81 9/83 21
10/89 8/90 429
6/86
6/86
9/83
11/89
9/83
11/89
9/83
9/83
10/89
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/83
3/89
9/84
7/37
2/90
9/84
9/84
9/84
9/34
10/89
3/89
7/87
9/84
8/90
10/89
2/90
2/90
11/89
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/84
269
531
253
Gr 15F
206
Gr 13F
492
80
556
765
181
361
881
92C
863*1
•31
73™
rtrf
261
582
919
1017
541
846
628
488
601
Gr 5F
84
472
649
248
10/84
6/86
12/82 ' 9/83
1/87 7/87
6/88 ' 2/90
12/82 ,: 9/83
709
465
527
221
958
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
st
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
fcTX
1*
"TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
Site Name
Leuisburg Dump
Ha I lory Capacitor Co.
Milan Army Annum t ion Plant
Hurray-Ohio Dump
Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Co. (Horseshoe Bend Dump)
North Hollywood Dump *
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman County)
Wrigley Charcoal Plant
14 Final Sites
Air Force Plant *4 (General Dynamics)
Bailey Waste Disposal
Bio-Ecology System, Inc.
Brio Refining, Inc.
Crystal Chemical Co.
Crystal City Airport
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.
French, Ltd.
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy
Highlands Acid Pit
Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana Plant)
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Motco, inc. *
North Cavalcade Street
Odessa Chromium #1
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews Highway)
Posses Chemical Co.
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. (Turtle Bayou)
Sheridan Disposal Services
Sikes Disposal Pits
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
South Cavalcade Street
Stewco, Inc.
Tex- Tin Corp.
Texarkana Wood Preserving Co.
Triangle Chemical Co.
United Creosoting Co.
28 Final Sites
Hill Air Force Base
Midvale Slag
Honticello Mill Tailing* (IflOCt)
Montieello Radioactivity Contaminated Properties
Ogden Defense Depot
Portland Ceaent (Kftejgitt 1*3)
Rose Park Sludge *ft *P
Sharon Steel Corp. OtMtaU Tailings) (once listed as Sharon Steel
Corp. (Midvale taelter))
Tooele Arwy Depot (North Are*)
Utah Power i Light/Aawrican iarrel Co.
Uasatch Cheaical Co. (Lot 6)
City/County
Leuisburg
Waynesboro
Milan
Laurenceburg
Laurenceburg
Memphis
Oak Ridge
Toone
Wrigley
Fort Worth
Bridge City
Grand Prairie
Friendsuood
Houston
Crystal City
Friends wood
Crosby
Houston
Highlands
Texarkana
Texarkana
Karnack
La Marque
Houston
Odessa
Odessa
Fort' Worth
Liberty County
Hempstead
Crosby
Houston
Houston
Waskom
Texas City
Texarkana
Bridge City
Conroe
Ogden
Midvale
Montieello
Montieello
Ogden
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Midvale
Tooele
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Proposed or
Announced.
12/82
1/87
10/84
12/82
6/88
10/81
7/89
12/82
6/88
10/84
10/84
10/81
10/84
7/82
10/84
6/88
10/81
9/83
7/82
10/84
10/84
7/89
10/81
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84
6/86
10/81
10/84
10/84
10/84
6/88
4/85
12/82
9/83
10/84
6/86
7/89
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/81
10/86
10/84
5/89
1/87
Final
9/83
10/89
7/87
9/83
8/90
9/83
11/89
9/83
3/89
8/90
6/86
9/83
3/89
9/83
6/86
10/89
9/83
9/84
9/83
6/86
7/87
8/90
9/83
6/86
6/86
6/86
6/86
6/86
3/89
9/81
3/89
6/86
6/86
8/90
6/86
9/83
9/84
7/87
2/91
11/89
6/86
7/87
6/86
9/83
8/90
8/90
10/89
2/91
i
Rank/
Group,
828
1020
GP 2F
277
951
95
Gr 4F
245
646
Gr 10F
139
715
195
34
867
755
22
37
597
927
Gr 19f,
Gr 11,-
27
617
425
426
1061
1000
992
30
511
535
226
. 543
489
1064
6C8
Gr 5F
394
Gr 13F
716
Gr 7F
120
99
448
Gr 3F
587
205
11 Final Site*
VA Abex Corp.
Portsmouth
6/88
8/90
637
-------
Motional Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
st
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VT
VT
VT
vr
VI
VT
VT
VT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
UA
VA
UA
UA
VA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
Sit* Name
Arrowhead Anociates/Scovill Corp.
Atlantic Uood Industries, Inc.
Avttx Fiber*, Inc.
locking*)** County Landfill (once listed as Love's Container
Service Landfill)
C I R Battery Co., Inc.
Chisman Creek
culpeper Wood preservers, Inc.
Defense General Supply Center
Dixie Caverns County Landfill
First Piedflont Corp. Rock Quarry (Route 719) (once listed as First
Piedmont Corp. Rock Quarry)
Greenwood Chemical Co.
H t H Inc., Sum Pit
L.A. Clarke t Son
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Uood Preserving Division)
fthtnehart Tire Fire Dump
Saltvlll* Uaste Disposal Ponds
Saunders Supply Co.
Suffolk City Landfill
U.S. Titanium
20 Final Sites
tennington Municipal Sanitary Landfill "
8FI Sanitary Landf ill(Rockingham)
Burgess Brothers Landfill
Darling Hill Durap
Old Springfield Landfill
Parker Sanitary Landfill
Pine Street Canal •
T»n si tor Electronics, Inc.
8 Final Sites
ALCOA (Vancouver Smelter*
Awwrican Crossarm I Conduit Co.
American Lak* Gardens
langor Naval Submarine Base
Bangor Ordnance Disposal
Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex (USDOE)
Centra Ha Municipal Landfill
Colbert Landfill
Commencement Bay, Hear Short/Tide Flats
Cofm»ence*ent fay. South TacoM Channel
Fairchlld Air Fore* MM (4 Wast* Areas)
FHC Corp. (YafciM Pit)
Fort Lewi* (Landfill Maw 5>
Fort Lewi* Logistics Cattar
Frontier Hard Chroaa, Im.
General Electric Co. (Spafcam Shop)
Gretnacres Landfill
Hanford 100-Area (UWM)
Nanford 1100-Area (UJOOi)
Hanford 200-Are* (USOOE)
Hanford 300-Area (US006)
Harbor Island (Lead)
Hidden Valley Landfill (Thun Field)
Kaiser Aluminum Mead Works
City/County
Montross
Portsmouth
Front Royal
Buckingham
Chesterfield County
York County
Culpeper
Chesterfield County
Salem
Pittsylvania County
Newtown
Farrington
Spotsylvania County
Richmond
Frederick County
Saltville
Chuckatuck
Suffolk
Piney River
Bennington
Rockingham
Woodford
Lyndon
Springfield
Lyndon
Burlington
Bennington
Vancouver
Chehalis
Tacoma
Silverdale
Bremerton
Vancouver
Central i a
Colbert
Pierce County
Tacoma
Spokane County
Yakima
TacoMa
TillicuR
Vancouver
Spokane
Spokane County
Benton County
lenton County
Benton County
Benton County
Seattle
Pierce County
Mead
Proposed or
Announced .j
6/88
6/86
10/84
4/85
1/87
10/81
10/84
10/84
1/87
4/85
1/87
1/87
10/84
1/87
10/84
12/82
1/87
6/88
12/82
6/88
6/88 ,
6/88
6/88
12/82
6/88
10/81
6/88
6/88
6/88
9/83
7/89
10/84
7/89
6/88
12/82
10/81
10/81
6/88
12/82
10/84
7/89
12/82
6/88
9/83
6/88
6/88
6/88
6/88
12/82
6/86
12/82
Final
2/90
2/90
6/86
10/89
7/87
9/83
10/89
7/87
10/89
7/87
. 7/87
3/89
6/86
3/89
6/86
9/83
10/89
2/90
9/83
3/89
10/89'
3/89
10/89
9/83
2/90
9/83
10/89
2/90
10/89
9/84
8/90
7/87
11/89
8/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
3/89
9/83
7/87
11/89
9/83
10/89
9/84
10/89
10/89
10/89
' 10/89
9/83
3/89
,; 9/83
Rank/
Group,
615
616
695
471
276
256
30C
Cr 16F
7C5
988
144
804
746
978
970
1015
621
653
724
•
154
89
654
72
976
1057
Cr 3F
Gr 20F •
Or 3F
642
452
438
118
Gr 18F
533
Gr 16F
Gr 14F
62
71
1058
Gr 6F
Gr 13F
Gr 1F
Gr 1F
738
592
562
^am
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
st
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UI
UI
UI
UI
;
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
Site Name
Lakewood Site
McChord Air Force Base (Wash Rack/Treatment Area)
Mica Landfill
Midway Landfill
Naval Air Station, Whidbay Island (Ault Field)
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (Seaplane Base)
Naval Undersea warfare Engineering Station (4 Waste Areas)
North Market Street (once listed as Tosco Corp. (Spokane Terminal))
Northside Landfill
Northwest Transformer
Northwest Transformer (South Harkness Street)
Old Inland Pit
Pacific Car I Foundry Co.
Pasco Sanitary Landfill
Pesticide Lab (Yakima)
Queen City Farms
Seattle Municipal Landfill (Kent Highlands)
Silver Mountain Mine
Uestern Processing Co., Inc.
Uyckoff Co. /Eagle Harbor
Yakima Plating Co.
45 Final Sites
Atgoma Municipal Landfill
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome & Zinc Shops
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Delavan Municipal Uell #4
Eau Claire Municipal Uell Field
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
Hagen Farm
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
Hunts Disposal Landfill
Janesville Ash Beds
Janesville Old Landfill
Kohler Co. Landfill
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
Lemberger Landfill, Inc. (once listed as Lemberger Fly Ash Landfill)
Lemberger Transport I Recycling
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Lagoons
Master Disposal Service Landfill
Mid-State Disposal, Inc. Landfill
Moss-Amrican(Kerr-McG*t Oil Co.)
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
N.u. Mauthe Co., Inc. •
National Presto Industries, Inc.
Northern Engraving C*.
Ocononowoc ElectropUttaB Co. Ine
Omega Hills North Lantftttl
Onalaska Municipal lanaVfll
Sauk County Landfill
Schnslz Quip
Scrap Processing Co.. Inc.
Sheboygan Harbor i River
Spickler Landfill
Stoughton City Landfill
TOM!) Aneory
Tomah Fairgrounds
Tomah Municipal Sanitary Landfill
City/County
Lakewood
Tacoma
Mica
Kent
Whidbey Island
Whidbey Island
Keyport
Spokane
Spokane
Everson
Everson
Spokane
Renton
. Pasco
Yakima
Haple Valley
Kent
Loomi s
Kent
Bainbridge Island
' Yakima
Atgoma
DePere
Dunn
Del a van
Eau Claire
Franklin
Stoughton
Uilliamstown
Caledonia
Janesville
Janesville
Kohler
Menomonee Falls
Whitclaw
Franklin Township
Blooming Grove
Brookfield
Cleveland Township
Mi Iwaukee
Muskego
Applet on
Eau Claire
Sparta
Ashippin
Genmntown
Onalaska
Excslsior
Harrison
Medford
Sheboygan
Spencer
Stoughton
Tomah
Tomah ^
Tomah
Proposed or
Announced^
12/82
10/84
10/84
10/84
9/85
9/85
6/86
6/88
10/84
10/84
6/88
6/86
6/88
6/88
12/82
9/83
6/88
10/84
7/82
9/85
6/88
6/86
10/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
10/84
9/85
6/88
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/85
9/83
6/88
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/88
10/84
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/88
9/83
9/83
9/85
1/87
10/84 '
1/87
1/87
6/86 >:
Final
9/83
7/87
6/86
6/86
2/90
2/90
10/89
8/90
6/86
6/86
2/90
2/90
2/90
2/90
9/83
9/84
8/90
6/86
9/83
7/87
3/89
7/87
8/90
9/84
9/84
9/84
6/86
7/87
3/89
7/87
9/84
9/84
9/84
9/84
6/86
9/84
2/90
9/84
9/84
9/84
9/84
3/89
6/86
9/84
9/84
9/84
9/84
10/89
9/84
9/84
6/86
7/87
6/86
7/87
7/87
3/89
Rank/
Group2 .
389
Gr 9F
734
126
Gr 5F
Gr 11F
Gr 17F
855
1059-
728
971
1025
402
334
1026
• 744
158
999
49
860
593
456
223
622
1048
678
940
880
239
946
66
63
370
' 381
766
739
. 854
250
70S
870
173
94
396
534
906
50
393
753
220
747
791
338
651
966
851
304
-------
National Priorities List,
Final Sites (by State)
February 1991
Date
St
WI
Ul
Ul
UI
UV
UV
UV
UV
UV
UY
UY
UY
Site Name
Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc. (Brookfield Sanitary Landfill)
Waste Research t Reclamation Co.
Wiustu Ground Water Contamination
Wheeler Pit
39 Final Sites
Fike Chemical, Inc.
FolUnsbee Site
Leetown Pesticide
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
West Virginia Ordnance •
5 Final Sites
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating
F.E. Warren Air Force iase
Mystery Bridge Rd/U.S. Highway 20
City/County
Brookfield
Eau Claire
Wausau
La Prairie Township
Nitro
Follansbee
Leetoun
Morgantoun
Point Pleasant
Laramie
Cheyenne
E vans vi lie
Proposed or
Announced.
6/88
9/83
4/85
9/83
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/84
10/81
12/82
7/89
6/88
Final
8/90
9/84
6/86
9/84
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
2/90
8/90
Rank/
Group.
1049
871
1040
76
644
794
627
661
90
611
Or 11f
875
3 Final Sites
1189 Total Final Sites
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
For further information, call the
Superfund Hotline, toll-free at
1-800-424-9346 or 703-920-9810
in Washington, DC, metropolitan
area, or the U. S. EPA
Superfund Offices
listed below
For publications, contact
Public Information Center,
PM-2113
401 M Street SW.
Washington DC 20460
CML: (202) 382-2080
FTS: 382-2080
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, OS-230
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
CML: (202)475-8103
FTS: 475-8103
Region 1
Superfund Branch, HSL-CAN 2
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203
CML: (617) 573-9610
FTS: 833-1610
Region 2
Emergency & Remedial Response
Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 10278
CML: (212) 264-8672
FTS: 264-8672
Region 3
Site Assessment Section. 3HW13
841 Chestnut Building.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
CML: (215)597-3437
FTS: 597-3437
Region 4
Waste Management Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
CML: (404) 347-3454
FTS: 257-3454
Remedial Response Branch,
5HS-11
230 South Dearborn Street,
12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
CML: (312) 886-5877
FTS: 886-5877
Region 8
Superfund Management Branch
Division. 6H-M
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202-2733
CML: (214) 655-6740
FTS: 255-6740
Region 7
Superfund Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS66101
CML: (913) 551-7052
FTS: 276-7052
Region 8
Superfund Remedial Branch. 8HV M-SR
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
CML: (303) 294-7630
FTS: 330-7630
Region 9
Waste Management Division. H-'
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94105
CML: (415)744-1730
FTS: 484-1730
Region 10
Superfund Branch. HW-113
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle. WA 98101
CML: (206) 442-1987
FTS: 399-1987
-------
-------
LISTING MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
ON THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
21 |987
MEMORANDUM
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9320.1-09
SUBJECT: Listing Municipal Landfills on the N
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial
TO: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, and VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Reg'ion II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region III and VI
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
This memo is a followup to my October 24, 1986, memo (see
attached) regarding listing municipal landfills on the National
Priorities List (NPL). In that memo, I deferred listing
municipal landfills on Update 16 that did not have a clear
record of accepting hazardous waste. I believe it is important
to understand the intent of that memo and clarify procedures
for submission of municipal landfills in the next proposed update.
At the time I issued the October 1986 memo, it appeared
that municipal landfills were being submitted by the Regions in
increasing numbers. I wanted to ensure that these municipal
landfill sites were appropriate for Superfund remedial action*
Therefore, as a management tool, I required a clear record of
hazardous waste disposal for sites to be considered eligible
for the Update #6 proposed rulemaking.
As you are aware, at the time I issued the October 1986 memo,
the Agency had recently promulgated the RCRA Subtitle C deferred
NPL listing policy (51 FR 21054). The Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) will soon propose revisions to the Subtitle D Criteria
for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 258. This rule will propose
specific requirements for new and existing municipal solid
-------
waste landfills, including ground water monitoring and corrective ^^
action for th«»« facilities. Municipal solid waste landfills thatlB
close prior to the effective date of the rule are proposed to
be excluded from the rule. I viewed the RCRA Subtitle D
authority for municipal landfills as a possible corollary to
the RCRA Subtitle C deferred NPL listing policy.
It was our experience with Update 16 that the Regions
had difficulty documenting hazardous waste disposal at several
landfills even though there may have been an indication that
hazardous-substances were being released from the landfill.
It was not my intention in the October 1986 memo to defer from
placement on the NPL a serious environmental threat* e.g., a
municipal landfill with a documented release of hazardous
waste or indication of the presence of hazardous waste. Rather
my intention was t» ensure that the Superfund program concentrate
on those sites that cannot-be addressed, sufficiently through
another authority.
I continue" to believe it is important to ensure that the
Superfund program focuses on the cleanup of hazardous waste
sites that cannot be addressed sufficiently by another authority.
At the same time, however, I will not place restrictions that
impede the listing of serious public health or environmental
threats. Therefore, you may submit municipal landfills that
score above 28.50 for listing on the NPL without a record of .
hazardous waste disposal. I request, however, that you'submit
a cover letter with each municipal landfill HRS package. This
letter should discuss the site's history to indicate the types
of materials disposed at the site, any monitoring data indicating
a release from the site, and an assessment of the environmental
and public health risks at the site based on information contained
in the preliminary assessment, site inspection, and.HRS package.
I believe this approach will help us make better environmental
management decisions at municipal landfill sites.
We will closely follow the Subtitle 0 rule and will develop
an appropriate policy for municipal landfills prior to scoring
sites under the revised HRS.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 24
MEMORANDUM
OSWER Directive 9320.1-08
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Listing Municipal Landfills on the
SUBJECT
FROM: Henry L. Long'est II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial
TOs Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region III
Director, Waste Management Division
, Region IV and V
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
The purpose of this memo is to outline the Agency's
position regarding listing municipal landfills on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Municipal landfills, and private landfills
that accepted municipal waste, are being submitted by the Regions
for addition to the NPL in increasing numbers. As a result, the
Agency needs to evaluate whether municipal landfills that do not
have a clear record of accepting hazardous waste should be included
on the NPL. The current position, therefore, is that municipal
landfills that have a record of hazardous waste disposal will be
included in the next proposed update to the NPL scheduled for
November. Those sites that have passed quality assurance review,
but for which no record of hazardous waste disposal exists, will
not be included in the next update, but rather will be set aside
while the Agency develops a policy for listing these sites.
Since NPL updates occur more frequently than in the past, we
believe that temporarily setting aside sites that raise unresolved
policy issues will allow the proposal to move ahead while not
holding up sites for too long.
The specific sites in your Region that have been dropped
from consideration for Update #6 are listed in the attachment.
If additional information regarding hazardous waste disposal
at these sites can be obtained, please send it to Mr. Harold J.
Snyder, Chief, Discovery and Investigation Branch (WH-548E).
We believe that this issue is very important and are
interested in the Regional perspective. Consequently, if you
have any comment* or questions regarding this issue, please forward
them to my office.
Attachment
-------
Attachment to OSWER Directive 9320.1-08 (October 24, 1986)
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS WITHOUT A RECORD OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
DEFERRED FROM NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST UPDATE #6
Region II: ^
Horstmann's Dump, East Hanover, NJ
Islip Sanitary Landfill, Islip, NY
Region III
Novak Sanitary Landfill, Lehigh County, Pa.
Bush Valley Landfill, Abingdon, Md.
Region IV ,
Wingate Road Incinerator Dump, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
Region V
Yeoman Creek Landfill, Waukegan, 111.
Himco Dump, Elkhardt, Ind.
DuPage City Landfill/Blackwell Forest, Warrenville, 111;
Region IX
Fresno Sanitary Landfill, Fresno, Ca.
-------
USTS, GRAEHECS, AND DATA SUM1ARIES
15
-------
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
Cate/Citation/Number of Sites
October 23, 1981
115 ("Interim Priorities List" )
JUly 23, 19B2
45 ("Expanded Eligibility List")
30, 1982, 47 FR 58476
418 (proposal of first NFL,
including 153 of 160 sites announced
previously)
Much 4, 1983, 48 FR 9311
1 (proposal of Times Beach, Missouri-)
Ssptaaber 8, 1983, 48 FR 40658
406 (promulgation of first NPL;
7 sites remain proposed)
September 8, 1983, 48 FR 40674
133 (proposal of Update #1)
Kay 8, 1984, 49 FR 19480
4 (promulgation of 4 San Gabriel
Valley site* in California, part of
Update #1)
September 21, 1984, 49 FR 37070
128 (pronulgation of 123 Update 11
sites and 5 from original proposal;
4 sites remain proposed)
October 15, 1984, 49 FR 40320
244, including 36 Federal facility sites
(proposal of Update #2)
February 14, 1985, 50 FR 6320
2 (promulgation of Glen Ridge and
Mcntclair/Hest Orange Radium Sites in
New Jersey, part of Update #2)
10, 1985, 50 FR 14115
32, including 6 Federal
facility sites
(proposal of Update #3)
S«pt«wb*r 1«, 19*5, SO FR 37630
1 (pronulgation of Lansdoune
Radiation Site in Pennsylvania,
part of Update #3)
1*, 1945, 50 FR 37950
41, including 3 Fadaral
facility sitea
(proposal of Update #4)
JUaa 10, 1AM, 51 FR 21054
170 (pronulgation of sites
froo Updates #1-4; 185
sites remain proposad)
JUna 10, 1«M, 51 FR 21099
45, including 2 Fadaral
Facility sites (proposal of Update »5)
JUM 10, ISM, 51 FR 21109
prcpoaad RCRA policy; recpaning
of uooiaiiL pariod for 5 sites
January 23, XM7, 52 FR 2492
64, including l Fadaral facility
site (proposal of Update 16)
February 25, lf«7, 52 FR 5578
Availability of information
May 13, 1987, 52 FR 17991
proposed RCRA policy for
Federal facility sites
July 22, 1987, 52 FR 27620
99 (promulgation of sites
from Updates #2-6; 149 sites
remain proposed)
July 22, 1987, 52 FR 27643
7 (reproposal of Federal facility
sites)
Juna 24, 1988, 53 FR 23978
43 (reproposal of RO?A sites)
Juna 24, 1988, 53 FR 23988
229, including 14 Federal facility
sites (proposal of Update #7)
ftugust 9, 1988, 53 FR 30002/30005
RCRA policy statements
March 13, 1989, 54 FR 10520
Federal facility/RCRA policy
statement
Hatch 13, 1989, 54 FR 10512
(8 Federal facility sites) and
March 31, 1989, 54 FR 13296
101 (pronulgation of sites from
Updates #2-7, 273 sites remain
proposed)
Kay 5, 1989, 54 FR 19526
10 (proposal of Update #8)
July 14, 1989, 54 FR 29820
52 Federal facility sitea
(proposal of Update #9)
August 1C, 1989, 54 FR 33846
2 (proposal of ATSDR sites)
October 4, 19M, 54 FR 41000/41015
93 (pronulgation of sites from
Updates # 2-8; 31 proposad
sites dropped; 213 sites
raoBun proposad)
Octobar 2«, 1989, 54 FR 43778
25, including 2 Federal facility
sites (proposal of Update 110)
21, 19*9, 54 FR 48184
29 (pronulgation of 27 Fadaral
facility sites from Update #9 and
2 ATSCR sites; expansion of l Federal
facility site; 209 sites remain
proposad)
February 21, 1990, 55 FR 6154
71 (pronulgation of sites from
Update* #2-7, 9; 1 proposad site
dropped; 137 sites renain proposed)
14, 1990, 55 FR 9688
1 (proaulgation of united Hackathom
CD., Richaond, California; 136 sites
taaoft 1990
106 (proBulgation of sites frcsi
Updates 2, 5-10; 10 uiivjaad sites
dropped; 20 sites rsnain
16
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
. 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
u
45
46
47
48
49
50
EPA
Reg
02
03
03
02
01
02
02
07
03
02
01
02
05
01
02
01
05
06
01
08
08
06
05
01
03
03
06
05
08
06
04
09
01
06
02
08
06
01
05
OS
02
02
04
03
02
04
02
08
10
05
St
NJ
DE
PA
NJ
HA
NJ
NY
IA
DE
NJ
HA
NJ
HI
HA
NJ
NH
HN
AR
NH
HT
SO
TX
HI
NH
PA
PA
TX
OH
HT
TX
AL
CA
HE
TX
NJ
CO .
TX
HA
MN
HN'
NJ
NJ
FL
PA
NY
FL
NJ
HT
UA
UI
Site Name
Group .1 (HRS Scores 75.60 - 58.
Lipari Landfill
Tybouts Corner Landfill *
Bruin Lagoon
Helen Kramer Landfill
Industri-Plex
Price Landfill *
Pollution Abatement Services *
LaBounty Site
Army Creek Landfill
CPS/Hadison Industries
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
GEHS Landfill
Berlin & Farro
Baird & HcGuire
Lone Pine Landfill
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
FHC Corp.
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
Group
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
. 72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
EPA
Reg
St
Site Name
City/County
2 (HRS Scores 58.41 • 57.80, except for State top priority sites)
04
02
02
05
04
05
07
06
02
02
05
10
05
05
04
05
04
07
04
05
10
10
09
07
05
05
04
03
05
01
01
06
05
04
01
08
05
06
01
03
07
08
07
05
04
04
09
04
08
07
FL
HJ
NY
IN
FL
OH
KS
OK
NJ
NJ
HI
UA
UI
MI
SC
UI
SC
IA
FL
OH
WA
ID
AZ
IA
UI
IN
FL
PA
HI
RI
HA
LA
OH
SC
CT
CO
IL
NH
VT
UV
MO
NO
IA
UI
TN
KY
GU
HS
UT
KS
American Creosote (Pensacola Pit)
Caldwell Trucking Co.
GE Moreau
Seymour Recycling Corp. *
Peak Oi I Co. /Bay Drum Co.
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
Cherokee County
Tar Creek (Ottawa County)
Brick Township Landfill
Brook Industrial Park
American Anodco, Inc.
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
Janesvitle Old Landfill
Northernaire Plating
Independent Nail Co.
Janesville Ash Beds
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
Lehigh Portland Cement Co.
Davie Landfill
Miami County Incinerator
ALCOA (Vancouver Smelter)
Eastern Hichaud Flats Contamin
Tucson International Airport Area
Northwestern States Portland Cem
Wheeler Pit
International Minerals (E. Plant)
Gold Coast Oil Corp.
Salford Quarry
Gratiot County Landfill *
Picillo Farm *
New Bedford Site *
Old Inger Oil Refinery *
Chem-Dyne *
SCRDI Bluff Road *
Laurel Park, Inc. *
Marshall Landfill *
Outboard Marine Corp. *
South Valley *
Pine Street Canal *
Uest Virginia Ordnance *
Ellisville Site *
Arsenic Trioxide Site *
Aidex Corp. *
N.U. Hauthe Co., Inc. *
North Hollywood Dump *
A.L. Taylor (Valley of Drums) *
Ordot Landfill *
Flowood Site *
Rose Park Sludge Pit *
Arkansas City Dump *
Pensacola
Fairf ield
South Glen Falls
Seymour
Tampa
Troy
Cherokee County
Ottawa County
Brick Township
Bound Brook
Ionia
Vancouver
Janesville
Cadillac
Beaufort
Janesville
Beaufort
Mason City
Davie
Troy
Vancouver
Pocatello
Tucson
Mason City
La Prairie Township
Terre Haute
Miami
Salford Township
St. Louis
Coventry
New Bedford
Darrow
Hamilton
Columbia
Naugatuck Borough
Boulder County
Uaukegan
Albuquerque
Burlington
Point Pleasant
Ellisville
Southeastern ND
Council Bluffs
Appleton
Memphis
Brooks
Guam
Flowood
Salt Lake City
Arkansas City
18
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
EPA
Reg
10
09
02
09
02
08
02
05
05
05
03
05
01
10
10
02
02
09
10
03
08
01
02
02
09
10
10
02
04
05
04
02
10
02
03
04
04
05
05
06
01
05
05
09
03
02
05
04
04
01
St
UA
CA
MY
CA
NJ
CO
NJ
HN
IL
IL
PA
MN
HA
ID
ID
NY
NJ
CA
WA
PA
UT
CT
NY
NY
AZ
OR
UA
NY
At
MI
FL
NJ
10
NJ
PA
AL
FL
IL
HI
TX
NH
MI
MI
CA
VA
NJ
MN
ICY
NC
VT
Site Name
Group 3 (MRS Scores 57.80 - 52
General Electric(Spokane Shop)
Operating Industries, Inc. Lndfll
Wide Beach Development
Iron Mountain Mine
Scientific Chemical Processing
California Gulch
D'Imperio Property
Oakdale Dump
Parsons Casket Hardware Co.
A & F Material Reclaiming, Inc.
Douglassville Disposal
Koppers Coke
Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Eng. Corp.
Monsanto Chemical (Soda Springs)
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurg
Hudson River PCBs
Universal Oil Products(Chem Div)
Aerojet General Corp.
Com Bay, South Tacoma Channel
Osborne Landfill
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 & 3)
Old South ington Landfill
Syosset Landfill
Circuitron Corp.
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
Teledyne Uah Chang
Midway Landfill
Sinclair Refinery
Mowbray Engineering Co.
Spiegelberg Landfill
Miami Drum Services
Reich Farms
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
South Brunswick Landfill
Raymark
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Kassauf-Kimerling Battery
Uauconda Sand I Gravel
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Bailey Waste Disposal
Ottati t Goss/Kingston steel Drum
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
Thermo-Chem, Inc.
Brown I Bryant, Inc.(Arvin Plant)
Greenwood Chemical Co.
ML Industries
St. Regis Paper Co.
Brant ley Landfill
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Burgess Brothers Landfill
City/County
.58)
Spokane
Monterey Park
Brant
Redding
Carlstadt
Leadville
Hamilton Township
Oakdale
Belvidere
G recoup
Douglassville
St. Paul
Plymouth
Soda Springs
Smelterville
Hudson River
East Rutherford
Rancho Cordova
Tacoma
Grove City
Salt Lake City
South ington
Oyster Bay
East Farmingdale
Phoenix
Albany
Kent
Wellsville
Greenvi I le
Green Oak Township
Miami
Pleasant Plains
Pocatello
South Brunswick
Hatboro
Mclntosh
Tampa
Uauconda
Muskegon
Bridge City
Kingston
Da I ton Township
Muskegon
Arvin
Newtown
Pedricktown
Cass Lake
Island
Aberdeen
Woodford
19
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
163
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
EPA
Reg
02
04
04
02
01
05
05'
02
10
03
05
05
07
05
05-
04
05
03
04
03
03
04
05
05
10
05
02
03
08
02
04
01
02
04
02
02
05
09
06
05
05
02
02
05
05
06
02
OS
02
03
St
NJ
FL
GA
NY
VT
HI
OH
NY
UA
DE
HI
HN
IA
II
IN
FL
HI
PA
NC
DE
PA
FL
HI
WI
ID
IN
NY
PA
CO
NJ
FL
RI
NY
SC
NJ
NJ
OH
CA
OK
HI
HN
NY
NJ
IN
OH
• TX
NJ
HI
NJ
PA
Site Name
Group 4 (HRS Scores 52.58 - 50
Ring wood Hines/LandfiU
Uhitehouse Oil Pits
Hercules 009 Landfill
Jones Sanitation
Parker Sanitary Landfill
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Michigan)
Summit National
Love Canal
Seattle Hun Lndfll (Kent Hghlnds)
Coker's Sanitation Service Lndfls
Rockwell International (Allegan)
Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill
Lawrence Todtz Farm
Beloit Corp.
Fisher-Calo
Pioneer Sand Co.
Springfield Township Dump
Hranica Landfill
Hartin-Harietta, Sodyeco, Inc.
E.I. Du Pont (Newport Plant Lf)
Hellertown Manufacturing Co.
Ze I I wood Ground Water Cent ami n
Packaging Corp. of America
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
Kerr-McGee ChemicaKSoda Springs)
Uhiteford Sales&Ser/Nationalease
Hooker (S Area)
Lindane Dump
Central City-Clear Creek
Ventron/Velsicol
Taylor Road Landfill
Western Sand t Gravel
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/Dump
(Copper* Co Inc (Florence Plant)
Haywood Chemical Co.
Nascolite Corp.
Industrial Excess Landfill
Industrial Waste Processing
Hardage/Criner
Rose Township Dump
Waste Disposal Engineering
Liberty Industrial Finishing
Kin-Buc Landfill
Waste, Inc., Landfill
Bowers Landfill
Brio Refining, Inc.
Ciba-Geigy Corp.
Butterworth #2 Landfill
American Cyanamid Co.
Heleva Landfill
City/County
.23)
Ringwood Borough
Uhitehouse
Brunswick
Hyde Park
Lyndon
St. Louis
Deerfield Township
Niagara Falls
Kent
Kent County
Allegan
Dakota County
Camanche
Rockton
LaPorte
Warrington ,
Davisburg
Buffalo Township
Charlotte
Newport
• Hellertown
Zellwood
Filer City
Huskego
Soda Springs
South Bend
Niagara Falls
Harrison Township
Idaho Springs
Wood Ridge Borough
Seffner
Burrillville
Cor t I and
Florence
Maywood/Rochelle Pk
Mil I vi lie
Uniontown
Fresno
Criner
Rose Township
Andover
Farmingdale
Edison Township
Michigan City
Circleville
Friends wood
Toms River
Grand Rapids
Bound Brook
North Whitehall Twp
20
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
201
• 202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216.
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
EPA
Reg
02
02
05
05
05
01
05
03
04
02
03
02
02
01
04
05
01
04
02
05
04
05
05
09
02
06
02
09
06
05
07
05
02
04
08
05
03
03
OS
07
07
02
01
02
04
02
04
04
02
05
St
NJ
NY
IL
MN
IL
RI
MI
PA
FL
NJ
PA
NJ
NJ
CT
FL
MI
VT
NC
NJ
UI
TN
MI
WI
CA
NJ
TX
NJ
CA
LA
IL
MO
MI
NY
NC
CO
MN
PA
MO
UI
IA
NE
NJ
MA
NJ
TN
NY
FL
SC
NJ
WI
Site Name
Group 5 (HRS Scores 50.19 - 47
Euan Property
Batavia Landfill
Woodstock Municipal Landfill
Boise Cascade/Onan/Medtronics
MIG/Dewane Landfill
Landfill & Resource Recovery
Hi -Mi 1 1 Manufacturing Co.
Butler Mine Tunnel
Northwest 58th Street Landfill
Delilah Road
Mill Creek Dump
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Hontct air/West Orange Radium Site
Precision Plating Corp.
Sixty-Second Street Dump
G&H Landfill
Bennington Municipal Sanitary Lfl
Celanese(Shelby Fiber Operations)
Meta I tec/ Aerosys terns
Schmalz Dump
Carrier Air Conditioning Co.
Motor Wheel, Inc.
Better Brite Chrome & Zinc Shops
Southern Calif Edison (Visalia)
Lang Property
Stewco, Inc.
Sharkey Landfill
Selma Treating Co.
Cleve Reber
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Illinois)
Wheeling Disposal Service Co. Lf
Tar Lake
Johnstown City Landfill
NC State U (Lot 86, Farm Unit #1)
Lowry Landfill
MacGillis t Gibbs/Bell Lumber
Hunterstoun Road
Woodlawn County Landfill
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
Mid-America Tanning Co.
Lindsay Manufacturing Co.
Combe Fill North Landfill
Re-Solve, Inc.
Goose Far*
Velsicol Chen (Hardeman County)
York Oil Co.
Sapp Battery Salvage
Wamche*, Inc.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
Master Disposal Service Landfill
City/County
.49)
Shamong Township
Batavia
Woodstock
Fridley
Belvidere
North Smithfield
Highland
Pittston
Hialeah
Egg Harbor Township
Erie
Glen Ridge
Monte la ir/W Orange
Vernon
Tampa
Utica
Bennington
Shelby
Franklin Borough
Harrison
Collierville
Lansing
DePere
Visalia
Pemberton Township
Waskom
Parsippany/Troy His
Selma
Sorrento
Marshall
Amazonia
Mancelona Township
Town of Johnstown
Raleigh
Arapahoe County
New Brighton
Straban Township
Woodlawn
Williamstown
Sergeant Bluff
Lindsay
Mount Olive Twp
Dartmouth
Plumstead Township
Toone
Hoira
Cottondale
Burton
Bridgeport
Brookfield
21
-------
national Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
Rank
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
Reg
07
02
01
01
02
03
05
08
02
04
04
05
05
07
01
04
05
05
01
03
02
03
03
04
03
03
04
05
OS
05
05
01
03
07
07
04
02
03
03
03
05
05
06
06
07
09
02
04
03
03
St
KS
HJ
RI
HA
HJ
VA
OH
CO
NJ
NC
SC
OH
HI
HO
CT
AL
HH
HI
R!
PA
NY
DE
PA
NC
PA
VA
TN
IN
IN
OH
OH
CT
PA
IA
MO
FL
NJ
PA
PA
PA
IN
IL
AR
OK
IA
CA
NJ
FL
PA
VA
Site Name
Group 6 (HRS Scores 47.46 - 45
Doepke Disposal (Holliday)
Florence Land Recontouring Lndfll
Davis Liquid Waste
Charles-George Reclamation Lndfll
King of Prussia
Chisman Creek
Nease Chemical
Eagle Mine
Chemical Control
Charles Hacon Lagoon & Drum Stor
Leonard Chemical Co., Inc.
Al.lied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Verona Well Field
Lee Chemical
Beacon Heights Landfill
Stauffer Chem (Cold Creek Plant)
Burlington Northern (Brainerd)
Torch Lake
Central Landfill
Halvern TCE
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill
Tonolli Corp.
National Starch & Chemical Corp.
KU Manufacturing
C & R Battery Co., Inc.
Murray-Ohio Dump
Envirochem Corp.
HIDCO I
Ormet Corp.
South Point Plant
Gallup1 s Quarry
Whitmoyer Laboratories
Peoples Natural Gas Co.
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co.
Dayco Corp./L.E Carpenter Co.
Shriver's Corner
Dorney Road Landfill
Berks Landfill
Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc
Interstate Pollution Control, Inc
Monroe Auto Equip (Paragould Pit)
Oklahoma Refining Co.
E.I. Du Pont (County Rd X23)
Pacific Coast Pipe Lines
Global Sanitary Landfill
Florida Steel Corp.
Occidental Chem/Firestone Tire
Culpeper Wood Preservers, Inc.
City/County
.91)
Johnson County
Florence Township
Smithfield
Tyngsborough
Wins low Township
York County
Salem
Minturn/Redcliff
Elizabeth
Cordova
Rock Hill
Ironton
Battle Creek
Liberty
Beacon Falls
Bucks
Brainerd/Baxter
Houghton County
Johnston
Malvern
Elmira
New Castle County
Nesquehoning
Salisbury
Valley Township
Chesterfield County
Lawrenceburg
Zionsville
Gary
Hannibal
South Point
Plainfield
Jackson Township
Dubuque
Jasper County
Whitehouse
Wharton Borough
Straban Township
Upper Macungie Twp
Spring Township
Zionsville
Rockford
Paragould
Cyril
West Point
Fillmore
Old Bridge Township
Indiantown
Lower Pottsgrove Twp
Culpeper
22
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
EPA
Reg
05
05
05
05
09
09
02
06
04
09
09
04
02
05
02
02
02
03
04
OS
01
08
02
01
04
02
09
09
02
04
02
04
09
10
09
05
03
05
06
08
02
03
04
05
01
03
04
07
08
05
St
IL
MN
MN
UI
AZ
CA
NJ
AR
MS
CA
CA
FL
NY
IN
NJ
NJ
NY
PA
FL
OH
CT
CO
NJ
MA
ICY
NY
CA
CA
NY
FL
NY
AL
CA
WA
CA
MN
PA
UI
NM
CO
NY
PA
FL
MI
VT
PA
ICY
HO
MT
MN
Site Name
Group 7 (MRS Scores 45.91 - 43.
Page I 's Pit
University Minn Rosemount Res Cen
Freeway Sanitary Landfill
Tomah Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Litchfield Airport Area
Firestone Tire (Salinas Plant)
Spence Farm
Mid-South Wood Products
Mensem Brothers/Old Reichhold
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
Broun Wood Preserving
Port Washington Landfill
Columbus Old Municipal LndfU #1
Combe Fill South Landfill
JIS Landfill
Tronic Plating Co., Inc.
Centre County Kepone
Agrico Chemical Co.
Fields Brook
Solvents Recovery Service New Eng
Woodbury Chemical Co.
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc.
Hocomonco Pond
Distler Brickyard
Ramapo Landfill
Coast Wood Preserving
South Bay Asbestos Area
Mercury Refining, Inc.
Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal
Olean Well Field
T.H. Agricul & Nutri (Montgomery)
Fairchild Semiconduct(S San Jose)
Pasco Sanitary Landfill
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co.
York County Solid Waste/Refuse Lf
Spick I er Landfill
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
Denver Radium Site
Tri-Cities Barrel Co., Inc.
Route 940 Drum Dump
Tower Chemical Co.
Peerless Plating Co.
Darling Hill Dump
C t D Recycling
Fort Hartford Coal Co Stone Qurry
Syntex Facility
Mill town Reservoir Sediments
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
City/County
75)
Rockford
Rosemount
Burnsville
Tomah
Goodyea r / A vonda I e
Salinas
Plumstead Township
Mena
Columbia
Fresno County
Coalinga
Live Oak
Port Washington
Columbus
Chester Township
Jamesburg/S. Brnswck
Farmingdale
State College Boro
Pensacola
Ashtabula
South ing ton
Commerce City
Wall Township
Westborough
West Point
Ramapo
Ukiah
Alviso
Colonie
Fort Lauderdale
Olean
Montgomery
South San Jose
Pasco
Clear Lake
Brooklyn Center
Hopewell Township
Spencer
Prewitt
Denver
Port Crane
Pocono Summit
Clermont
Muskeg on
Lyndon
Foster Township
01 a ton
Verona
Mill town
Hermantown
23
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
EPA
Reg
10
OS
02
02
05
07
09
09
01
04
02
01
03
02
04
05
01
03
05
05
04
04
07
09
06
05
01
01
01
02
05
05
05
01
02
02
05
05
10
03
04
05
05
03
05
02
03
02
05
05
St
OR
CO
NJ
NJ
MN
IA
CA
CA
NH
FL
NJ
HE
PA
PR
FL
OH
MA
PA
IN
UI
AL
FL
KS
AZ
LA
IL
MA
MA
CT
NJ
UI
MI
MN
MA
NJ
NJ
IN
MN
UA
PA
FL
IN
UI
PA
UI
NJ
PA
HJ
IL
IN
Site Name
Group 8 (MRS Scores 43.70 - 42
Martin-Marietta Aluminum Co.
Uravan Uranium (Union Carbide)
Pijak Farm
Syncon Resins
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
White Farm Equipment Co. Dump
Liquid Gold Oil Corp.
Purity Oil Sales, Inc.
Tinkham Garage
Alpha Chemical Corp.
Bog Creek Farm
Saco Tannery Uaste Pits
River Road Lf/Uaste Mngmnt, Inc.
Frontera Creek
Pickettville Road Landfill
A I sco Anaconda
Iron Horse Park
Palmerton Zinc Pile
Neal's Landfill (Bloomington)
Kohler Co. Landfill
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
Standard Auto Bumper, Corp.
Hydro-Flex Inc.
Hassayampa Landfill
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services
Tri -County Lf/Uaste Mgmt Illinois
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Uells G&H
Nutmeg Valley Road
Chemsol, Inc.
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
Petoskey Municipal Uell Field
Union Scrap Iron & Metal Co.
Atlas Tack Corp.
Radiation Technology, Inc.
Fair Lawn Uell Field
Main Street Uell Field
Lehillier/Mankato Site
Lakewood Site
Industrial Lane
Airco Plating Co.
Fort Uayne Reduction Dump
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
A.I.U. Frank/Mid-County Mustang
National Presto Industries, Inc.
Monroe Township Landfill
Commodore Semiconductor Group
Rockaway Borough Uell Field
Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
Uayne Uaste Oil
City/County
.33)
The Dalles
Uravan
Plumstead Township
South Kearny
Oak Grove Township
Charles City
Richmond
Malaga
Londonderry
Gal loway
Houell Township
Saco
Hermitage
. Rio Aba jo
Jacksonville
Gnadenhutten
Billerica
Palmerton
Bloomington
Kohler
Leeds
Hialeah
Topeka
Hassayampa
Abbeville
South Elgin
Lowell
Uoburn
Uolcott
Piscataway
Menomonee Falls
Petoskey
Minneapolis
Fairhaven
Rockaway Township
Fair Lawn
Elkhart
Lehillier/Mankato
Lakewood
Uilliams Township
Miami
Fort Uayne
Onalaska
Exton
Eau Claire
Monroe Township
Lower Providence Twp
Rockaway Township
Lemont
Columbia City
24
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL EPA
Rank Reg St site Name
City/County
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
Group 9 (MRS Scores 42.33 - 41
10 WA Pacific Car & Foundry Co.
07 IA John Deere (Ottumwa Works Lndfls)
03 MD Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc
03 PA Novak Sanitary Landfill
05 IN Himco Dump
10 ID Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling Co.
07 IA Des Moines TCE
02 NJ Beach wood/Berkley Wells
02 NJ South Jersey Clothing Co.
02 NY Vestal Water Supply Well 4-2
02 PR Vega Alta Public Supply Wells
03 PA Avco Lycoming (Williamsport Div)
03 PA Ohio River Park
04 GA Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
05 IL Southeast Rockford Crnd Wtr Con
05 IN Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill, Inc
05 IN Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
05 IN Galen Myers Dump/Drum Salvage
05 MI Sturgis Municipal Wells
05 MI Barrels, Inc.
05 MI State Disposal Landfill, Inc.
05 MN Washington County Landfill
05 MN Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
06 TX Odessa Chromium #1
06 TX Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews Hgwy)
07 IA Electro-Coatings, Inc.
07 NE Hastings Ground Water Contamin
08 SO Williams Pipe Line Disposal Pit
09 AZ Indian Bend Wash Area
09 CA San Gabriel Valley (Area 1)
09 CA San Gabriel Valley (Area 2)
09 CA San Fernando Valley (Area 1)
09 CA San Fernando Valley (Area 2)
09 CA San Fernando Valley (Area 3}
09 CA T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
10 AK Arctic Surplus
10 WA Cora Say, Near Shore/Tide Flats
05 IL LaSalle Electric Utilities
05 IL Cross Brothers Pail (Pembroke)
04 GA Cedartown Industries, Inc.
04 NC Jadco- Hughes Facility
05 IN Souths ide Sanitary Landfill
02 NJ Monitor Devices/intercircuits Inc
01 VT BFI Sanitary Landf ill(Rockingham)
02 PR Upjohn Facility
04 NC Koppers Co Inc (Morrisville Pint)
08 UT Sharon Steel (Midvale Tailings)
09 CA McColl
03 PA Henderson Road
02 NY Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer Corp
.60)
Renton
Ottumwa
Hermans
South Whitehall Twp
Elkhart
Pocatello
Des Moines
Berkley Township
Minotola
Vestal
Vega Alta
Williamsport
Neville Island
Fort Valley
Rockford
Lafayette
Elkhart
Osceola
Sturgis
Lansing
Grand Rapids
Lake Elmo
Cannon Falls
Odessa
Odessa
Cedar Rapids
Hastings
Sioux Falls
Scot tsda 1 e/Tmpe/Phnx
El Monte
Baldwin Park Area
Los Angeles
Los Angeles/Glendale
Glendale
Fresno
Fairbanks
Pierce County
LaSalle
Pembroke Township
Cedartown
Belmont
Indianapolis
Wall Township
Rockingham
Barceloneta
Morrisville
Midvale
Fullerton
Upper Her ion Twp
Hicksville
25
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL EPA
Rank Reg St Site Name
City/County
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
10
06
03
02
02
01
03
03
01
05
02
03
04
04
02
09
01
02
01
03
04
05
05
07
05
07
02
02
04
03
06
02
02
05
03
04
04
06
06
04
01
07
05
05
05
OS
09
01
03
01
UA
LA
PA
NY
PR
NH
HO
PA
CT
HI
NJ
PA
GA
TN
NJ
AZ
HA
NY
NH
VA
SC
HI
HN
HO
IN
HO
NJ
NJ
NC
PA
NH
NJ
NJ
IN
HO
SC
SC
TX
AR
FL
RI
HO
HI
HN
UI
HN
CA
CT
PA
HA
Group 10 (HRS Scores 41.59 - 39
Colbert Landfill
Petro-Processors of Louisiana Inc
Uestinghouse Elec (Sharon Plant)
Applied Environmental Services
Barceloneta Landfill
Tibbets Road
Sand, Gravel & Stone
Delta Quarries/Stotler Landfill
Revere Textile Prints Corp.
Spartan Chemical Co.
Roebling Steel Co.
East Hount Zion
T.H. Agricul & Nutri (Albany)
Amnicola Dump
Vineland State School
Motorola, Inc. (52nd Street Plant)
Groveland Wells
General Hotors (Cent Foundry Div)
Hottolo Pig Farm
Buckingham County Landfill
SCROI Dixiana
Roto- Finish Co., Inc.
Olmsted County Sanitary Landfill
Quality Plating
Prestolite Battery Division
Fulbright Landfill
Williams Property
Renora, Inc.
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
Jacks Creek/Sitkin Smelting & Ref
Cleveland Hill
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Co.
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown Plant)
Ninth Avenue Dump
Bush Valley Landfill
Golden Strip Septic Tank Service
Rock Hill Chemical Co.
Texarkana Wood Preserving Co.
.Gurley Pit
Petroleum Products Corp.
Peterson/Puritan, Inc.
Times Beach Site
Wash King Laundry
Uhittaker Corp.
Algom Hunicipal Landfill
NL Industries/Taracorp/Golden
Uestinghouse Elec (Sunnyvale Pit)
Kellogg-Oeering Well Field
Boarhead Farms
Cannon Engineering Corp. (CEC)
.89)
Colbert
Scot landvi lie
Sharon
Glenwood Landing
Florida Afuera
Barrington
Elkton
Ant is/Logan Twps
Sterling
Wyoming
Florence
Springettsbury Twp
Albany
Chattanooga
Vineland
Phoenix
Groveland
Hassena
Raymond
Buckingham
Cayce
Kalamazoo
Oronoco
S ikes ton
Vincennes
Springfield
Swainton
Edison Township
Washington
Haitland
Silver City
Bayvi I le
Gibbstown
Gary
Abingdon
S imps onvi lie
Rock Hill
Texarkana
Edmondson
Pembroke Park
L i nco I n/Cumber I and
Times Beach
Pleasant Plains
Himeapolis
Algoma
St. Louis Park
Sunnyvale
Norwalk
Twp
Bridgeton Township
Bridgewater
26
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL EPA
Rank Reg St Site Name
City/County
Group 11 (HRS Scores 39.88 - 38.20)
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
05
02
02
04
09
04
05
02
02
06
02
04
05
06
05
04
05
04
10
05
09
09
03
04
04
06
04
06
01
03
10
05
06
01
05
03
09
01
04
05
05
06
03
03
07
08
03
05
05
05
MI
NY
NY
FL
CA
AL
HI
NY
NY
TX
NJ
ICY
IL
AR
IL
FL
OH
NC
OR
OH
AZ
NV
PA
NC
TN
LA
FL
NM
RI
PA
WA
WI
TX
HA
MI
PA
CA
NH
SC
IL '
MI
TX
PA
DE
MO
MT
DE
IN
IL
MI
H. Broun Co., Inc.
Nepera Chemical Co., Inc.
Niagara County Refuse
Sherwood Medical Industries
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
01 in Corp. (Hclntosh Plant)
Southwest Ottawa County Landfill
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Pasley Solvents & Chemicals, Inc.
Sol Lynn/ Industrial Transformers
Asbestos Dump
Lee's Lane Landfill
Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler Park)
Frit Industries
Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill)
Woodbury Chemical (Princeton Pint)
Fultz Landfill
New Hanover Cnty Airport Burn Pit
Allied Plating, Inc.
Coshocton Landfill
Apache Powder Co.
Carson River Mercury Site
AMP, .Inc. (Glen Rock Facility)
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Arlington Blending & Packaging
PAB Oil & Chemical Service, Inc.
Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds
Cimarron Mining Corp.
Davis (GSR) Landfill
Lord-Shope Landfill
FMC Corp. (Yakima Pit)
Northern Engraving Co.
South Cavalcade Street
PSC Resources
Forest Waste Products
Drake Chemical
United Heckathorn Co.
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Petersen Sand & Gravel
Clare Water Supply
Tex- Tin Corp.
Havertown PCP
New Castle Spill
St Louis Airport/HIS/Fut Coatings
Idaho Pole Co.
NCR Corp. (Millsboro Plant)
Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill)
Johns-Manville Corp.
Chem Central
Grand Rapids
Hayfarook
Wheatfield
Del and
Oroville
Hclntosh
Park Township
. Horseheads
Hempstead
Houston
Hillington
Louisville
West Chicago
Walnut Ridge
Joliet
Princeton
Jackson Township
Wilmington
Portland
Franklin Township
St. David
Lyon/Churchill Cnty
Glen Rock
Oxford
Arlington
Abbeville
Brandon
Carrizozo
Glocester
Girard Township
Yakima
Sparta
Houston
Palmer
Otisville
Lock Haven
Richmond
Conway
Dixiana
LibertyvUle
Clare
Texas City
Haverford
New Castle County
St. Louis County
Bozeman
Millsboro
Gary
Waukegan
Wyoming Township
3,7
-------
National Priorities List
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL EPA
Rank Reg St Site Name
City/County
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
Group 13
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
EPA
Reg
03
01
02
03
02
04
01
01
03
04
05
01
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
05
05
05
05
06
07
09
09
09
09
09
04
05
05
02
05
03
05
02
05
01
03
05
05
09
02
04
07
St
VA
VT
NJ
PA
NJ
GA
NH
HE
UV
GA
OH
CT
HY
NY
OE
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
FL
IL
MM
OH
UI
NH
HO
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
GA
HI
HI
NY
HI
DE
HN
NJ
IN
NH
VA
HI
HI
CA
NY
FL
KS
Site Name
Group 14 (HRS Scores 35.76 - 35
Suffolk City Landfill
Tans i tor Electronics, Inc.
De Renal Chemical Co.
Hiddletoun Air Field
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Monsanto Corp. (Augusta Plant)
South Municipal Water Supply Well
Uinthrop Landfill
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill
Zanesville Well Field
Cheshire Ground Water Contamin
Suffern Village Well Field
Endicott Village Well Field
Dover Gas Light Co.
Aladdin Plating
North Penn - Area 1
North Penn • Area 7
North Penn - Area 6
North Penn - Area 2
North Penn - Area 5
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant)
OuPage Cty Ldf/Blackwell Forest
K turner Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary Landfill Co. (IWD)
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Pagano Salvage
Valley Park TCE
San Fernando Valley (Area 4)
Monolithic Memories
National Semiconductor Corp.
Fresno Municipal Sanitary Lndfll
Newark Ground Water Contamin
Powersville Site
Grand Traverse Overall Supply Co.
Hetamora Landfill
Niagara Mohawk Power(Saratoga Sp)
Whitehall Municipal Wells >
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc
South Andover Site
Diamond Alkali Co.
Carter Lee Lumber Co.
Fletcher's Paint Works & Storage
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
Kentwood Landfill
Electrovoice
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Katonah Municipal Well
B&B Chemical Co., Inc.
29th t Head Ground Water Contamin
City/County
.35)
Suffolk
Bemington
Kingwood Township
Hiddletown
Pemsauken
Augusta
Peterborough
Winthrop
Morgantown
Cedar town
Zanesvi lie
Chesh i re
Village of Suffern
Village of Endicott
Dover
Scott Township
Souderton
North Wales
Lansdale.
Hatfield
Montgomery Township
Palm Bay
Warrenville
Bemidji
Dayton
Eau Claire
Los Lunas
Valley Park
Los Angeles
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Fresno
San Bernardino
Peach County
Greilickville
Hetamora
Saratoga Springs
Whitehall
Delaware City
, Andover
Newark
Indianapolis
Hilford
Front Royal
Kentwood
Buchanan
Mountain View
Town of Bedford
Hialeah
Wichita
30
-------
National Priorities List
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPl
Rank
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
79*
795
796
797
798
799
800
EPA
Rea
05
05
06
06
09
05
04
05
05
07
05
02
04
01
05
05
01
01
03
05
09
02
02
03
03
05
05
03
04
07
02
02
05
02
02
04
10
02
05
05
06
05
03
03
04
02
02
03
07
09
St
HI
UI
KM
TX
CA
MI
FL
HI
HI
IA
IN
NJ
NC
RI
UI
IN
HE
CT
DE
MI
CA
NJ
NY
PA
PA
IL
HI
PA
SC
MO
NJ
NJ
HN
NJ
NJ
KY
UA
NY
HI
UI
LA
HI
WV
PA
NC
NY
NY
PA
IA
CA
Site Name
Group 16 (HRS Scores 34.21 • 33
ICaydon Corp.
Saulc County Landfill
Homestake Mining Co.
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.
Beckman Instruments (Porterville)
Muskegon Chemical Co.
Dubose Oil Products Co.
Mason County Landfill
Cemetery Dump
Red Oak City Landfill
Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc.
Hopkins Farm
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Stamina Hills, Inc.
Lemberger Landfill, Inc.
Reilly Tar (Indianapolis Plant)
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Durham Meadows
Tyler Refrigeration Pit
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
Wilson Farm
Conklin Dumps
Old City of York Landfill
Modern Sanitation Landfill
Byron Salvage Yard
North Bronson Industrial Area
Stanley Kessler
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Kern- Pest Laboratories
Imperial Oil/Champion Chemicals
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
St. Augusta San Lndfll/Engen Dump
Myers Property
Pepe Field
Tri-City Disposal Co.
Northwest Transformer
Genzale Plating Co.
Albion-Sheridan Township Landfill
Sheboygan Harbor ft River
Combustion, Inc.
Ossineke Ground Uater Contamin
Follansbee Site
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
Carolina Transformer Co.
Carroll & Dubies Sewage Disposal
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Farmers' Mutual Cooperative
Koppers Co Inc (Oroville Plant)
City/County
.73)
Muskegon
Excelsior
Milan
Friends wood
Portervi I le
Whitehall
Cantonment
Pere Marquette Twp
Rose Center
Red Oak
Claypool
Plumstead Township
Fayetteville
North Smithfield
whitelaw
Indianapolis
Wash burn
Durham
Smyrna
Cadillac
San Jose
Plumstead Township
Conklin
Seven Valleys
Lower Windsor Twp
Byron
Bronson
King of Prussia
Fairfax
Cape Girardeau
Horganville
Beverly
St. Augusta Township
Franklin Township
Boonton
Shepherdsvi I le
Everson
Franklin Square
Albion
Sheboygan
Denham Springs
Ossineke
Follansbee
Union Township
Fayettevi 1 le
Port Jervis
North Sea
Bridgewater Township
Hospers
Orovi 1 le
32
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
EPA
Reg
09
01
03
05
05
07
03
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
04
05
05
06
07
07
09
02
02
08
03
04
05
02
02
02
09
04
03
05
02
05
03
01
05
08
04
04
04
04
05
02
02
02
05
St
CA
CT
VA
MI
MI
IA
PA
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
DE
PA
GA
MI
MN
NM
KS
KS
CA
NJ
NY
NO
DE
TN
MI
NJ
NY
NY
CA
KY
PA
IL
NY
MI
DE
MA
OH
MT
NC
KY
KY
SC
MI
NY
NY
NY
WI
Site Name
Group 17 (HRS Scores 33.73 - 32
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
Linemaster Switch Corp.
H & H Inc., Burn Pit
South Macomb Disposal (Lf 9 & 9A)
U.S. Aviex
Sheller-Globe Corp. Disposal
Walsh Landfill
Landfill & Development Co.
Upper Deerfield Township San Lndf
Hertel Landfill
Haviland Complex
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Kent County Landfill (Houston)
Saegectown Industrial Area
Cedartown Municipal Landfill
Kent City Mobile Home Park
Adrian Municipal Well Field
AT & SF (Clovis)
Strother Field Industrial Park
Obee Road
CTS Printex, Inc.
Fried Industries
American Thermostat Co.
Mi not Landfill
Koppers Co., Inc. (Newport Plant)
Lewisburg Dump
McGraw Edison Corp.
Lodi Municipal Well
Goldisc Recordings, Inc.
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Sola Optical USA, Inc.
Airco
Metal Banks
Yeoman Creek Landfill
Sarney Farm
Folkertsma Refuse
Sea I and Limited
Rose Disposal Pit
Van Dale Junkyard
Montana Pole and Treating
Geigy Chemical Corp(Aberdeen Pit)
B.F. Goodrich
General Tire/Rubber(Mayf ield Lnf)
Para-Chem Southern, Inc.
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
BioClinical Laboratories, Inc.
Volney Municipal Landfill
FMC Corp. (Dublin Road Landfill)
Tomah Fairgrounds
City/County
.87)
Oroville
Woodstock
Farrington
Macomb Township
Howard Township
Keokuk
Honeybrook Township
Mount Holly
Upper Deerfield Twp
Plattekill
Town of Hyde Park
Malta
Caledonia
Houston
Saegertown
Cedartown
Kent City
Adrian
Clovis
Cow ley County
Hutch inson
Mountain View
East Brunswick Twp
South Cairo
Mi not
Newport
Lewisburg
Albion
Lodi
Ho I brook
Islip
Petaluma
Cat vert City
Philadelphia
Waukegan
Amenia
Grand Rapids
Mount Pleasant
Lanesboro
Marietta
Butte
Aberdeen
Calvert City
Mayfield
Simpsonville
Grandville
Bohemia
Town of Volney
Town of Shelby
Tomah
33
-------
National Priorities List
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
EPA
Reg
09
04
02
01
05
05
05
02
04
03
04
04
08
05
02
05
03
04
04
07
05
OS
05
03
05
06
08
08
05
02
07
05
05
02
02
05
04
03
05
10
04
04
03
05
05
05
06
10
03
04
St
CA
FL
NY
ME
WI
IN
MI
NY
fl
PA
ICY
NC
MT
MI
NY
OH
PA
SC
SC
IA
MN
OH
MI
PA
MI
TX
CO
CO
IN
PR
MO
MI
OH
NJ
PR
MN
fl
PA
WI
OR
FL
FL
PA
MI
WI
MI
OK
AK
PA
TN
Site Name
Group 19 (HRS Scores 31.94 - 30
Advanced Micro Devices(Bldg. 915)
Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc.
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
O'Connor Co.
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co. Inc
Continental Steel Corp.
Rasmussen's Dump
Kenmark Textile Corp.
Uingate Road Munic Incinerat Dump
West line Site
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Mouat Industries
J & L Landfill
Claremont Polychemical
Powell Road Landfill
Croydon TCE
Medley Farm Drum Dump
El more Waste Disposal
Vogel Paint & Wax Co.
Kurt Manufacturing Co.
Reilly Tar & ChemicaKDover Pint)
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.
Revere, Chemical Co.
Ionia City Landfill
Koppers Co Inc (Texarkana Plant)
Lincoln Park
Smuggler Mountain
Wedzeb Enterprises, Inc.
GE Wiring Devices
Missouri Electric Works
Avenue "E" Ground Water Contamin
New Lyme Landfill
Woodland Route 72 Dump
RCA Del Car i be
Koch Refining Co./N-Ren Corp.
Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Utr&Swr
Brodhend Creek
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
United Chrome Products, Inc.
Anodyne, Inc.
Anaconda Aluminum/Mi Igo Electron
Eastern Diversified Metals
Anderson Development Co.
Hunts Disposal Landfill
Shiawassee River
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
Alaska Battery Enterprises
Taylor Borough Dump
Murray-Ohio Mfg (Horseshoe Bend)
City/County
.93)
Sunnyvale
Medley
Glen Cove
Augusta
Ashippin
Kokomo
Green Oak Township
Farmingdale
Fort Lauderdale
West line
Hillsboro
Hazelwood
Columbus
Rochester Hills
Old Bethpage
Dayton
Croydon
Gaffney
Greer
Orange City
Fridley
Dover
Grand Ledge
Nockamixon Township-
Ionia
Texarkana
Canon City
Pitkin County
Lebanon
Juana Diaz
Cape Girardeau
Traverse City
New Lyme
Woodland Township
Barceloneta
Pine Bend
Vero Beach
Stroudsburg
Franklin
Con/all is
North Miami Beach
Miami
Hometown
Adrian
Caledonia
Howell
Oklahoma City
Fairbanks N Star Bor
Taylor Borough
Lawrenceburg
35
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
HPL
Rank
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
EPA
Reg
03
02
- 04
06
04
03
04
05
06
02
02
03
06
02
05
03
05
03
03
10
03
03
02
02
10
06
03
06
09
01
04
02
02
04
04
05
03
04
05
05
06
07
03
07
04
07
03
10
06
04
St
DE
NJ
AL
OK
GA
DE
TM
OH
AR
NY
NY
PA
OK
NJ
WI
DE
HI
PA
VA
UA
DE
MO
NY
NJ
UA
NM
VA
AR
CA
HA
AL
NY
NY
FL
GA
OH
VA
NC
IN
MI1
TX
KS
HO
MO
GA
IA
PA
UA
TX
NC
Site Name
Group 20 (HRS Scores 30.90 - 29.
h'alby Chemical Co.
Higgins Disposal
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Hathis Bros Lf (S Marble Top Rd)
Harvey & Knott Drum, Inc.
Gal I away Pits
Big D Campground
Midland Products
Robin tech. Inc. /National Pipe Co.
EEC Trucking
Strasburg Landfill
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
Uitco Chemical Corp. (Oakland Pit)
Tomah Armory
Wildcat Landfill
Burrows Sanitation
Blosenski Landfill
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump
Northwest Transformer^ Harkness)
Delaware City PVC Plant
Limestone Road
Hooker (102nd Street)
Higgins Farm
American Crossarm & Conduit Co.
United Nuclear Corp.
Rentokil, Inc. (VA Uood Pres Div)
Industrial Uaste Control
Celtor Chemical Works
Haverhill Municipal Landfill
Perdido Ground Uater Contamin
Marathon Battery Corp.
Colesville Municipal Landfill
Yellow Uater Road Dump
Harzone Inc. /Chevron Chemical Co.
Skinner Landfill
First Piedmont Quarry (Route 719)
Chemtronio, Inc.
MIDCO II
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Sheridan Disposal Services
Pester Refinery Co.
Kane & Lombard Street Drums
Shenandoah Stables
Firestone Tire (Albany Plant)
Shau Avenue bump
Berkley Products Co. Dump
Silver Mountain Mine
Retro-Chemical (Turtle Bayou)
Hevi-Duty Electric Co.
City/County
88)
New Castle
Kingston
Saraland
Oklahoma City
Kensington
Kirkwood
Gal I away
Kingsville
Ola/Birta
Town of Vestal
Town of Vestal
Newlin Township
Oklahoma City
Oakland
Tomah
Dover
Hartford
West Cain Township
Frederick County
Everson
Delaware City
Cumberland
Niagara Falls
Franklin Township
Chehalis
Church Rock
Richmond
Fort Smith
Hoopa
Haverhill
Perdido
Cold Springs
Town of Colesville
Baldwin
Tifton
West Chester
Pittsylvania County
Swamanoa
Gary
Sault Sainte Marie
Hempstead
El Dorado
Baltimore
Moscow Mills
Albany
Charles City
Denver
Lopmis
Liberty County
Golds boro
36
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL
Rank
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
• 1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
EPA
Reg St Site Name
Group 21 (HRS Scores 29.85 -
05 OH Republic Steel Corp. Quarry
07 MO Conservation Chemical Co.
07 MO West lake Landfill
05 MN Ritari Post & Pole
06 LA Bayou Bonfouca
09 CA Intel Corp. (Mountain View Plant)
09 CA Raytheon Corp.
09 CA Hewlett-Packard(620-40 Page Mill)
05 MN Agate Lake Scrapyard
05 MI Adam's Plating
06 AR Jacksonville Municipal Landfill
06 AR Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
03 VA Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
01 ME Saco Municipal Landfill
04 SC Palmetto Recycling, Inc..
01 MA Shpack Landfill
03 PA Kimberton Site
04 TN Mai lory Capacitor Co.
01 MA Norwood PCBs
02 NY Warwick Landfill
02 NY Sidney Landfill
02 NY Sea I and Restoration, Inc.
10 WA Old Inland Pit
10 WA Pesticide Lab (Yakima)
05 IN Lemon Lane Landfill
05 IN Tri -State Plating
10 ID Arrcom (Drexler Enterprises)
01 NH Coakley Landfill
04 NC Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits
04 ICY Green River Disposal, Inc.
04 NC ABC One Hour Cleaners
03 PA Fischer & Porter Co.
03 PA Elizabeth town Landfill
05 IL Central Illinois Public Serv Co.
06 AR Arkwood, Inc.
09 CA Jibboom Junkyard
02 NJ A. 0. Polymer
05 WI Wausau Ground Water Contamination
02 NJ Dover Municipal Well 4
02 NJ Rockaway Township Wells
02 NJ Pohatcong Valley Ground Water Con
02 NJ Garden State Cleaners Co.
03 DE Sussex County Landfill No. 5
03 PA North Penn • Area 12
03 PA Dublin TCE Site
05 WI Del a van Municipal Well *4
05 WI Waste Management (Brookfield Lfl)
07 MO North-U Drive Well Contamination
07 NE 10th Street Site
09 CA San Gabriel Valley (Area 3)
City/County
28.90)
Elyria
Kansas City
Bridgeton
Sebeka
Slidell
Mountain View
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Fairview Township
Lansing
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Saltville
Saco
Columbia
Norton/Attleboro
Kimberton Borough
Waynesboro
Norwood
Warwick
Sidney
Lisbon
Spokane
Yakima
Blooming ton
Columbus
Rathdrum
North Hampton
Maco
Maceo
Jacksonvi I le
Warminster
Elizabeth town
Taylorville
Omaha
Sacramento
Sparta Township
Wausau
Dover Township
Rockaway
Warren County
Minotola
Laurel
Worcester
Dublin Borough
Delavan
Brookfield
Springfield
Columbus
Alhambra
37
-------
National Priorities List (by Rank)
August 1990
NPL EPA
Rank Reg St Site Name
City/County
Group 22 (HRS Scores 28.90 • 28.50 , except for health-advisory sites)
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
09
09
09
09
10
10
10'
06
06
05
05
06
02
03
05.
07
03
02
03
02
02
CA
CA
CA
CA
UA
WA
UA
OK
TX
HI
HH
TX
NJ
PA
a
HO
PA
NJ
PA
NY
NY
San Gabriel Valley (Area 4)
Uatkins-Johnson Co. (Stewart Div)
Intersil Inc. /Siemens Components
Modesto Ground Water Contamin
American Lake Gardens
Greenacres Landfill
Northside Landfill
Sand Springs Petrochemical Cmplx
Pesses Chemical Co.
Hetal Working Shop
East Bethel Demolition Landfill
Triangle Chemical Co.
PJP Landfill
Craig Farm Drum
Belvidere Municipal Landfill
Bee Cee Manufacturing Co.
CryoChem, Inc.
Kauffman & Hinteer, Inc.
Lansdowne Radiation Site
Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivis
Radium Chemical Co., Inc. .
La Puente
Scotts Valley
Cupertino
Modesto
Tacoma
Spokane County
Spokane
Sand Springs
Fort Worth
Lake Ann
East Bethel Township
Bridge City
Jersey City
Parker
Belvidere
Maiden
Worman
Jobstown
Lansdowne
Niagara Falls
New York City
Number of NPL Sites:
1071
* «'State top priority site
38
-------
National Priorities List,
Federal Section (by Group)
August 1990
NPL
Grl
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5 -
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
St
WA
WA
CO
CA
NM
MO
CO
TN
CA
PA
OH
ID
OH
WA
UT
WA
MD
ID
AL
GA
TN
NE
NJ
UT
CA
AK
SC
WA
NJ
WA
AK
MA
AK
Site Name
Hanford 200 -Area (USDOE)
Hanford 300 -Area (USDOE)
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Riverbank Army .Ammunition Plant
Cal West Metals (USSBA)
Weldon Spring (USDOE/Army)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Milan Army Ammunition Plant
McClellan AFB (Ground Water Cont)
Naval Air Develop Center (8 Areas)
Wright -Patterson Air Force Base
Mountain Home Air Force Base
Feed Materials Prod Cent (USDOE)
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
Tooele Army Depot (North Area)
Bonneville Power Adm Ross (USDOE)
Aber Prov Ground- Edgewood Area
Idaho National Engin Lab (USDOE)
Anniston Army Depot (SE Ind Area)
Robins AFB (Lndfll #4/Sludge Lag)
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
Naval Air Engineering Center
Hill Air Force Base
Treasure Island Nav Sta-Hun Pt An
Eielson Air Force Base
Savannah River Site (USDOE)
Naval Air Sta, Whid Is (Ault)
W.R. Grace/Wayne Int Stor (USDOE)
Hanford 100 -Area.. (USDOE)
Standard Steel&Met Sal Yd (USDOT)
Otis Air Nat Guard/Camp Edwards
Elmendorf Air Force Base
City/County
Benton County
Benton County
Golden
Riverbank
Lemitar
St. Charles County
Adams County
Milan
Sacramento
Warminster Township
Dayton
Mountain Home
Fernald
Silverdale
Tooele
Vancouver
Edgewood
Idaho Falls
Anniston
Houston County
Oak Ridge
Hall County
Lakehurst
Ogden
San Francisco
Fairbanks N Star Bor
Aiken
Whidbey Island
Wayne Township
Benton County
Anchorage
Falmouth
Greater Anchorage Bo
* State top priority site
1: Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50
on the final NPL
39
-------
National Priorities List,
Federal Section (by Group)
August 1990
NPL
Grl
*7
7
7
8
8 .
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12 '
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
St
UT
GA
CA
IL
ME
CO
NJ
FL
AK
FL
CA
MA
OK
CA
CA
WA
IL
NY
TX
TX
CA
NJ
WA
NH
NM
WY
CA
AZ
AZ
PA
CA
PA
CA
NJ
CA
AL
Site Name
Ogden Defense Depot
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Sacramento Army Depot .
Sangamo/Crab Orchard NWR (USDOI)
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Air Force Plant PJKS
Picatinny Arsenal
Homestead Air Force Base
Fort Wainwright
Pensacola Naval Air Station
Sharpe Army Depot
Fort Devens
Tinker AFB (Soldier Cr/Bldg 3001)
Lawrence Livermore Lab (USDOE)
Fort Ord
McChord AFB (Wash Rack/Treatment)
Savanna Army Depot Activity
Brookhaven National Lab (USDOE)
Air Force Plant #4 Gener Dynamics
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Norton Air Force Base
Federal Aviation Admin Tech Cent
Naval Air Sta, Whid Is (Seaplane)
Pease Air Force Base
Lee Acres Landfill (USDOI)
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Castle Air Force Base
Luke Air Force Base
Williams Air Force Base
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Barstow Marine Corps Logist Base
Letterkenny Army Depot (PDO Area)
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
Tracy Defense Depot
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
City /County
Ogden
Albany
Sacramento
Carterville
Brunswick
Waterton
Rockaway Township
Homestead
Fairbanks N Star Bor
Pensacola
Lathrop
. Fort Devens
Oklahoma City
Livermore
Marina
Tacoma
Savanna
Upton
Fort Worth
Karnack
San Bernardino
Atlantic County
Whidbey Island
Portsmouth/Newington
Farmington
Cheyenne
Merced
Glendale
Chandler
Tobyhanna
Barstow
Franklin County
El Toro
Pemberton Township
Tracy
Childersburg
40
-------
National Priorities List,
Federal Section (by Group)
August 1990
NPL
Grl
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
St
CT
WA
DE
UT
. MA
NY
WA
IL
OH
RI
ME
PR
PA
NY
VA
KS
WA
CA
MO
MN
CA
SD
CA
WA
NC
RI
AZ
FL
IL
FL
WA
CA
TX
CA
OR
MD
Site Name
New London Submarine Base
Hanford 1100 -Area (USDOE)
Dover Air Force Base
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
Fort Devens - Sudbury Training Ann
Seneca Army Depot
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
Joliet Army Ammu Plant (LAP Area)
Mound Plant (USDOE)
Davisville Naval Constr Batt Cent
Loring Air Force Base
Naval Security Group Activity
Letterkenny Army Depot (SE Area)
Griffiss Air Force Base
Defense General Supply Center
Fort Riley
Fort Lewis (Landfill No. 5)
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base
Lake City Army Plant (NW Lagoon)
Twin Cities Air Force(SAR Lndfll)
Edwards Air Force Base
Ellsworth Air Force Base
George Air Force Base
Naval Undersea Warf Sta (4 Areas)
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
Newport Naval Educat/Training Cen
Yuma Marine Corps Air Station
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
Joliet Army Ammu Plant (Mfg Area)
Cecil Field Naval. Air Station
Fairchild Air Force Base (4 Areas)
March Air Force Base
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
Lawrence Livermore Lab- 300 (USDOE)
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
Aber Prov Ground-Michaelsville Lf
City/County
New London
Benton County
Dover
Monticello
Middlesex County
Romulus
Tillicum
Joliet
Miamisburg
North Kingstown
Limestone
Sabana Seca
Chambersburg
Rome
Chesterfield County
Junction City
Tacoma
San Diego County
Independence
Minneapolis
Kern County
Rapid City
Victorville
Keyport
Ons low County
Newport
Yuma
Jacksonville
Joliet
Jacksonville
Spokane County
Riverside
Texarkana
Livermore
Hermiston
Aberdeen
41
-------
National Priorities List,
Federal Section (by Group)
August 1990
NPL
Gr,
St Site Name
City/County
20 UN Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance
20 WA Bangor Ordnance Disposal
20 NY Plattsburgh Air Force Base
20 LA Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant
20 . MO Weldon Spring Form Army Ord Works
21 IA Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
21 NJ Naval Weapons Stat Earle (Site A)
21 CA Travis Air Force Base
21 CA Moffett Naval Air Station
22 CA Mather Air Force Base
22 HI Schofield Barracks
Number of NPL Federal Facility Sites:
Fridley
Bremerton
Plattsburgh
Doyline
St. Charles County
Middletown
Colts Neck
Solano County
Sunnyvale
Sacramento
Oahu
116
42
-------
National Priorities List,
Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
NPL
Gr- St Site Name
City/County
17
18
10
11
11
9
9
11
14
4
11
12
11
22
13
5
19
15
11
1
AZ
CA
CA
HI
' HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
IA
IL
MD
MO
MO
MT
MT
OK
UT
UT
UT
Mesa Area Ground Water Contamin-
Fairchild Semiconduct (Mt View)
Spectra- Physics, Inc.
Kunia Wells I
Kunia Wells II
Mililani Wells
Waiawa Shaft
Waipahu Wells
Waipio Heights Wells II
Chemplex Co.
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek)
Anne Arundel County Landfill
Findett Corp.
Quail Run Mobile Manor
Burlington Northern(Somers Plant)
Comet Oil Co.
Kerr-McGee Corp. (Gushing Plant)
Midvale Slag
Richardson Flat Tailings
Wasatch Chemical Co. (Lot 6)
Mesa
Mountain View
Mountain View
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Clinton/Camanche
DuPage County
Glen Burnie
St. Charles
Gray Summit
Somers
Billings
Gushing
Midvale
Summit County
Salt Lake City
Number of Sites Proposed for Listing: 20
* State top priority site
1: Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50
on the final NPL
43
-------
Final Sites'Deleted From NPL Because No Further Response Needed
August 1990
FR Notice
st
AR
AS
AZ
CH
OE
FL
FL
FL
CA
HO
HO
Ml
HN
MS
NC
HJ
HJ
HJ
OH
PA
Site Name
Cecil Lindsey
Taputiou Farm*
Mountain View Mobile Home Estates (once listed as Globe)8
PCS Warehouse* '
Hew Castle Steel
Parraroore Surplus
Tri-City Oil Conservationist, Inc
Varsol Spill (once listed as part of Biscayne Aquifer)
Luminous Processors, Inc.
Chemicals Metals Industries, Inc.b
Hiddletoun Road Dump
Gratiot County Golf Course6
Morris Arsenic Dmp
Valcotte Chemical Co. Warehouses
PCI Spills*
Cooper Road
Frieditan Property (once listed as Upper Freehold Site)
Krysowaty Far*
Chemical t Minerals Reclamation15
Enterprise Avenue
Location
Newport
Island of Tutila
Globe
Saipan
New Castle County
Mount Pleasant
Tampa
Miami
Athens
Baltimore
Annapolis
St. Louis
Morris
Greenville
243 Miles of Roads
Voorhees Township
Upper Freehold Twp
Hillsborough
Cleveland
Philadelphia
Intent
to Delete
3/28/89
54 FR 12659
12/31/85
50 FR 53448
9/03/87
52 FR 33446
12/31/85
50 FR 53448
9/22/88
53 FR 36869
11/29/88
53 FR 47980
3/14/88
53 FR 8223
3/14/88
53 FR 8223
9/03/87
52 FR 33446
12/31/85
50 FR 53448
12/31/85
50 FR 53448
10/19/88
53 FR 40908
12/31/85
50 FR 53448
10/19/88
53 FR 40910
12/31/85
50 FR 53448
Deletion
9/22/89
54 FR 38994
3/07/86
51 FR 7935
4/18/88
53 FR 12680
3/07/86
51 FR 7935
3/17/89
54 FR 11203
2/21/89
54 FR 7424
9/01/88
53 FR 33811
9/01/88
53 FR 33811
12/30/82
47 FR 58476
12/30/82 -,A
47 FR 58476 \
4/18/88
53 FR 12680
9/08/83
48 FR 40658
3/07/86
51 FR 7935
12/30/82
47 FR 58476
3/07/86
51 FR 7935
2/22/89
54 FR 7548
3/07/86
51 FR 7935
2/22/89
54 FR 7549
12/30/82
47 FR 58476
3/07/86
51 FR 7935
44
-------
Final Sites Deleted From NPL Because No Further Response Needed
August 1990
FR Notice
st
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
TT
TX
VA
WA
*
Site Name
Lehigh Electric & Engineering Co.
Presque Isle
Reeser's Landfill
Voortman Farm
Wade (ABM) (once listed as ABM-Wade)
PCS Wastes8
Harris (Farley Street)
Matthews Electroplating8
Toftdahl Drums
.
ber of sites deleted: 29
Location
Old Forge Borough
Erie
Upper Macungie Twp
Upper Saucon Twp
Chester
Pacific Trust Terr
Houston
Roanoke County
Brush Prairie
Intent
to Delete
12/31/85
50 FR 53448
7/28/88
53 FR 28414
3/02/90
55 FR 7507
3/24/89
54 FR 12247
12/02/88
53 FR 48661
12/31/85
50 FR 53448
9/03/87
52 FR 33446
7/20/88
53 FR 27371
8/12/88
53 FR 30452
Deletion
3/07/86
51 FR 7935
2/13/89
54 FR 6521
5/31/90
55 FR 22030
5/31/89
54 FR 23212
3/23/89
54 FR 11949
3/07/86
51 FR 7935
4/18/88
53 FR 12680
1/19/89
54 FR 2124
12/23/88
53 FR 51780
astate top-priority site.
On Interim Priorities List (October 23, 1981) or Expanded Eligibility List (July 23, 1982) but response completed before
proposal of first NPL (47 FR 58476, December 30, 1982). No Intent Notice.
C0n first proposed NPL (47 FR 58476, December 30, 1982) but response completed before first NPL promulgated (48 FR 40658,
September 8, 1983). No Intent Notice.
NOTE: Butler Mine Tunnel, Pittston, PA, on Interim Priorities List (October 23, 1981) but deleted before proposal of first
NPL (47 FR 58476, December 30, 1982); reproposed June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21099); listed July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620).
45
-------
SITES WITH IOTEOT TO DELETE NOTICES
State/Site Name/Location
FR Notice
Alabama (AL)
Mowbray Engineering Co., Greenville
8/5/88
53 FR 29484
California (CA)
Jibboom Junkyard, Sacramento
Illinois (IL)
Petersen Sand & tSravel, Libertyville
Indiana (IN)
International Minerals & Chemical Corp.
(Terre Haute East Plant) , Terre Haute
Poer Farm, Hancock County
Kentucky
A. L. Taylor (Valley of Drums) , Brooks
Lee's Lane Landfill, Louisville
Newport Dump, Newport
5/24/89
54 FR 22455
9/22/89
54 FR 39011
9/22/89
54 FR 39009
9/21/89
54 FR 38876
7/11/88
53 FR 26090
5/16/88
53 FR 17228
5/16/88
53 FR 17228
Tennessee (TN)
Gallaway Pits, Gallaway
5/16/88
53 FR 17228
46
-------
Proposed Sites Removed From Consideration for NPL
August 1990
Date
^
st
AR
AR
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
OE
DE
FL
Site Name
Crittenden County Landfill
. Magnolia City Landfill
Kingman Airport Industrial Area
Concord Naval Weapons Station
FMC Corp. (Fresno Plant)
G8F, Inc., Dump
Hewlett-Packard
IBM Corp. (San Jose Plant)
Kaiser Steel Corp.(Fontana Plant)
Kearney- KPF
Harley Cooling Tower Co.
Precision Monolithic, Inc.
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc./Zoecon Corp. (once listed as Zoecon Corp./
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.)
Signetics, Inc.
Solvent Service, Inc.
Southern Pacific Transportation
Van. Waters & Rogers, Inc.
Hartin-Marietta(Denver Aerospace)
Old Brine Sludge Landfill
Pigeon Point Landfill
Davidson Lumber Co.
Location
Marion
Magnolia
Kingman
Concord
Fresno
Antioch
Palo Alto
San Jose
Fontana
Stockton
Stockton
Santa Clara.
East Palo Alto
Sunnyvale
San Jose
Roseville
San Jose
water-ton
Delaware City
New Castle
South Miami
Proposed or
Announced
12/30/82
47 FR 58476
12/30/82
47 FR 58476
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
6/24/88
53 FR 23988
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
6/24/88
53 FR 23988
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
9/18/85
50 FR 37950
9/08/83
48 FR 40674
1/22/87
52 FR 2492
10/15/84
Removed
Score*
9/08/83
48 FR 40658
8/24/90
9/21 /84C
49 FR 37070
8/24/90
10/04/89
54 FR 41015
6/10/86
51 FR 21054
9/21/84
49 FR 37070
10/04/89
54 FR 41015
6/10/86
Policyb
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
8/24/90
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
8/24/90
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
49 FR 40320 51 FR 21054
47
-------
Proposed Sites Removed From Consideration for NPL
August 1990
Date
St
Ft
a
GA
1A
IA
IA
IA
ID
11
a
a
IX
1H
IN
KS
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
Site Name
Kontco Research Products, Inc.
Pratt I Whitney Aircraft/United Technologies Corp.
Olin Corp. (Areas 1,2 & 4)
A.Y. HcOonald Industries, Inc.
Frit Industries (Hunboldt Plant)
John Deere (Dubuque Works)
U.S. Naraeplate Co.
Flynn Lumber Co.
Sheffield (US Ecology, Inc.)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Chicago Heights Plant)
Warner Electric irake & Clutch Co
Firestone Industrial Products Co.
Mccarty's Bald Knob Landfill
Parrot Road Durcp
National Industrial Environmental Services
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (Montague Plant)
Ford Hotor Co. (Sludge Lagoon)
Hooker (Montague Plant)
Lacks Industries, Inc.
Lcrwwe* Disposal Service, Inc., Landfill
Littlcfield Township Dun
Location
Hoi lister
. West Palm Beach
Augusta
Dubuque
Humboldt
Dubuque
Mount Vernon
Caldwell
Sheffield
Chicago Heights
Roscoe
Noblesville
Ht. Vernon
New Haven
Furley
Montague
Ypsilanti
Montague
Grand Rapids
Adrian
Oden
Proposed or
Announced
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
9/18/85
50 FR 37950
9/08/83
48 FR 40674
9/18/85
50 FR 37950
4/10/85
50 FR 14115
9/18/85
. 50 FR 37950
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
12/30/82
47 FR 58476
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
1/22/87
52 FR 2492
9/18/85
50 FR 37950
1/22/87
52 FR 2492
12/30/82
47 FR 58476
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
9/18/85
50 FR 37950
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
12/30/82
Remove<
Score3
3/31/89
54 FR 13296
9/08/83
48 FR 40658
10/04/89
54 FR 41015
10/04/89
54 FR 41015
9/08/83
48 FR 40658
3/31/89
54 FR 13296
8/24/90
6/10/86
51 FR 21054
9/21/84
1 ~~^P
Policyb
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
A
8/24/90^P
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
47 FR 58476 49 FR 37070
-------
Proposed Sites Removed From Consideration for MPL
August 1990
Date
st
MS
MS
NE
NE
NJ
NJ
NJ
OH
OK
PA
\
'PA
Site Name
Gautier Oil Co., Inc.
Plastifax, Inc.
Monroe Auto Equipment Co.
Phillips Chemical Co.
Horstmann's Dump
Jame Fine Chemical
Matlack, Inc.
General Electric Co. (Coshocton Plant)
SunrayOil Co. Refinery
Keyser Avenue Borehole
Rohm and Haas Co. Landfill
Location
Gautier
Gulf port
Cozad
Beatrice
East Hanover
Bound Brook
Woolwich Township
Coshocton
Allen
Scranton
Bristol Township
Proposed or
Announced
7/23/82
9/18/85
50 FR 37950
12/30/82
47 FR 58476
1/22/87
52 FR 2492
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
9/18/85
50 FR 37950
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
4/10/85
50 FR 14115
Removed
Score8
8/24/90
9/08/83d
48 FR 40658
9/08/83
48 FR 40658
3/31/89
54 FR 13296
6/10/866
51 FR 21054
8/24/90
2/21/90
55 FR 6154
Policyb
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
TX Pig Road
TX Rio Grande Oil Co. Refinery
UT Mayflower Mountain Tailings Pond
UT Olson/Neihart Reservoir
UT Silver Creek Tailings
VA IBM Corp. (Manassas Plant Spill)
WA QuendalL Terminal
WA Rosch Property
UI Fort Howard Paper Co. Sludge Lagoons
WV Mobay Chemical Corp. (New Martinsville Plant)
New Waverly
Sour Lake
Wasatch County
Wasatch County
Park City
Manassas
Renton
Roy
Green Bay
New Martinsville
9/08/83 6/10/86
48 FR 40674 51 FR 21054
8/24/90
10/15/84 6/10/86
49 FR 40320 51 FR 21054
10/15/84 3/31/89
49 FR 40320 54 FR 13296
9/18/85 10/17/86f
50 FR 37950
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
10/15/84 6/10/86
49 FR 40320 51 FR 21054
9/08/83 9/21/84
48 FR 40674 49 FR 37070
8/24/90
10/15/84
49 FR 40320
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
10/04/89
54 FR 41000
49
-------
Proposed Sites Removed From Consideration for NPL
August 1990
Date
Removed
Proposed or .--•••---••--•-------/••
St Sfte Name Location Announced Score* Policy
Nuifcer of site* removed: 63 (plus 2 additional sites)9
"Final HRS score below 28.50, except as noted.
Subject to RCRA Subtitle C.
Contamination occurs naturally.
dOn Expanded Eligibility List (July 23, 1982) announced before proposal of first NPL (47 FR 58476, December 30, 1982);
rwoved because State withdrew top-priority designation.
'included in «rook Industrial Park, placed on NPL October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41015).
^Removed per SARA Section 118(p).
9Alltn Transformer, Fort Smith, AR, on Interim Priorities List announced October 23, 1981; removed at proposal of first
HPL (47 FR 58476, December 30, 1982), HRS score below 28.50.
Fort Lincoln Barrel Site, DC, on Interim Priorities List announced October 23, 1981; removed at proposal
Of first HPL (47 FR 58476, December 30, 1982), a Federal Facility ineligible at the time.
NOTES Van Dale Junkyard, Marietta. OH. in first proposed NPL (47 FR 58476. »•«•*" »'122>-n2T°ved Se"tember 8' 1983
(48 FR 40658); reproposed October 15, 1984 (49 FR 40320); listed June -10, 1986 (51 FR 21054).
50
-------
National Priorities.List,
Final and Proposed Sites Per State/Territory
(by Total Sites)
August 1990
State/Territory
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
California
New York
Michigan
Florida
Washington
•Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
Texas
Massachusetts
Missouri
South Carolina
North Carolina
Iowa
Delaware
Virginia
Kentucky
Colorado
New Hampshire
Connecticut
Tennessee
Georgia
Alabama
Utah .
Arizona
Kansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Arkansas
Maryland
Montana
New Mexico
Idaho
Maine
Puerto Rico
Oregon
Vermont
Hawaii-
Alaska
Nebraska
West Virginia
South Dakota
Wyoming
Mississippi
North Dakota
Guam
Nevada
American Samoa
Commonwealth of Marianas
District of Columbia
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
Non-Fed
103
91
66
79
78
47
31
40
39
32
35
30
25
22
19
22
21
19
19
19
17
13
15
14
12
11
10
5
7
10
10
9
9
10
7
8
8
7
7
8
7
8
0
2
5
5
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Fed
6
4
20
4
0
4
14
2
0
4
0
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
3
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
1
1
0
1
4
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Non-Fed
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
109
95
88
83
78
51
45
42
39
37
35
33
28
25
24
23
22
21
20
20
17
16
16
15
14
13
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
7
6
6
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
o
0
Total
1071
116
20
1207
51
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by EPA Region)
August 1990
Final
Proposed
Reg State/Territory
01 Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
02 New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
03 District of Columbia
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
04 Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Non-Fed
14
22
7
15
9
8
75
103
79
8
0
190
0
19
7
91
19
5
141
10
47
11
17
2
21
22
12
Fed Non-Fed Fed
1
3
2
1
2
0
9
6
4
1
•o
11
0
1
2
4
1
0
8
2
4
2
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
15
25
9
16
11
8
84
109
83
9
0
201
0
20
10
95
20
5
150
12
51
13
17
2
22
23
14
142
12
154
52
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by EPA Region)
August 1990
Reg
05
06
07
08
State/Territory
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louis iana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Fina
Non-Fed
32
35
78
40
30
39
254
10
10
8
9
25
62
19
10
19
5
53
13
8
2
2
5
2
1
Fed
4
0
0
2
3
0
9
0
1
2
1
3
7
1
1
3
1
6
3
0
0
1
4
1
Propos
Non-Fed
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
3
0
2
0
0
3
0
ed
Fed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
37
35
78
42
33
39
264
10
11
10
11
28
70
21
11
24
6
62
16
10
2
3
12
3
32
46
53
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by EPA Region)
August 1990
Final
Reg State/Territory Non-Fed
09 American Samoa
Arizona
California
Commonwealth of Marianas
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territories
10 Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
0
7
66
0
1
0
1
0
75
2
7
7
31
Proposed
Fed Non-Fed Fed
0
3
20
0
0
1
0
0
24
4
2
1
14
0
1
2
0
0
6
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
11
88
0
1
7
1
0
108
6
9
8
45
47
21
68
Total
1071
116
20
1207
-------
Media
Air
Ul
Surface Hat*IP
Ground Mater
National Priorities List,
Observed ContaHination at 1207 Final and
Proposed Sites
11.93
1O 20
-------
Activity
Ul
Hast* Piles
Other
Tanks
DruMS
Recycling
Surface lMi»oun«lM«nts
Landfills
Manufacturing
National Priorities List,
Types of Activities at 1207 Final and
Proposed Sites
-------
Types of Activities at 1207 Final and Proposed Sites
Ordered by Total NPL
August 1990
Activity
Final
Proposed
Total
Surface impoundments
Landfills , commercial/industrial
Containers/drums
Other manufacturing/industrial
Landfills, municipal
Spills
Chemical processing/manufacturing
Waste piles
Leaking containers
Tanks , above ground
Tanks , below ground
Ground-water plumes
Electroplating
Military testing & maintenance
Wood-preserving
Open burning
Waste -oil processing
Ore processing/refining/smelting
Military ordnc. prod./stor./disp.
Outfall, surface water
Solvent recovery
Landfarm, land treatment/spreading
Battery recycling
Incinerators
Mining sites, surface
Drum recycling
Underground injection
Sand and gravel pits
Road oiling
Mining sites, subsurface
Explosive disposal/detonation
Laundries/dry cleaners
Sinkholes
Tire storage/recycling
437
419
302
233
230
196
168
116
116
111
78
71
69
62
55 ,
54
47
45
40
36
34
33
25
19
17
14
13
11
9
9
10
9
7
2
6
0
1
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
3
7
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
443
419
303
235
231
197
172
120
117
112
81
78
69
62
56
54
49
47
40
38
34
33
25
19
17
14
13
11
10
10
10
9
7
2
Total Sites*:
1187
20
1207
* Since each site may have more than one activity,
is greater than the number of sites.
the number of activities
57
-------
National Priorities List,
Federal Facility Sites (by State)
August 1990
st
AX
AX
AX
AX
AL
AL
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
VA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
Site Name
Et olson Mr Force Base
Elwendorf Air Force Base
Fort Wainwright
Standard Steel & Hetals Salvage Yard (USOOT)
4 Final + 0 Proposed = 4
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
Anniston Array Depot (Southeast Industrial Area)
2 Final +" 0 Proposed == 2
Luke Air Force Base
Williams Air Force Base
YUM Marine Corps Air station
3 Final + 0 Proposed = 3
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base
Cafiip Pendleton Marine Corps Base
Castle Air Force Base
Edwards Air Force Base
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
Fort Ord
George Air Force Base
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USOOE)
Lawrence Liverraore National Laboratory (Site 300) (USOOE)
March Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base (once listed as Mather Air Force Base CAC&W
Disposal Site))
McClellan Air Force Base (Ground Water Contamination)
Hoffett Naval Air Station
Horton Air Force Base
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant
Sacramento Army Depot
Sharpe Array Depot
Tracy Defense Depot
Travis Air Force Base
Treasure Island Haval Station- Hunters Point Annex
20 Final + 0 Proposed * 20
Air Force Plant PJKS
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Bockv Mountain Arsenal
City/County
Fairbanks N Star Bor
Greater Anchorage Bo
Fairbanks N Star Bor
Anchorage
Childersburg
Anniston
Glendale
Chandler
Yuma
Barstow
San Diego County
Merced
Kern County
El Toro
Marina
Victorville
Livermore
Livermore
Riverside
Sacramento
Sacramento
Sunnyvale
San Bernardino
Riverbank
Sacramento
Lathrop
Tracy
Solano County
San Francisco
Uaterton
Golden
Adams County
Date
Proposed
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
10/84
10/84
7/89
7/89
6/88
7/89
7/89
10/84
7/89
6/88
7/89
7/89
10/84
7/89
7/89
10/84
10/84
4/85
10/84
6/88
10/84
10/84
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
10/84
10/84
Final
11/89
8/90
8/90
8/90
7/87
3/89
8/90
11/89
2/90
11/89
11/89
7/87
8/90
2/90
2/90
2/90
7/87
8/90
11/89
11/89
7/87
7/87
7/87
2/90
7/87
7/87
8/90
•11/89
11/89
11/89
10/89
7/87
UDt
Nru
Group
5
7
8
6
13
4
12
12
18
12
16
12
17
13
9
17
9
19
S(
2
21
11
1
7
9
13
21
5
8
1
2
3 Final *- 0 Proposed » 3
CT Hew London Submarine Base
1 Final * 0 Proposed * 1
DE Dover Air Force Base
1 Final * 0 Proposed » 1
FL Cecil Field Naval Air Station
FL Honesteed Air Force Base
FL Jacksonville Naval Air Station
FL Ptntacola Naval Air Station
4 Final * 0 Proposed » 4
New London
Dover
Jacksonville
Homestead
Jacksonville
Pensacola
10/89
10/84
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
8/90
3/89
11/89
8/90
11/89
11/89
13
13
18
8
18
8
58
-------
National Priorities List,
Federal Facility Sites (by State)
August 1990
w
st
GA
GA
HI
IA
ID
ID
IL
IL
a
IL
KS
fc
m
HA
HA
HA
MD
HO
HE
HE
HN
HN
HO
HO
Site Name
Harine Corps Logistics Base
Robins Air Force Base (Landfill iW/Sludge Lagoon) (once listed as
Robins Air Force Base)
2 Final + 0 Proposed = 2
Schofield Barracks
1 Final + 0 Proposed = 1
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
1 Final + 0 Proposed = 1
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE)
Mountain Home Air Force Base
2 Final + 0 Proposed = 2
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant (Load-Assembly-Packing Area)
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant (Manufacturing Area)
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (USDOI)
Savanna Army Depot Activity
4 Final + 0 Proposed = 4
Fort Riley
1 Final + 0 Proposed = 1
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant
1 Final + 0 Proposed = 1
Fort Devens
Fort 0 evens -Sudbury Training Annex
Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards
3 Final + 0 Proposed = 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area)
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Michaelsville Landfill)
• 2 Final + 0 Proposed = 2
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Loring Air Force Base
2 Final + 0 Proposed » 2
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant
Twin Cities Air Force Reserve Base (Small Arms Range Landfill)
2 Final + 0 Proposed * 2
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (Northwest Lagoon)
we I don Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits (USOOE/Army) (once listed as We I don
City/County
Albany
Houston County
Oahu
Hiddletown
Idaho Falls
Mountain Home
Joliet
Joliet
Carterville
Savanna-
Junction City
Doyline
Fort Devens
Middlesex County
Falmouth
Edgewood
Aberdeen
Brunswick
Limestone
Fridley
Minneapolis
Independence
St. Charles County
Date
Proposed
7/89
10/84
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
4/85
10/84
10/84
10/84
7/89
10/84
7/89
7/89
7/89
4/85
4/85
10/84
7/89
7/89
1/87
10/84
10/84
Final
11/89
7/87
8/90
8/90
11/89
8/90
3/89
7/87
7/87
3/89
8/90
3/89
11/89
2/90
11/89
2/90
10/89
7/87
2/90
11/89
7/87
7/87
7/87
UDI
NPL
Group
7
4
22
21
4
3
15
18
8
9
16
20
9
14
6
3
19
8
15
20
17
17
1
Spring Quarry (USOOE/Army)}
MO WeIdon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works
3 Final + 0 Proposed » 3
St. Charles County
7/89
2/90
20
59
-------
National Priorities List,
Federal Facility Sites
-------
National Priorities List,
Federal Facility Sites (by State)
August 1990
Site Name
City/County
Date
Proposed
NPL
Final Group
R! Newport Naval Education & Training Center
2 Final + 0 Proposed = 2
SC Savannah River Site (USDOE)
1 Final + 0 Proposed = 1
SD Ellsworth Air Force Base
1 Final *• 0 Proposed = 1
TN Milan Army Ammunition Plant
TN Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
2 Final + 0 Proposed = 2
TX Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics)
TX Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
TX Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
3 Final + 0 Proposed = 3
UT Hill Air Force Base
UT Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
UT Ogden Defense Depot
UT Tooele Army Depot (North Area)
4 Final + 0 Proposed = 4
_VA Defense General Supply Center
1 Final + 0 Proposed
1
WA Bangor Naval Submarine Base
WA Bangor Ordnance Disposal
WA Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex (USDOE)
WA Fail-child Air Force Base (4 Waste Areas)
WA Fort Lewis (Landfill No. 5)
WA Fort Lewis Logistics Center
WA Hanford 100-Area (USDOE)
WA Hanford 1100-Area (USDOE)
WA Hanford 200-Area (USOOE)
WA Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
WA McChord Air Force Base (Wash Rack/Treatment Area)
WA Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (Ault Field)
WA Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (Seaplane Base)
WA Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station (4 Waste Areas)
14 Final + 0 Proposed * 14
WY F.E. Warren Air Force Base
1 Final + 0 Proposed » 1
116 Final + 0 Proposed = 116
Newport 7/89 11/89 18
Aiken 7/89 11/89
Rapid City 10/89 8/90 17
Milan 10/84 7/87 2
Oak Ridge 7/89 11/89 4
Fort Worth 10/84 8/90 10
Texarkana 10/84 7/87 19
Karnack 7/89 8/90 11
Ogden 10/84 7/87 5
Monticello 7/89 11/89 13
Ogden 10/84 7/87 7
Tooele 10/84 8/90 3
Chesterfield County 10/84 7/87 16
Silverdale 7/89 8/90 3
Bremerton 10/84 7/87 20
Vancouver 7/89 11/89 3
Spokane County 6/88 3/89 18
Tacoma 10/84 7/87 16
Tillicum 7/89 11/89 14
Benton County 6/88 10/89 6
Benton County 6/88 10/89 13
Benton County 6/88 10/89 1
Benton County 6/88 10/89 1
Tacoma 10/84 7/87 9
Whidbey Island 9/85 2/90 5
Whidbey Island 9/85 2/90 11
Keyport 6/86 10/89 17
Cheyenne 7/89 2/90 11
61
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AR
AR
Aft
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
Site Name
Alaska Battery Enterprises
Arctic Surplus
Eielson Air Force Base
Elmendorf Afr Force Base
Fort Wainviright
Standard Steel & Metals Salvage Yard (USOOT)
6 Final + 0 Proposed * 6
Alabama Amy Anmunition Plant
Annistoo Amy Depot (Southeast Industrial Area)
Ciba-Ccigy Corp. (Hclntosh Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (I LCD)
Howbray Engineering Co.
OUn Corp. (Hclntosh Plant)
Pcrdido Ground Uater Contamination
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeMoyne Plant)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. (Montgomery Plant)
Triana/Tennessee River (once listed as Triana (Redstone) Arsenal)
12 Final + 0 Proposed = 12
Arkwood, Inc.
Frit Industries
Cur ley Pit
Industrial Waste Control
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill
Mid-South Wood Products
Midland Products
Monroe Auto Equipment Co. (Peragould Pit)
Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
Vertac, Inc.
10 Final + 0 Proposed = 10
Apache Powder Co.
Hassayampa Landfill
Indian Bend Wash Area
Litchfield Airport Area
Luke Air Force Base
Mesa Area Ground Water Contamination
Motorola, Inc. (52nd Street Plant)
nineteenth Avenue Landfill
Tucson International Airport Area
Williams Air Force Base
Yuna Marine Corps Air Station
10 Final + 1 Proposed « 11
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (Building 915)
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Aerojet General Corp.
Applied Materials
I
City/County i
Fairbanks N Star Bor
Fairbanks
Fairbanks N Star Bor
Greater Anchorage Bo
Fairbanks N Star Bor
Anchorage
Childersburg
Ann is ton
Hclntosh
Leeds
Greenville
Hclntosh
Perdido
Saraland
Bucks
Axis
Montgomery
Limestone/Morgan
Omaha
Walnut Ridge
Edmondson
Fort Smith
Jacksonville
Mena
Ola/Birta
Paragould
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
St. David
Hassayampa
Scot tsda 1 e/Tmpe/Phnx
Goodyear/ Avonda I e
Glendale
Mesa
Phoenix
Phoenix
Tucson
Chandler
Yuma
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Rancho Cordova
Santa Clara
Proposed or
*nnounced1
6/88
10/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
7/89
10/84
10/84
9/83
9/85
12/82
9/83
12/82
6/88
9/83
9/83
6/88
10/81
9/85
10/81
12/82
12/82
1/87
10/81
10/84
10/89
1/87
10/81
6/86
6/86
12/82
12/82
7/89
f /OX
o/oo
10/84
10/81
7/82
7/89
6/88
6/88
10/84
10/81
10/84
Rank/
Final Group,
3/89 948
8/90 436
11/89 Gr 5F
8/90 Gr 7F
8/90 Gr 8F
8/90 Gr 6F
7/87 Gr 13F
3/89 Gr 4F
9/84 136
6/86 371
9/83 129
9/84 506
9/83 981
2/90 953
9/84 266
9/84 864
8/90 332
9/83 31
3/89 1035
9/83 5^fe
9/83 <*^D
9/83 97ST
7/87 1011
9/83 308
6/86 959
8/90 293
7/87 1012
9/83 18
8/90 521
7/87 374
9/83 429
9/83 305
8/90 Gr 12F
Pr 17
ur I r
10/89 466
9/83 125
9/83 73
11/89 Gr 12F
2/90 Gr 18F
8/90 901
6/86 586
9/83 118
7/87 896
• State top priority site
Is Date first eliflibl. for Superfund action. First NPL proposed 12/82. Sites announced earlier in the
Interim Priorities List (10/81) and Expanded Eligibility List (7/82) were included in the first proposed NPL.
2: Sites on the final NPL are numbered. Proposed NPL sites and all Federal Facility sites (F) are
placed into groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the final NPL.
62
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
.CA
Site Name
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base
Beckman Instruments (Porterville Plant)
Brown & Bryant, Inc.CArvin Plant)
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base
Castle Air Force Base
Celtor Chemical Works
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
Coast Wood Preserving
Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill
CTS Printex, Inc.
Del Norte Pesticide Storage
Edwards Air Force Base
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. (Mountain View Plant) (once listed as
Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp. (Mountain View Plant))
Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. (South San Jose Plant) (once listed as
Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp. (South San Jose Plant))
.Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Salinas Plant)
Fort Ord
Fresno Municipal Sanitary Landfill
George Air Force Base
Hewlett-Packard (620-640 Page Mill Road)
Hexcel Corp.
Industrial Waste Processing
Intel Corp. (Mountain View Plant)
Intel Corp. (Santa Clara III)
Intel Magnetics
Intersil Inc. /Siemens Components
Iron Mountain Mine
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Jibboom Junkyard
(Coppers Co., Inc. (Oroville Plant)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Site 300) (USDOE)
Liquid Gold Oil Corp.
Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
March Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base (once listed as Mather Air Force Base (AC&W
Disposal Site))
McClellan Air Force Base (Ground Water Contamination)
McColl
MGM Brakes
Modesto Ground Water Contamination
Moffett Naval Air Station
Monolithic Memories
Hoot rose Chemical Corp.
National Semiconductor Corp.
Newmark Ground Water Contamination
Norton Air Force Base
Operating Industries, Inc., Landfill
Pacific Coast Pipe Lines
Purity Oil Sales, Inc.
Raytheon Corp.
River bank Army Ammunition Plant
Sacramento Army Depot
Son Fernando Valley (Area 1)
City/County
Fresno County
Barstow
Porterville
Arvin
San Diego County
Merced
Hoopa
Coalinga
Ukiah
Salinas
Mountain View
Crescent City
Kern County
El Toro
Mountain View
South San Jose
Salinas
Marina
Fresno
Victorville
Palo Alto
Livermore
Fresno
Mountain View
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Cupertino
Redding
Weed
Mountain View
Sacramento
Oroville
Livermore
Livermore
Richmond
San Jose
Orovi I le
Riverside
Sacramento
Sacramento
Fullerton
Cloverdale
Modesto
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Torrance
Santa Clara
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
Monterey Park
Fillmore
Malaga
Mountain View
Riverbank
Sacramento
Los Angclts
Proposed or
Announced.
9/83
7/89
10/84
6/88
7/89
10/84
12/82
9/83
12/82
6/88
6/88
9/83
7/89
6/88
10/84
10/84
10/84
7/89
6/88
7/89
6/88
6/88
10/89
10/84
10/84
10/84
6/88
10/81
10/84
6/88
12/82
9/83
10/84
7/89
12/82
10/84
10/84
7/89
10/84
10/84
12/82
12/82
6/88
4/85
10/84
10/84
10/84
6/88
10/84
10/84
6/88
12/82
10/84
6/88
10/84
10/84
Final
9/84
11/89
6/86
10/89
11/89
7/87
9/83
9/84
9/83
8/90
2/90
9/84
8/90
2/90
10/89
7/87
2/90
10/89
2/90
2/90
8/90
8/90
6/86
6/86
6/86
8/90
9/83
10/89
10/89
9/83
9/84
7/87
8/90
9/83
10/89
6/86
11/89
11/89
7/87
9/83
9/83
3/89
7/87
7/87
10/89
7/87
3/89
7/87
6/86
10/89
9/83
6/86
2/90
7/87
6/86
Rank/
Group2
310
Gr 12F
755
144
Gr 16F
Gr 12F
979
311
327
588
822
650
Gr \1F
Gr I3F
Gr 18
333
306
Gr 9F
682
Gr 17F
1008
587
188
1006
898
897
1053
104
725
697
1036
800
Gr 9F
Gr 19F
357
771
801
Gr 19F
Gr 22F
Gr 2F
448
729
1054
Gr 21F
680
875
681
683
Gr 11F
102
296
358
1007
Gr 1F
Gr 7F
432
63
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
55555
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
Ct
Site Home
San Fernando Valley (Area 2)
San Fernando Valley (Area 3)
San Fernando Valley (Area 4)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 1)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 2)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 3)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 4)
Setma Treating Co.
Sharpe Army Depot
Sola Optical USA,' Inc.
South Bay Asbestos Area (once listed as Alviso Dumping Area)
Southern California Edison Co. (Visalia Poleyard)
Spectra-Physics, Inc.
Stringfellow *
Sulphur iank Mercury Mine
Synertek, Inc. (Building 1)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. (once listed as Thompson- Haywood
Chemical Co.)
Teledyne Semiconductor
Tracy Defense Depot
Travis Air Force Base
Treasure Island Kaval Station-Hunters Point Annex
TRW Microwave, Ine (Building 825)
United Heckathorn Co.
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Waste Disposal, Inc.
Watkins-Johnson Co. (Stewart Division)
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Sunnyvale Plant)
86 Final + 2 Proposed = 88
Air Force Plant PJKS
Brodcrick Wood Products
California Gulch
Central City-clear Creek
Chemical Sales Co.
Denver Radius Site
Eagle Mine
Lincoln Park
Lowry Landfill
Marshall Landfill *
Rocky Flats Plant (USOOE)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Sand Creek Industrial
Smuggler Mountain
Uravan Uranium Project (Union Carbide Corp.)
Woodbury Chemical Co.
16 Final *• 0 Proposed « 16
Sarkhamsted-Hew Hartford Landfill
Beacon Heights Landfill
Cheshire Ground Water Contamination (once listed as Cheshire
Associates Property)
Durham Meadows
Gallop's Quarry
Kellogg-Deering Well Field
Lwrtl Park, Inc. (once listed as Laurel Park Landfill) *
City/County
Los Angeles/Glendale
Glendale
Los Angeles
El Monte
Baldwin Park Area
Alhambra
La Puente
Selma
Lathrop
Petaluma
Alviso
Visalia
Mountain View
Glen Avon Heights
Clear Lake
Santa Clara
Fresno
Mountain View
Tracy
Solano County
San Francisco
Sunnyvale
Richmond
Turlock
Santa Fe Springs
Scotts Valley
Orovi I le
Sunnyvale
Waterton
Denver
Leadville
Idaho Springs
Denver
Denver
Minturn/Redcliff
Canon City
Arapahoe County
Boulder County
Golden -
Adams County
Commerce City
Pitkin County
Uravan
Commerce City
Barkhamsted
Beacon Falls
Cheshire
Durham
Plainfield
Norwalk
Naugatuck Borough
Proposed or
Announced^
10/84
10/84
10/84
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
12/82
10/84
6/88
10/84
1/87
6/88
10/81
6/88
6/88
10/84
10/84
7/89
7/89
7/89
6/88
10/89
6/88
6/86
1/87
10/89
10/84
7/89
9/83
12/82
7/82
6/88
10/81
10/84
9/83
9/83
7/82
10/84
10/84
12/82
10/84
10/84
7/82
6/88
12/82
6/88
6/88
6/88
9/83
10/81
Final
6/86
6/86
6/86
5/84
5/84
5/84
5/84
9/83
7/87
2/90
6/86
3/89
9/83
8/90
10/89
6/86
7/87
8/90
11/89
11/89
2/90
3/90
3/89
7/87
8/90
8/90
6/86
11/89
9/84
9/83
9/83
8/90
9/83
6/86
9/84
9/84
9/83
10/89
7/87
9/83
6/86
6/86
9/83
10/89
9/83
8/90
10/89
10/89
9/84
9/83
Rank/
433
434
679
430
431
1050
1051
228
Gr 9F
832
328
224
Gr 10
32
335
900
435
701
Gr 13F
Gr 21F
Gr 5F
899
537
883
736
-M
^r
Gr 8F
710
106
179
584
340
258
927
235
86
Gr 1F
Gr 2F
36
928
352
322
563
265
662
768
282
498
85
64
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
St Site Name
CT Linemaster Switch Corp.
CT New London Submarine Base
CT Nutmeg Valley Road
CT Old South ing ton Landfill
CT Precision Plating Corp.
CT Revere Textile Prints Corp.
CT Solvents Recovery Service of New England
CT Yaworski Waste Lagoon
15 Final +' 0 Proposed = 15
DE Army Creek Landfill (once listed as Delaware Sand & Gravel-Llangollen
Army Creek Landfills)
DE Chem-Solv, Inc.
DE Coker's Sanitation Service Landfills
DE Delaware City PVC Plant (once listed as Stauffer Chemical Co.)
DE Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill (once listed as Delaware Sand &
Gravel-Llangollen Army Creek Landfills)
DE Dover Air Force Base
DE Dover Gas Light Co.
DE E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (Newport Pigment Plant Landfill)
DE Ha I by Chemical Co.
DE Harvey. S Knott Drum, Inc.
DE Kent County Landfill (Houston)
DE Koppers Co., Inc. (Newport Plant)
DE NCR Corp. (Hillsboro Plant)
|DE New Castle Spill (once listed as TRIS Spill)
i>E Sea I and Limited
*DE Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc
DE Sussex County Landfill No. 5
DE Tytxxjts Corner Landfill *
DE Tyler Refrigeration Pit
DE Wildcat Landfill
20 Final ••• 0 Proposed = 20
FL Agrico Chemical Co.
FL Airco Plating Co.
FL Alpha Chemical Corp.
FL American Creosote Works, Inc. (Pensacola Plant)
(once listed as American Creosote Works)
FL Anaconda Aluminum Co./Hilgo Electronics Corp.
FL Anodyne, Inc.
FL B&B Chemical Co., Inc.
FL Beulah Landfill
FL BM I -Textron
FL Brown Wood Preserving
FL Cabot/Koppers
FL Cecil Field Naval Air Station
FL Chemform, Inc.
FL City Industries, Inc.
FL Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co.
FL Davie Landfill (once listed as Broward County Solid Waste
Disposal Facility)
FL Dubose Oi I Products Co.
FL Florida Steel Corp.
FL Gold Coast Oil Corp.
FL Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) (once listed as Harris Corp. /General
Development Utilities)
City/County
Woodstock
New London
Wolcott
South ing ton
Vernon
Sterling
South ing ton
Canterbury
New Castle County
Cheswold
Kent County
Delaware City
New Castle County
Dover
Dover
Newport
New Castle
Kirkwood
Houston
Newport
Millsboro
New Castle County
Mount Pleasant
Delaware City
Laurel
New Castle County
Smyrna
Dover
Pensacola
Miami
Galloway
Pensacola
Miami
North Miami Beach
Hialeah
Pensacola
Lake Park
Live Oak
Gainesville
Jacksonville
Porcpano Beach
Orlando
Whitehouse
Davie
Cantonment
Indiantown
Miami
Palm Bay
Proposed or
Announced^
6/88
10/89
1/87
9/83
6/88
6/86
12/82
12/82
10/81
1/87
4/85
10/81
10/81
10/84
1/87
1/87
9/85
7/82
6/88
10/89
4/85
12/82
6/88
9/85
6/88
10/81
6/86
12/82
6/88
6/88
10/81
10/81
10/89
6/88
6/88
6/88
6/88
12/82
9/83
7/89
6/88
10/84
10/81
10/81
10/84
12/82
10/81
4/85
Final
2/90
8/90
3/89
9/84
10/89
7/87
9/83
9/83
9/83
8/90
7/87
9/83
9/83
3/89
10/89
2/90
6/86
9/83
8/90
8/90
7/87
9/83
8/90
7/87
10/89
9/83
2/90
9/83
10/89
2/90
9/83
9/83
8/90
2/90
8/90
2/90
8/90
9/83
9/84
11/89
10/89
10/89
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
7/87
Rank/
Group2
802
Gr 13F
379
122
214
459
321
624
9
573
160
971
271
Gr 13F
665
170
951
956
814
826
547
544
838
689
1043
2
769
966
319
391
360
51
942
941
699
552
703
312
627
Gr 18F
576
885
286
69
757
298
77
672
65
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
St Site Name
1 Final + 6 Proposed = 7
IA Aidex Corp. *
IA Chemplex Co.
IA Des Koines TCE (once listed as DICO)
IA E.I. Ou Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (County Road X23)
IA Electro-Coatings, Inc.
IA Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant
IA Farmers' Mutual Cooperative
IA Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
IA John Deere (Ottunua Works Landfills)
IA LaBounty Site
IA Laurence Todtz Farm
IA Lehigh Portland Cement Co.
IA Mid-America Tanning Co.
IA Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm
IA Northwestern States Portland Cement Co.
IA Peoples Natural Gas Co.
IA Red Oak City Landfill
IA Shaw Avenue Dump
IA Sheller-Globe Corp. Disposal
i Vogel Paint & Wax Co.
IA White Farm Equipment Co. Dump
20 Final + 1 Proposed = 21
ID Arrcom (Drexler Enterprises)
ID Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
ID Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination
ID Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USDOE)
ID Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (Soda Springs Plant)
ID Monsanto Chemical Co. (Soda Springs Plant)
ID Mountain Home Air Force Base
ID Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling Co.
ID Union Pacific Railroad Co.
9 Final + 0 Proposed * 9
IL A & F Material Reclaiming, Inc.
IL Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. (Morristown Plant)
IL Adams County Quincy Landfills 2&3
IL Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill)
IL Beloit Corp.
IL Belvidere Municipal Landfill
IL Byron Salvage Yard
IL Central Illinois Public Service Co.
IL Cross Brothers Pail Recycling (Pembroke)
IL DuPage County Landfill/Blackwell Forest Preserve
IL Galesburg/Koppers Co.
IL H.O.D. Landfill
IL Ilada Energy Co.
IL Interstate Pollution Control, Inc.
IL Johns-Manville Corp.
City/County
Proposed or
Announced. Final
Council Bluffs
CIi nton/Camanche
Des Moines
West Point
Cedar Rapids
Fairfield
Hospers
Middletown
Ottumwa
Charles City
Camanche
Mason City
Sergeant Bluff
Kellogg
Mason City
Dubuque
Red Oak
Charles City
Keokuk
Orange City
Charles City
Rathdrum
Smelterville
Pocatello
Idaho Falls
Soda Springs
Soda Springs
Mountain Home
Pocatello
Pocatello
Greenup
Morristown
Quincy
Joliet
Rockton
Belvidere
Byron
Taylorville
Pembroke Township
Warrenville
Galesburg
Antioch
East Cape Girardeau
Rockford
Waukegan
12/82
12/82
5/89
7/89
5/89
5/89
7/89
9/83
9/83
7/82
7/82
6/88
6/88
6/88
12/82
12/82
6/88
12/82
6/88
12/82
9/85
6/88
6/88
12/82
9/83
9/83
8/90
11/89
10/89
8/90
8/90
9/84
9/84
9/83
9/83
8/90
2/90
8/90
9/83
9/83
8/90
9/83
2/90
9/83
2/90
10/89
3/89
9/83
Rank/
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
Mililani Wells
Schofield Barracks
Waiawa Shaft
Waipahu Wells
Waipio Heights Wells II
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
10/84
7/89
10/84
10/84
10/84
Gr 9
8/90 Gr 22F
Gr 9
Gr 11
Gr 14
10/81
10/84
12/82
6/88
6/88
6/88
6/88
7/89
6/88
12/82
9/85
6/88
6/88
9/85
6/88
6/88
6/86
9/85
5/89
10/84
6/88
9/83
9/83
8/90
10/89
8/90
8/90
8/90
2/90
9/83
6/86
8/90
3/89
6/86
8/90
8/90
3/89
7/87
8/90
6/86
8/90
93
Gr 4
407
295
426
564
799
Gr 21 F
402
8
163
68
240
881
74
284
760
996
806
920
356
1027
115
72
Gr 4F
175
114
Gr 3F
406
133
110
887
750
515
164
1065
776
1034
439
673
724
731
749
292
549
67
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Site Name
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant (Load-AssemblyPacking Area)
JoUet Ana/ Ammunition Plant (Manufacturing Area)
Kerr-HcGee (Kress Creek/West Branch of DuPage River)
Kerr-HcGee (Reed-Keppler Park)
Kerr-HcGee (Residential Areas)
Kerr-KcGee (Sewage Treatment Plant)
LaSalle Electric Utilities
Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
XlG/Dewane Landfill
NL Industries/Tar'acorp Lead Smelter
Outboird Marine Corp. *
Pesel's Pit
Parson* Casket Hardware Co.
Peterson Sand t Gravel
Sangaoo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (USDOI)
Savanna Army Depot Activity
Southeast Rockford Ground Water Contamination
Tri- County Landfill Co. /Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (.Illinois)
Waoconda Sand t Gravel
Woodstock Municipal Landfill
Yeoman Creek Landfill
City/County
Joliet
Joliet
DuPage County
West Chicago
W Chic/DuPage Cnty
West Chicago
LaSalle
Lemont
Belvidere
Granite City
Waukegan
Rockford
Belvidere
Libertyville
Carterville
Savanna
Rockford
South Elgin
Marshall
Wauconda
Woodstock
Waukegan
Proposed or
Announced.
4/85
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84
12/82
6/88
10/89
10/84
10/81
10/84
1/87
10/84
10/84
10/84
6/88
6/86
12/82
7/82
6/88
6/88
Final
3/89
7/87
8/90
8/90
8/90
9/83
10/89
8/90
6/86
9/83
6/86
7/87
6/86
7/87
3/89
3/89
3/89
9/83
9/83
10/89
3/89
Rank/
Group2
Gr 15F
Gr 18F
Gr 11
513
554
709
438
399
205
557
87
301
109
540
Gr 8F
Gr 9F
415
376
230
138
203
835
36 Final + 1 Proposed = 37
IN American Chemical Service, Inc.
IN Bennett Stone Quarry
IX Carter Lee Lumber Co.
IN Coluabu* Old Municipal Landfill #1
1H Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
IH Continental Steel Corp.
IH Douglass Road/Uniroyal. Inc., Landfill
IH Envirochets Corp.
IH Fisher-Calo
IK Fort Uayne Reduction Dump
IN Gat en Myers D trip/Drum Salvage
IH Hiwco Dump
IH International Minerals t, Chemical Corp. (Terre Haute East Plant)
IN Lake Sandy Jo (MSN Landfill) (once listed as Lake Sandy Jo)
IH Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc.
IH Lesion Lane Landfill
IH Main Street Well Field
IN Marion (Bragg) Dump
IH HIDCO I
IH HIDCO 11
IH Meal's Durp (Spencer)
IH Heal's Landfill (Bloonington)
IN Hinth Avenue Dunp
IN Horthsid* Sanitary Landfill, Inc
IH Poer Fan*
IH Prcttolite Battery Division
IH Reilly Tar t Chemical Corp. (Indianapolis Plant)
IH Seymour Recycling Corp. *
IH Southaid* Sanitary Landfill
IH Tippecano* Sanitary Landfill, Inc
IH Tri-State Plating
IH Watte, Inc., Landfill
IH Wayne Waste Oil
IH Vfedzeh Enterprises, Inc.
Griffith
Bloomington
Indianapolis
Columbus
Elkhart
Kokomo
Mishawaka
Zionsville
LaPorte
Fort Wayne
Osceola
Elkhart
Terre Haute
Gary
Claypool
Bloomington
Elkhart
Marion
Gary
Gary
Spencer
Bloomington
Gary
Zionsville
Hancock County
Vincennes
Indianapolis
Seymour
Indianapolis
Lafayette
Columbus
Michigan City
Columbia City
Lebanon
9/83
9/83
6/88
9/85
6/88
6/88
6/86
12/82
12/82
10/84
6/88
6/88
10/84
12/82
6/88
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/84
10/84
10/81
12/82
9/83
9/83
9/85
9/83
10/81
6/86
6/88
9/8S
4/85
12/82
12/82
9/84
9/84
3/89
6/86
8/90
3/89
3/89
9/83
9/83
6/86
3/89
2/90
6/86
9/83
3/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/84
10/89
9/84
9/83
3/89
8/90
6/86
7/87
9/83
9/83
717
85H
692^
314
417
906
630
278
165
392
418
405
76
548
761
1025
387
705
279
989
634
369
484
291
603
475
766
54
442
416
1026
194
400
929
68
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
St Site Name
City/County
Date
Proposed or
Announced,
Final
Rank/
Group2
IN Whiteford Sales & Service inc./NationaLease
35 Final + 0 Proposed = 35
KS 29th & Head Ground Water Contamination
KS Arkansas City Dump *
KS .Big River Sand Co.
KS Cherokee County (once listed as Tar Creek, Cherokee County)
KS Doepke Disposal (Holliday)
KS Fort Riley
KS Hydro-Flex Inc.
KS Johns' Sludge Pond
KS Obee Road
KS Pester Refinery Co'.
KS Strother Field Industrial Park
11 Final + 0 Proposed * 11
KY A.L. Taylor (Valley of Drums) *
KY Airco
KY B.F. Goodrich
KY Brant ley Landfill
KY CaIdwell Lace Leather Co., Inc.
KY Distler Brickyard
KY Distler Farm
KY Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone Quarry
General Tire & Rubber Co. (Hayfield Landfill)
Green River Disposal, Inc.
Howe Valley Landfill
KY Lee's Lane Landfill
KY Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
KY Newport Dump
KY Red Perm Sanitation Co. Landfill
KY Smith's Farm
KY Tri-City Disposal Co.
17 Final + 0 Proposed = 17
LA Bayou Bonfouca
LA Bayou Sorrel' Site
LA Cleve Reber
LA Combustion, Inc.
LA D.L. Hud, Inc.
LA Dutchtown Treatment Plant
LA Gulf Coast Vacuum Service*
LA Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant
LA Old Inger Oil Refinery *
LA PAB Oil & Chemical Service, Inc.
LA Petro-Processors of Louisiana Inc
11 Final + 0 Proposed * 11
HA Atlas Tack Corp.
HA Baird t HcGuire
HA Cannon Engineering Corp. (CEO
HA Charles-George Reclamation Trust Landfill
HA Fort Devens
HA Fort Devens-Sudbury Training Annex
HA Groveland Wells
South Bend 6/88
Wichita 6/88
Arkansas City 10/81
Wichita 10/84
Cherokee County 12/82
Johnson County 12/82
Junction City 7/89
Topeka 6/88
Wichita 12/82
Hutchinson 1/87
El Dorado 6/88
Cowley County 10/84
Brooks 10/81
Calvert City 9/83
Calvert City 12/82
Island 6/88
Auburn 6/88
West Point 12/82
Jefferson County 7/82
Olaton 6/88
Hayfield 6/88
Haceo 6/88
Howe Valley 6/86
Louisville 7/82
Hillsboro 10/84
Newport 12/82
Peewee Valley 6/88
Brooks 10/84
Shepherdsvilie 6/88
Slidell 12/82
Bayou Sorrel 7/82
Sorrento 12/82
Denham Springs 6/86
Abbeville 6/88
Ascension Parish 1/87
Abbeville 6/88
Doyline 10/84
DarroM 7/82
Abbeville 6/88
Scotlandvilie 9/83
Fairhaven 6/88
Holbrook 12/82
Bridgeuater 12/82
Tyngsborough 10/81
Fort Devens 7/89
Middlesex County 7/89
Groveland 12/82
8/90
176
2/90
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
8/90
3/89
9/83
7/87
3/89
6/86
9/83
9/84
9/83
2/90
8/90
9/83
9/83
8/90
2/90
8/90
7/87
9/83
6/86
9/83
3/89
6/86
3/89
9/83
9/84
9/83
8/90
10/89
7/87
3/89
3/89
9/83
3/89
9/84
2/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
11/89
2/90
9/83
700
100
857
57
251
Gr 16F
373
648
821
992
820
96
833
843
148
748
325
735
347
844
1030
623
512
911
598
558
852
786
1005
730
229
791
863
638
375
Gr 20F
82
526
452
384
14
500
254
Gr 9F
Gr 14F
467
69
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
KA
HA
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
KO
HO
HO
HO
HE
H€
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
H!
HI
HI
HI
Ht
HI
Ht
HI
H!
HI
Ht
HI
Site Harae
Haverhill Municipal Landfill
Hocoraonco Pond
tndustri-Plex (once listed as Hark Phillip Trust)
Iron Horse Park
Hew Bedford Site *
Norwood PCBs
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
Otis A!r National Guard Base/Camp Edwards
Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Engineering Corp. (once listed as Plymouth
Harbor/Cordage) '
PSC Resources
Re-Solve, Inc.
Rose Disposal Pit
Salem Acres
Shpack Landfill
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Sullivan's Ledge
U.R. Grace t, Co Inc (Acton Plant)
Wells GCH
25 Final + 0 Proposed » 25
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area)
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Hichaelsville Landfill)
Arm* Arundel County Landfill
Bush Valley Landfill
Kane £ Lombard Street Drums
Lilacs tone Road
Hid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc
Sand, Gravel & Stone
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
Uoodlawn County Landfill
9 Final + 1 Proposed = 10
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Lor ing Air Force Base
KcKin Co.
O'Connor Co.
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Saco Municipal Landfill
Saco Tannery Waste Pits
Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Winthrop Landfill
9 Final + 0 Proposed * 9
Adam's Plating
Albion* Sheridan Township Landfill
Allied Paper, Inc. /Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River
American Anodco, Inc.
Anderson Development Co.
Auto Ion Chemicals, Inc.
Avenue "EM Ground Water Contamination
Barrels, Inc.
Sendix Corp. /Allied Automotive
Berlin t Farro
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Burrow* Sanitation
City/County
Haverhill
Westborough
Woburn
Billerica
New Bedford
Norwood
Ashland
Falmouth
Plymouth
Palmer
Dartmouth
Lanesboro
Salem
Norton/Attleboro
Lowell
New Bedford
Acton
Uoburn
Edgewood
Aberdeen
Glen Burnie
Abingdon
Baltimore
Cumberland
Hermans
Elkton
Hollywood
Uoodlawn
Brunswick
Limestone
Gray
Augusta
Washburn
Saco
Saco
South Hope
Winthrop
Lansing
Albion
Kalamazoo
Ionia
Adrian
Kalamazoo
Traverse City
Lansing
St. Joseph
Swartz Creek
Muskegon
Hartford
Proposed or
Announced.
10/84
12/82
10/81
9/83
7/82
10/84
10/81
7/89
12/82
12/82
10/81
10/84
10/84
. 10/84
7/82
9/83
12/82
12/82
4/85
4/85
6/88
6/88
10/84
12/82
10/84
12/82
10/84
1/87
10/84
7/89
12/82
12/82
12/82
6/88
12/82
4/85
10/81
6/88
6/88
5/89
6/86
12/82
12/82
10/84
1/87
6/88
7/82
6/88
9/83
Final
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/83
6/86
9/83
11/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
6/86
6/86
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
2/90
10/89
3/89
6/86
9/83
6/86
9/83
6/86
7/87
7/87
2/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/83
10/89
9/83
3/89
10/89
8/90
3/89
9/83
9/83
6/86
10/89
2/90
9/83
3/89
9/84
Rank/
Group2
980
324
5
367
81
1019
11
Gr 6F
113
534
243
839
718
1016
377
851
38
378
Gr 3F
Gr 19F
Gr 12
485
993
9J^
ifl
4lP
747
238
Gr 8F
Gr 15F
33
904
767
1014
362
872
658
1010
789
637
61
944
877
932
420
609
13
139
967
70
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
HI
HI
HI
MI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
MI
MI
MI
HI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
HI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Site Name
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Came I ton Industries, Inc.
Carter Industrials, Inc.
Cemetery Dump
Charlevoix Municipal Well
Chent Central
Clare Water Supply.
Cliff /Dow Dump
Duel 1 & Gardner Landfill
Electrovoice
Folkertsma Refuse
Forest Waste Products
G&H Landfill
Grand Traverse Overall Supply Co.
Gratiot County Landfill *
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Hedblum Industries
Hi -Mi 1 1 Manufacturing Co.
Ionia City Landfill
J & L Landfill
KSL Avenue Landfill
Kaydon Corp.
Kent City Mobile Home Park
Kentwood Landfill
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Liquid Disposal, Inc.
Mason County Landfill
McGraw Edison Corp.
Metal Working Shop
Metamora Landfill
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork Street Landfill)
Motor Wheel, Inc.
Muskegon Chemical Co.
North Bronson Industrial Area
Northernaire Plating
Novaco Industries
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
Ossineke Ground Water Contamination
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
Packaging Corp. of America
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.
Peerless Plating Co.
Petoskey Municipal Well Field
Rasmussen's Dump
Rockwell International Corp. (Allegan Plant)
Rose Township Dump
Roto- Finish Co., Inc.
SCA Independent Landfill
Shiawassee River
South Macomb Disposal Authority (Landfills #9 and #9a)
Southwest Ottawa County Landfill
Sparta Landfill
Spartan Chemical Co.
Spiegelberg Landfill
Springfield Township Dump
State Disposal Landfill, Inc.
Sturgis Municipal Wells
Tar Lake
Thermo- Chew, Inc.
City/County
Grand Rapids
Sault Sainte Marie
Detroit
Rose Center
Charlevoix
Wyoming Township
Clare
Marquette
Dalton Township
Buchanan
Grand Rapids
Otisville
Utica
Greilickville
St. Louis
Grand Rapids
Oscoda
Highland
Ionia
Rochester Hills
Oshtemo Township
Muskegon
Kent City
Kentwood
Cadillac
Utica
Pere Marquette Twp
Albion
Lake Ann
Metamora
Kalamazoo
Lansing
Whitehall
Bronson
Cadillac
Temperance
Grandville
Ossineke
Dalton Township
Filer City
Grand Ledge
Muskegon
Petoskey
Green Oak Township
Allegan
Rose Township
Kalamazoo
Muskegon Heights
Howell
ttaconb Township
Park Township
Sparta Township
Wyoming
Green Oak Township
Davi sburg
Grand Rapids
Sturgis
Mancelona Township
Muskegon
Proposed or
Announced.
13/82
6/88
6/88
12/82
12/82
12/82
9/83
12/82
12/82
9/83
6/86
12/82
7/82
12/82
10/81
4/85
12/82
6/88
12/82
6/86
12/82
6/88
9/85
12/82
9/85
7/82
12/82
12/82
1/87
9/83
10/84
10/84
6/88
10/84
7/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
7/82
12/82
6/88
6/88
12/82
12/82
4/85
7/82
10/84
12/82
12/82
10/84
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
6/88
9/83
12/82
10/84
Final
9/83
8/90
3/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
9/84
3/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
2/90
9/83
3/89
9/83
2/90
7/87
9/83
10/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/84
2/90
6/86
2/90
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
3/89
8/90
9/83
9/83
7/87
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/84
9/83
6/86
Rank/
Group2
198
990
594
759
566
550
541
740
732
696
837
535
216
685
79
501
606
207
925
914
559
751
817
695
770
23
758
828
1060
686
581
222
756
777
64
551
846
792
142
173
923
344
382
907
161
190
472
727
946
804
507
886
460
130
167
421
419
232
143
71
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
Site Name
Torch Lake
U.S. Aviex
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Michigan)
Verona Well Field
Wash King Laundry
Waste Management of Michigan (Holland Lagoons)
Whitehall Municipal Wells
City/County
Hough ton County
Howard Township
St. Louis
Battle Creek
Pleasant Plains Twp
Holland
Whitehall
Proposed or
Announced.
10/84
12/82
12/82
7/82
12/82
10/84
9/83
Final
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/84
Rank/
Group2
268
805
156
263
493
612
688
78 Final + 0 Proposed = 78
KM Adrian Municipal Well Field
KM Agate Lake Scrapyard
HH Arrowhead Refinery Co.
MM Boise Cascade/Onan Corp./Medtronics, Inc.
HN Burlington Northern (Brainerd/Baxter Plant)
HH Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
KH East iethel Demolition Landfill
HN FHC Corp. (Fridley Plant)
HH Freeway Sanitary Landfill
KM General Hills/Kenkel Corp.
HH Joslyn Manufacturing £ Supply Co.
KH Koch Refining Co./H-Ren Corp.
HH Keepers Coke
HH Kurcner Sanitary Landfill
HH Kurt Manufacturing Co.
HH LaGrand Sanitary Landfill
HH Lehillfer/Hankato Site
HH Long Prairie Ground Water Contamination
HH HacGilUs & Gibbs Co./Bell Linker & Pole Co.
KH Haval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant
HH Hew Brighton/Arden Hills
HH ML Industries/Taracorp/Golden Auto (once listed as National
Lead Taracorp)
HH Hutting Truck & Caster Co.
HH Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
HH Oakdate Dump
HH Otwted County Sanitary Landfill
MM Perhan Arsenic Site
m Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill (once listed as Pine Bend Sanitary
Landfill/Crosby American Demolition Landfill)
HH Reilly Tar t Chemical Corp. (St. Louis Park Plant) *
MM Ritari Pott t Pole
MM South Andover Site (once listed as Andover Sites)
m St. Augusta Sanitary Landfill/Engen Duap (once listed as St. Augusta
Sanitary Landfill/St. Cloud Dump)
HH St. Louis River Site
HH St. Regis Paper Co.
HH Twin Cities Air Force Reserve Base (Small Arms Range Landfill)
HH Union Scrap Iron t Metal Co.
HH University of Minnesota (Rosetnount Research Center)
HH Waits Park Wells
m Washington County Landfill
KH Waste Disposal Engineering
HH Whittaker Corp.
KH Windo* DUMP
42 Final + 0 Proposed * 42
MO Bet Cee Manufacturing Co.
Adrian
Fairview Township
Hermantown
Fridley
Brainerd/Baxter
Cannon Falls
East Bethel Township
Fridley
Burnsville
Minneapolis
Brooklyn Center
Pine Bend
St. Paul
Bemidji
Fridley
LaGrand Township
Leh i11i er/Mankato '
Long Prairie
New Brighton
Fridley
New Brighton
St. Louis Park
Faribault
Oak Grove Township
Oakdale
Oronoco
Perhan
Dakota County
St. Louis Park
Sebeka
Andover
St. Augusta Township
St. Louis County
Cass Lake
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Rosemount
Waite Park
Lake Elmo
Andover
Minneapolis
Window
Maiden
10/84
10/84
9/83
9/83
7/82
10/89
9/85
7/82
9/85
9/83
9/83
10/84
10/81
10/84
10/84
6/86
7/82
10/84
9/83
7/89
7/82
10/81
9/83
10/84
10/81
10/84
9/83
10/84
10/81
1/87
10/81
9/85
9/83
9/83
1/87
9/83
10/84
9/85
9/83
7/82
9/83
10/84
6/86
6/86
9/84
9/84
9/83
8/90
6/86
9/83
6/86
9/84
9/84
6/86
9/83
6/86
6/86
7/87
9/83
6/86
9/84
11/89
9/83
9/83
9/84
6/86
9/83
6/86
9/84
6/86
9/83
7/87
9/83
7/87
9/84
9/84
7/87
9/84
6/86
6/86
9/84
9/83
9/84
6/86
818
1009
350
204
267
423
1061
17
303
643
336
936
112
674
921
602
388
893
: • aeB^
Gl^B
3T
496
592
355
108
473
565
162
40
1004
690
783
876
147
Gr 17F
383
302
894
422
191
494
553
10/84
6/86 1066
72
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
|HS
fS
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
HT
MT
HT
HT
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Site Name
Conservation Chemical Co.
Ellisville Site *
Finetett Corp.
Fulbright Landfill
Kern-Pest Laboratories
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (Northwest Lagoon)
Lee Chemical
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (once listed as Arena 2: Fills 1 and 2)
Missouri Electric. Works
North-U Drive Well Contamination
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
Quail Run Mobile Manor
Quality Plating
Shenandoah Stables (once listed as Arena 1: Shenandoah Stables)
Solid State Circuits, Inc.
St. Louis Airport/Haze I wood Interim Storage/Futura Coatings Co.
Syntex Facility
Times Beach Site
Valley Park TCE
We 1 don Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits (USDOE/Army) (once listed as We I don
Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army))
We I don Spring Former Army Ordnance Works
West lake Landfill
Wheeling Disposal Service Co. Landfill
22 Final + 2 Proposed = 24
Flowood Site *
Newsom Brothers/Old Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
2 Final + 0 Proposed = 2
Anaconda Co. Smelter
Burlington Northern Railroad (Somers Tie-Treating Plant)
Comet Oil Co.
East Helena Site (once listed as East Helena Smelter)
Idaho Pole Co.
' Libby Ground Water Contamination
Hill town Reservoir Sediments
Montana Pole and Treating
Mouat Industries
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area (once listed as Silver Bow Creek)
8 Final + 2 Proposed = 10
ABC One Hour Cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Bypass 601 Ground Water Contamination
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation (once listed as Camp Lejeune
Marine Corps Base)
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Carolina Transformer Co.
Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber Operations)
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage
Chemtronics, Inc.
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen Plant)
City/County
Kansas City
Ellisville
St. Charles
Springfield
Cape Girardeau
Independence
Liberty
Imperial
Cape Girardeau
Springfield
Jasper County
Gray Summit
Sikeston
Moscow Mills
Republic
St. Louis County
Verona
Times Beach
Valley Park
St. Charles County
St. Charles County
Bridget on
Amazonia
Flowood
Columbia
Anaconda
Somers
Billings
East Helena
Bozeman
Libby
Mi 1 1 town
Butte
Columbus
Si I Bow/Deer Lodge
Jacksonvi I le
Aberdeen
Haze I wood
Concord
Ons low County
Fayettevtlle
Fayettevi I le
Shelby
Cordova
Swannanoa
Statesville
Washington
Aberdeen
Proposed or
Announced .j
4/85
10/81
10/84
10/81
1/87
10/84
10/84
12/82
6/88
10/84
6/88
9/83
10/84
12/82
10/84
5/89
12/82
3/83
4/85
10/84
7/89
10/89
1/87
9/83
10/84
12/82
10/84
6/88 '
9/83
10/84
12/82
12/82
6/86
10/84
12/82
6/88
1/87
6/88
10/84
6/88
6/86
1/87
10/84
1/87
12/82
6/88
6/88
6/88
Final
10/89
9/83
9/83
10/89
7/87
6/86
9/83
2/90
6/86
8/90
6/86
9/83
6/86
10/89
9/83
9/83
6/86
7/87
2/90
8/90
10/89
9/84
6/86
9/83
9/84
6/86
9/83
9/83
7/87
6/86
9/83
3/89
3/89
10/89
6/86
10/89
7/87
7/87
6/86
7/87
9/83
2/90
3/89
10/89
Rank/
Group2
1002
91
Gr 11
476
780
Gr 17F
264
622
931
1048
285
Gr 22
474
994
582
545
348
492
678
Gr 1F
Gr 20F
1003
231
98
309
48
Gr 13
Gr 5
29
546
597
349
841
913
20
1031
149
912
578
Gr 17F
763
795
218
260
988
579
479
842
73
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HO
HO
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HH
HH
HK
HH
HH
HK
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
HK
HH
HH
HK
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
Site Heme
Hevi-Duty Electric Co.
Jadco- Hushes Facility
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Koppers Co., Inc. (Horrisville Plant)
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc.
national Starch t Chemical Corp.
North Carolina State University (Lot 86, Farm Unit #1)
Hew Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits
22 Final + 0 Proposed = 22
Arsenic Trioxide Site *
Hinot Landfill
2 Final + 0 Proposed » 2
10th Street Site
Cornhusker Amy Ammunition Plant
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Lindsay Manufacturing Co.
Hefaraska Ordnance Plant (Former)
Uaverly Ground Water Contamination
6 Final + 0 Proposed 3 6
Auburn Road Landfill
Coakley Landfill
Dover Municipal Landfill
Fletcher's Paint Works & Storage
Holton Circle Ground Water Contamination
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp. (once listed as Kearsage Metallurgical
Corp.)
Keefe Environmental Services (once listed as KES)
Mottolo Pig Farm
Ottati t Goss/Kingston Steel Drum (once listed as Ottati & Goss)
Pease Air Force Base
Savag* Municipal Water Supply
Sonersworth Sanitary Landfill
South Municipal Water Supply Well
Sylvester *
Tibbets Road
TinkhaM Garag*
16 Final + 0 Proposed * 16
A. 0. Polymer
American Cyanamid Co.
Asbestos Dump
Beachwood/Berkley Wells
Bog Creek Far*
Brick Township Landfill
Bridgeport Rental I Oil Services
Brook Industrial Park
Burnt Fly Bog
Calduell Trucking Co.
Chemical Control
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. (once listed as Chemical teaman
Tank Liners, Inc.)
City/County
Goldsboro
Belmont
Oxford
Horrisville
Charlotte
Salisbury
Raleigh
Wilmington
Maco
Southeastern ND
Hinot
Columbus
Hall County
Hastings
Lindsay
Mead
Waverly
/
Londonderry
Horth Hampton
Dover
Mi I ford
Londonderry
Conway
Epping
Raymond
Kingston
Portsmouth/Newi ngton
Milford
Somersworth
Peterborough
Nashua
Barri ngton
Londonderry
Sparta Township
Bound Brook
Mill ing ton
Berkley Township
Howell Township
Brick Township
Bridgeport
Bound Brook
Marlboro Township
Fairfield
Elizabeth
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Proposed or
Announced.
5/89
10/84
6/88
6/88
12/82
4/85
10/84
6/88
6/88
10/81
6/88
10/89
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/89
10/84
12/82
10/84
12/82
6/88
6/88
9/83
10/81
4/85
10/81
7/89
9/83
12/82
9/83
10/81
4/85
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/81
6/88
10/81
12/82
10/81
10/89
9/83
Final
8/90
6/86
10/89
3/89
9/83
10/89
6/86
3/89
3/89
9/83
3/89
8/90
7/87
6/86
10/89
8/90
6/86
9/83
6/86
9/83
3/89
3/89
9/84
9/83
7/87
9/83
2/90
9/84
9/83
9/84
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
10/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
8/90
9/84
Rank/
Group2
1000
441
524
446
169
274
234
518
1029
92
825
1049
Gr 4F
427
241
895
583
641
1028
617^
69m
86^
538^
.19
469
141
Gr 11F
601
16
657
24
456
359
1037
199
511
408
361
59
35
60
42
52
259
570
249
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
St Site Name
NJ Chemsol, inc.
NJ Ciba-Geigy Corp. (once listed as Toms River Chemical)
NJ Cinnaminson Township (Block 702) Ground Water Contamination
NJ Combe Fill North Landfill
NJ Combe Fill South Landfill
NJ Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
NJ CPS/Madison Industries
NJ Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
NJ D'Imperio Property
NJ Dayco Corp./L.E Carpenter Co.
NJ De Renal Chemical Co.
NJ Delilah Road
NJ Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Co.
NJ Diamond Alkali Co.
NJ Dover Municipal Well 4
NJ Ellis Property
NJ Ever Phillips Leasing
NJ Euan Property
NJ Fair Lawn Well Field
NJ Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center
NJ Florence Land Recontouring Landfill
NJ Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
NJ Fried Industries
NJ Garden State Cleaners Co.
NJ GEMS Landfill
NJ Glen Ridge Radium Site
NJ Global Sanitary Landfill
MJ GOOQ^ FAWH
nu uwac rat u!
« He I en Kramer Landfill
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown Plant)
Higgins Disposal
NJ Higgins Farm
NJ Hopkins Farm
NJ Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion Chemicals
NJ Industrial Latex Corp.
NJ Jackson Township Landfill
NJ JIS 1 unrif i 1 1
nw ui0 bQiui 1 1 \
NJ Kauffman & Minteer. Inc.
NJ Kin-Sue Landfill
NJ King of Prussia
NJ Landfill t Development Co.
NJ Lang Property
NJ Lipari Landfill
NJ Lodi Municipal Well
NJ Lone Pine Landfill
NJ M&T Delisa Landfill
NJ Mannheim Avenue Dump
NJ Maywocd Chemical Co.
NJ Metal tec/Aerosystems
NJ Monitor Devices/Intercircuits Inc
NJ Monroe Township Landfill
NJ Monte la ir/We*t Orange Radium Site
NJ Montgomery Township Housing Development
NJ Myers Property
NJ Nascolite Corp.
NJ Naval Air Engineering Center
NJ Naval Weapons Station Earle (Site A)
NJ NL Industries
NJ Pept Fitld
City/County
Pi scat away
Toms River
Cinnaminson Township
Mount Olive Twp
Chester Township
Beverly
Old Bridge Township
Saddle Brook Twp
Hamilton Township
Wharton Borough
King wood Township
Egg Harbor Township
Bayville
Newark
Dover Township
Evesham Township
Old Bridge Township
Shamong Township
Fair Lawn
Atlantic County
Florence Township
Pemberton Township
East Brunswick Twp
Minotola
Gloucester Township
Glen Ridge
Old Bridge Township
Plumstead Township
Mantua Township
Gibbstown
Kingston
Franklin Township
Plumstead Township
Morganvi I le
Wall ing ton Borough
Jackson Township
Jamesburg/S. Brnswck
Jobstown
Edison Township
Winslow Township
Mount Holly
Pemberton Township
Pitman
Lodi
Freehold Township
Asbury Park
Galloway Township
Maywood/Rochelle Pk
Franklin Borough
Wall Township
Monroe Township
Monte lair/W Orange
Montgomery Township
Franklin Township
Mi 1 1 vi lie
Lakehurst
Colts Neck
Pedricktown
Boonton
Proposed or
Announced .j
12/82
12/82
10/84
12/82
12/82
1/87
12/82
1/87
10/81
4/85
9/83
9/83
12/82
9/83
12/82
12/82
12/82
9/83
12/82
7/89
9/83
10/84
10/84
6/88
7/82
10/84
6/88
10/81
7/82
12/82
6/88
6/88
9/83
12/82
6/88
12/82
12/82
6/88
10/81
12/82
9/83
12/82
10/81
10/84
10/81
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
4/85
12/82
10/84
12/82
12/82
9/83
9/85
10/84
12/82
12/82
Final
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
7/87
9/83
7/87
9/83
7/87
9/84
9/84
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/83
8/90
9/84
7/87
6/86
3/89
9/83
2/85
3/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
8/90
3/89
9/84
9/83
3/89
9/83
9/83
3/89
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
8/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
2/85
9/83
9/83
9/84
7/87
8/90
9/83
9/83
Rank/
Group2
380
197
569
242
315
782
10
744
107
287
653
210
482
691
1039
734
628
201
386
Gr 11F
252
Gr 13F
823
1042
12
212
297
244
4
483
952
974
762
781
861
556
316
1068
193
255
808
225
1
829
15
865
633
185
219
443
396
213
567
784
186
Gr 4F
Gr 21 F
146
785
75
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
st
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
NJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
HJ
NX
m
KM
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Site Hame
Picatfnny Arsenal
Ptjafc Fare
PJP Landfill
Pohatcong Valley Ground Water Contamination
Ponona Oaks Residential Wells
Price Landfill *
Radiation Technology, Inc.
Reich Farms
Renora, Inc.
Ringwood Nines/Landfill
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Rockauay Township Wells
Rocky Hill Municipal Well
Roebling Steel Co.
SayreviUe Landfill
Scientific Chemical Processing
Sharkey Landfill
Shieldalloy Corp.
South Brunswick Landfill
South Jersey Clothing Co.
Spence Farm
Swopc Oil A Chemical Co.
Syncon Resins
Tabernacle Drum Dump
U.S. Radium Corp.
Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division)
Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill
Ventron/Velsicol
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
Vineland State School
U.R. Grace £ Co., Inc./Wayne Interim Storage Site (USDOE) (once listed
as U.R. Grace t, Co., Inc. (Wayne Plant))
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc.
Williams Property
Wilson Farm
Uitco Chemical Corp. (Oakland Plant)
Woodland Route 532 Dump
Woodland Route 72 Dump
109 Final + 0 Proposed * 109
AT I SF (Clovis)
Cal Ucst Metals (USSBA)
Cinarron Mining Corp.
Cleveland Kill
Howestake Mining Co.
Le* Acres Landfill (USDOI)
Pagino Salvage
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
South Valley *
United Nuclear Corp.
City/County
Rockaway Township
Plumstead Township
Jersey City
Warren County
Galloway Township
Pleasantville
Rockaway Township
Pleasant Plains
Edison Township
Ringwood Borough
Rockaway Township
Rockaway
Rocky Hill Borough
Florence
SayreviUe
Carlstadt
Parsippany/Troy His
Newfield Borough
South Brunswick
Mi no to I a
Plumstead Township
Permsauken
South Kearny
Tabernacle Township
Orange
East Rutherford
Upper Deerfield Twp
Wood Ridge Borough
Vineland
Vineland
Wayne Township
Wall Township
Swainton
Plumstead Township
Oakland
Woodland Township
Woodland Township
Clovis
Lemitar
Carrizozo
Silver City
Milan
Farmington
Los Lunas
Prewitt
Albuquerque
Church Rock
Date
Proposed or
Announced^
7/89
10/81
12/82
6/88
10/84
10/81
9/83
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
9/83
12/82
6/88
10/81
7/82
7/82
9/83
12/82
12/82
9/83
9/83
9/83
12/82
9/83
10/84
12/82
9/83
6/88
9/83
9/83
10/81
6/88
6/88
6/88
10/81
6/88
6/88
6/88
7/82
10/81
Final
2/90
9/83
9/83
3/89
6/86
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/83
10/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
9/84
9/84
9/84
9/83
9/84
6/86
9/83
9/84
10/89
9/84
9/84
9/83
3/89
10/89
3/89
9/83
8/90
10/89
8/90
9/83
9/83
Rank/
Group2
Gr 8F
353
1063
1041
889
6
385
132
478
151
398
1040
568
461
616
105
227
47
134
409
307
655
354
621
593.J
11"'l
809~
180
41
465
Gr 6F
323
477
772
964
716
934
819
Gr 1F
528
481
753
Gr 11F
677
339
88
976
10 Final + 0 Proposed * 10
HV Carson River Mercury Site
1 Final + 0 Proposed * 1
NY Action Anodizing, Plating, I Polishing Corp.
Lyon/Churchill Cnty 10/89 8/90 522
Copiague 6/88 3/89 728
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
St Site Name
NY American Thermostat Co.
NY Anchor Chemicals
NY Applied Environmental Services
NY Batavia Landfill
NY BEC Trucking
NY BioClinical Laboratories, Inc.
NY Brewster Well Field
NY Brookhaven National Laboratory (USDOE)
NY Byron Barrel & Drum
NY C & J Disposal Leasing Co. Dump
NY Carroll & Dubies Sewage Disposal
NY Circuitron Corp.
NY Claremont Polychemical
NY Clothier Disposal
NY Colesville Municipal Landfill
NY Conklin Dumps
NY Corte'se Landfill
NY Endicott Village Well Field
NY Facet Enterprises, Inc.
NY FMC Corp. (Dublin Road Landfill)
NY Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision
NY Fulton Terminals
NY GE Moreau
NY General Motors (Central Foundry Division)
NY Genzale Plating Co.
NY Goldisc Recordings, Inc.
NY Griffiss Air Force Base
tHaviland Complex
Hertel Landfill
Hooker (102nd Street)
NY Hooker (Hyde Park)
NY Hooker (S Area)
NY Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer Corp
NY Hudson River PCBs
NY Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
NY Johnstown City Landfill
NY Jones Chemicals, Inc.
NY Jones Sanitation
NY Katonah Municipal Well
NY Kenmark Textile Corp.
NY Kentucky Avenue Well Field
NY Liberty Industrial Finishing
NY Love Canal
NY Ludlow Sand t Gravel
NY Malta Rocket Fuel Area
NY Marathon Battery Corp.
NY Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
NY Mercury Refining, Inc.
NY Nepera Chemical Co., Inc.
NY Niagara County Refuse
NY Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Saratoga Springs Plant)
NY North Sea Municipal Landfill
NY Old Bethpage Landfill
NY Olean Well Field
NY Pasley Solvents I Chemicals, Inc.
NY Pittsburgh Air Force Base
NY Pollution Abatement Services *
NY Port Washington Landfill
NY Preferred Plating Corp.
City/County
South Cairo
Hicksville
Glenwood Landing
Batavia
Town of Vestal
Bohemia
Putnam County
Upton
Byron
Hamilton
Port Jervis
East Farmingdale
Old Bethpage
Town of Granby
Town of Colesville
Conklin
Vi 1 of Narrowsburg
Village of Endicott
Elmira
Town. of Shelby
Niagara Falls
Fulton .
South Glen Falls
Massena
Franklin Square
Ho I brook
Rome
Town of Hyde Park
Plattekill
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Hicksville
Hudson River
Islip
Town of Johnstown
Caledonia
Hyde Park
Town of Bedford
Farmingdale
Horseheads
Farmingdale
Niagara Falls
Clayville
Malta
Cold Springs
Glen Cove
Colonie
Maybrook
Wheatfield
Saratoga Springs
North Sea
Oyster Bay
Olean
Hemps tead
Pittsburgh
Oswego
Port Washington
Farmingdale
Proposed or
Announced 1
12/82
10/84
10/84
10/81
10/84
6/86
12/82
7/89
10/84
6/88
6/88
6/88
10/84
10/84
10/84
6/86
10/84
10/84
10/81
10/84
8/89
12/82
12/82
9/83
6/86
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/84
9/83
1/87
10/84
6/88
1/87
10/84
10/84
7/82
10/84
10/81
12/82
6/86
10/81
6/88
12/82
10/84
10/81
6/88
10/84
10/81
10/81
10/84
7/89
10/81
12/82
10/84
Final
9/83
6/86
6/86
9/83
6/86
3/89
9/83
11/89
6/86
3/89
2/90
3/89
6/86
6/86
6/86
3/89
6/86
6/86
9/83
6/86
11/89
9/83
9/83
9/84
7/87
6/86
7/87
6/86
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/84
3/89
6/86
2/90
7/87
6/86
6/86
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
7/87
9/83
3/89
9/83
6/86
9/83
2/90
6/86
9/83
9/83
6/86
11/89
9/83
9/83
6/86
Rank/
Group2
824
611
454
202
961
847
571
Gr 10F
608
711
796
124
915
741
983
773
873
664
271
849
1070
636
53
468
788
830
Gr 16F
811
810
973
726
177
450
116
831
233
813
154
698
908
508
192
158
618
812
982
903
329
502
503
687
797
45
331
509
Gr 20F
7
313
713
77
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
NY
NY
NY
NY
HY
NY
HY
HY
HY
NY
HY
NY
NY
HY
NY
NY
HY
HY
HY
HY
NY
HY
NY
Site Name
Radius Chemical Co., Inc.
Ramapo Landfill
Richardson Hill Road Landfill/Pond
Robintech, Inc. /National Pipe Co.
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/Dorp
Roue Industries Ground Water Contamination
Sacney Farm
Sealand Restoration, Inc.
Seneca Army Depot
Sidney Landfill '
Sinclair Refinery
SHS Instruments, Inc.
Solvent Savers
Suffern Village Well Field
Syossct Landfill
Tri-Cittes Barrel Co., Inc.
Tronic Plating Co., Inc.
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 (once listed with Well 4-2 as one site)
Vestal Water Supply Well 4-2 (once listed with Well 1-1 as one site)
Volrwy Municipal Landfill
Warwick Landfill
Wide Bcich Development
York Oil Co.
City/County
New York City
Ramapo
Sidney Center
Town of Vestal
Cortland
Noyack/Sag Harbor
Amen i a
Lisbon
Romulus
Sidney
Wellsville
Deer Park
Lincklaen
Village of Suffern
Oyster Bay
Port Crane
Farmingdale
Vestal
Vestal
Town of Volney
Warwick
Brant
Moira
Proposed or
Announced^
8/89
12/82
6/86
10/84
6/88
6/86
10/84
10/89
7/89
6/88
7/82
10/84
12/82
10/84
12/82
5/89
10/84
12/82
12/82
10/84
9/85
12/82
7/82
Final
11/89
9/83
7/87
6/86
3/89
7/87
6/86
8/90
8/90
3/89
9/83
6/86
9/83
6/86
9/83
10/89
6/86
9/83
9/83
6/86
3/89
9/83
9/83
Rank/
Group2
1071
326
719
960
183
890
836
1022
Gr 14F
1021
128
605
722
663
123
341
317
572
410
848
1020
103
246
83 Final + 0 Proposed = 83
OH Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
OH Alsco Anaconda
OH Arcanum Iron t Metal
OH Big D Campground
OH Bowers Landfill
OH Buckeye Reclamation
OH Chem-Dyne *
OH Coshocton Landfill
OH E.H. Schilling Landfill
OH Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE)
OH Fields Brook
OH Fultz Landfill
OH Industrial Excess Landfill
OH Lasktn/Poplar Oil Co. (once listed as Poplar Oil Co.)
OH Miami County Incinerator
OH Mound Plant (USDOE)
OH Nease Chemical
OH New Lyiw Landfill
OH Old Mill (once listed as Rock Creek/Jack Webb)
OH Ormet Corp.
OH Powell Road Landfill
OH Pristine, Inc.
OH Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover Plant)
OH Republic Steel Corp. Quarry
OK Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial Waste Disposal Co., Inc.)
OH Skinner Landfill
OH South Point Plant
OH Sirriit National
OH TRW, Inc. (Minerva Plant)
OH United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
OH Van Dale Junkyard
OH Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
OH Zanesville Well Field
33 Final + 0 Proposed » 33
Ironton
Gnadenhutten
Darke County
Kingsville
Circleville
St. Clairsville
Hamilton
Franklin Township
Hamilton Township
Fernald
Ash tabula
Jackson Township
Uniontown
Jefferson Township
Troy
Miamisburg
Sale*
New Lyme
Rock Creek
Hannibal
Dayton
Reading
Dover
Elyria
Dayton
West Chester
South Point
Deerfield Township
Minerva
Troy
Marietta
Dayton
Zanesville
12/82
10/84
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/81
12/82
12/82
7/89
10/81
12/82
10/84
7/82
9/83
7/89
12/82
12/82
12/82
9/85
9/83
12/82
6/88
10/84
10/84
12/82
9/83
10/81
6/86
9/83
10/84
6/88
12/82
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
11/89
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/84
11/89
9/83
9/83
9/83
7/87
9/84
9/83
8/90
6/86
6/86
9/83
9/84
9/83
3/89
9/84
6/86
10/89
9/83
26^
366^
28
958
195
712
83
520
739
Gr 3F
320
517
187
645
70
Gr 15F
257
933
646
280
916
706
922
1001
675
986
281
157
560
56
840
Gr 2F
661
78
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
St Site Name
OK Compass Industries (A very Drive) (once listed as Compass Industries)
OK Double Eagle Refinery Co.
OK Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
OK Hardage/Criner (once listed as Criner/Hardage Waste Disposal)
OK Kerr-McGee Corp. (Gushing Plant)
OK Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
OK . Oklahoma Refining Co.
OK Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex
OK Tar Creek (Ottawa County)
OK Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
OK Tinker Air Force Base (Soldier Creek/Building 3001)
10 Final + 1 Proposed =11
OR Allied Plating, Inc.
OR Gould, Inc.
OR Joseph Forest Products
OR Martin-Marietta Aluminum Co.
OR Teledyne Uah Chang
OR Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
OR Union Pacific Railroad Co. Tie Treating Plant
OR United Chrome Products, Inc.
8 Final + 0 Proposed = 8
PA A.I.U. Frank/Mid-County Mustang
PA Aladdin Plating
» Ambler Asbestos Piles
AMP, Inc. (Glen Rock Facility)
Avco Lycoming (Uilliamsport Division)
PA Bally Ground Water Contamination
PA Bell Landfill
PA Bendix Flight Systems Division
PA Berkley Products Co. Dump
PA Berks Landfill
PA Berks Sand Pit
PA Blosenski Landfill
PA Boarhead Farms
PA Brodhead Creek
PA Brown's Battery Breaking
PA Bruin Lagoon
PA Butler Mine Tunnel
PA Butz Landfill
PA C & 0 Recycling
PA Centre County Kepone
PA Commodore Semiconductor Group
PA Craig Farm Drum
PA Croydon TCE
PA CryoChem, Inc.
PA Delta Quarries & Disposal, Inc./Stotler Landfill
PA Dorney Road Landfill
PA Douglassville Disposal
PA Drake Chemical
PA Dublin TCE Site
PA East Mount Zion
PA Eastern Diversified Metals
PA Elizabethtown Landfill
PA Fischer I Porter Co.
PA HavertOMD PCP
City/County ,
Tulsa
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Criner
Gushing
Oklahoma City
Cyril
Sand Springs
Ottawa County
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Portland
Portland
Joseph
The Dalles
Albany
Hermiston
The Dalles
Cor vail is
Exton
Scott Township
Ambler
Glen Rock
Williamsport
Bally Borough
Terry Township
Bridgewater Township
Denver
Spring Township
Longswamp Township
West Cain Township
Bridgeton Township
Stroudsburg
Shoemaker svi lie
Bruin Borough
Pittston
Stroudsburg
Foster Township
State College Boro
Lower Providence Twp
Parker
Croydon
Woman
Ant is/Logan Twps
Upper Macungie Twp
Douglassville
Lock Haven
Dublin Borough
Springettsbury Twp
Hometown
Elizabethtown
Wai-minster
Haverford
Proposed or
Announced.
9/83
6/88
6/88
10/81
10/89
6/88
6/88
10/84
10/81
1/87
4/85
1/87
12/82
6/88
10/84
12/82
10/84
10/89
9/83
6/88
1/87
10/84
6/88
1/87
6/86
6/88
9/85
6/88
6/88
9/83
12/82
6/88
12/82
10/84
10/81
6/86
6/88
9/85
12/82
1/87
12/82
9/85
6/86
6/86
9/83
12/82
7/82
10/89
9/83
6/86
6/88
12/82
12/82
Final
9/84
3/89
3/89
9/83
2/90
2/90
6/86
9/83
7/87
7/87
2/90
9/83
3/89
6/86
9/83
7/87
8/90
9/84
10/89
7/87
6/86
10/89
2/90
7/87
10/89
7/87
3/89
10/89
9/84
9/83
3/89
9/83
6/86
9/83
7/87
3/89
7/87
9/83
10/89
9/83
6/86
10/89
3/89
9/84
9/83
9/83
8/90
9/84
10/89
3/89
9/83
9/83
Rank/
Group2
632
954
963
189
Gr 19
562
294
1058
58
947
Gr 9F
519
871
855
351
126
Gr 19F
589
940
394
666
742
523
412
574
721
798
997
290
882
968
499
938
604
3
208
884
346
318
397
1064
917
1067
458
289
111
536
1045
462
943
1033
1032
543
79
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
St Site Name
PA Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
PA Heleva Landfill
PA Keller-town Manufacturing Co.
PA Henderson Road
PA Hranica Landfill
PA Hunterstown Road
PA Industrial Lane
PA Jacks Creek/Sitkin Smelting & Refining, Inc.
PA Keystone Sanitation Landfill
PA Kinberton Site
PA Lackauonna Refuse
PA Lansdowne Radiation Site
PA Letterkenny Army Depot (Property Disposal Office Area)
PA Lctterkenny Arm/ Depot (Southeast Area)
PA Lindane Dump
PA Lord-Shope Landfill
PA Holvern TCE
PA HcAdoo Associates *
PA Metal Banks
PA Hiddletown Air Field
PA Mill Creek Dump
PA Modern Sanitation Landfill
PA Movers Landfill
PA KU Manufacturing (once listed as Domino Salvage Yard)
PA Naval Air Development Center (8 Waste Areas)
PA North Penn • Area 1 (once listed as Gentle Cleaners, Inc. /Granite
Knitting Hills, Inc.)
PA North Penn • Area 12 (once listed as Transicoil, Inc.)
PA North Penn - Area 2 (once listed as Ametek, Inc. (Hunter Spring
Division))
PA North Penn * Area 5 (once listed as American Electronics Laboratories)
PA North Penn - Area 6 (once listed as J.W. Rex Co. /Allied Paint
Hinufacturing Co., Inc. /Keystone Hydraulics)
PA North Penn - Area 7 (once listed as Spra-Fin, Inc.)
PA Novak Sanitary Landfill
PA Occidental Chemical Corp. /Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
PA Ohio River Park
PA Old City of York Landfill
PA Osborne Landfill
PA Palraerton Zinc Pile
PA Paoli Rail Yard
PA Publicker Industries Inc.
PA Raymark
PA Recticon/Allied Steel Corp.
PA Resin Disposal
PA Revere Chemical Co.
PA River Road Landfill (Wast* Management, Inc.)
PA Route 940 Drum Dump (one* listed as Pocono Summit)
PA Saegertown Industrial Area
PA Salford Quarry
PA Shriver's Corner
PA Stanley Kessler
PA Strasburg Landfill
PA Taylor Borough Dump
PA Tobyhanna Army Depot
PA Tonolli Corp.
PA Tyson* Dump
PA Walsh Landfill
PA Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Sharon Plant)
City/County
Weisenberg Township
North Whitehall Twp
Heller-town
Upper Her ion Twp
Buffalo Township
Straban Township
Williams Township
Mai t land
Union Township
Kimberton Borough
Old Forge Borough
Lansdowne
Franklin County
Chambersburg
Harrison Township
Girard Township
Malvern
McAdoo Borough
Philadelphia
Middletown
Erie
Lower Windsor Twp
Eagleville
Valley Township
Warminster Township
Souderton
Worcester
Hatfield
Montgomery Township
Lansdale
North Wales
South Whitehall Twp
Lower Pottsgrove Twp
Neville Island
Seven Valleys
Grove City
Palmer ton
Paoli
Philadephia
Hatboro
East Coventry Twp
Jefferson Borough
Nockamixon Township
Hermi tage
Pocono Summit
Saegertown
Salford Township
Straban Township
King of Prussia
Newt in Township
Taylor Borough
Tobyhanna
Nesquehoning
Upper Her ion Twp
Honeybrook Township
Sharon
Proposed or
Announced.
6/86
12/82
1/87
9/83
10/81
10/84
9/83
6/88
4/85
12/82
12/82
4/85
4/85
10/84
10/81
10/81
12/82
10/81
12/82
10/84
9/83
10/84
12/82
10/84
6/86
1/87
1/87
1/87
1/87
1/87
1/87
1/87
6/88
10/89
12/82
7/82
12/82
1/87
5/89
6/88
6/88
12/82
9/85
1/87
9/85
6/88
1/87
10/84
12/82
6/88
9/83
7/89
6/88
9/83
9/83
6/88
Final
7/87
9/83
3/89
9/84
9/83
6/86
9/84
10/89
7/87
9/83
9/83
9/85
3/89
7/87
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/84
6/86
9/83
6/86
10/89
3/89
2/90
10/89
3/89
3/89
3/89
10/89
10/89
8/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
8/90
10/89
10/89
10/89
9/83
7/87
10/89
7/87
2/90
8/90
6/86
9/83
3/89
9/84
8/90
10/89
9/84
9/84
8/90
Rank/
Group2
891
200
171 '
449
168
237
390
480
794
1017
631
1069
Gr 13F
Gr 16F
178
530
270
26
834
65"
211
775
600
275
Gr 2F
667
1044
67jm
:^l
669
668
404
299
413
774
120
368
868
44
135
878
596
924
363
342
815
78
288
778
962
949
Gr 12F
273
25
807
453
80
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
RI
RI
RI
R!
RI
RI
I?1
PtI
RI
RI
RI
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
Site Name
Westinghouse Elevator Co. Plant
West line Site
Whitmoyer Laboratories
William Dick Lagoons
York County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority Landfill
95 Final + 0 Proposed = 95
Barceloneta Landfill
Fibers Public Supply Wells
Frontera Creek
GE Wiring Devices
Juncos Landfill
Naval Security Group Activity
RCA Del Car i be
Upjohn Facility
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells
9 Final + 0 Proposed = 9
Central Landfill
Davis (GSR) Landfill
Davis Liquid Waste
Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center
Landfill & Resource Recovery, Inc. (L&RR)
Newport Naval Education & Training Center
Peterson/Puritan, Inc.
Picillo Farm *
Rose Hill Regional Landfill
Stamina Mills, Inc. (once listed as Forestdale-Stamina Mills, Inc.)
Western Sand & Gravel
11 Final + 0 Proposed = 11
Beaunit Corp. (Circular Knit & Dyeing Plant)
Carolaun, Inc.
Elmore Waste Disposal
Geiger (C & M Oil)
Golden Strip Septic Tank Service
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Independent Nai I Co.
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
(Coppers Co., Inc. (Florence Plant)
Leonard Chemical Co., Inc.
Lexington County Landfill Area
Medley Farm Orint Dunp
Palmetto Recycling, Inc.
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Para-Chem Southern, Inc.
Rochester Property
Rock Hill Chemical Co.
Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mile Creek/Lake Hartwell PCB
Contamination
Savannah River Site (USDOE)
SCROI Bluff Road *
SCRDI Dixiana
Townsend Saw Chain Co.
Wamchea, Inc.
City/County
Gettysburg
West line
Jackson Township
West Cain Township
Hopewell Township
Florida Afuera
Jobos
Rio Abajo
Juana Diaz
Juncos
Sabana Seca
Barceloneta
Barceloneta
Vega Alta
Johnston
Glocester
Smithfield
North Kingstown
North Smithfield
Newport
Lincoln/Cumberland
Coventry
South Kingstown
North Smithfield
Burrillville
Fountain Inn
Fort Lawn
Greer
Rantoules
Simps orrvi lie
Fairfax
Beaufort
Beaufort
Florence
Rock Hill
Cayce
Gaffney
Colunbia
Dixiana
Simpsonville
Travelers Rest
Rock Hill
Pickens
Aiken
Columbia
Cayc*
Pontiac
Burton
Proposed or
Announced.
10/84
12/82
10/84
1/87
4/85
12/82
9/83
12/82
12/82
12/82
6/88
12/82
9/83
9/83
10/84
4/85
10/81
7/89
12/82
7/89
12/82
10/81
6/88
12/82
10/81
6/88
12/82
6/88
9/83
1/87
6/88
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/88
6/86
1/87
9/83
10/89
6/86
6/88
1/87
7/89
10/81
7/82
6/88
9/83
Final
6/86
9/83
6/86
7/87
7/87
9/83
9/84
9/83
9/83
9/83
10/89
9/83
9/84
9/84
6/86
6/86
9/83
11/89
9/83
11/89
9/83
9/83
10/89
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/83
3/89
9/84
7/87
2/90
9/84
9/84
9/84
9/84
10/89
3/89
7/87
9/84
8/90
10/89
2/90
2/90
11/89
9/83
9/83
2/90
9/84
Rank/
Group,
639
910
283
629
337
455
702
364
930
856
Gr 15F
935
445
411
269
529
253
Gr 15F
206
Gr 18F
491
80
555
764
182
860
880
919
867
486
779
65
67
184
261
580
918
1015
539
845
626
487
599
Gr 5F
84
471
647
248
23 Final + 0 Proposed * 23
81
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
st
so
so
so
Site Name
Ellsworth Air Force
Whitewood Creek *
William Pipe Line
Base
Co. Disposal Pit
City/County
Rapid City
Whitewood
Sioux Falls
Proposed or
Announced.
10/89
10/81
10/89
Final
8/90
9/83
8/90
Rank/
Groop2
Gr 17F
21
428
3 Final + 0 Proposed « 3
TH Aswrican Creosote Works, Inc. (Jackson Plant)
(once listed as American Creosote Works)
TH Amnicola Dunp
TH Arlington Blending £ Packaging
TH Carrier Air Conditioning Co.
TH Callaway Pits
TH Lewisburg Dunp
TH Hallory Capacitor Co.
TH H{Ian Army Ammunition Plant
TK Hurray-Ohio Dusp
TH Hurray-Ohio Manufacturing Co. (Horseshoe Bend Dump)
TH Worth Hollywood Dump *
TH Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
TH Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman County)
TH Wrigley Charcoal Plant
K Final + 0 Proposed = 14
TX Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics)
TX Bailey Waste Disposal
TX Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc.
TX Brio Refining, Inc.
TX Crystal Chemical Co.
TX Crystal City Airport
TX Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.
TX French, Ltd.
TX Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy
TX Highlands Acid Pit
TX (Coppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana Plant)
TX Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
TX Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
TX Hotco, Inc. *
TX North Cavalcade Street
TX Odessa Chromium #1
TX Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews Highway)
TX Pesse* Chemical Co.
TX Petro-Cheaiical Systems, Inc. (Turtle Bayou)
TX Sheridan Disposal Services
TX Stkes Disposal Pits
TX Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
TX So:rh Cavalcade Street
TX Suwco, Inc.
TX Tex-Tin Corp.
TX Texarkana Wood Preserving Co.
TX Triangle Chem'eal Co.
TX United Creosoting Co.
28 Final * 0 Proposed « 28
UT Hill Air Force Base
UT Hldvale Slag
UT Honticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
UT Monticello Radioactively Contaminated Properties
Jackson
Chattanooga
Arlington
CoUiervHle
GalIaway
Lewisburg
Uaynesboro
Milan
Lawrenceburg
Lawrenceburg
Memphis
Oak Ridge
Toone
Wrigley
Fort Worth
Bridge City
Grand Prairie
Friendswood
Houston
Crystal City
Friendswood
Crosby
Houston
Highlands
Texarkana
Texarkana
Karnack
La Marque
Houston
Odessa
Odessa
Fort Worth
Liberty County
Hempstead
Crosby
Houston
Houston
Waskom
Texas City
Texarkana
Bridge City
Conroe
Ogden
Midvele
Monticello
Monticello
10/84
6/86
708
12/82
1/87
6/88
12/82
12/82
1/87
10/84
12/82
6/88
10/81
7/89
12/82
6/88
10/84
10/84
10/81
10/84
7/82
10/84
6/88
10/81
9/83
7/82
10/84
10/84
7/89
10/81
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84
6/86
10/81
10/84
10/84
10/84
6/88
4/8S
12/82
9/83
10/84
6/86
7/89
10/84
9/83
7/87
2/90
9/83
9/83
10/89
7/87
9/83
8/90
9/83
11/89
9/83
3/89
8/90
6/86
9/83
3/89
9/83
6/86
10/89
9/83
9/84
9/83
6/86
7/87
8/90
9/83
6/86
6/86
6/86
6/86
6/86
3/89
9/83
3/89
6/86
6/86
8/90
6/86
9/83
9/84
7/87
11/89
6/86
464
525
221
957
827
1018
Gr 2F
277
950
95
Gr 4F
245
644
Gr 10F
140
714
196
75p
22
37
595
926
Gr 19F
Gr 11F
27
615
424
425
1059
999
991
30
510
533
226
542
488
1062
607
Gr 5F
Gr 15
Gr 13F
715
82
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
w
st
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
^A
IA
WA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
II*
Wn
WA
WA
Site Name
Ogden Defense Depot
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 & 3)
Richardson Flat Tailings
Rose Park Sludge Pit *
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale Tailings) (once listed as Sharon Steel
Corp. (Midvale Smelter))
Tooele Army Depot (North Area)
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel Co.
Wasatch Chemical Co. (Lot 6)
9 Final + 3 Proposed = 12
Abex Corp.
Arrowhead Associates/Scovi It Corp.
Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc.
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
Buckingham County Landfill (once listed as Love's Container
Service Landfill)
C & R Battery Co., Inc.
Chisman Creek
Culpeper Wood Preservers, Inc.
Defense General Supply Center
Dixie Caverns County Landfill
First Piedmont Corp. Rock Quarry (Route 719) (once listed as First
Piedmont Corp. Rock Quarry)
Greenwood Chemical Co.
H & H Inc., Burn Pit
L.A. Clarke & Son
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood Preserving Division)
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
Saunders Supply Co.
Suffolk City Landfill
U.S. Titanium
20 Final + 0 Proposed = 20
Semi ng ton Municipal Sanitary Landfill
BFI Sanitary Landf ill(Rockingham)
Burgess Brothers Landfill
Darling Hill Dump
Old Springfield Landfill
Parker Sanitary Landfill
Pine Street Canal *
Tans it or Electronics, Inc.
8 Final + 0 Proposed * 8
ALCOA (Vancouver Smelter)
American Crossarm & Conduit Co.
American Lake. Gardens
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
Bangor Ordnance Disposal
BomevUle Power Administration Ross Complex (USDOE)
Central ia Municipal Landfill
Colbert Landfill
r !»• • ii • • 1 1 1 1 riiii tiiin r-li i • rT i I • r f • ir •
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel
Fairchild Air Force Base (4 Waste Areas)
City/County
Ogden
Salt Lake City
Summit County
Salt Lake City
Midvale
Tooele
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Portsmouth
Hontross
Portsmouth
Front Royal
Buckingham
Chesterfield County
York County
Culpeper
Chesterfield County
Salem
Pittsylvania County
Newtown
Farrington
Spotsylvania County
Richmond
Frederick County
Saltville
Chuckatuck
Suffolk
Piney River
Bemington
Rockingham
Woodford
Lyndon
Springfield
Lyndon -
Burlington
Bemington
Vancouver
Chehalis
Tacoma
Silverdale
Bremerton
Vancouver
Central ia
Colbert
0 • AIV*A P*v int w
r 1 CIVC bt^MIVJr
Tacoma
Spokane County
Date
Proposed or
Announced^
10/84
10/84
6/88
10/81
10/84
10/84
5/89
1/87
6/88
6/88
6/86
10/84
4/85
1/87
10/81
10/84
10/84
1/87
4/85
1/87
1/87
10/84
1/87
10/84
12/82
1/87
6/88
12/82
6/88
6/88
6/88
6/88
12/82
6/88
10/81
6/88
6/88
6/88
9/83
7/89
10/84
7/89
6/88
12/82
10/81
IV f w 1
10/81
6/88
Final
7/87
6/86
9/83
8/90
8/90
10/89
8/90
2/90
2/90
6/86
10/89
7/87
9/83
10/89
7/87
10/89
7/87
7/87
3/89
6/86
3/89
6/86
9/83
10/89
2/90
9/83
3/89
10/89
3/89
10/89
9/83
2/90
9/83
10/89
2/90
10/89
9/84
8/90
7/87
11/89
8/90
9/83
9/83
9/83
3/89
Rank/
Group2
Gr 7F
121
Gr 11
99
447
Gr 3F
585
Gr 1
635
613
614
694
470
276
256
300
Gr 16F
704
987
145
803
745
977
969
1013
619
651
723
217
444
150
345
720
155
89
652
71
975
1055
Gr 3F
Gr 20F
Gr 3F
640
451
437
119
Gr 18F
83
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
Date
St
WA
WA
VA
VA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
Wl
W!
Wl
Wt
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wi
Wl
Wl
WI
WI
Wt
WI
Wl
Wl
UI
Wl
UI
Site HMe
FKC Corp. (Yakima Pit)
Fort Lewis (Landfill No. 5)
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
General Electric Co. (Spokane Shop)
Creenacres Landfill
Hanford 100-Area (USDOE)
Kanford 1100-Arca (USOOE)
Hanford 200-Area (USOOE)
Hanford 300-Aree (USOOE)
Harbor Island (Lead)
Hidden Valley Landfill (Thun Field)
Kaiser Aluminum Head Works
Lakewood Site
HcChord Air Force Base (Wash Rack/Treatment Area)
Mica Landfill
Midway Landfill
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (Ault Field)
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (Seaplane Base)
Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station (4 Waste Areas)
Horth Market Street (once listed as Tosco Corp. (Spokane Terminal))
Horthside Landfill
Northwest Transformer
Northwest Transformer (South Harkness Street)
Old Inland Pit
Pacific Car t Foundry Co.
Posco Sanitary Landfill
Pesticide Lab (Yakima)
Queen City Farm*
Seattle Municipal Landfill (Kent Highlands)
Silver Mountain Mine
Western Processing Co., Inc.
Wyckoff Co. /Eagle Harbor
Yakima Plating Co.
45 Final + 0 Proposed = 45
Algoma Municipal Landfill
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome & Zinc Shops
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Oe'lavan Municipal Well #4
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
Hagen Farm
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
Hunts Disposal Landfill
Jaoesville Ash Beds
Janesville Old Landfill
Kohler Co. Landfill
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
lenber&er Landfill, Inc. (once listed as Lemberger Fly Ash Landfill)
Ledberger Transport t Recycling
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Lagoons
Master Disposal Service Landfill
Mid-State Disposal, Inc. Landfill
Hots-Aweric»n
-------
National Priorities List,
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
August 1990
^r
st
UI
WI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
uv
uv
uv
uv
uv
UY
Site Name
Northern Engraving Co.
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co. Inc
Omega Hills North Landfill
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Sauk County Landfill
Schmalz Dump
Scrap Processing Co., Inc.
Sheboygan Harbor & River
Spickler Landfill
Stoughton City Landfill
Tomah Armory
Tomah Fairgrounds
Tomah Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Uaste Management of Uisconsin, Inc. (Brookfield Sanitary Landfill)
Uaste Research & Reclamation Co.
Uausau Ground Uater Contamination
Wheeler Pit
39 Final + 0 Proposed » 39
Fike Chemical, Inc.
Follansbee Site
Leetown Pesticide
Ordnance Uorks Disposal Areas
Uest Virginia Ordnance *
5 Final + 0 Proposed = 5
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Mystery Bridge Rd/U.S. Highway 20
City/County
Sparta
Ashippin
Germantown
Onalaska
Excelsior
Harrison
Medford
Sheboygan
Spencer
Stoughton
Tomah
Tomah
Tomah
Brookfield
Eau Claire
Uausau
La Prairie Township
Nitro
Follansbee
Leetown
Horgantown
Point Pleasant
Laramie
Cheyenne
Evansville
Date
Proposed or
Announced^
9/83
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/88
9/83
9/83
9/85
1/87
10/84
1/87
1/87,
6/86
6/88
9/83
4/85
9/83
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/84
10/81
12/82
7/89
6/88
Final
9/84
9/84
9/84
9/84
10/89
9/84
9/84
6/86
7/87
6/86
7/87
7/87
3/89
8/90
9/84
6/86
9/84
9/83
9/83
9/83
6/86
9/83
9/83
2/90
8/90
Rank/
Group2
532
905
50
393
752
220
746
790
338
649
965
850
304
1047
870
1038
75
642
793
625
659
90
610
Gr 11F
874
3 Final + 0 Proposed =
1187 Final + 20 Proposed = 1207
85
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
For further information, call the
Superfund Hotline, toll-free at
1-8QO-424-9346 or 703-920-9810
in Washington. DC. metropolitan
area, or the U. S. EPA
Superfund Offices
listed below
For publications, contact
Public Information Center,
PM-211B
401 M Street SW.
Washington DC 20460
CMU2021 382-2080
FTS: 382-2080
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, OS-230
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
CML: (202)475-8103
FTS: 475-8103
Region 1
Superfund Branch, HSL-CAN 2
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston. MA 02203
CML: (617) 573-9610
FTS: 833-1610
Region 2
Emergency & Remedial Response
Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
CML: (212) 264-8672
FTS: 264-8672
Region 3
Site Assessment Section. 3HW13
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
CML: (215) 597-3437
FTS: 597-3437
Region 4
Waste Management Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
CML: (404) 347-3454
FTS: 257-3454
Region 5
Remedial Response Branch,
5HS-11
230 South Dearborn Street,
12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
CML: (312)886-5877
FTS: 886-5877
Region 6
Superfund Management Branch
Division, 6H-M
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202-2733
CML: (214) 655-6740
FTS: 255-6740
Region 7
Superfund Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS66101
CML: (913)551-7052
FTS: 276-7052
Region 8
Superfund Remedial Branch. 8HV M-SR
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver. CO 80202-2405
CML: (303) 294-7630
FTS: 330-7630
Region 9
Waste Management Division. H-'
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94105
CML: (415)744-1730
FTS: 484-1730
Region 10
Superfund Branch. HW-113
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle. WA 98101
CML: (206)442-1987
FTS: 399-1987
-------
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST,
SUPPLEMENTARY LISTS AND SUPPORTING MATERIALS
-------
-------
x=/EPA
Unit** Statw 0«ic« ot Emrggncv 4 HW-10.15S
Environmental Prot«ction R«in«di»l R«soon«« - * r\r»i
Ag»ney W««hington, DC 20460 FetJTUary 1991
NAUONAL FMOKTIIES UST, SUPHJEMENTARYIJSIS
AND SUPPORTING MATERIALS, EEBRUARYmi
Listing Criteria/Policies 1
Deletion of Sites 2
Removal of Proposed Sites 3
Descriptions of Lists 3
Previous NPL Proposals/Promulgations 4
Lists/ Graphics, and Data Summaries .'. 17
Federal Register Notices 18
NPL (by Rank) 20
Federal Section 42
Final Sites Deleted From NPL Because No Further Response Needed 46
Proposed Sites Removed From Consideration for NPL 48
NPL Sites Per State/Territory (by Total Sites) 52
NPL Sites Per EPA Region 53
Types of Activities at 1,189 NPL Sites 56
Observed Contamination at 1,189 NPL Sites 58
Federal Facility Sites (by State) 59
Final NPL Sites (by State) 63
1,189 Final NPL Sites
-------
-------
LISTING
Sites are placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) primarily on the
basis of their scores on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) , a numerically based
system designed to evaluate the relative risks posed by a site to human health
or the environment. An HRS score of 28.50 was selected as the cut-off point for
the first proposed NPL to identify at least. 400 sites, the minimum specified by
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CEKdA) , enacted on December 11, 1980. On December 23, 1988 (53 FR 51962) , EPA
proposed revisions to the HRS in response to CERCIA Section 105 (c) (i) , added by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) , enacted on October 17,
1986. EPA anticipates making final decisions on all sites proposed under the
current HRS before the effective date of the revised HRS.
CERCIA also allows States or Territories to designate one top-priority site
regardless of score and requires those sites to be included in the first 100
sites on the NPL. Of the 57 States and Territories, 38 have designated
top-priority sites. Six of these sites have been deleted from the NPL. Of the
remaining top-priority sites, 10 are included in the first 100 on the basis of
their scores. The remaining 22 have scores that would not place them in the top
100. They are included at the bottom of the first 100 sites. Of the 22, 7 have
scores below 28.50.
Under Section 300. 425 (c) (3) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) , the
Federal regulation by which CERCIA is implemented (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990) ,
a site can be included in the NPL if it meets these three requirements:
o The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has
issued a health advisory that recommends removing people
from the site.
o EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to
public health.
o EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its
remedial authority (available only at NPL sites) than to
use its emergency removal authority to respond to the site.
Three sites have been placed on the NPL on the basis of ATSDR
advisories — one "on September 16, 1985 (FR 37630) and two on November 21, 1989
(54 FR 48184) . All three have HRS scores below 28.50 and are at the end of the
NPL.
-------
CERCEA restricts EPA's authority to respond to certain sites by expressly
excluding some substances — petroleum, for example — from the definition of
"release." In addition, as a matter of policy, EPA may choose not to use CERCXA
because the Federal government can undertake or enforce cleanup under other laws,
thus preserving CERCEA funds for sites where no other law is available. However,
if EPA later determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being
properly responded to, it may consider placing them on the NPL.
DELETION OF SITES
EPA may delete a final NPL site if it determines that no further response
is required to protect human health or the environment. Under Section 300.425(e)
of the NCP (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990), a site may be deleted where no further
response is appropriate if EPA determines that one of the following criteria has
been met:
o EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined that
responsible or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response action required.
o EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined that
all appropriate Superfund-financed response under CERdA
has been inplemented, and that no further response by
responsible parties is appropriate.
o Based on a remedial investigation, EPA, in consultation
with the State, has determined that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment,
and, therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate.
Since 1986, EPA has followed these procedures for deleting a site from the
NPL:
o The Regional Administrator approves a "close-out report"
which establishes that all appropriate response action
has been taken or that no action is required.
o The Regional Office obtains State concurrence.
o EPA publishes a notice of intent to delete in the Federal
Register and in a major newspaper near the community
involved. A public comment period is provided.
o EPA responds to the Garments and, if the site continues
to warrant deletion, publishes a deletion notice in the
Federal Register.
Sites that have been deleted from the NPL remain eligible for further
Superfund-financed remedial action in the unlikely event that conditions in the
future warrant such action.
-------
As of August 1990, 29 sites have been deleted from the NPL (see page 44).
The first five were deleted as follows:
o December 30, 1982 (47 ER 58476): 5 sites previously
announced were not included in first proposed NPL, 1 of
which (Butler Mine Tunnel, Pittston, PA) was later
reproposed and added to the NPL.
o September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658): 1 site in first
proposed NPL was not included in the original NPL.
The remaining 24 sites were deleted in subsequent final rules.
In addition, EPA has published notices of intent to delete a number of sites
(see page 46).
REMOVAL OF PROPOSED SITES
As of August 1990, 65 sites (see page 47) have been proposed for the NPL
but subsequently removed from further consideration, most of them because their
final HRS scores were below the 28.50 cut-off or the sites are subject to
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. (RCRA). The first seven
were removed as follows:
o December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476): 2
o September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658): 6, 1 of which (Van Dale
Junkyard, Marietta, OH) was later reproposed and added to the NPL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LISTS
Sites on the NPL are ordered according to their scores on the HRS, except
for top-priority sites and sites involving an ATSDR advisory. The Federal
facility sites are in a separate section. The HRS is a screening tool designed
to take into account a standard set of factors related to risks from potential
or actual migration of substances through ground water, surface water, and air.
Ordering by HRS scores serves primarily informational purposes. EPA and the
States use the scores along with other information to determine priorities for
conducting detailed investigations to determine if further response actions are
needed.
The sites on the NPL are in groups of 50 (except for the last group). The
range within most of the groups is 1 to 4 points. EPA considers sites within a
group to represent approximately the same potential threat to public health,
welfare, or the environment. For convenience, the sites are numbered. In the
Federal section of the NPL, the sites are ordered by groups corresponding to the
groups of 50 on the NPL. That is, a Federal facility site designated as Gr 12
would have an HRS score within the range of scores covered by the 12th group of
50 sites on the final NPL. Proposed sites are assigned to groups in the same
way.
-------
Each entry en the NPL contains the name of the site, the State and city or
county in which it is located, and the corresponding EPA Region. In cases where
a site name has been condensed for lack of space, complete names are given in the
list (see page 62) of all proposed and final NPL sites arranged alphabetically
by State. Each entry on the State list includes the date the site was proposed
or announced and, when appropriate, the date the site was placed on the final
NPL. NPL ranking is given for final sites and group number for proposed sites
and Federal facility sites. In cases where a site name has been condensed in
other lists for lack of space, complete names are provided. Also noted are
instances where a site name has been changed subsequent to proposal. The list
of all Federal Facility sites (see page 58) contains similar information.
PREVIOUS NPL PTOPOSMjS/PRCWDLSRTIONS
EPA promulgated the first NPL of 406 hazardous waste sites on September 8,
1983 (48- FR 40658). It was the result of EPA's consideration of comments
received on the 419 sites proposed in December 1982 and March 1983. Before
formal rulemaking was instituted, EPA had announced two preliminary lists — the
Interim Priorities List (IPL) in October 1981 and the Expanded Eligibility list
(EEL) in 'July 1982. CERCTA requires the NPL to be updated annually. Except for
the IPL and EEL, all NPL actions have been published in the Federal Register (see
page 16).
Proposed Update #10 (October 1989)
NPL Update #10, proposed on October 26, 1989 (54 FR 43778), consisted of
25 sites, including 2 Federal facility sites. Nevada proposed its first site.
Subsequent actions;
o March 14, 1990 (55 FR 9688)
- 1 site was added to the final NPL
- 24, including 2 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o August 1990
- 22 sites, including 2 Federal facility sites, were added to the
final NPL
- 1 was removed from further consideration because its final HRS
score was below 28.50, the cut-off
— 1 remained proposed
Special Proposed ATSDR Dpdata (August 1989)
A special update, proposed on August 16, 1989 (54 FR 33846), consisted of
two sites involving health advisories issued by ATSCR.
-------
Subsequent actions;
o November 21, 1989 (54 FR 48184)
- 2 sites were added to the final NEL
- 0 remained proposed
Proposed Update #9 (July 1989)
NPL Update #9, proposed on July 14, 1989 (54 FR 29820), consisted of 52
Federal facility sites.
Subsequent actions;
o November 21, 1989 (54 FR 48184)
- 27 sites were added to the final NPL
- 25 remained proposed
o February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6154)
- 8 sites were added to the final NPL
- 17 remained proposed
o August 1990
- 17 sites were added to the final NPL
- 0 remained proposed
Proposed Update #8 (May 1989)
NPL Update #8, proposed on May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19526), consisted of 10 sites.
Subsequent actions;
O October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000/41015)
- 4 sites were added to the final NPL
- 1 was removed from further consideration because it is subject to Subtitle
C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PCRA)
- 5 remained proposed
o August 1990
- 5 sites were added to the final NPL
- 0 sites remained proposed
-------
RCRA Hi Notices (June-August 1988)
In mid-1988, EPA published two Federal Register notices involving the
listing of sites subject to RCRA Subtitle C, which regulates facilities involved
in hazardous waste activities. On June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23978), EPA:
o Reproposed 13 sites previously proposed for the NPL
during 1983-85 in the first 4 NPL updates
o Proposed to drop 30 previously proposed RCRA sites
from the NPL
o Expanded and clarified the categories of RCRA sites that
should be placed on the NPL
On August 9, 1988 (53 FR 30002/30005), EPA published two NPL/RCRA policy
notices that:
o Expanded and clarified how EPA determines that the
owner/operator of a RCRA facility is unwilling to perform
corrective action, and therefore the facility should be
placed on the NPL
o Requested comments on additional criteria for EPA to
determine when an owner/operator of a RCRA facility is
unable to pay for corrective action, and therefore the
facility should be placed on the NPL
Subsequent actions;
o October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000)
- 13 reproposed sites were added to the final NPL
- 26 of 30 reproposed sites were removed from further consideration because
they are subject to RCRA Subtitle C
- 4 remained proposed
Proposed Update #7 (June 1988)
NPL Update #7, proposed on June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23988) , consisted of 229
sites, including 14 Federal facility sites. Alaska proposed its first site.
actions;
o March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10512) (Federal facility sites
only) and March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13296)
-------
- 64 sites, including 2 Federal facility sites, received no
comments and were added to the final NPL
- 165, including 12 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000/41015)
inClUding 7 Federal facility sites, were added to the
- 2 were removed from further consideration because their final HRS
scores were below 28.50, the cut-off
- 108, including 5 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o February 21,1990 (55 FR 6154)
- 52 sites, including 3 Federal facility sites, were added
to the final NPL
- 56, including 2 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o August 1990
- 44 sites, including 1 Federal facility site, were added to the
final NPL
- 5, including 1 Federal facility site, were removed from further
consideration because their final HRS scores were below the 28 50
cut-off
" i^m S3^®* fram further consideration because they 'are subject to
ivGRA SUBtltl© O
- 4 remained proposed
Proposed Rule (July 1987)
. _ <** ^y 22> 1987 (52 HI 27643) , EPA reproposed seven Federal facility sites
because it appeared that the areas evaluated forthe NPL inSSed a^lLS ect
Sn?**^3^"?^ *Cti°n authorities °f K*A Subtitle c. The RCRA units can
still be included in calculation of the HRS scores for these sites, which is
consistent with the RCRA/Federal facilities policy proposed on
May 13, 1987 (52 FR 17991) . The seven reproposed Federal facility sites are:
o Anniston Army Depot (Southeast Industrial Area) , Anniston, AL
o Dover Air Force Base, Dover, DE
o Joliet Army Anraunition Plant (Load-Assembly-Packing Area)
Joliet, IL .1-91,
o Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, IL
o Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, Doyline, LA
-------
o Letterkenny Army Depot (Property Disposal Office Area),
Franklin County, PA
o Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics), Fort Worth, TX
EPA also proposed to expand the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Site in Adams County,
CO, to include a lagoon known as "Basin F."
Subsequent actions;
o March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10512)
- 6 reproposed sites were added to the final NPL; Air Force
Plant #4 (General Dynamics) in Fort Worth, TX, remained proposed
- Rocky Mountain Arsenal was expanded
o August 1990
- Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics), Fort Worth, TX, was added to the
final NPL
.- 0 remained proposed
Proposed Update #6 (January 1987)
NPL Update #6, proposed on January 22, 1987 (52 FR 2492), consisted of
64 sites, including 1 Federal facility site.
Subsequent actions;
O July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620)
- 24 sites, including the Federal facility site, received
no comments and were added to the final NPL
- 40 remained proposed
O March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13296)
- 12 sites were added to the final NPL
- l was removed from further consideration because its
final HRS score was below 28.50, the cut-off
- 27 remained proposed
o October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41015)
- 11 sites were added to the final NPL
- 3 were removed from further consideration because their
final HRS scores were below 28.50, the cut-off
- 13 remained proposed
o February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6154)
- 6 sites were added to the final NPL
- 7 sites remained proposed
8
-------
o August 1930
- 5 sites were added to the final NFL
- 1 was dropped from further consideration because its final HRS score
was below 28.50, the cut-off
- 1 remained proposed
Proposed Update #5 (June 1986)
NFL Update #5, proposed on June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21099) , consisted of
45 sites, including 2 Federal facility sites.
Subsequent actions;
o July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620)
- 16 sites received no comments and were added to the final NFL
- 29, including the 2 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
O March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13296)
- 15 sites were added to the final NFL
- 14, including the 2 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41015)
- 6 sites, including the 2 Federal facility sites, were added to
the final NFL
- 8 remained proposed
o February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6154)
- 4 sites were added to the final NFL
- 4 remained proposed
o August 1990
- 2 sites were added to the final NFL
- 2 remained proposed
Proposed Update *4 (September 1985)
NFL Update #4, proposed on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37950), consisted of
41 sites, including 3 Federal facility sites.
actions?
o June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21054)
- 13 sites received no comments and were added to the final NFL
- 28, including the 3 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o October 17, 1986: as required by Section 118 (p) of SARA,
the Silver Creek Tailings Site, Park City, OT, was
removed from the proposed NFL
o July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620)
-------
— 12 sites, including 1 Federal facility site, were added
to the final NFL
- 15, including 2 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23978)
- 10 RCRA sites were reproposed
o March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13296)
- 2 sites were added to the final NPL
- 13, including 2 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
O October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000)
- 2 sites were added to the final NPL
- 8 were removed from further consideration because they are subject
to RCRA. Subtitle C
- 3, including 2 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6154)
- 3 sites, included 2 Federal facility sites, were added to
the final NPL
- 0 remained proposed
Proposed Update #3 (April 1985)
NPL Update |3, proposed on April 10, 1985 (50 FR 14115) , consisted of
32 sites, including 6 Federal facility sites.
Subsequent actions:
o September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37630)
lansdowne Radiation Site in lansdcwne, PA, was added
to the NPL on the basis of a health advisory issued by ATSDR
o June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21054)
- 7 sites received no comments and were added to the final NPL
- 24, including 6 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
O July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620)
- 14 sites, including 2 Federal facility sites, were added
to the final NPL
- 10, including 4 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23978)
- 5 RCRA sites were reproposed
10
-------
o March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10512)
- 2 Federal facility sites were added to the final NFL
- 8, including 2 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000/41015)
- 5 sites, including 1 Federal facility site, were added to
the final NFL
- 2 were removed from further consideration because they
are subject to RCRA Subtitle C
- 1 Federal facility site remained proposed
o February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6154)
- 1 Federal facility site was added to the final NPL
- 0 remained proposed
Proposed Update #2 (October 1984)
NPL Update #2, proposed on October 15, 1984 (49 FR 40320), consisted of 244
sites, including 36 Federal facility sites.
Subsequent actions:
o February 14, 1985 (50 FR 6320)
- Two New Jersey sites (Glen Ridge Radium and Montclair/West Orange
Radium) were added to the final NPL in a separate rulemaking because
serious problems existed that required EPA to take immediate remedial
action
- 242 sites remained proposed
o September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37950)
- Pratt & Whitney Aircraft in West Palm Beach, FL, was
reproposed as part of Update #4
o June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21054)
- 149 sites were added to the final NPL
- 6 were removed from further consideration because their
final HRS scores were below 28.50, the cut-off
- 86 remained proposed, including 36 Federal facility sites
and extension, of conment periods on 5 sites
O July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620)
- 33 sites, including 28 Federal facility sites, were added to the
final NPL
- 53, including 8 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
11
-------
o June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23978)
- 27 RCRA sites were reproposed
o March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10512) (Federal facility sites only) and
March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13296)
- 6 sites, including 4 Federal facility, sites, were added
to the final NPL
- 3 were removed from further consideration because their
final HRS scores were below 28.50, the cut-off
- Vfeldon Springs Quarry (USDOE/Army), St Charles County,
MO, was expanded and renamed Weldon Springs Quarry/Plant/
Pits (USDOE/Army)
- 44, including 4 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
O October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000/41015)
- 9 sites, including 1 Federal facility site, were added to
the final NPL
- 15 were, removed from further consideration because they
are subject to RCRA Subtitle C
- 20, including 3 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o November 21, 1989 (54 FR 48184)
- Mather Air Force Base (AC&W Disposal Area), Sacramento,
CA, was expanded and renamed Mather Air Force Base
o February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6154)
- 1 site was added to the final NPL
- 19, including 3 Federal facility sites, remained proposed
o August 1990
- 8 sites were added to the final NPL
- 11 remained proposed
Proposed Update il (Scptaoober 1983)
NPL Update #1, proposed on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40674),
consisted of 133 sites.
Subsequent actions:
O May 8, 1984 (49 FR 19480)
12
-------
- 4 sites in San Gabriel Valley, CA, were added to the
final NPL
- 129 remained proposed
o September 21, 1984 (49 ER 37070)
- 123 sites were added to the final NPL
- 2 were removed from further consideration because their
final HRS scores were below 28.50, the cut-off
- 4 remained proposed
o June 10, 1986 (51 ER 21054)
- 1 'site was added to the final NPL
- 1 was removed from further consideration because its
final HPS score was below 28.50, the cut-off
- 2 remained proposed
o June 24, 1988 (53 ER 23978)
- 1 RCRA site was reproposed
o March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10512)
- W.R. Grace & Co., Inc. (Wayne Plant), Wayne, NJ, was
reclassified as a Federal facility site and renamed W.R.
Grace & Co. Inc./Wayne Interim Storage Site (USDOE)
o October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000)
- 1 site was removed from further consideration because it.
is subject to RCRA Subtitle C
- 1 remained proposed
Original Proposed NFL (DecpmihRr 1982)
The original NPL, proposed on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476), consisted
of 418 sites, including 153 sites of the 160 sites announced previously before
formal ruleraaking — the 115 sites announced on October 23, 1981 as the Interim
Priorities List and 45 announced on July 23, 1982 as the Expanded Eligibility
List.
13
-------
Subsequent actions:
o September 8, 1983 (48 ER 40658)
- 406 sites comprised the original NFL. Among the sites
were Times Beach, MD, proposed in a special rule on March
4/ 1983 (48 ER 9311) and Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 and
Vestal Water Supply Well 4-2, proposed as one site under
the name Vestal Water Supply
- 6 were removed from further consideration:
5 had final HRS scores below 28.50, the cut-off
1 had its top-priority designation withdrawn by the State, and its
HRS score was below 28.50
1 was deleted because the responsible party had iroplemented all
appropriate response action
- 7 remained proposed
o September 21, 1984 (49 ER 37070)
- 5 sites were added to the final NPL
- 2 were removed from further consideration:
1 had a final HRS score below 28.50, the cut-off
1 had contamination that occurred naturally
O July 22, 1987 (52 ER 27620)
- Silver Bow Creek, Silver Bow/Deer Lodge Counties, MT, was
expanded and renamed Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
14
-------
SECTION IX
OTHER DOCUMENTS
-------
i)
-------
OSWER Dir. No. 9833.4-la
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA
RESPONSE SELECTION
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
USERS MANUAL
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WASTE PROGRAMS ENFORCEMENT
MAY 1989
(Revised: March 1991)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
2.0 OVERVIEW OF COMPENDIUM USE 3
2.1 USE BY EPA PERSONNEL 3
2.2 USE BY THE PUBLIC 3
3.0 STRUCTURE OF THE COMPENDIUM 4
3.1 FILE STRUCTURE 4
3.2 INDEX STRUCTURE 4
4.0 UPDATING THE COMPENDIUM 6
4.1 REGIONAL INPUT 6
4.2 KEEPING THE COMPENDIUM CURRENT 6
Appendices
A
REGIONAL COMPENDIUM LOCATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
COORDINATORS
B COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE
DOCUMENTS - INDEX
C COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE
DOCUMENTS - ABSTRACTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table
3-1 COMPENDIUM CATEGORIES AND NUMBER SERIES
Page
.. 5
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This manual describes how to use the "Compendium of CERCLA Response Selection
Guidance Documents" (Compendium). Each U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Regional Office maintains a compendium of guidance documents frequently used during
development and selection of response actions under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
EPA Headquarters used several sources to develop the initial Compendium. These sources
included a pamphlet titled "Selected Technical Guidance for Superfund Projects" (OSWER
Directive 9200.7-01); the OSWER Directive System; the Superfund, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and Enforcement dockets; the Hazardous Waste Collection Database; and
any existing regional compendiums. The documents in the Compendium are frequently
referenced in administrative records for decisions on selection of response actions.
The administrative record described here is the body of documents that form the basis for
selection of a CERCLA response action. Establishment of the administrative record is required
by §113(k) of CERCLA. An administrative record is the compilation of documents' considered or
relied on by EPA in making a decision. Documents that EPA anticipates will be included in the
administrative record when the decision on a response action selection is made, are referred to as
the "administrative record file." Guidance documents, or portions of guidance documents, that
are considered or relied on in selecting a CERCLA response action should be part of an .
administrative record file.
In accordance with regulations (40CFR §300.805(a)(2)), and EPA guidance (OSWER
Directive 9833.3A-1), certain frequently used guidance documents may be referenced in the
index to an administrative record and not physically included in the administrative record file.
The reference should indicate the title and location of any documents included in the
administrative record but maintained in the Compendium, which is kept at a central regional
location. If a guidance document that is not listed in the. Compendium is considered or relied on
in selecting the response action, the document must be physically included in the administrative
record file. When used as a reference, the Compendium helps reduce the burden of copying and
storing multiple copies of frequently used guidance documents.
Section 2.0 of this manual briefly discusses use of the Compendium by EPA personnel and
the public. Section 3.0 discusses the Compendium's file and index structure. Documents in the
Compendium are filed in three-ring binders and listed on an index which is generated by and
maintained on a computer database. Procedures for updating the Compendium are presented in
-------
Section 4.0. This manual also includes three appendices: Appendix A, "Regional Compendium
Locations and Administrative Record Coordinators;" Appendix B, Compendium index; and
Appendix C, Compendium abstracts. Appendix B also includes data element-definitions and a list
of acronyms and organizational abbreviations identified in the index.
2.0 OVERVIEW OF COMPENDIUM USE
The Compendium is intended for use by two groups: EPA personnel, during the process
of response action selection and administrative record development, and the public, for review of
documents referenced in the index to an administrative record.
The user should note that although the term "guidance" is often used in discussing the
Compendium, it does not imply that only guidance documents are included. The documents may
also be policies, memoranda, clarifications, case studies, manuals, handbooks, reports, and other
documents frequently used in the selection of CERCLA response actions.
2.1 USE BY EPA PERSONNEL
EPA personnel use the Compendium primarily to reference guidance documents that may
be maintained in the Compendium rather than physically included in each administrative record
file. The index must indicate which documents are physically located in the Compendium and
must specify the location and accessibility of the Compendium. The index should also reference
only the specific documents that were considered or relied on for the site for which the record is
being compiled. The index should not reference the entire Compendium.
2.2 USE BY THE PUBLIC
As with any unrestricted document included in a record, the Compendium documents are
accessible for public review. When EPA publishes a notice of availability of an administrative
record file, that notice will include the location of the Compendium. The Compendium will be
available for public viewing at a central regional establishment (for example, the EPA Regional
Office), and not at or near the site for which the record is being compiled. (See Appendix A for
a list of the location of each regional copy of the Compendium and the names of the Regional
Administrative Record Coordinators.)
-------
3.0 STRUCTURE OF THE COMPENDIUM
Currently, the Compendium is organized into 10 categories. An overview of the file
structure is presented below, as well as a discussion of the index that identifies the documents
included in the Compendium. This section also discusses the data elements identified in the
index. The data elements provide vital information on the documents included in the
Compendium and are contained in a database used to compile the Compendium and generate the
index.
3.1 FILE STRUCTURE
The Compendium is structured according to 10 major categories that generally reflect the
various components of a response action selection under CERCLA. Table 3-1 lists the current
Compendium categories. The documents are further grouped into subcategories that indicate
their more specific nature, when applicable. For example, the remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS) section of the Compendium is broken down into more specific subcategories to
identify the wide range of RI/FS documents available. When the documents apply to multiple
categories, secondary references are provided in the Compendium index.
Each document has been assigned a unique four-digit document number. The bound
documents contained in each category are arranged numerically. When a user wants to access a
document, he or she will find the document filed according to the assigned number. The fourr
digit number series assigned to each category are also listed in Table 3-1.
3.2 INDEX STRUCTURE
When an administrative record index refers to a document contained in the Compendium,
that document is also identified in the Compendium index. The index, contained as the first
document in the Compendium, provides the information necessary to identify and locate the
desired document. (For a copy of the current Compendium index, see Appendix B.)
Because in most cases the user will know the title of the document rather than the number
assigned, the index lists the documents under each category in alphabetical order. An
alphabetical listing of secondary references follows the primary documents listed under each
category.
The Compendium index is maintained on a database using dBASE III Plus software. This
database contains numerous data elements that store the information distinguishing and grouping
-------
TABLE 3-1
COMPENDIUM CATEGORIES AND NUMBER SERIES
CATEGORIES NUMBER SERIES
Index 0000
Pre-Remedial 0001-0999
Removal Action 1000-1999
Remedial Investigation/ 2000-2999
Feasibility Study
General 2000-2099
RI Data Quality/Site &
Waste Assessment 2100-2199
Land Disposal Facility Technology 2200-2299
Other Technologies 2300-2399
Groundwater Monitoring &
Protection 2400-2499
ARARs1 3000-3999
Water Quality 4000-4999
Risk Assessment 5000-5999
Cost Analysis 6000-6999
Community Relations 7000-7999
Enforcement 8000-8999
Selection of Remedy/Decision
Documents 9000-9999
1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
5
-------
each document into the appropriate categories. The database is currently maintained by EPA
Headquarters.
4.0 UPDATING THE COMPENDIUM
The Compendium is designed to allow for the periodic addition of newly developed policy
or guidance documents. Updates to the Compendium are necessary in the following cases; (1)
EPA releases relevant new guidance, policy, reports, etc.; (2) regional staff find additional
documents that should be included in the Compendium; and (3) existing documents are revised or
superseded. EPA Headquarters will continue to monitor the information sources used to develop
the initial Compendium for new or revised documents that may qualify for inclusion in the
Compendium.
Guidance documents identified for addition to the Compendium will be reviewed and
relevant information will be entered into the existing database. After the database is updated, a
new index will be generated and sent to each Regional Office. This new index will replace any
previous indices. The revised index will indicate the category for each new document.
Documents added to the Compendium will be placed in 3-ring binders distinguished by
new volume numbers, and the date the additional documents were added, on the spine of the
binders. The binder volume numbers will continue in successive order from the last number used
for the previous update. Bound hard copies of the additional documents will be sent to each
Regional Office on completion of each update.
4.1 REGIONAL INPUT
Parties involved in the response action selection process, as well as Administrative Record
Coordinators, may find documents that are frequently included in administrative records but are
not referenced in the Compendium. In such cases it may be desirable to include the documents
in the Compendium as part of the updating process. However, since the Compendium is designed
to be nationally applicable, only documents used frequently in different regions will be included.
4.2 KEEPING THE COMPENDIUM CURRENT
Once m document is included in the Compendium, it will remain in the Compendium to
maintain the integrity of any record that refers to it. However, documents contained in the
Compendium may be revised in the future to reflect changes, for example, changes in policy,
-------
technology, or law. The most current version of these documents will be added to the
Compendium, as appropriate, so that they will be available for the administrative record process.
Although no document included in the Compendium will ever be replaced or removed
once an administrative record index refers to it, those documents that are superseded will be
flagged and identified on the Compendium's main index. The index will identify the
corresponding revised version added to the Compendium to indicate the new document that
should be used. In addition, EPA Headquarters will generate a cover sheet to insert in front of
superseded documents to indicate those documents that should no longer be relied on and the
revised version included in a Compendium update.
-------
APPENDIX A
REGIONAL COMPENDIUM LOCATIONS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD COORDINATORS
(As of February 1991)
Region Address
I USEPA - Region I HES-6
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
USEPA - Region I
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
II USEPA - Region II
Rm. * 759
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278 .
USEPA - Region II
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Raritan Depot - Bldg. #209
Edison, NJ 08837
III USEPA - Region III 3HW-16
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
USEPA - Region III - 3HW-31
Superfund Removal Branch
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
IV USEPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
USEPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
V USEPA - Region V 5HSM-TUB7
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
USEPA - Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Coordinatpr/PH #
1. Remedial
2. Removal
1. Brenda Haslett
(617) 573-9640
(FTS) 833-1640
2. Pam Bruno
(617) 860-4309
(FTS) 828-6309
1. Jenny Delcimento
(212) 264-8676
(FTS) 264-8676
2. Norman Vogelsang
(908) 321-4346
(FTS) 340-4346
1. Margaret Leva
(215) 597-3037
(FTS) 597-3037
2. Joan Henry
(215)597-2711
(FTS) 597-2711
1. Debbie Jourdan
(404) 347-5242
(FTS) 257-5242
2. Vera Bowers
(404) 347-3931
(FTS) 257-3931
1. Jamie Bell
(312) 353-7446
(FTS) 353-7446
2. Jan Pfundheller
(312) 353-5821
(FTS) 353-5821
-------
APPENDIX A
REGIONAL COMPENDIUM LOCATIONS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD COORDINATORS
(As of February 1991)
Region Address
VI USEPA - Region VI 5HSM
1445 Ross Ave.
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75270-2733
USEPA - Region VI 6E-EO
1445 Ross Ave.
9th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75270-2733
VII USEPA - Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
USEPA - Region VII
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS 66115
VIII USEPA - Region VIII
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
USEPA - Region VIII
999 18th Street
Suit 500
Denver, CO 80202
IX USEPA - Region IX (H-6-1)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
USEPA - Region IX (H-8-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Coordinator/PH *
1. Remedial
2. Removal
1. Karen Witten
(214) 655-6720
(FTS) 255-6720
2. JoAnn Woods
(214) 655-2270
(FTS) 655-2270
1. Barry Thierer
(913)551-7515
(FTS) 276-7515
2. Helen Bennett
(913) 236-3881
(FTS) 757-3881
1. Carol Macy
(303) 294-7038
(FTS) 330-7038
2. Tina Artemis
(303) 294-7039
(FTS) 330-7039
1. Holly Hadlock
(415) 744-2244
(FTS) 484-2244
2. Carita Hall-Reynolds
(415)744-2295
„• (FTS) 484-2295
USEPA - Region IX (HW-113)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
1. Lynn Williams
(206) 553-2121
(FTS) 553-2121
2. Same
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA
RESPONSE SELECTION
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
INDEX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Category - Subcateeorv
Pre-Remedial
Removal Action
RI/FS - General
RI/FS - RI Data Quality/Site & Waste Assessment
RI/FS - Land Disposal Facility Technology
RI/FS - Other Technologies
RI/FS - Ground-Water Monitoring & Protection
ARARs
Water Quality
Risk Assessment
Cost Analysis
Community Relations
Enforcement
Selection of Remedy/Decision Documents .
"Data Element Definitions
List of Organizational Abbreviations and Acronyms
Number Series
\
0001-0002
1000-1008
2000-2020
2100-2119
2200-2220
2300-2328
2400-2413
3000-3018
4000-4003
5000-5041
6000-6001
7000-7000
8000-8001
9000-9002
Identified in the Index
Page
1
1
2
4
7
9
12
14
18
18
23
23
23
24
*The range for each number series identified represents the numbers assigned to those documents
currently in the Compendium.
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
Doc
No vol Ti tie/ID Number
a s = = = = = s = = = a a = = = = = »s = =
•••• Index
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
e sr «x esc = :
Date
Authors
Super
No. Pages
0000 1 INDEX TO COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
.... Pre-Remedial
0001 1 EXPANDED SITE INSPECTION (ESI) TRANSITIONAL
GUIDANCE FOR FY-88; OSWER #9345.1-02
0002 1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT (PA) GUIDANCE FISCAL YEAR
1988; OSWER #9345.0-01
Removal Action
1 CERCLA REMOVAL ACTIONS AT METHANE RELEASE SITES;
OSWER #9360.0-8
1 COSTS OF REMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AT UNCONTROLLED
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES FOR CONTROL OF
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RELEASES; EPA-600/D-84-023
1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL
ACTIONS; OSWER #9318.0-05
1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE "CONTRIBUTE TO
EFFICIENT REMEDIAL PERFORMANCE" PROVISION; OSWER
#9360.0-13
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
05/01/89 OWPE PRC-ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT. INC.
10/01/87 OERR
01/0 IMS OERR/HSCD
01/23/86 LONGEST, H.L./OERR
01/01/81 RISHEL, H.L., ET.AL./SCS
ENGINEERS ALBRECHT. O.W./MERL
01/01/83 MELVOLD, R.W./ROCKWELL
INTERNATIONAL MCCARTHY,
04/13/87 OERR/ERD
04/06/87 OSWER
74
83
164
.23
1005
1 INFORMATION ON DRINKING WATER ACTION LEVELS
04/19/88 FIELDS, JR., T./OSWER/ERD
17
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
DOC
No Vol Ti tie/ID Number
= n = = = = =: = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
• • • • RemovaI Ac t i on
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date
1============================= =====
Authors
1006 1 SUPERFUND REMOVAL PROCEDURES, REVISION #3; OSWER
#9360.0-038
1007 1 THE ROLE OF EXPEDITED RESPONSE ACTIONS (EPA) UNDER
SARA; OSWER #9360.0-15
1008 2 GUIDANCE ON NON-NPL REMOVAL ACTIONS INVOLVING
NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT OR PRECEDENT SETTING
ISSUES; OSWER #9360.0-19
••• Secondary References •••
4002 26 INTERIM FINAL GUIDANCE ON REMOVAL ACTION LEVELS AT
CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER SITES; OSWER
#9360.1-01
6001 32 REMOVAL COST MANAGEMENT MANUAL; OSWER #9360.0-028
•••• RI/FS - General
2000 2 CASE STUDIES 1-23: REMEDIAL RESPONSE AT HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITES; EPA 540/2-84/002B
2001 3 EPA GUIDE FOR MINIMIZING ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF CLEANUP OF UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS-WASTE
SITES; EPA/600/8-85/008
2002 3 GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES UNDER CERCLA; OSWER
#9355.3-01
02/01/88 OSWER/OERR
04/21/87 LONGEST, H.L./OERR
04/03/89 LONGEST, H.L./OERR
10/06/87 OSWER/OERR
04/01/88 OSWER/OERR
03/01/84 ORD/OEET/MERL OSWER/OERR
06/01/85 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
LABORATORY
10/01/88 OSWER/OERR
Super
No. Pages
365
170
830
250
390
-------
PACE NO. 3
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
Doc
NO Vol Title/ID Number
•••• RI/FS - General
2003 3 JOINT CORPS/EPA GUIDANCE; OSWER #9295.2-02
2004 4 MODELING REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT UNCONTROLLED
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES (VOL. I-IV); OSWER
#9355.0-08
2005 4 POLICY ON FLOOD PLAINS AND WETLAND ASSESSMENTS FOR
CERCLA ACTIONS; OSWER #9280.0-02
2006 4 REMEDIAL RESPONSE AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES:
SUMMARY REPORT; EPA 540/2-84/002A
2007 4 REVISED PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING OFF-SITE
RESPONSE ACTIONS; OSWER #9834.11
2008 4 RI/FS IMPROVEMENTS; OSWER #9355.0-20
2009 4 RI/FS IMPROVEMENTS FOLLOW-UP; OSWER #9355.3-05
2010 4 SUPERFUND FEDERAL-LEAD REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
HANDBOOK (DRAFT); OSWER #9355.1-1
2011 5 SUPERFUND REMEDIAL DESIGN AND REMEDIAL ACTION
GUIDANCE; OSWER #9355.0-4A
2012 5 SUPERFUND STATE-LEAD REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
HANDBOOK. OSWER #9355.2-1
2013 33 GETTING READY - SCOPING THE RI/FS (QUICK REFERENCE
FACT SHEET); OSWER #9355.3-01FS1
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date Authors
06/24/83 OERR/PAS
04/01/85 BOUTWELL. S.H.. •
ET.AL./ANDERSON-NICHOLS AND CO.
OSWER/OERR AMMON, D.C. AND
BORNWELL, JR.. T.O./HWERL
08/01/85 HEDEMAN, JR.. W.N./OERR LUCERO,
C./OWPE
03/01/84 ORD/MERL
11/13/87 PORTER, J.W./OSWER
07/23/87 LONGEST, H.L./OERR
04/25/88 LONGEST, H.L./OERR
12/01/86 OERR
06/01/86 OERR
12701/86 OERR
11/01/89 OSWER
Super
No. Pages
42
350
95
20
11
16
179
100
120
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
Vol Title/ID Number
DOC
NO
•••• RI/FS - General
2014 33 GUIDANCE ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR SUPERFUND SITES
WITH PCB CONTAMINATION; OSWER #9355.4-01
2015 33 GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING TREATABILITY STUDIES UNDER
CERCLA; INTERIM FINAL;; EPA/540./2-89/058
2016 33 MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK FOR A REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY CONDUCTED BY
POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES; OSWER #9835.8
2017 33 RI/FS IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II, STREAMLINING
RECOMMENDATIONS; OSWER #9355.3-06
2018 33 THE FEASIBILITY STUDY - DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING
OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES [QUICK REFERENCE
FACT SHEET]; OSWER #9355.3-01FS3
2019 33 THE FEASIBILITY STUDY: DETAILED ANALYSIS OF
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES [QUICK REFERENCE FACT
SHEET]; OSWER #9355.3-01FS4
2020 33 TREATABILITY STUDIES''UNDER CERCLA: AN OVERVIEW
[QUICK REFERENCE FACT SHEET]; OSWER #9380.3-02FS
••• Secondary References •••
8001 32 INTERIM GUIDANCE ON POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY
PARTICIPATION IN REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND
FEASIBILITY STUDIES; OSWER #9835.1a
•••• RI/FS - Rl Data Quality/Site & Waste Assessment
2100 5 A COMPENDIUM OF SUPERFUND FIELD OPERATIONS
METHODS; OSWER #9355.0-14
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date Authors
= ======== ===============
=====================
08/01/90 OERR
12/01/89 ORD/OERR
06/02/89 OWPE
01/01/89 OERR/OWPE
11/01/89 OSWER
03/01/90 OSWER
12/01/89 OSWER
05/16/88 PORTER. J.W. /OSWER
Super
No. Pages
150
118
31
50
37
12/01/87 OERR/ OWPE
550
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
DOC
No Vol Ti tie/ID Number
•••• Rl/FS - Rl Data Quality/Site & Waste Assessment
2101 6 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR REMEDIAL RESPONSE
ACTIVITIES: DEVELOPMENT PROCESS; OSWER #9355.0-7B
2102 6 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR REMEDIAL RESPONSE
ACTIVITIES: EXAMPLE SCENARIO: Rl/FS ACTIVITIES AT
A SITE W/ CONTAMINATED SOILS AND CROUNDWATER;
OSWER #9355.0-78
2103 6 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE
REACTIVITY TESTING PROTOCOL; EPA-600/2-84-057
2104 6 FIELD SCREENING FOR ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN
SAMPLES FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
2105 6 FIELD SCREENING METHODS CATALOG: USER'S GUIDE;
EPA/540/2-88/005
2106 6 FIELD STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES MANUAL #4-SITE
ENTRY; OSWER #9285.2-01
2107 7 FIELD STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES MANUAL #6-WORK
ZONES; OSWER #9285.2-04
2108 7 FIELD STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES MANUAL #8 AIR
SURVEILLANCE; OSWER #9285.2-03
2109 7 FIELD STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES MANUAL #9-SITE
SAFETY PLAN; OSWER #9285.2-05
2110 7 GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR LOCATING ABANDONED WELLS;
EPA-600/4-84-065
Date
Authors
03/01/87 COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
OERR/OWPE
03/01/87 COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP.
OERR/OWPE
02/01>84 WOLBACH. C.D.. ET. AL./ACUREX
CORP. BARKLEY, N./MERL
04/02/86 ROFFMAN, H.K.. ET. AL./NUS CORP.
CARTER. A./MICHIGAN DEPT. OF
NATURAL RESOURCES THOMAS. T./EPA
09/01/88 OERR/HSED
01/01/85 OERR/HRSD
04/01/85 OERR/HRSD
01/01/85 OERR/HSCD
04/01/85 OERR/HRSD
07/01/84 FRISCHKNECT. L.M., ET. AL./U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY VANEE.
Super
NO. Pages
150
120
150
11
90
29
19
24
26
211
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
Doc
NO Vol Tilie/ID Number
•••• RI/FS - Rl Data Quality/Site & Waste Assessment
2111 7 GEOPHYSICAL TECHNIQUES FOR SENSING BURIED WASTES
AND WASTE MIGRATION; EPA-600/7-84/064
2112 8 GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PREPARING
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION
2113 8 LABORATORY DATA VALIDATION FUNCTIONAL GUIDELINES
FOR EVALUATING INORGANICS ANALYSES (DRAFT)
2114 8 LABORATORY DATA VALIDATION FUNCTIONAL GUIDELINES
FOR EVALUATING ORGAN ICS ANALYSES (DRAFT)
2115 8 PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR GROUND-WATER SAMPLING;
EPA/600/2-85/104
2116 8 SEDIMENT SAMPLING QUALITY ASSURANCE USER'S GUIDE;
EPA/600/4-85/048
2117 8 SOIL SAMPLING QUALITY'ASSURANCE USER'S GUIDE; EPA
600/4-84/043
2118 9+ TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING SOLID WASTE,
LABORATORY MANUAL PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL METHODS, THIRD
EDITION (VOLUMES IA, IB, 1C, AND II)
2119 11 USER'S GUIDE TO THE CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM;
OSWER #9240.0-1
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date Authors
06/01/84 BENSON, R.C.. ET. AL./TECHNOS,
INC. VANEE, J.J./EMSL
06/01/87 ORD/QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGEMENT
STAFF
07/01/88 EPA DATA REVIEW WORK CROUP
BLEYLER. R./VIAR AND CO./SAMPLE
MCMT. OFFICE/ HSED
02/01/88 BLEYLER. R./VIAR AND CO./SAMPLE
MGMT. OFFICE EPA DATA REVIEW
WORKGROUP HSED
09/01/85 BARCELONA, M.J., ET.AL./ILLINOIS
ST. WATER SURVEY SCALF,
M.R./ORD/ERL
07/01/85 BARTH, D.S. & STARKS, T.S./UNIV.
OF NEV. LAS VEGAS BROWN.
05/01/84 BARTH. D.S. & MASON, B.J./U. OF
NEVADA, LAS VEGAS BROWN,
K./ORD/EARD
11/01/86 OSWER
12/01/88 OERR/CLP SAMPLE MANAGEMENT
OFFICE
Super
No. Pages
236
31
20
45
175
120
104
3000
220
-------
SH
09 fr
OS6
£9
9S
OOS
MSO fr8/10/10
ia3w/ a 'HisaoNvi ee/io/co
8V1 ONia33NION3
Nomncoa »sia/oao/ a
'Hi3aONV1 DM I 'NOD3aiVW
'oa3Dm aaso/ TH '
'DNINNVS DNI 'S31VIDOSSV NliaVW
'M V/'1V '13 'TV 'NVW101
88/10/60
zem/eo
8Z/10/80
28/10/60
H w 'a
SON/'IV 13 'If 'NVWQ1O3 88/10/U
1d3MH/'Wf 'QdOOHinOH S3M/3OD
S n/ IV '13 ' D3 'AN3NV3W S8/10/60
-a 'H13i)QNV1
S3M/3O3 VS n/ f « 'NOiini
06-00 08^60 M3MSO
SS3N»DIHi a3NI1 03ain03b 3NIWa3130 Ol
Sa3NI1 AVID HOflOaHi MOId ONI1300W aOd S3an03DOad SI LQZZ
a3MSO 'S3lll1IDVd
IVSOdSIO ONV iN3WONnOdWI 31SVM dOONINII SI 90ZZ
£SO/88-Z7009/Vd3 '*
iN3WONnOdWI a3HiO ONV 1N3WNIV1NOD 31SVM dO ONINI1 frl SOJ2
IVSOdSIQ QNV1 El VQZZ
IVSOdSIO 31SVM
woad Nouniiod ONIZIWINIW aod IVONVW 3DNvaino ci sozz
s 3isvM snoaavzvH
A6o|ouy33i
aod sa3AOD
jo pu«n -
i-oo 9^e# a3MSO ::
snoaavzvH ONV QIIOS aod SWSISAS asApD DNIIVOIVAS ci zozz
dZOO/98-MS/OES/Vd3
:S3lil1IDVd 1N3W3DVNVW 31SVM aOd Sa3NI1
AVID dO NOIiVniVA3 ONV 'NO!IDOaiSNOD 'NOIS30 CI IOZZ
oozz
«3MSO 68/LO/ll
2SdlO-€ SSC6#
IDVd 3DN3a3d3a MDIflOl 5310015 Ail1iaViV3ai ONV
NOIiVZia31DVaVHD 31 IS - NOI1VDI1S3ANI 1VI03W3a 3H1
'ON
luauissassv d)S(>M "8 a)!S/A)j|enO eieo la - Sd/ia ....
: = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = S2 = S = 33S = = S!5 CS! 5:S = S = S = = = 3 = = = = = = = = = = == = =
Ol/ailll IOA ON
DOQ
SlN3WnDOO 3DNVOinD NOI ID3135
3SNOdS3i) V1DM3D dO WOlONSdWOD
-X30NI-
16/82/CO
L ON 30Vd
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
DOC
NO Vol
s = ss = = r
•**• RI/FS
2208 15
2209 15
2210 15
2211 15
2212 15
2213 33
2214 33
2215 33
2216 33
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
Title/ID Number
- Land Disposal Facility Technology
======================
RCRA GUIDANCE DOCUMENT: LANDFILL DESIGN LINER
SYSTEMS AND FINAL COVER (DRAFT)
SETTLEMENT AND COVER SUBSIDENCE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
LANDFILLS: PROJECT SUMMARY; EPA-600/S2-85-035
SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING
LINER/LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM COMPATIBILITY;
OSWER #9480.00-13
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT: CONSTRUCTION QUALITY
ASSURANCE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE LAND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES; OSWER #9472.003
TREATMENT OF REACTIVE WASTES AT HAZARDOUS WASTE
LANDFILLS: PROJECT SUMMARY; EPA/600/S2-83/118
APPLICABILITY OF LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS TO
RCRA AND CERCLA GROUND WATER TREATMENT RE INJECT ION
SUPERFUND MANAGEMENT REVIEW: RECOMMENDATION
NO.26; OSWER #9234.1-06
SUPERFUND LDR GUIDE #1 OVERVIEW OF RCRA LAND
DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDRs); OSWER #9347.3-O1FS
SUPERFUND LDR GUIDE #2 COMPLYING WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LIST RESTRICTIONS UNDER LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS (LDRs); OSWER #9347.3-02FS
SUPERFUND LDR GUIDE #3 TREATMENT STANDARDS AND
MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS UNDER LAND
DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDRs); OSWER #9347.3-03FS
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date Authors
07/01/82 EPA
05/01/85 MURPHY. W.L. GILBERT, P.A.
08/07/86 WEDDLE. B.R./PERMITS AND STATE
PROGRAMS DIV.
10/01/86 HERRMANN.J.C./HWERL/LAND
POLLUTION CONTROL DIV./ OSWER
01/01/84 SHOOTER,D. ET.AL./ARTHUR D.
LITTLE. INC. LANDRETH, R./MERL
12/27/89 CLAY, D.R./OWSER
07/01/89 OERR
07/01/89 OERR
07/01/89 OERR
Super
No. Pages
= = = = = = = = = =
30
38
88
-------
PACE NO. 9
03/28/91
Doc
No Vol Titie/ID Number
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date Authors
----============================ ======== =====================:
Super
No. Pages
•••• RI/FS - Land Disposal Facility Technology
2217 33 SUPERFUND LDR GUIDE 04 COMPLYING WITH THE HAMMER
RESTRICTIONS UNDER LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
(LDRs); OSWER #9347.3-04FS
2218 33 SUPERFUND LDR GUIDE #5 DETERMINING WHEN LAND
DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDRs) ARE APPLICABLE TO
CERCLA RESPONSE ACTIONS; OSWER #9347.3-O5FS
2219 33 SUPERFUND LDR GUIDE «6A OBTAINING A SOIL AND
DEBRIS TREATABILITY VARIANCE FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS;
OSWER #9347.3-O6FS
2220 33 SUPERFUND LDR GUIDE #7 DETERMINING WHEN LAND
DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDRS) ARE RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE TO CERCLA RESPONSE ACTIONS; .OSWER
W9347.3-08FS
••• Secondary References ••• .
3000 25 APPLICABILITY OF THE HSWA MINIMUM TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS RESPECTING LINERS AND LEACHATE
COLLECTION SYSTEMS; OSWER #9480.01(85)
•••• Rl/FS - Other Technologies
2300
2301
16 A COMPENDIUM OF TECHNOLOGIES USED IN THE TREATMENT
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES; EPA/625/8-87/014
16 CARBON ABSORPTION ISOTHERMS FOR TOXIC ORGAN ICS;
EPA/600/8-80-023
07/01/89 OERR
07/01/89 OERR
07/01/89 OERR
12/01/89 OERR
04/01/85 SKINNER. J./OSW
09/01/87 ORD/CERI
04/01/80 DOBBS. R.A./MERL COHEN.
J.M./MERL
-4
49
321
-------
PACE NO. 10
03/28/91
DOC
NO Vol Title/ID Number
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
•••• Rl/FS - Other Technologies
2302 17 ENGINEERING HANDBOOK FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATION; OSWER #9488.00-5
2303 17 EPA GUIDE FOR IDENTIFYING CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES AT
HAZARDOUS-WASTE SITES AND SPILLS: BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT: EPA-600/3-83-063
2304 17 EPA GUIDE FOR INFECT I OUS WASTE MANAGEMENT; OSWER
#9410.00-2
2305 17 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CLEANUP OF SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT SITES; OSWER #9380.0-06
2306 17 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CLEANUP OF SURFACE TANK AND
DRUM SITES; OSWER #9380.0-03
2307 18 HANDBOOK FOR EVALUATING REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY
PLANS; EPA-600/2-83-076
2308 18 HANDBOOK FOR STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE; EPA>54.0/2-86-001
2309 19 HANDBOOK REMEDIAL ACTION AT WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
(REVISED); EPA/625/6-85/006
2310 20 LEACHATE PLUME MANAGEMENT; EPA/540/2-85/004
2311 20 MOBILE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUPERFUND
WASTES; EPA/540/2-86-003F
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date Authors
= = = := s = =: =: = = r = s = =
09/01/81 BONNER, T.A.. ET. AL./MONSANTO
RESEARCH CORP. OBERACKER.
/ / PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY
RAN I ERE, L.C./CORVALLIS
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB
05/01/86 OSWER/OSW
06/01/86 CDM/WOODWARD-CLYDE/ROY F. WESTON
BARTH, E./OERR
05/28/85 CDM/WOODWARD-CLYDE/ROY F.
WESTON/C.C. JOHNSON BARTH. E.
AND BIXLER. B./OERR
EHRENFELD. J. AND BASS.
J./ARTHUR D. LITTLE INC. PAHREN,
CULL INANE JR., M.J. ET. AL./U.S.
COE/WES HOUTHOOFD.
REPO, E. AND KUFS, C./JRB
ASSOCIATES BARKLEY, N./EPA
08/01/83
06/01/86
10/01/85 ORD/HWERL/ OSWER/OERR
11/01/85
09/01/86
CAMP. DRESSER, AND MCKEE INC.
CALER. L.D./HRSD
Super
No. Pages
445
120
75
39
135
439
125
560
590
130
-------
PACE NO. 11
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Doc
No Vol Ti tle/ID Number
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = « s == = = = = s: i
•••• RI/FS - Other Technologies
2312 21 PRACTICAL GUIDE-TRIAL BURNS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATORS; EPA/600/2-86/050
Date
Authors
04/01/86 GORMAN. P.. ET. AL./MIDWEST
RESEARCH INSTITUTE OBERACKER.
D.A./HWERL
Super
No. Pages
63
2313 21 PRACTICAL GUIDE-TRIAL BURNS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATORS. PROJECT SUMMARY; EPA/600/S2-86/050
2314 21 PROHIBITION ON THE PLACEMENT OF BULK LIQUID
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN LANDFILLS-STATUTORY
INTERPRETIVE GUIDANCE; OSWER 09487.00-2A
2315 21 REVIEW OF IN-PLACE TREATMENT TECHNIQUES FOR
CONTAMINATED SURFACE SOILS-VOL. 2: BACKGROUND
INFORMAITON FOR IN-SITU TREATMENT;
EPA-540/2-84-003b
2316 21 REVIEW OF IN-PLACE TREATMENT TECHNIQUES FOR
CONTAMINATED SURFACE SOILS-VOL. 1: TECHNICAL
EVALUATION; EPA/540/2-84-0033
2317 22 SLURRY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION FOR POLLUTION MIGRATION
CONTROL; EPA/540/2-84-001
2318 22 SYSTEMS TO ACCELERATE IN SITU STABILIZATION OF
WASTE DEPOSITS; EPA 540/2-86/002
2319 22 TECHNOLOGY SCREENING GUIDE FOR TREATMENT OF CERCLA
SOILS AND SLUDGES; EPA 540/2-88/004
2320 22 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY BRIEFS: ALTERNATIVES TO
HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS; EPA/600/8-86/017
07/01/86 GORMON. P... ET . AL ./MIDWEST
RESEARCH INSTITUTE OBERACKER.
06/11/A86 OSWER/OSW
11/01/84 SIMS. R.C.. ET.AL./JRB
ASSOCIATES BARKLEY, N./MERL
09/19/84 OSWER/OERR/ ORD/MERL
02/01/84 OERR/ ORD/MERL
09/01/86 AMDURER. M.. ET.AL./ENVIROSPHERE
CO. GRUBE, W./HWERL
09/01/88 OSWER/OERR
07/01/86 HWERL
35
350
165
220
285
130
35
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
12
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
DOC
No
2321
2322
Vol Ti tie/ID Number
RI/FS - Olher Technologies
33 ADVANCING THE USE OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR
SUPERFUND REMEDIES: OSWER #9355.0-26
33 GUIDE TO TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTES AT SUPERFUND SITES; EPA/540/2-89/052
2323 33 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY - BEST SOLVENT EXTRACT ION
PROCESS (QUICK REFERENCE FACT SHEET]; OSWER
#9200.5-253FS
2324 33 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY - GLYCOLATE DEHALOGENAT ION
[QUICK REFERENCE FACT SHEET]; OSWER #9200. 5-254FS
2325 33 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY - IN-SITU VITRIFICATION
(QUICK REFERENCE FACT SHEET]; OSWER #9200. 5-251FS
2326 33 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY - SLURRY-PHASE
B I ODE GRADATION (QUICK REFERENCE FACT SHEET];
OSWER #9200.5-252FS
2327 33 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ^. SOIL WASHING [QUICK
REFERENCE FACT SHEET]; OSWER #9200. 5-250FS
2328 33 TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE CLEANUP OF
RADIOLOGICALLY CONTAMINATED SUPERFUND SITES;
EPA/540/2-88/002
•••• RI/FS - Ground-Water Monitoring & Protection
2400 23 CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING AREAS OF VULNERABLE
HYDROCEOLOGY UNDER RCRA: STATUTORY INTERPRETIVE
GUIDANCE; OSWER #9472.00-2A
Dale
Authors
Super
No. Pages
= = = = = = = = = =
02/21/89 OERR/OWPL
03/01/89 RREL
11/01/89 OSWER
11/01/89 OSWER.
11/01/89 OSWER
11/01/89 OSWER
11/01/89 OSWER
08/01/88 ORD
07/01/86 OSWER/OSW
26
120
950
-------
PACE NO. 13
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
Doc
No
Vol Title/ID Number
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
RI/FS - Ground-Water Monitoring & Protection
24 FINAL RCRA COMPREHENSIVE GROUND-WATER MONITORING
EVALUATION (CME) GUIDANCE DOCUMENT: OSWER #9950.2
24 GROUND-WATER MONITORING AT CLEAN-CLOSING SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT AND WASTE PILE UNITS: OSWER
09476.00-14
24 GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY:
EPA/440/6-84-002
24 GUIDELINES FOR GROUND-WATER CLASSIFICATION UNDER
THE EPA GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY (DRAFT)
24 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE INSPECTION GUIDE (RCRA
GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEMS); OSWER #9950-3
24 PROTOCOL FOR GROUND-WATER EVALUATIONS: OSWER
#9080.0-1
25 RCRA GROUND-WATER MONITORING TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT(TECD); OSWER #9950.1
25 RCRA GROUND-WATER MONITORING TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT, TEGD: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY;
OSWER #9950.1-3
34 A GUIDE ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR CONTAMINATED
GROUND WATER (QUICK REFERENCE FACT SHEET]; .OSWER
#9283.1-2FS
34 CONSIDERATIONS IN GROUND WATER REMEDIATION AT
SUPERFUND SITES; OSWER #9355.4-03
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date Authors
12/19/86 LUCERO, G.A./OWPE
03/31/88 PORTER. J.W./OSWER
08/01/84 OFFICE OF GROUND-WATER
PROTECTION
12/01/86 OFFICE OF GROUND-WATER
PROTECTION
03/30/88 OSWER/OWPE/RCRA ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION
09/01/86 HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND WATER
TASK FORCE
09/01/86 EPA
07/01/87 LUCERO. C.A./OWPE
04/01/89 OSWER
10/18/89 OSWER
Super
No. Pages
55
65
600
50
2oa
270
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
DOC
No
14
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Vol Title/ID Number
= S S S S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSESSRSasaSSSrrSESSSSSSSSKSSSCSSSSSSSSS
•••• RI/FS - Ground-Water Monitoring & Protection
2411 34 DETERMINING SOIL RESPONSE ACTION LEVELS BASED ON
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT MIGRATION TO GROUNDWATER: A
COMPENDIUM OF EXAMPLES: EPA/540/2-B9/057
2412 34 EVALUATION OF GROUND-WATER EXTRACTION
REMEDIES-VOLUME 1 SUMMARY REPORT;
EPA/540/2-89/054
2413 34 GUIDANCE ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR CONTAMINATED
GROUND WATER AT SUPERFUND SITES: OSWER #9283.1-2
••• Secondary References •••
3014 34 CONTROL OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM SUPERFUND AIR
STRIPPERS AT SUPERFUND GROUNDWATER SITES;
#9533.0-28
OSWER
•••• ARARs
3000 25 APPLICABILITY OF THE HSWA MINIMUM TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS RESPECTING LINERS AND LEACHATE
COLLECTION SYSTEMS; OSWER #9480.01(85)
3001 25 CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUTES; OSWER #9234.0-2
3002 25 CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS MANUAL (DRAFT);
OSWER #9234.1-01
3003 25 EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS
AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986
Date
Authors
Super
No. Pages
10/01/89 OERR
09/01/89 OERR
12/01/88 OERR
06/15/89 OSWER/OAQPS
04/01/85 SKINNER. J./OSW
10/02/85 PORTER. J.W./OSWER
08/08/88 OERR
05/21/87 THOMAS. L. M./EPA
144
60
125
19
245
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
15
Doc
NO Vol
•*•• ARARs
3004 25
3005 25
3006 34
3007 34
3008 34
3009 34
3010 34
3011 34
3012 34
Ti tte/ID Number
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date Authors
Super
No. Pages
GUIDANCE MANUAL ON THE RCRA REGULATION OF RECYCLED
HAZARDOUS WASTES; OSWER 09441.00-2
INTERIM RCRA/CERCLA GUIDANCE ON NON-CONTICUOUS
SITES AND ON-SITE MANAGEMENT OF WASTE AND
TREAlMENT RESIDUE; OSWER #9147.0-1
ARARs Q'S & A'S [QUICK REFERENCE FACT SHEET];
OSWER #9234.2-01FS
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE QUARTERLY REPORT [QUICK
REFERENCE FACT SHEET); OSWER #9234.3-001
ARARS SHORT GUIDANCE QUARTERLY REPORT [QUICK
REFERENCE FACT SHEET]; OSWER #9234.3-OOJ
CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS MANUAL - CERCLA
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS [QUICK
REFERENCE FACT SHEET]; OSWER #9234.2-05FS
CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS MANUAL - CERCLA
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CWA AND SDWA [QUICK REFERENCE
FACT SHEET]; OSWER #9234.2-06FS
CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS MANUAL -
OVERVIEW OF ARARS - FOCUS ON ARAR WAIVERS [QUICK
REFERENCE FACT SHEET]; OSWER #9234.2-03FS
CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS MANUAL - SUMMARY
OF PART II - CAA. TSCA. AND OTHER STATUTES [QUICK
REFERENCE FACT SHEET); OSWER 09234.2-07FS
03/01/86 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INC. OSW
03/27/86 PORTER, JW./OSWER
05/01/89 OSWER
12/01/89 OSWER
03/01/90 OERR/OPM
12/01/89 OSWER
02/01/90 OSWER
12/01/89 OSWER
04/01/90 OERR/OPM
350
-------
PACE NO.
'03/28/91
16
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
DOC
No Vol Title/ID Number
==== === ==========================================="======
•••• ARARs
3013 34 CERCIA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS MANUAL PART II:
CLEAN AIR ACT AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND
STAIt REQUIREMENTS; OSWER #9234.1-02
3014 34 CONTROL OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM SUPERFUND AIR
STRIPPERS AT SUPERFUND GROUNDWATER SITES: OSWER
#9533.0-28
3015 34 INTERIM GUIDANCE ON ESTABLISHING SOIL LEAD CLEANUP
LEVELS AT SUPERFUND SITES; OSWER #9355.4-02
3016 34 LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS AS RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA CONTAMINATED
SOIL AND DEBRIS; OSWER #9347.2-01
3017 34 RCRA ARARs: FOCUS ON CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS [QUICK
REFERENCE FACT SHEET]; OSWER #9234.2-04FS
3018 34 TREATMENT STANDARDS AND MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY
REQUIREMENTS UNDER LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
(LDR); OSWER #9347.3-03FS
••• Secondary References •••
2014 33 GUIDANCE ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR SUPERFUND SITES
WITH PCB CONTAMINATION; OSWER #9355.4-01
2208 15 RCRA GUIDANCE DOCUMENT: LANDFILL DESIGN LINER
SYSTEMS AND FINAL COVER (DRAFT)
2213 33 APPLICABILITY OF LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS TO
RCRA AND CERCLA GROUND WATER TREATMENT RE INJECTION
SUPERFUND MANAGEMENT REVIEW: RECOMMENDATION
NO.26; OSWER #9234.1-06
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date Authors
08/01/89 OERR
06/15/89 OSWER/OAQPS
09/01/89 OERR
06/05/89 OERR
10/01/89 OSWER
07/01/89 OSWER
08/01/90 OERR
07/01/82 EPA
12/27/89 CLAY, D.R./OWSER
Super
No. Pages
175
.3
150
30
-------
PACE NO. 17
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
DOC
No Vol Title/ID Number Date Authors
•••* ARARS
••• Secondary References cont. •••
2218 33 SUPERFUND LDR GUIDE #5 DETERMINING WHEN LAND
DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDRs) ARE APPLICABLE TO
CERCLA RESPONSE ACTIONS: OSWER 09347.3-O5FS
Super
No. Pages
2219 33 SUPERFUND LDR GUIDE #6A OBTAINING A SOIL AND
DEBRIS TREATABILITY VARIANCE FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS;
OSWER 09347.3-06FS
2220 33 SUPERFUND LDR GUIDE 07 DETERMINING WHEN LAND
DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDRs) ARE RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE TO CERCLA RESPONSE ACTIONS; OSWER
#9347.3-O8FS
2400 23 CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING AREAS OF VULNERABLE
HYDROGEOLOGY UNDER RCRA: STATUTORY INTERPRETIVE
GUIDANCE; OSWER #9472.00-2A
2401 24 FINAL RCRA COMPREHENSIVE GROUND-WATER MONITORING
EVALUATION (CME) GUIDANCE DOCUMENT; OSWER #9950.2
2405 24 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE INSPECTION GUIDE (RCRA
GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEMS); OSWER #9950-3
2407 25 RCRA GROUND-WATER MONITORING TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT(TECD); OSWER #9950.1
2408 25 RCRA GROUND-WATER MONITORING TECHNICAL ENFORCEMENT
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT, TECD: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY;
OSWER #9950.1-3
07/01/89 OERR
07/01/89 OtRR
12/01/89 OERR
07/01/86 OSWER/OSW
12/19/86 LUCERO, C.A./OWPE
03/30/88 OSWER/OWPE/RCRA ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION
09/01/86 EPA
07/01/87 LUCERO, C.A./OWPE
950
55
50
270
-------
PACE NO. 18
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
DOC
No Vol Ti tie/ID Number
= = = = === ===================================================
•••• ARARS
••• Secondary References cont •••
9001 32 RCRA/CERCLA DECISIONS MADE ON REMEDY SELECTION
•••• Water Quali ty
4000 26 ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMIT GUIDANCE PART 1. ACL
POLICY AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS: OSWER
09481.00-6C
4001 26 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR PROVIDING ALTERNATE WATER
SUPPLIES: OSWER #9355.3-03
4002 26 INTERIM FINAL GUIDANCE ON REMOVAL ACTION LEVELS AT
CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER SITES; OSWER
#9360.1-01
4003 26 QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER 1986; EPA/440/5-86-001
i.
••• Secondary References •••
1005 1 INFORMATION ON DRINKING WATER ACTION LEVELS
2301 16 CARBON ABSORPTION ISOTHERMS FOR TOXIC ORGANICS;
EPA/600/8-80-023
•••• Risk Assessment
5000 27 ATSDR HEALTH ASSESSMENTS ON NPL SITES (DRAFT)
Date
Authors
= = = ssss = = sr = r r = s s = = s s = s = = s: = s = s = = = = s s s s = = s = = s = s
06/24/85 KILPATRICK, M./COMPLIANCE
BRANCH. OWPE
07/01/87 OSW/WMD
02/01/88 OERR
10/06/87 OSWER/OERR
05/01/87 OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND
STANDARDS
04/19/88 FIELDS. JR.. T./OSWER/ERD
04/01/80 DOBBS. R.A./MERL COHEN,
J.M./MERL
06/16/86 DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES/ATSDR
Super
No. Pages
===== =====
124
64
325
17
321
14
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
DOC
NO Vol
**•• Ri sk
5001 27
5002 27
5003 27
5004 27
5005 27
5006 27
5007 27
5008 28+
5009 31
19
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Date Authors
TiIle/ID Number
Assessment
CHEMICAL. PHYSICAL & BIOLOGICAL PROPER!IfS Ol
COMPOUNDS PRESENT AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SUES: OSWER
#9850.3
FINAL GUIDANCE FOR THE COORDINATION OF A1SDR
HEALTH ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES WITH THE SUPERFUND
REMEDIAL PROCESS; OSWER #9285.4-02
GUIDELINES FOR CARCINOGEN RISK ASSESSMENT (FEDERAL
REGISTER. SEPTEMBER 24. 1986.-p. 33992)
GUIDELINES FOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT (FEDERAL
REGISTER. SEPTEMBER 24. 1986, p. 34042)
GUIDELINES FOR HEALTH ASSESSMENT OF SUSPECT
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICANTS (FEDERAL REGISTER.
SEPTEMBER 24, 1986, p 34028)
GUIDELINES FOR MUTACENICITY RISK ASSESSMENT
(FEDERAL REGISTER, SEPTEMBER, 24, p. 34006)
GUIDELINES FOR THE HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF
CHEMICAL MIXTURES (FEDERAL REGISTER, SEPTEMBER 24.
1986. p. 34014)
HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTS (58 CHEMICAL
PROFILES); EPA/540/1-86/001-058
INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM (IRIS) (A
COMPUTER-BASED HEALTH RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM
AVAILABLE THROUGH E-MAIL--BROCHURE ON ACCESS IS
INCLUDED)
09/27/85 UEMEN1 ASSOCIATES. INC
05/14/87 PORTER. J.W./OSWER/OERR/ ATSDR
A
09/24/86 EPA
09/24/86 EPA
09/24/86 EPA
09/24/86 EPA
09/24/86 EPA
09/01/84 ORD/OHEA/ECAO/ OSWER/OERR
/ / OHEA
Super
No. Pages
320
- 22
13
14
14
13
1750
-------
PACE NO. 20
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE
DOC
NO
5010
Vol Ti tie/ID Number
Risk Assessment
31 INTERIM POLICY FOR ASSESSING RISKS OF "DIOXINS"
OTHER THAN 2.3.7.8-TCDD
SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Super
Date Authors No. Pages
-- ======== =================================== ===== =====
5011 31 PUBLIC HEALTH RISK EVAUATION DATABASE (PHRED)
[USER'S MANUAL AND TWO DISKETTES CONTAINING THE
OBASEIII PLUS SYSTEM ARE INCLUDED]
5012 31 ROLE OF ~ACUTE TOXICITY BIOASSAYS IN THE REMEDIAL
ACTION PROCESS AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES:
EPA/600/8-87/044
5013 31 SUPERFUND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT MANUAL: OSWER
09285.5-1
5014 31 SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION MANUAL; OSWER
#9285.4-1
5015 31 TOXICOLOGY HANDBOOK; OSWER #9850.2
5016 35 AIR/SUPERFUND NATIONAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE STUDY
SERIES VOLUME I - APPLICATION OF AIR PATHWAY
ANALYSES FOR SUPERFUND ACTIVITIES
5017 35 AIR/SUPERFUND NATIONAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE STUDY
SERIES VOLUME II - ESTIMATION OF BASELINE AIR
EMISSIONS AT SUPERFUND SITES; EPA/450/1-89/002
5018 36 AIR/SUPERFUND NATIONAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE STUDY
SERIES VOLUME III - ESTIMATION OF AIR EMISSIONS
FROM CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AT SUPERFUND SITES;
EPA/450/1-89/003
01/07/87 THOMAS. L M./EPA
09/16/88 OEiRR/TOXICS INTEGRATION BRANCH
08/01/87 AIHEY. L.A.. ET.AL./PACIF1C
NORTHWEST LABORATORY MILLER.
W.E./CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LAB
04/01/88 OERR
10/01/86 OERR OSWER
08/01/85 LIFE SYSTEMS, INC. /TYBURSKI
T.E./OWPE
12/01/88 EPA REGION I II/NUS CORP.
01/01/89 OAQPS/RADIAN CORP.
01/01./89 OAQPS/RADIAN CORP
50
18
106
160
500
126
90
235
230
-------
PACE NO.
03/28/91
Doc
No Vol
= = s s s r s
•*•• Risk
5019 36
5020 37
5021 37
5022 37
5023 37
21
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
TiIle'/ID Number
Assessment
AIR/SUPERFUND NAl'L TECHNICAL GUIDANCE SIUOY
SERIES - VOLUMl IV PROCEDURES FOR DISPERSION
MODELING AND AIR MONITORING FOR AIR PATHWAY
ANALYSES (DRAFF)
EXPOSURE FACTORS HANDBOOK; EPA/600/8-89/043
GUIDANCE FOR SOIL INCESTION RATES; OSWER #9850.4
OPTIONS FOR INTERIM POLICY FOR SOIL INGEST ION
ASSUMPTIONS
RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUNO. VOLUME I,
HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION MANUAL; OSWER
#9285.7-013
Date Authors
Super
No. Pages
5024 37 RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND^ VOLUME .11,
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MANUAL; EPA/540/1-89/001
5025 37 THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - SITE CHARACTERIZATION
AND TREATABILITY STUDIES (QUICK REFERENCE FACT
SHEETJ; OSWER #9355.3-01FS2
5026 37 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR 1. 4 - DICHLOROBENZENE
5027 37 TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR 2. 3, 7. 8 -
TETRACHLORO-DIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
5028 37 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR ARSENIC
5029 38 TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR BENZENE
12/0 l/«tt (PA REGION III/NUS CORP.
07/01/89 OHEA
01/27/89 OSWER
10/04/88 EPA
09/29/89 OERR
03/01/89 OERR
11/01/89 OSWER
01/01/89 ATSDR
06/01/89 ATSDR
03/01/89 ATSDR
05/01/89 ATSDR
295
285
3
5
290
57
95
129
125
173
-------
.' PACE NO. 22
•03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
DOC
NO
Vol Tilie/ID Number
= = = = === ====================================================!
•••• Ri sk Assessment
5030 38 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR BERYLLIUM
5031 38 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR CADMIUM
5032 38 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR CHLOROFORM
5033 38 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR CHROMIUM
5034 38 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR
DI(2-ETHYIHEXYL)PHTHALATE
5035 39 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR HEPTACHLOR/HEPTACHLOR
EPOX IDE
5036 39 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE
5037 39 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR N-NITRO SODIPHENYLAMINE
5038 39 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR NICKEL
5039 39 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR SELECTED PCBs
(AROCLOR-1260. -1254. L1248, -1242. -1232. -1221.
AND -1016)
5040 39 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
5041 39 TOXICOLOCICAL PROFILE FOR VINYL CHLORIDE
••• Secondary References •••
2015 33 GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING TREATABILITY STUDIES UNDER
CERCLA; INTERIM FINAL;; EPA/540/2-89/058
Date
Authors
Super
No. Pages
=====
12/01/88 ATSDR
03/01/89 ATSDR
01/01/89 ATSDR
07/01/89 ATSDR
04/01/89 ATSDR
04/01/89 ATSDR
04/01/89 ATSDR
12/01/88 ATSDR
12/01/88 ATSDR
06/01/89 ATSDR
10/01/89 ATSDR
08/01/89 ATSDR
12/01/89 ORD/OERR
91
107
115
135
119
109
111
65
111
135
139
107
118
-------
PACE NO. 23
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
DOC
NO vol Tilie/ID Number Date
•••• Ri sk Assessment
Authors
Super
No. Pages
••• Secondary References cont. •••
2020 33 TREATABILITY STUDIES UNDER CERCLA: AN OVERVIEW
[QUICK REFERENCE FACT SHEET); OSWER 09380.3-02FS
8000 32 ENDANCERMENT ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE: OSWER 09850.0-1
••*• Cost Analysis
6000 32 REMEDIAL ACTION COSTING PROCEDURES MANUAL
6001 32 REMOVAL COST MANAGEMENT MANUAL; OSWER #9360.0-028
••• Secondary References •••
1001
1003
1 COSTS OF REMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AT UNCONTROLLED
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL
ACTIONS; OSWER #9318.0-05
•••• Community Relations
7000 32 COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN SUPERFUND: A HANDBOOK
(INTERIM VERSION); OSWER #9230.0-038
•••• Enforcement
8000 32 ENDANCERMENT ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE: OSWER #9850.0-1
12/01/89 OSWER
11/22/85 PORTER. J.W./OSWER
10/01/87 JRB AS50CIATES/CH2M HILL
ORD/MERL OSWER/OERR
04/01/88 OSWER/OERR
01/01/81 RISHEL. H.L.. ET.AL./SCS
ENGINEERS ALBRECHT. O.W./MERL
04/13/87 OERR/ERD
06/01/88 OERR
11/22/85 PORTER. J.W./OSWER
11
56
170
164
188
11
-------
PACE NO. 24
03/28/91
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Vol Title/ID Number
•••• Enforcement
8001 32 INTERIM CUIDANCE ON POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY
PARTICIPATION IN REMEDIAL INVEST I CAT IONS AND
FEASIBILITY STUDIES: OSWER #9835 1a
••• Secondary References •••
2016 33 MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK FOR A REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY CONDUCTED BY
POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES: OSWER #9835.8
'••• Selection of Remedy/Decision Documents
9000 32 INTERIM CUIDANCE ON SUPERFUND SELECTION OF REMEDY;
OSWER #9355.0-19
9001 32 RCRA/CERCLA DECISIONS MADE ON REMEDY SELECTION
9002 39 A GUIDE TO SELECTING SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS:
OSWER #9355.0-27FS
Super
NO Pages
05/H>/88 PORTER. J.W./OSWER
37
06/02/89 OWPE
31
12/24/86 PORTER. J.W./OSWER
06/24/85 KILPATRICK. M./COMPLIANCE
BRANCH. OWPE
04/01/90 OERR/HSCD
10
-------
DATA ELEMENT DEFINITIONS
The data elements of the Compendium database, as identified on the index, are shown
below:
DATA ELEMENT
Doc No
Vol
Title /ID Number
Date
Authors
Super No.
Pages
Secondary References
DEFINITION
Unique four-digit number assigned to a document included
in the Compendium according to category.
Volume number of the binder in which the hard copy of
the document is contained.
Title of the document. The OSWER or other EPA ID
Number, if any, follows the title.
The date the document was published by or released from
the issuing office or entity.
Author(s) and affiliation(s). Also includes identification of
the EPA Project Officer and issuing office, where
applicable.
The four-digit number (Doc No) assigned to the document
that supersedes the document identified.
Total number of prmted pages of the document, including
any attachments.
Secondary References are identified at the end of each
category when a document relates to more than one
category. The document itself is filed under the number
series assigned to its primary category.
-------
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONAL ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
IDENTIFIED IN THE INDEX
Organization
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Center for Environmental Research Information
Contract Laboratory Program
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Exposure Assessment Research Division
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Emergency Response Division
Environmental Research Laboratory
Hazardous Response Support Division
Hazardous Site Control Division
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Health Effects Assessment
Office of Program Management
Office of Research and Development
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Policy Analysis Staff
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Waterways Experiment Station
Waste Management Division
Acronym
ATSDR
CERI
CLP
COE
EARD
ECAO
EMSL
ERD
ERL
HRSD
HSCD
HSED
HWERL
MERL
OAQPS
OEET
OERR
OHEA
OPM
ORD
OSW
OSWER
OWPE
PAS
RREL
WES
WMD
-------
CATALOG OF SUPERFUND PROGRAM PUBLICATIONS
-------
-------
EPA/54Q/8-90KK5
EPA/9200.7-O2A
October 1990
Catalog of Superfund
Program Publications
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. This catalog may be obtained free of charge
from the EPA's Public Information Center (PIC), the Center for Envi-
ronmental Research Information (CERI), the Superfund Docket and
Information Center (SDIC), and the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS).
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. How the Superfund Program Works 1
2. How to Use This Catalog 7
3. Abstracts 9
Removal 9
Pre-Remedial 12
Remedial 16
Technology 32
Program Management 35
Superfund Academy 41
Computer Materials 42
4. How to Order Documents 45
Information about NTIS 45
NTIS Order Form 47
5. Subject Index 49
6. Numeric Index 69
540 Series 69
9000 Series 72
NTIS Numbers 76
m
-------
-------
Superfund: A Rational
Response to Our
Hazardous Waste Law
Superfund is the nation's
environmental program for
cleaning up abandoned and
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Such sites are extremely diverse.
Many are municipal or industrial
landfills. Others are manufacturing
plants where operators improperly
disposed of wastes. Some are large
Federal facilities dotted with "hot
spots" of contamination from
various high-tech or military
activities. Spills, accidents, and
leaking underground storage tanks
are other types of sites. Most
hazardous wastes come from our
manufacturing sector; common
contaminants include heavy metals
like lead and mercury, solvents and
degreasers, pesticides and
herbicides, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and wood
preservers.
The law dictates that Superfund
monies can be used only for two
main purposes:
• To address emergency threats to
human health and the
environment.
• To conduct long-term cleanup at
the worst sites in the country.
A complex ranking system
identifies the worst sites and places
them on the National Priorities List
(NPL), which currently comprises
1,246* sites.
To satisfy the law's requirements,
EPA organized its cleanup effort
into three programmatic divisions.
Emergency cleanup work, which
EPA calls "Removal," is performed
by one. "Remedial" work, or long-
term cleanup at the worst sites, is
done by another. And because
The 1,246 sites consist of 1,218 sites
either on the final National
Priorities List or proposed for it,
and 28 sites that have been formally
"deleted" from the NPL because
the cleanup action has been
completed and its effectiveness
verified.
someone must decide which sites
are truly the worst, evaluation and
ranking is undertaken by the "Prc-
Remedial" division. "Removal"
activities can be performed at any
site that needs them, but
"Remedial" actions occur only at
the sites on the National Priorities
List. The process a site undergoes
from initial discovery through final
Superfund cleanup is illustrated
schematically at the end of this
section.
Division of Labor in the
Superfund Program
The Removal Program
Superfund emergency workers
respond immediately to any site
considered to pose an imminent
threat to human health and the
WHAT IS THE SUPERFUND?
In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly called
"Superfund." The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) was passed by Congress in 1986 to update and improve CERCLA.
The law authorizes the Federal government to respond directly to
releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the environment. Legal actions can
be taken to force the parties responsible for causing the contamination to
clean up those sites or reimburse the Superfund for the costs of cleanup.
If responsible parties cannot be found or are unwilling or unable to clean
up a site, EPA can use monies from the Superfund to accomplish the
cleanup. The Superfund is actually a trust fund. CERCLA established
a 5-year, $1.6-billion fund made up of taxes on crude oil and certain
commercially produced chemicals. SARA extended authority for another
5 years, and increased the funds to $8.5 billion. These additional monies
are made available to the Superfund directly from excise taxes on
petroleum and feedstock chemicals, a tax on certain imported chemical
derivatives, an environmental tax oncorporations,appropriations made
by Congress from general tax revenues, and any monies recovered or
collected from parties responsible for site contamination.
-------
environment. EPA manages a large
cadre of cleanup experts who can
be mobilized quickly when the
need arises. The Agency's On-
Scene Coordinator (OSC)
supervises these resources at the
site. "Removal" workers stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a
hazardous release, or the threat of
one. Sample situations might
include a tire fire or a trans-
portation accident involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals.
Removal professionals may also
advise State and local officials on
the need for an alternative water
supply, treatment of contaminated
soils, a waterproof cap to constrain
wastes, or relocation of residents.
"Planned" removals are also
undertaken at sites that don't
qualify as emergencies, but
nonetheless present a threat that
must be dealt with in a timely way.
This type of removal may also
occur during long-term cleanup.
For example, routine
groundbreaking work in an
unrelated construction activity may
reveal a layer of unsuspected
hazardous waste drums.
The Pre-Remedial Program
EPA's Pre-Remedial program
applies a systematic approach to
determining how hazardous a site
is. Upon discovery, the site is
logged into the Comprehensive
Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLJS),
Superfund's computerized
inventory. It then undergoes
studies, the Preliminary
THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM
Information collected during the site inspection is used to identify the
sites posing the most serious threats to human health and the
environment. This way EPA can meet the requirement that Congress
gave it to use Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous waste
sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites,, a comparison is made between the
potential riskposedbyonesiteandthepotentialrisk9ofother
-------
The Feasibility Study (FS) is
conducted next. This study
analyzes cleanup options and
recommends one. EPA studies site
findings and selects a cleanup
remedy, which it officially
documents in a legally binding
Record of Decision (ROD) for the
site. This ROD clearly sets forth the
work's cleanup goals (e.g., cubic
yards of soil to be removed, water
standards to be met).
Next, engineers design whatever
construction is required to carry out
the remedy; this is called the
Remedial Design phase. Construc-
tion ranges from containment
structures to drainage wells, to clay
caps over the wastes, to ground
water extraction systems. Once
cleanup activities and construction
are under way, the site has entered
the Remedial Action phase.
No matter how exhaustive
preliminary studies may be,
sampling and site observation are
unable to reveal the full extent of
the problem at many sites.
Uncertainties exist right up until
the point where ground is broken
for the cleanup work, and surprises
can occur throughout remedial
action. Thus there is no ready
answer to the question, "How long
will it take?" On average—and this
includes a broad range—6 to 8
years will elapse between the start
of the cleanup study and
completion of the remedy.
The cleaned-up site is ultimately
deleted from the NPL, but this does
not take place until the remedy's
effectiveness has been clearly
proven. Often years of monitoring,
operation, and maintenance are
needed to satisfy these concerns.
Superfund Information:
A Broad Spectrum
The Superfund program generates
a wide range of information on
hazardous waste cleanup processes
and procedures. It ranges from
policy directives to guidance
documents to detailed technology
evaluations. Audiences for these
materials may be program staff,
cleanup personnel, computer
experts, technical researchers, and
the general public.
This catalog organizes Superfund
documents into four main
categories:
1. QUICK-REFERENCE FACT SHEETS—
These brief documents
summarize hazardous waste
issues, technology, and technical
documents.
2. DIRECTIVES—These provide policy
direction usually in memoranda
form (e.g., practical methods for
carrying out hazardous waste
regulations) to EPA Regional
managers.
3. PUBLICATIONS—This category runs
the gamut from general public
brochures to user manuals,
annual reports, study
summaries, guidance
documents, responses to
directives, and technology
documents. The last category is
substantial and includes both
scientific studies (e.g., on health
effects) and pragmatic
descriptions of site cleanup
techniques, both tried and
experimental.
4. COMPUTER MATERIALS—These
include computer software and
documentation.
Not all of the documents
catalogued here come directly from
the Removal, Remedial, and Pre-
Remedial divisions. Many of the
technology documents are
developed by EPA's Office of
Research and Development, with
technical input and underwriting
provided by Superfund offices.
Superfund's Office of Program
Management offers a range of
program and policy documents, as
well as self-analytical reports on
hazardous waste progress and
problems. Finally, there are
overarching documents produced
by the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, the umbrella
office for the Superfund divisions.
This catalog contains an abstract of
each Superfund document, and
provides indexes designed to help
both general readers and program
experts to locate what interests
them. The section that follows
describes how to use this catalog
most effectively.
-------
Superfund Tackles Hazardous Waste Emergencies
and the Nation's Most Serious Sites
Emergency
Immediate Cleanup
Workers quickly remove or
stabilize the threat They
may fence the site, relocate
residents, provide drinking
water, or remove materials.
Planned Removal
Workers remove or stabilize
a threat that is not
immediately dangerous but
must be dealt with soon.
Discovery-
Sites may be discovered via:
• Citizen complaints
• Routine reports
• Regular inspections
• Trouble: fire/explosion/spill
Imminent Threat
Site Discovery and Study
Appear* Seriou*
Non-Emergency
Preliminary
Assessment
EPA or the State evaluates the
need for long-term cleanup.
Are hazardous substances
likely present? How are they
contained? How might
contaminants spread? How
close is the nearest sensitive
population? What/who
might be harmed?
Long-Term Cleanup:
National Priorities
list
The most serious of all
known sites. These are the
sites that qualify for
long-term cleanup with
Superfund money.
Both emergency and long-term cleanup work can be led
fay EPAoran individual State, or under their supervision,
by the parties responsible for the contamination. The
public has input throughout the process.
Record of Decision
EPA formally selects the site
remedy, which is
documented in the ROD.
The ROD is the basis for
subsequent engineering and
cleanup work.
Remedial
Investigation/
Feasibility Study
The RI determines the nature
and extent of contamination at
the site. It is much more
intensive than the Site
Investigation. The FS identifies
and evaluates cleanup options.
EPA compares relative
effectiveness and cost.
-------
Finding the Most Serious Sites
May Be Dangerous
Site Inspection
Investigators visit the site
looking for evidence of
hazards. They sample
soil/air/water. They look
for pathways of
contamination and affected
populations and areas.
No Danger/No Further Action
1
Hazard Ranking
System
Sites are scored and ranked
viatheHRS. The score is
based on whether wastes
have or could spread
through the environment to
affect human and ecological
health.
Above Cut-off
Value
Below Cut-off
Value
No Danger/No Further Action
National Priorities
List
The most serious of all
known sites. These are the
sites that qualify for
long-term cleanup with
Superfund money.
Superfund Inventory
All sites or spills reported
stay in EPA's Superfund
database for future reference
and potential removal.
Fixing the Most Serious Sites
Remedial Action
These are the cleanup activities.
They may be simple: removing
and decontaminating drums of
waste. Or they may be complex
and take years: cleaning
polluted ground water and
dredging contaminated river
bottoms. Often new situations
are discovered after cleanup
begins.
Remedial Design
Engineers design plans and
specifications for cleanup
actions. Hazardous waste
descriptions, decontamination,
environmental protection,
worker safety, and regulatory
compliance are all "designed
Deletion
Only after the remedy is
constructed and all long-term
monitoring and O&M is
complete can EPA propose
that the site be deleted from
the NPL. The public must
agree.
Operations &
Maintenance
Long-term monitoring, as well
as O&M, is often required after
remedy construction to assure
that the approach continues to
be effective in protecting
human and ecological health.
Some O&M must go on for up
to 10 years.
-------
-------
The tools in this catalog have been
carefully crafted to serve a variety
of users, both expert and non-
expert. A reader may locate a
specific document even if he or she
has only a fragment of information:
a title, a publication number, a
program office name, or simply a
subject category. These tools are
described in the following
paragraphs.
FOR SUPERFUND
NEWCOMERS
This catalog has been written to
assist its many users who are
not Superfund "insiders,"
Wherever possible, catalogers
have substituted English for
program jargon and acronyms.
Non-expert users seeking
information on particular topics
will find the Subject Index most
helpful. It illustrates the types
of information Superfund
documents contain. Those
looking for specific titles or
documents from particular
offices will find the Abstracts
carefully organized to facilitate
such a search. The Numeric
Index arranges documents by
publication number. This
how-to section describes each
catalog tool in further detail.
The Subject Index
The backbone of the catalog is the
Subject Index, which covers a wide
range of Superfund topics. Each
entry is accompanied by one or
more page numbers on which an
abstract dealing with that topic can
be found. A scan of the page will
quickly pinpoint the abstract.
The Abstracts
The Abstracts appear as
Section 3.
For the convenience of users with
considerable Superfund expertise,
the abstracts have been organized
into seven categories:
1. Removal
2. Pre-Remedial
3. Remedial
4. Technology
5. Program Management
6. Superfund Academy, and
7. Computer Materials.
Documents are listed alphabetically
within each category. Thus, a
knowledgeable user seeking a
particular document could use the
Abstracts alone as a locator tool by
making an educated guess about
the category in which the document
is likely to appear.
FOR SUPERFUND
EXPERTS
Users with plenty of
Superfund experience are
likely to be seeking specific
documents or program
information. The summaries
in the Abstracts are organized
under seven categories,
several of which are
programmatic. Anexpertuscr
can comb the Abstracts easily
by determining which
category the desired
document is in, and then
scanning that section.
Document titles are arranged
in alphabetical order within
each category. In addition,
the Numeric Index arranges
documents by publication
number.
••M -
-------
Each abstract contains:
The document's title;
An icon showing the type of
document;
The publication date;
The number of pages;
The NTIS order number;
A brief summary of the
document's contents; and
The document's EPA number(s).
The Numeric Index
This index organizes Superfund
documents in numeric order. All
entries contain an NTIS order
number, which is to be used in
ordering documents. Most EPA
publications are given Agency or
office control numbers. There are
two main sets, the 540 series and
the 9000 series:
• The 540 series is generally
applied to Agency publications
printed in quantity. A sample
number is EPA/540/G-89/003.
• The 9000 series has been
assigned to the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response,
Superfund's parent office, for
coding its policy directives.
Abstract Guide
Title
Publication
Date
Order
Number
EPA Control
Number(s)
(9000 and/or
540 series)
The Emergency Response
Notification System
August 1989 7 pages .
Order No. PB90-249715
Provides general information for
the public on the Emergency
Response Notification System, the
national computer database and
retrieval system that is used to
store information on releases of oil
and hazardous substances.
' EPA/9360.0-21
Icon
Number of
Pages
Summary
Icon Guide
Fact Shoot
Directive
Publication
Computer
Material
However, the Superfund office^
assigns a 9200-9399 series
number to all documents for
internal management purposes.
A sample number is:
EPA/9234.01.
In addition, every abstract contains
an NTIS order number (beginning
with PB-), which is to be used in
ordering documents. The very few
documents with no EPA numbers
are listed in the Numeric Index by
order number.
Ordering Documents
See Section 4 for ordering
instructions and an order form.
-------
Removal
Accelerated Response at
NPL Sites Guidance
December 15,1989 19 pages
Order No.: PB90-258302
Provides EPA guidance on
addressing immediate threats at
National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
This document is Superfund
Management Review
.ecommendation No. 22.
EPA/9200.2-02
Emergency Response
Cleanup Services Contracts
(ERCS)
October 1987 210 pages
Order No.: PB90-191966
Provides information to help those
authorized to use ERCS contracts to
deploy them more efficiently and
effectively. Included are EPA
Headquarters and Regional
personnel, as well as staff from
other Federal agencies (e.g., U.S.
Coast Guard). In addition, the
users' manual discusses
coordinating the use of the ERCS
contracts with other entities
involved with the Superfund
program.-
EPA/9242.2-01B
The Emergency Response
Notification System
August 1989 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-249715
Provides general information for
the public on the Emergency
Response Notification System, the
national computer data base and
retrieval system that is used to store
information on releases of oil and
hazardous substances.
EPA/9360.0-21
Final Guidance on
Implementation of the
"Consistency" Exemption to
the Statutory Limits on
Removal Actions
June 12,1989 8 pages
Order No.: PB90-27446
Provides final guidance to EPA
Regions on the implementation of
the SARA $2 million/12-month
statutory limits on removal actions
and the exemption from the
statutory limits for "actions
otherwise appropriate and
consistent with the remedial action
to be taken" (consistency
exemption).
EPA/9360.0-12A
Guidance for Conducting
Federal-Lead Underground
Storage Tank Corrective
Actions
July 25,1989 73 pages
Order No.: PB90-273913
Supercedes the interim guidance
issued June 4,1987, on procedures
for conducting Federal-lead
corrective actions for petroleum
leaks from underground storage
tanks.
EPA/9360.0-16A
Guidance on Non-NPL
Removal Actions Involving
Nationally Significant or
Precedent-Setting Issues
March 3,1989 12 pages
Order No.: PB90-273921
Provides guidance for identifying
non-NPL removal actions that may
be nationally significant or
precedent-setting and establishes
procedures for requesting
Headquarters concurrence.
Outlines procedural requirements
for five categories of removals
which are of special interest from a
national perspective, but which are
not subject to Headquarters
concurrence requirement for
nationally significant or precedent-
setting removals.
EPA/9360.0-19
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
9
-------
&%
Guidelines for the Cleanup
of Clandestine Drug
Laboratories
June 2,1989 45 pages
Order No.: PB90-272709
Provides guidelines proposed by
the Joint Task Force on illegal/
clandestine drug laboratories to
assist State and Local law
enforcement and health agencies
develop a framework for cleaning
up clandestine drug laboratories.
The guidelines contain an overview
of recommended enforcement
procedures, as well as safety
guidelines and cleanup strategies.
EPA/540/P-90/005
EPA/9360.5-00
HAZMAT Team Planning
Guidance
September 1990 65 pages
Order No.: PB90-274523
Outlines important factors to
consider when planning a
HAZMAT Team, including funding
requirements for alternative ways
to develop appropriate hazardous
material responses, and HAZMAT
Team training and medical
surveillance required by the final
OSHA and EPA worker protection
standards (29 CFR 1910.120 and 40
CFR 311) as published on March 6,
1989, and June 23,1989,
respectively. This guidance will
assist State and local governments
in determining their HAZMAT
response requirements, in
estimating the costs associated with
HAZMAT Team development, and
in developing emergency response
plans and standard operating
procedures.
EPA/540/G-90/003
EPA/9285.3-05
Health and Safety Audit
Guidelines: SARA Title I,
Section 126
December 1989 109 pages
Order No.: PB90-204157
Provides step-by-step guidance for
assessing preliminary evaluations,
health and safety plans (HASPs),
and off-site emergency response
programs required under the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and EPA
worker protection standards. The
Guidelines address two major
components of the OSHA/EPA
worker protection standards: (1)
health and safety provisions at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites
and, (2) off-site emergency
response.
EPA/540/G-89/010
EPA/9285.8-02
„
National On-Scene
Coordinator Directory
November 1989 81 pages
Order No.: PB90-249509
Developed as a handy reference
guide to simplify communications
and to promote the transfer of
technical expertise among On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs). In addition
to names and telephone numbers of
OSCs, the directory contains
Regional and Headquarters
addresses, facsimile and E-mail
numbers; TAT, ERCS, ERNS, and
preparedness contacts; and a
telephone information hotline
listing. The directory also contains
a comprehensive "specialty area"
index that can be a useful referenced
for contacting OSCs or others who
have extensive experience in a
particular response situation or
specialized area.
EPA/9200.5-120
Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Guidance for
Removal Activities:
Sampling QA/QC Plan and
Data Validation Procedures
(Interim Final)
April 1990 66 pages
Order No.: PB90-274481
Provides guidance for establishing,
implementing, and using Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
10
-------
QC) protocols in data collection
activities performed under the
Removal program. Also provides
guidance for reviewing laboratory
data packages according to the
QA/QC protocols.
EPA/540/G-90/004
EPA/9360.4-01
Reimbursement to Local
Governments for Emergency
Response to Hazardous
Substance Releases
November 1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-274234
Provides a summary of
requirements and procedures set
(forth in Section 123 of SARA, the
1986 Superfund amendments. This
law authorizes the EPA to
reimburse local governments for
expenses incurred when carrying
out temporary emergency measures
in response to hazardous substance
threats.
EPA/9225.3-01FS
Removal Cost Management
Manual
April 1988 205pages
Older No.: PB90-153891
Offers a comprehensive cost
management procedure for use by
EPA staff at removal actions
authorized under CERCLA, the
original Superfund law. The
document is written for On-Scene
Coordinators or other on site
personnel the OSC may designate
to perform cost management
activities at a Superfund removal
site.
EPA/9360.0-02B
Standard Operating Safety
Guides
July 5,1988 137 pages
Order No.: PB90-249590
Describes current Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) regulations as they apply
to hazardous waste workers
involved in incident response. This
edition updates the November 1984
edition of Standard Operating
Safety Guides.
EPA/9285.1-01C
A Study of Joint Use of
Vehicles for Transportation
of Hazardous and
Nonhazardous Materials
(Report to Congress)
April 1987 116 pages
Order No.: PB87-215349
Presents a joint study by EPA and
DOT to assess and examine risks
and problems associated with
transporting hazardous and
nonhazardous materials in the
same vehicle.
EPA/540/1-87/001
EPA/9360.6-01
Superfund Emergency
Response Actions: A
Summary of Federally-
Funded Removals
Volume 1
May 1987 196 pages
Order No.: PB90-197310
Volume 2
June 1988 110 pages
Order No.: PB90-197328
Volume 3
June 1989 121 pages
Order No.: PB90-214354
Summarizes short-term actions
(removals) undertaken by EPA and
the U.S. Coast Guard in response to
hazardous substance incidents. The
documents present an historical
perspective of the program and
summarize removals completed
during the five-year authorized .
funding period of CERCLA
(December 11,1980, through
September 30,1985). Actions taken
between October 1,1985, and
September 30,1986, that were
funded primarily by two special
appropriations from Congress are
also summarized. These are the
first documents published that
collect short-term response
information for all six years.
EPA/9360.6-02 (Volume 1)
EPA/9360.6-03 (Volume 2)
EPA/9360.6-04 (Volume 3)
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
11
-------
Superfund Removal
Procedures: Action
Memorandum Guidance
September 1990 65 pages
Order No.: PB9G-274473
Provides guidance for preparing an
Action Memorandum, which is a
concise written record of the
decisions made in selecting
removal actions, and the primary
decision document used to select
and authorize such actions. This
document is the first volume of a
ten-volume series of guidance
documents collectively titled
'Superfund Removal Procedures."
These stand-alone volumes update
and replace OSWER Directive
9360.0-03B, the single-volume
'Superfund Removal Procedures"
manual issued in February 1988.
EPA/93603-01
Superfund Removal
Procedures: Revision
Number Three
February 1988 318 pages
Order N04 PB90-192055
Gives EPA response officials
uniform, Agency-wide guidance on
removal actions. Also included are
National Contingency Plan
definitions relevant to the program,
removal policies as determined by
OERR, and step-by-step directions
for preparation and approval of
documentation.
EPA/9360.0-03B
Use of Expanded Removal
Authority to Address NPL
and Proposed NPL Sites
February 7,1987 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-273905
Directs EPA Regions to evaluate
NPL and proposed NPL sites to
determine if the expanded removal
authority in SARA can be used to
totally, or substantially dean up
these sites.
EPA/9360.0-14
Use of Removal Approaches
to Speed Up Remedial
Action Projects
July 7,1989 8 pages
Order No.: PB90-274382
Defines the basic requirements to
be met when a Region chooses to
use removal authorities and
contracting methods to speed up
remedial projects on National
Priorities List (NPL) sites where
surface cleanups may result in a
total site cleanup or completion of a
major portion of the site.
EPA/9355.0-25A
Pre-Remedial
Decentralization of
Superfund Bottle Repository
Functions
September 1,1989 43 pages
Order No.: PB90-249558
Provides guidance for
decentralizing from OERR to the
Regions and their support
contractors the acquisition of
Superfund sampling bottles.
Reiterates and expands on
information previously provided to
the Environmental Services
Division personnel responsible for ^
bottle acquisition.
EPA/9240.0-05
Environmental Asbestos
Assessment Manual;
Superfund Method for the
Determination of Asbestos
in Ambient Air, Part 1:
Method (Interim Version)
May 1990 121 pages
Order No.: PB90-274283
Environmental Asbestos
Assessment Manual;
Superfund Method for the
Determination of Asbestos
in Ambient Air, Part 2:
Technical Background
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
12
-------
^FDocument (Interim Version)
May 1990 106 pages
Order No.: PB90-274291
Provides a sampling and analysis
method for the determination of
asbestos in the air to provide results
suitable for supporting risk
f assessment at Superfund sites. Part
1 presents the method to be used.
Part 2 presents the technical
background and considerations
addressed during the development
of this method.
EPA/540/2-90/005a (Part 1)
EPA/9285.5-02-1 (Part 1)
EPA/540/2-90/005b (Part 2)
EPA/9285.5-02-2 (Part 2)
•E
Ixpanded Site Inspection:
Guidance for FY-88
October 1987 76 pages
Order No.: PB90-183377
Serves as a consolidated ready
reference of general methodologies
and activities for conducting site
inspection work on sites projected
fortheNPL. Compiled with
substantial input from pre-remedial
staff in EPA Regions, the manual
contains procedures that have been
used successfully in carrying out
EPA site investigation work
nationwide. Progress toward
establishing more standardized and
efficient evaluation methods is
discussed. The guidance is
applicable for FY-88 and will be
superseded when final guidance is
issued on conducting site
inspections.
EPA/9345.1-02
Field Screening Methods
Catalog
August 1988 44 pages
Order No.: PB89-134159
Assists the user in identifying field
screening methods applicable to
specific site characteristics.
EPA/540/2-88/005
EPA/9380.0-08
Field Test of the Proposed
Revised Hazard Ranking
System (HRS)
May 1990 137 pages
Order No.: PB90-222746
Discusses the findings and issues
brought to light when proposed
revisions to the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) were field tested.
Guided by prescribed rules, the
HRS assigns numerical values to
factors characterizing the potential
of any given release to cause harm
to public health or the environment.
The system is used to assess
relative risks from hazardous waste
sites.
EPA/540/P-90/001
EPA/9320.7-00
Guidelines for Effective
Management of the Contract
Laboratory Program, Part 1:
Contract Award. Part 2:
Contract Administration
November 1989 346 pages
Order No.: PB90-191545
Provides internal guidelines for
Superfund Project Officers in
procuring, administrating, and
managing CLP contracts.
EPA/9240.0-04-1
EPA/9240.0-04-2
Health Effects Assessment
Summary Tables Fourth
Quarter FY-89
October 1989 1 page
Order No.: PB90-921100
Serves as an excellent pointer
system to identify current literature
about changes in assessment
criteria for many chemicals of
interest to Superfund. Prepared for
Superfund use by the
Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office in EPA's Office
of Health and Environmental
Assessment, the document covers
chemicals featured in ECAO's
Health Effects Assessment
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
13
-------
Pre-
Remedial
Documents or Air Quality Criteria
Documents. The document also
treats those radionuclides believed
to be most common at Superfund
sites. Tables summarize reference
doses (RfD's) for toxitity from
subchronic and chronic inhalation
and from oral exposure, slope
factors and unit risk values for
carcinogenicity based on lifetime
inhalation and oral exposure, and
radionuclide carcinogenicity. This
document is on a standing order
and is updated quarterly. It retains
the same order number for each
issue.
EPA/9200.5-303
Impacts of CERCLA Release
Notification Requirements
on Transportation of
Products Containing
Hazardous Substances
August 1986 211 pages
Order No.: PB87-110870
Published Jointly with the U.S.
Department of Transportation, this
document reports the results of
interviews with hazardous waste
shippers and carriers on the
regulatory burden imposed by
CERCLA release-notification
requirements. Eight shippers and
seven carriers were quizzed on
volumes and types of shipments,
staffing, training, paperwork,
insurance, and related costs.
DOT-TSC-RSPA-85-2
Listing Municipal Landfills
on the National Priorities
List
August 21,1987 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-249608
Outlines procedures for listing
municipal landfills qualifying as
Superfund sites on the NPL.
EPA/9320.1-09
Notification of Hazardous
Waste Sites Required Under
Section 103 (c) of the
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980
March 1982 3180 pages
(in 10 Volumes)
Order No.: PB82-213984
Region I
March 1982 170 pages
Order No.: PB82-213992
Region II
March 1982 311 pages
Order No.: PB82-214008
Region III
March 1982 367 pages
Order No.: PB82-214016
Region IV
March 1982 474 pages
Order No.: PB82-214024
Region V
March 1982 719 pages
Order No.: PB82-214032
Region VI
March 1982 379 pages
Order No.: PB82-214040
Region VII
March 1982 211 pages
Order No.: PB82-214057
Region VIII
March 1982 123 pages
Order No.: PB82-214065
Region IX
March 1982 284 pages
Order No.: PB82-214073
Region X
March 1982 142 pages
Order No.: PB82-214081
Comprises, in accordance with
CERCLA mandate, a total listing of
8,755 notifications of hazardous
waste sites across EPA's 10
Regions. Section 103(c) of the
original Superfund law (CERCLA
of 1980, PL 96-510) identifies those
who must notify EPA of the
existence of sites where hazardous
wastes from industries, businesses,
government, hospitals, and other
sources are stored, treated, or
disposed. Each notification must
summarize the location, the persons
required to notify, the amount and
type of any hazardous waste found
on the site reported, and any
known or suspected releases of
hazardous wastes.
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
14
-------
Preliminary Assessment
Petition
November 1988 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-273723
Provides public information on the
Preliminary Assessment (PA)
petition process, defines a PA, and
describes the procedures for
submitting a PA. A sample petition
format and EPA Regional addresses
and phone numbers are also
provided.
EPA/9200.5-301FS
Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Volume I:
Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part A
April 1990 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-273830
Designed to alert RPMs and other
personnel to new aspects of the
Human Health Evaluation Manual,
the purpose and steps of the
baseline risk assessment, and where
additional help can be obtained.
EPA/9285.7-01/FS
Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Volume I:
Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part A
December 1989 246 pages
Order No.: PB90-155581
Assists RPMs and OSCs in
managing environmental and
public health risk assessment at
Superfund sites. This interim final
manual, when used with Volume II,
"Environmental Evaluation
Manual," replaces the Public Health
Evaluation Manual issued in 1986.
EPA/540/1-89/002
EPA/9285.7-01B
Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Volume II:
Environmental Evaluation
Manual
March 1989 - 57 pages
Order No.: PB90-155599
Assists RPMs and OSCs in
managing environmental and
public health risk assessment at
Superfund sites. This interim final
manual, when used with Volume I,
"Human Health Evaluation
Manual," replaces the Public Health
Evaluation Manual issued in 1986.
EPA/540/1-89/001
EPA/9285.7-01A
SI/HRS Information Bulletin
April 1989 14 pages
Order No.: PB90-258310
Informs Superfund pre-remedial
personnel of possible data
collection changes caused by the
proposed revisions to the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). This
document helps Regional staff who
perform pre-remedial roles, staff in
State offices functioning under
cooperative agreements, staff in
other Federal agencies, and those in
contractor firms who perform data
collection activities during the
interim period between proposal
and promulgation of the revised
HRS.
EPA/9200.5-302
Superfund Analytical Data
Review and Oversight
August 18,1988 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-249541
Outlines procedures and
responsibilities related to review
and oversight of Superfund
analytical data.
EPA/9240.0-03
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
15
-------
Pre-
Remedial!
Superfund Exposure
Assessment Manual
April 1988 166 pages
Order No.: PB90-135859
Provides RPMs with the guidance
necessary to conduct exposure
a'ssessments that meet the needs of
the Superfund human health risk
evaluation process. Includes an
overall description of the integrated
exposure assessment process as
applied to uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites; and serves as a source
of reference concerning the use of
estimation procedures and
computer modeling techniques for
the analysis of uncontrolled sites.
EPA/540/1-88/001
EPA/92855-01
Update to the "Procedures
for Completion and Deletion
of National Priorities List
Sites" Guidance Document
Regarding the Performance
of Five-Year Reviews
December 29,1989 51 pages
Order No.: PB90-274556
guidance document (OSWER
directive 9320.2-03A), EPA's policy
to conduct at least one five-year
review prior to deleting sites from
the National Priorities List.
EPA/9320.2-03B
User's Guide to Contract
Laboratory Program
December 1988 255 pages
Order No.: PB90-186396
Describes an organic and inorganic
analytical program and outlines
Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP) protocols that became a part
of CLP analysis contracts in 1987
(inorganic) and 1988 (organic).
Contains critical information for
CLP samplers and user groups in
EPA and the States.
EPA/540/8-89/012
EPA/9240.0-01B
Remedial
Advancing the Use of
Treatment Technologies for
Superfund Remedies
February 21,1989 W pages
Order No.: PB90-272659
Reaffirms the use of treatment
technologies at Superfund sites and
summarizes guidance documents
and activities that encourage and
support the use of innovative
treatment technologies.
EPA/9355.0-26
An Analysis of State
Superfund Programs:
50-State Study
September 1989 225 pages
Order No.: PB90-272733
Examines site cleanup capabilities
in all 50 States and provides
descriptions of statutes, program
organization, findings, and cleanup
procedures. Also provides
"snapshots" of state cleanup
programs.
EPA/540/8-89/011
EPA/9375.6-08
Incorporates into the "Procedures
for Completion and Deletion of
National Priorities List Sites"
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
16
-------
Analysis of Treatability Data
for Soil and Debris:
Evaluation of Land Ban
Impact on Use of Superfund
Treatment Technologies
November 30,1989 25 pages
Order No.: PB90-258476
Summarizes the effectiveness of
treatment technologies for
contaminated soil and debris and
provides support for decisions by
the Regions to use treatability
variances for complying with the
RCRA Land Ban Disposal
Restrictions.
EPA/9380.3-04
ARCS Construction Contract
Modification Procedures
September 1989 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-274515
Describes the contracting
relationships, technical reviews,
and administrative procedures
required to process supplemental
agreements and change orders for
changed work in Remedial Action
construction projects which are
subcontracts under EPA's ARCS
contracts.
EPA/9355.5-01/FS
Audits and the Superfund
Program Manager
January 1990 4 pages
Order No.: PB90-272717
Describes why audits of all parties
to Cooperative Agreements and
Superfund State Contracts (SSCs)
are good business practices and
how audits help EPA protect the
financial integrity of Superfund
response agreements.
EPA/9375.5-04/FS
Basics of Pump and Treat
Ground Water Remediation
Technology
September 1990 150 pages
Order No.: PB90-274549
First published in the summer of
1990 by the Robert S. Ken-
En vironmental Research
Laboratory, USEPA, Ada,
Oklahoma, it has been reissued for
this catalog as a Superfund
publication. This definitive
document is considered by
Superfund program management
to be required reading for all
project managers involved in pump
and treat remediation activities at
Superfund sites. Recent research
has identified complex chemical
and physical interactions between
contaminants and subsurface media
which may impose limitations on
the extraction part of the process.
This report was developed to
summarize the basic considerations
necessary to determine when,
where, and how pump-and-treat
technology can be used effectively
to remediate ground water
contamination.
EPA/600/8-90/003
EPA/9380.7-01
CERCLA Off-Site Policy:
Eligibility of Facilities in
Assessment Monitoring
July 28,1986 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-249632
Clarifies application of the
CERCLA off-site policy to RCRA
commercial facilities in assessment
monitoring.
EPA/9330.2-06
CERCLA Off-Site Policy:
Providing Notice to Facilities
May 12,1986 8 pages
Order No.: PB90-249624
Describes how to give notice to
commercial treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities that they are
deemed ineligible to receive
CERCLA response wastes.
Outlines procedures facilities
should use to write comments
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
17
-------
about the application of the policy
to the conditions alleged at their
facility.
EPA/9330.2-05
CERCLA Site Discharges to
POTWs: Guidance Manual
September 1990 275 pages
Order No.: PB90-274531
Presents the results of an extensive
joint study conducted by the Office
of Water's Industrial Technology
Division and the Superfund
Program to determine the effects of
CERCLA hazardous waste
discharges on publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). An
extensive background document
with accompanying software will
be published in December and will
be available in early FY-91
exclusively from the National
Technical Information Service. The
primary document will be of
interest to operators of publicly
owned treatment plants who may
be required to make decisions
whether or not to accept hazardous
wastes from Superfund sites. The
subsequent documents provide the
hard data on which decisions can
be made.
EPA/540/G-90/005
EPA/9330.2-09
CERCLA Waste Capacity
Assurance
August 1990 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-274507
Discusses waste capacity assurance,
which is one of the five assurances
required of a state by CERCLA
before the hazardous waste trust
fund (Superfund) can be used for a
remedial action. This fact sheet
describes the statutory goals
associated with the waste capacity
assurance, the Capacity Assurance
Plan (CAP), and additional sources
of information.
EPA/9375.5-09/FS
Community Relations: Use
of Senior Environmental
Employees in Superfund
(Superfund Management
Review: Recommendation
43.K,L)
August 31,1990 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-273749
Describes the use of Senior
Environmental Employees in the
Superfund program and offers
guidance on their future use.
EPA/9230.0-09
Community Relations In
Superfund: A Handbook
(Interim Guidance)
June 1988 .190 pages
Order No.: PB89-180830
Provides policy requirements for
coordinating activities at Superfund
sites and additional techniques and
guidance that can be used to
supplement and enhance a basic
community relations program.
This handbook, which contains new
material and revisions to reflect
SARA amendments and EPA
policies issued since 1983, applies
to all response actions conducted
under CERCLA, whether
performed by EPA, other Federal
agencies, or State governments.
EPA/540/G-88/002
EPA/9230.0-03B
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
A Compendium of
Superfund Field Operations
December 1,1987 644 pages
Order No.: PB88-181557
Contains a consolidated reference
to all remedial field procedures to
ensure consistency among the 10
EPA regions. This collection may
be used by RPMs, Quality
Assurance Officers, and State and
Regional field staffs.
EPA/540/P-87/001
EPA/9355.0-14
18
-------
Control of Air Emissions
From Superfund Air
Strippers at Superfund
Ground Water Sites
June 15,1989 8 pages
Order No.: PB90-272667
Establishes guidance on control of
air emissions from air strippers
used at Superfund sites for ground
water treatment. This joint
memorandum from OERR, and Air
Quality Planning and Standards
establishes implementation
procedures.
EPA/9355.0-28
Criminal Investigations and
the Superfund Program
September 1990 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-274499
Directed toward anyone who
witnesses fraudulent activity in
EPA programs, this fact sheet
discusses areas in which fraud and
abuse can occur and provides an
understanding of the criminal
investigation process that results
from reports of suspicious activity.
EPA/9375.5-08/FS
Data Quality Objectives for
Remedial Response
Activities: Development
Process (Volume 1)
March 1987 144 pages
Order No.: PB88-131370
Data Quality Objectives for
Remedial Response
Activities: Example
Scenario: RI/FS Activities at
a Site with Contaminated
Soils and Ground Water
(Volume 2)
March 1987 152 pages
Order No.: PB88-131388
Data Quality Objectives for
Remedial Response
Activities: Volumes 1&2
March 1987 296 pages
Order No.: PB90-272634
Provides guidance for developing
data quality objectives for site-
specific Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study activities. The
documents specify the qualitative
and quantitative standards
required to support Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study
activities. They also set forth a
formal approach to the
development of data quality
objectives in the sampling/
analytical plan, with the purpose of
improving the quality and cost-
effectiveness of data collection and
analysis.
EPA/540/G-87/003 (Volume 1)
EPA/540/G-87/004 (Volume 2)
EPA/9355.0-07B (Volumes 1 and 2)
Debarment and Suspension
Fall 1989 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-272527
Defines debarment and suspension,
and describes causes and proce-
dures, and authorities for pursuing
them. Requirements of the Drug-
Free Workplace Act also are
discussed in this fact sheet.
EPA/9200.5-208/FS
Directory of EPA/State
Contacts by Specialty
February 1990 73 pages
Order No.: PB90-249749
This directory lists personnel who
provide legal, administrative, and
financial expertise in support of
CERCLA nationwide.
EPA/540/8-90/002
EPA/9375.6-01
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
19
-------
Discharge of Wastewater
from CERCLA Sites into
Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs)
April 15,1986 8 pages
Order No.: PB90-249616
Discusses technical and policy
concerns related to the discharge of
wastewater from CERCLA
emergency removals and remedial
actions to POTWs. Sets forth
proposed criteria and affirms EPA's
intent to develop policy on the use
and selection of POTWs for
CERCLA wastewater.
EPA/9330.2-04
EPA/U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Payment Process,
Direct Site/Revised
Reimbursement Methods
May 1990 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-273897
Outlines new procedures for the
disbursement of funds to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
under EPA-led Superfund projects.
The document describes
procedures for the direct site
payment process for new projects,
the revised reimbursement
payment process for USAGE in-
house costs, and the revised
reimbursement payment process
for existing projects.
EPA/9355.5-14FS
Evaluation of Ground Water
Extraction Remedies/
Volume 1: Summary Report
September 1989 65 pages
Order No.: PB90-183583
Evaluation of Ground Water
Extraction Remedies/
Volume 2: Case Studies 1-19
(Interim Final)
October 1989 557 pages
Order No.: PB90-274440
Evaluation of Ground Water
Extraction Remedies/
VolumeS: General Site
Data/ Data Base Reports
(Interim Final)
October 1989 121 pages
Order No.: PB90-274457
Provides information assembled
from hazardous waste sites
throughout the United States
showing how ground water
extraction systems are being used,
how their performance compares
with expectations, and what factors
are affecting their success. Volume
1 summarizes the general
conclusions and observations of the
study. It describes the
methodology of the study, the
factors that influence the
effectiveness of ground water
extraction systems, and the data
requirements for the design of
extraction systems. Volume 2
presents 19 case studies of
individual sites, presents site
characteristics, and discusses
factors that have influenced the
success of remedial activities.
Volume 3 presents general
information on the location,
geologic setting, contamination,
and administrative status of each
site.
EPA/540/2-89/054 (Volume 1)
EPA/9355.4-03 (Volume 1)
EPA/540/2-89/054b (Volume 2)
EPA/9355.4-03 (Volume 2)
EPA/540/2-89/054c (Volume 3)
EPA/9355.4-03 (Volume 3)
Ful Sheet
s
s
RE-
s-
Expediting Remedial
Construction
October 1989 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-272683
Examines activities to be
considered in Remedial
Management Strategies to
accelerate remedial construction.
EPA/9355.5-02/FS
The Feasibility Study:
Detailed Analysis of
Remedial Action
Alternatives
March 1990 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-272675
Describes, as the fourth and fi
document in a series, the R
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
20
-------
I Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). This fact sheet
summarizes Chapter 6 of
"Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA." Also provides
Remedial Project Managers with
information on how to manage this
phase of the Feasibility Study
efficiently and effectively.
EPA/ 9355.3-01FS4
The Feasibility Study:
Development and Screening
of Remedial Action
Alternatives
November 1989 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-274416
Summarizes Chapter 4 of the
"Interim Final Guidance for
Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility
Studies Under CERCLA" which
discusses the development and
screening of alternatives for
Remedial Action. Also provides
information to assist the Remedial
Project Manager in managing this
portion of the Feasibility Study
efficiently and effectively.
EPA/9355.3-01FS3
Getting Ready: Scoping the
RI/FS
November 1989 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-274390
Summarizes Chapter 2 of
"Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA." This fact sheet also
explains how to manage the
scoping phase of the RI/FS process.
EPA/9355.3-01FS1
Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies (RI/FS)
Under CERCLA
October 1988 195 pages
Order No.: PB89-184626
Describes general procedures for
conducting Remedial Investigations
and Feasibility Studies and
provides an overall understanding
of the process. Intended for
personnel responsible for
conducting an RI/FS, this revises
EPA's "Guidance on Remedial
Investigation Under CERCLA"
(May 1985), and "Guidelines on
Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA" (June 1985).
EPA/540/G-89/004
EPA/9355.3-01
Guidance on Cleanup of
Surface Impoundment Sites
July 17,1986 46 pages
Order No.: PB87-110664
Provides guidance to Federal, State,
and local officials planning and
implementing remedial actions at
NPL sites with one or more surface
impoundments containing
hazardous wastes. A systematic
approach to performing remedial
actions and limited remedial
investigations or feasibility studies
in a relatively short time period is
provided, as well as the names of
private firms who perform such
activities.
EPA/9380.0-06
Guidance on Cleanup of
Surface Tank and Drum
Sites
May 28,1985 145 pages
Order No.: PB87-110672
Assists Federal, State, and local
officials and private parties
engaged in carrying out remedial
actions at NPL sites. Provides
guidance for implementing
concurrent remedial planning
activities and accelerating project
implementation for cleanup of
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
21
-------
surface tanks and drums containing
hazardous waste. As one of three
guidance documents on specific
remedial actions, this document
identifies other documents that
should be used concurrently.
EPA/9380.0-03
Guidance on Expediting
Remedial Design and
Remedial Action
August 1990 51 pages
Order No.: PB90-273871
Examines ways to expedite
remedial design and remedial
action so that cleanup activities can
be completed more quickly.
Intended for use by remedial
project managers, remedial design
contractors, and others involved in
planning remediation activities. It
should be used as a means to
evaluate whether a project is
suitable for expediting and to
determine the methods that could
be used.
EPA/540/G-90/006
EPA/93555-02
Guidance on Oversight of
Potentially Responsible
Party Performed Remedial
Design and Remedial Action
February 14,1990 56 pages
Order No.: PB90-249707
Provides interim final guidance on
EPA oversight of Remedial Designs
and Remedial Actions (RD/RA)
performed by Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs).
Ensures that remedies being
conducted by private owners and
operators of sites are protective of
public health and the environment,
and are in compliance with
applicable performance standards.
EPA/9355.5-01
Guidance on Providing
Alternative Water Supplies
March 1,1988 135 pages
Order No.: PB89-167969
Discusses circumstances under
which it is appropriate to provide
alternative water supplies.
EPA/540/G-87/006
EPA/9355.3-03
Guidance on Remedial
Actions for Contaminated
Ground Water at Superfund
Sites
December 1988 180 pages
Order No.: PB89-184618
Emphasizes decision making issues
related to contaminated ground
water. This guidance is designed
for use by contractors conducting
RI/FS activities at sites where
ground water is contaminated;
RPMs responsible for ensuring the
quality of information contained in
the RI/FS; and decision makers
responsible for selection and
subsequent performance evaluation
of ground water remedial
Superfund sites. (See also: "
Guide on Remedial Actions for
Contaminated Ground Water,"
9283.1-02FS, which serves as a
summary of this manual).
EPA/540/G-88/003
EPA/9283.1-02
Guide for Conducting
Treatability Studies Under
CERCLA (Interim Final)
December 1989 132 pages
Order No.: PB90-249772
Describes an approach for conduct-
ing treatability studies that consists
of laboratory screening, bench-scale
testing, and pilot-scale testing. The
guide also presents a step-by-s
approach for conducting
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
22
-------
y-
treatability studies to determine the
effectiveness of a technology (or
combination of technologies) in
remediating a CERCLA site.
EPA/540/2-89/058
EPA/9380.0-27
A Guide on Remedial Action
at Superfund Sites with PCS
Contamination
August 1990 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-274432
Summarizes pertinent consider-
ations in the development, evalua-
tion, and selection of remedial
actions at Superfund sites with PCB
contamination. Provides a general
framework for determining cleanup
levels, identifying treatment
options, and assessing necessary
management controls for residuals.
EPA/9355.4-01FS
A Guide on Remedial
Actions for Contaminated
Ground Water
April 1989 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-272576
Summarizes key issues in
developing, evaluating, and
selecting ground water remedial
actions at Superfund sites,
including CERCLA requirements,
project planning, and remedial
action objectives as presented in the
comprehensive guidance.
EPA/9283.1-02FS
A Guide to Delisting of
RCRA Wastes for Superfund
Remedial Responses
September 1990 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-274374
Discusses the circumstances under
which delisting wastes may be
appropriate, and the procedures for
delisting a Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste as part of a
Superfund remedial response.
EPA/9347.3-09FS
A Guide to Developing
Superfund Proposed Plans
November 1989 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-273855
Outlines the major components of
the Superfund Proposed Plan and
suggests effective ways in which
the various sections can be
presented.
EPA/9335.3-02FS-2
A Guide to Developing
Superfund Records of
Decision
November 1989 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-273848
Provides staff preparing Records of
Decision (RODs) with a quick
reference to the essential ROD
components and includes
summaries of information needed
for the three major sections of a
ROD.
EPA/9335.3-02FS-1
A Guide to Selecting
Superfund Remedial
Actions
April 1990 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-273863
Describes the statutory
requirements for CERCLA
remedies at hazardous waste sites
and the process EPA has
established in the 1990 revised
National Contingency Plan for
meeting those requirements. This
process is a general framework for
reaching a judgement about the
most appropriate method of
protecting human health and the
environment at a particular site.
EPA/9355.0-27/FS
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
23
-------
Indian Tribal Involvement
in the Superfund Program
Fall 1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-273947
Describes the specific requirements
of CERCLA and the National
Contingency Plan for Indian Tribes
that wish to participate in the
Superfund program.
EPA/93755-02/FS
Innovative Technology:
Glycolate Dehalogenation
November 1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-274226
Describes glycolate dehalogenation
as being potentially effective in
detoxifying specific types of
aromatic organic contaminants,
particularly dioxins and PCBs. Site
characteristics affecting treatment
feasibility, technology
considerations, and the status of
new technological developments
also are discussed.
EPA/9200.5-254FS
Innovative Technology:
Slurry Phase Biodegradation
November 1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-274200
Describes slurry phase
biodegradation, which is
potentially effective in treating
various organic contaminants. Also
discussed are site characteristics
affecting treatment feasibility,
technology considerations, and a
list of names, addresses, and
contacts for vendors who have used
the technology at several private
and state sites is provided.
EPA/9200.5-252FS
Innovative Technology:
BEST Solvent Extraction
Process
November 1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-274218
Describes the BEST solvent
extraction process, which uses one
or more secondary or tertiary
amines to separate toxic wastes and
oils from sludges or soils. Site
characteristics affecting treatment
feasibility, technology
considerations, and the status of the
first full-scale test units are
discussed, and ORD contacts are
provided for more information.
EPA/92005-253FS
Innovative Technology:
In Situ Vitrification
November 1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-274192
Describes an in situ vitrification
technology which can be used to
treat soils and sludges
contaminated with mixtures of
various waste types (e.g.
radioactive, inorganic and/or
organic). Site characteristics
affecting treatment feasibility,
technology considerations, and the
status of new technological
developments also are discussed.
EPA/9200.5-251FS
Innovative Technology: Soil
Washing
November 1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-274184
Describes soil washing, which can
be potentially beneficial in the
separation/segregation and
volumetric reduction of hazardous
materials in solids, sludges, and
sediments. Also discussed are site
characteristics affecting treatment
feasibility, technology
considerations, and the status of
new technological developments.
EPA/9200.5-250FS
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
24
-------
Interim RCRA/CERCLA
Guidance on Non-
Contiguous Sites and On-
Site Management of Waste
and Treatment Residue
March 27,1986 11 pages
Order No.: PB90-274317
Presents interim guidance about
combined treatment of CERCLA
wastes from non-contiguous
locations, on-site disposal of
treatment residue, limitations on
construction of hazardous waste
incinerators for on-site CERCLA
use, and off-site treatment of waste
and redisposal on-site.
EPA/9347.0-01
Involvement of Superfund
Program Managers in
Superfund Response
Agreement Audits
February 12,1990 20 pages
Order No.: PB90-249731
Provides general reference
information to Superfund program
managers about the audit process.
Information in this directive
pertains primarily to audits of
Cooperative Agreements, yet may
be applied to audits of Superfund
State Contracts.
EPA/93755-04
Leachate Plume
Management
November 1,1985
Order No.: PB86-122330
680 pages
Provides an overview of the
fundamental concepts, procedures,
and technologies used in leachate
plume management. This
document serves as a basic
reference handbook for
governmental and industrial
technical personnel working on
controlling leachate plumes from
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
EPA/540/2-85/004
EPA/9380.0-05
Long-Term Contracting
Strategy for Superfund
September 1990 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-274275
Provides a summary of the
Superfund Long-Term Contracting
Strategy which was developed to
analyze the long-term contract
needs of the Superfund program.
EPA/9242.6-07FS
Mobile Treatment
Technologies for Superfund
Wastes
September 1986 50 pages
Order No.: PB89-135859
Reviews the technologies
associated with the use of mobile
systems to treat Superfund wastes.
EPA/540/2-86/003
EPA/9380.0-07
Modeling Remedial Actions
at Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites
April 1,1988 463 pages
Order No.: PB85-211357
Provides a guidance on the
selection and use of models to
evaluate the effectiveness of
remedial actions at uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. A
comprehensive set of guidelines for
incorporating models into remedial
action planning at Federal and State
Superfund sites is presented.
EPA/540/2-85/001
EPA/9355.0-08
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
25
-------
Notification of Out-of-State
Shipments of Superfund
Site Wastes
September 14,1989 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-272618
Implements EPA's policy that prior
to the off-site shipment of
Superfund site wastes to an out-of-
State management facility, EPA
Regional personnel will provide
notice to that State's environmental
officials.
EPA/9330.2-07
Planning for Sufficient
Community Relations
March7,1990 10 pages
Order No.: PB90-249533
Provides guidance to Regional staff
on planning for sufficient
community relations at all stages of
the Superfund process. This
document identifies specific
planning activities that have been
successfully used in the Regions.
(Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation No. 43A).
EPA/9230.0-08
Policy for Superfund
Compliance with the RCRA
Land Disposal Restrictions
April 17,1989 12 pages
Order No.: PB90-249640
Assists Regional removal and
remedial staff in making current
site decisions about the Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
mandated by the national solid
waste law (RCRA/HSWA). This
memorandum explains how to: (1)
determine when LDRs are
"applicable" to a Superfund
removal or remedial action, and (2)
comply with LDRs when they are
determined to be applicable.
EPA/9347.1-02
Political Subdivision
Involvement in Superfund
April 1990 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-273954
Provides guidance to Regions,
States, and political subdivisions on
the designation of a political
subdivision as the lead agency for
remedial response under CERCLA.
EPA/9375.5-03/FS
Procurement Under
Preauthorization/Mixed
Funding
April 19,1989 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-249525
Guides Regional staff in clarifying
procurement procedures. This
guidance sets forth claimants' (1)
responsibilities under CERCLA
Response Claims Procedures; and
(2) means for assuring that their
cost claims against the Hazardous
Substance Superfund will be
reimbursed by EPA.
EPA/9225.1-01
Proposed Method to
Evaluate the Effectiveness of
Community Involvement hi
Superfund (Superfund
Management Review:
Recommendation #43.A)
September 18,1990 8 pages
Order No.: PB90-273764
Describes a proposed method for
evaluating how effectively EPA's
Superfund Community
Involvement program provides
adequate and meaningful
opportunities for public
participation in decisions made at
Superfund sites.
EPA/9230.0-19
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
26
-------
The Remedial Investigation:
Site Characterization and
Treatability Studies
November 1989 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-274408
Summarizes Chapters 3 and 5 of the
"Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA." Also discusses site
characteristics and treatability
studies, and includes information
on how to manage these aspects of
the Remedial Investigation.
EPA/9355.3-01FS2
Resource Distribution for
the Technical Assistance
Grant Program
June 29,1988 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-249459
Clarifies the resource base for
Technical Assistance Grants
(TAGs), as published in the Federal
Register, as an Interim Final Rule.
The TAG program is a core factor in
the Agency's Superfund
community relations efforts to
provide community groups with
grants so they may obtain
assistance in interpreting technical
material related to Superfund
cleanups.
EPA/9200.3-04
Results of FY-88 Record of
Decision Analysis
May 1,1989 10 pages
Order No.: PB90-249665
Results of FY-89 Record of
Decision Analysis
March 30,1990 20 pages
Order No.: PB90-249681
Discusses results of the draft Office
of Emergency and Remedial
Response and Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement analysis of
Records of Decision (RODs).
Outlines goals to promote ROD
consistency and quality to ensure
that the remedial program is
conducted consistently with SARA
(the Superfund amendments of
1986).
EPA/9355.3-07 (FY-88)
EPA/9355.3-09 (FY-89)
Revised Interim Final
Guidance on Indian
Involvement in the
Superfund Program
November 28,1989
Order No.: PB90-249723
17 pages
Supplements and references
existing documentation for EPA
Regional personnel about
involvement of Federally
recognized Indian Tribes, which are
assigned the same status as States
by the Superfund program. This
memorandum clarifies this
guidance and reflects the Agency's
growing experience with States,
Indian Tribes, and political
subdivisions in CERCLA
implementation.
EPA/9375.502A
RI/FS Improvements
July 23,1987 14 pages
Order No.: PB90-272642
Identifies ways to reduce overall
project schedules and costs while
retaining a quality product. Four
major points are included: phased
Remedial Investigations/Feasibility
Studies (RI/FS), streamlined project
planning, management of handoffs,
and RI/FS control reviews.
EPA/9355.0-20
RI/FS Improvements
Follow-Up
April 25,1988 18 pages
Order No.: PB90-249657
Delineates improvements
developed for more effective
Remedial Investigations/Feasibility
Studies (RI/FS).
EPA/9355.3-05
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
27
-------
x vtfttvf. f^ .jj>xv»
" "'
Role of Community
Interviews in ttie
Development of a
Community Relations
Program for Remedial
Response
}unel5,1990 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-273756
Offers guidance in response to
recent Regional Office questions
regarding the community relations
interviews required by the National
Contingency Plan.
EPA/9230.0-15
Scoper/s Notes: A Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) Costing Guide
February 1990 31 pages
Order No.: PB90-258369
Outlines tasks and subtasks
typically conducted as part of a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study, and presents a strategy
based on site complexity and task
difficulty for estimating a project's
cost. Provides cost guidelines for
estimating funding needs in
advance of issuing work
assignments and evaluating
contractor proposals.
EPA/540/G-90/002
State and Local Involvement
in the Superfund Program
Fall 1989 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-273939
Provides an overview of hazardous
waste laws, the Superfund process,
and future directions of the
Superfund program. This
document also describes ways that
State and local governments can get
involved in the Superfund pro-
gram; mechanisms for assuring
State and local involvement; and
the roles of political subdivisions,
Indian Tribes, and local govern-
ments.
EPA/9375.5-01/FS
Status of State Involvement
in the Superfund Program:
FY-80 to FY-89
April 1990 36 pages
Order No.: PB90-272725
Summarizes State involvement
throughout the Superfund process
since the passage of CERCLA, the
original national hazardous waste
law. The report includes: the roles
and responsibilities of States; an
overview of the Superfund process
and phases of response; an histori-
cal perspective on State involve-
ment in each phase of response at
Superfund sites; and a summary of
State involvement in non-site
specific activities.
EPA/540/8-90/005
EPA/9375.6-04
Streamlining the RI/FS for
CERCLA Municipal Landfill
Sites
September 1990 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-274424
Discusses streamlining the RI/FS
for municipal landfills with respect
to site characterization, risk assess-
ment, and the development of
remedial action alternatives. This
streamlining is possible since
approximately 20 percent of the
sites on the NPL are municipal
landfills which typically share
similar characteristics.
EPA/9355.3-11FS
Superfund Community
Relations Program: A Guide
to Effective Presentations
With Visual Aids
June 1989 55 pages
Order No.: PB89-167985
Presents a collection of proven
visual aid presentation techniques
useful in communicating issues
concerning Superfund cleanup
actions to a general audience. The
guide is targeted primarily at
individuals implementing the
Superfund Community Relations
Program.
EPA/540/G-89/001
EPA/9230.0-12A
EPA/9355.1-05 EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
28
-------
Superfund Federal-Lead
Remedial Project
Management Handbook
December 1986 204 pages
Order No.: PB87-183133
Defines the roles and responsibili-
ties of the Remedial Project
Manager (RPM) working on
Federal-lead remedial projects at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Also discusses project management
techniques and the resources
available to the RPM for
accomplishing the mission.
EPA/540/G-87/001
EPA/9355.1-01
Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program: Progress
and Accomplishments in
FY-87
March 1988 40 pages
Order No.: PB88-237482
Reports the status of the SITE
program to Congress. The
progress, accomplishments, and
results of the SITE Program
through 1987 are summarized. This
report also focuses on completed
demonstrations and provides
performance data and results.
EPA/540/5-88/001
EPA/9380.0-11
Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program Strategy and
Program Plan
December 1,1986 58 pages
Order No.: PB87-181939
Describes the SITE program
strategy and program plan, and
provides information on participa-
tion in the program.
EPA/540/G-86/001
EPA/9380.2-03
Superfund LDR Guide #1:
Overview of RCRA Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
July 1989 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-274325
Summarizes the major components
of the Land Disposal Restrictions
imposed by the national solid waste
law (RCRA/HSWA). Also outlines
types of restrictions imposed and
presents compliance options
specified in the regulation.
EPA/9347.3-01FS
Superfund LDR Guide #2:
Complying with the
California List Restrictions
Under Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs)
July 1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-274333
Defines the California list of wastes,
summarizes their respective
restrictions, and discusses their
potential to overlap with other
Land Disposal Restriction treat-
ment standards.
EPA/9347.3-02FS
Superfund LDR Guide #3:
Treatment Standards and
Minimum Technology
Requirements Under Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
July 1989 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-274341
Summarizes types and effective
dates of treatment standards, and
outlines procedures for compliance
with the treatment standards and
minimum technology requirements
set during national capacity exten-
sions.
EPA/9347.3-03FS
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
29
-------
Superfund LDR Guide #4:
Complying with the
Hammer Restrictions Under
Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs)
July 1989 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-274358
Discusses compliance with Land
Disposal Restriction "soft- ham-
mer" and "hard-hammer" provi-
sions. These are restrictions on the
disposal of hazardous wastes that
become effective if EPA does not
promulgate standards by relevant
statutory deadlines.
EP/9347.3-04FS
Superfund LDR Guide #5:
Determining When Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
are "Applicable'' to CERCLA
Response Actions
July 1989 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-274366
Outlines the process used to
determine whether the Land
Disposal Restrictions established
under the national solid waste law
(RCRA/HSWA) are "applicable" to
a CERCLA response action.
EPA/93473-05FS
Superfund Remedial Design
and Remedial Action (RD/
RA) Guidance
June 1,1986 112 pages
Order No.: PB88-107529
Assists agencies and individuals
who plan, administer, and manage
RD/RAs at Superfund sites.
EPA/9355.0-04A
Superfund Responsiveness
Summaries (Superfund
Management Review:
Recommendation #43E)
June 4,1990 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-273731
Describes the background of
responsiveness summaries and
outlines a new format intended to
provide summaries that can deal
thoroughly with complicated legal
and technical issues while
maintaining true responsiveness to
local communities.
EPA/9230.0-06
Superfund Risk Assessment
Information Directory
November 1986 200 pages
Order No.: PB87-188918
Identifies and describes sources of
information useful in conducting
Superfund-related risk assessments.
Information is presented on sources
of automated databases, data files
and tapes, models, directories,
periodicals, publications, and
human and corporate resources.
Facilitates the performance of EPA-
related risk assessments by helping
individuals find needed
information and specialized
resources.
EPA/540/1-86/061
EPA/9285.6-01
Superfund State-Lead
Remedial Project ^^
Management HandbooldQP
December 1986 131 pages
Order No.: PB87-183141
Defines roles and responsibilities of
the Remedial Project Manager
(RPM) involved in State-led
remedial projects at uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. Discusses
project management techniques
and resources available.
EPA/540/G-87/002
EPA/9355.2-01
Superfund Technical
Assistance Grants
January 1990 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-273772
Provides background and
information on the Technical
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
30
-------
Assistance Grant (TAG) program.
TAG provides funds to qualified
citizen's groups to hire
independent technical advisors.
EPA/9230.1-05/FS
process schematics, characteristics
affecting treatment performance,
and contacts.
EPA/540/2-88/004
EPA/9380.0-25
Superfund Treatability
Clearinghouse Abstracts
August 1989 133 pages
Order No.: PB90-119751
Presents clearinghouse studies
collected to aid in the development
of treatment methods for excavated
soils that would trigger Land
Disposal Restrictions under the
requirements of national solid
waste law (RCRA/HSWA). The
studies contain treatability data on
technologies for soil and debris.
EPA/540/2-89/001
EPA/9380.0-26
Technology Screening
Guide for Treatment of
CERCLA Soils and Sludges
1988 140 pages
Order No.: PB89-132674
Provides a screening methodology
to identify treatment technologies
that may be suitable for the
management of soils and sludges
containing CERCLA waste.
Information is presented for each of
the treatment technologies on the
generic system, individual unique
systems, the developmental status,
Treatability Studies
Contractor Work
Assignments
July 12,1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-273962
Requires all future remedial and
removal work assignments
involving treatability studies to
contain a provision requiring the
contractor to provide the Agency's
Superfund data base with a copy of
the work products.
EPA/9380.3-01
Treatability Studies Under
CERCLA: An Overview
December 1989 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-273970
Provides a synopsis of information
to facilitate the planning and
execution of treatability studies in
support of the RI/FS and the RD/
RA processes.
EPA/9380.3-02/FS
Update: Superfund
Technical Assistance Grants
November 1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-273715
Addresses the status of the
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
Program and amendments to the
Interim Final Rule which specifies
requirements for accepting and
evaluating applications and
awarding and managing TAGs.
EPA/9200.5-209/FS
USAGE Preplaced and Rapid
Response Contracts
December 1989 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-273889
Describes the Preplaced Remedial
Action (PRA) and Remedial
Response (RR) contracts. Also
includes program overviews and a
description of the roles and
responsibilities of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and
EPA, program execution, resource
management, contract
management, and program policies
are also described.
EPA/9355.5-05/FS
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
31
-------
Use of Office of Research
and Development's
Bioremediation Expertise in
Superfund Removal
Program
March 12,1990 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-249798
Establishes a formal mechanism to
access and use the Office of
Research and Development's .
capabilities in the area of
bioremediation of oil spills,
hazardous substance spills, and
Superfund removal actions.
EPA/9380.4-01
Technology
American Combustion
Pyretron Destruction
System: Applications
Analysis Report
June 1989 57 pages
Order No.: PB90-258427
Analyzes American Combustion's
Pyretron oxygen enhanced burner
system. Discusses information on
the economical advantages of this
type of incineration for use in
assessments at uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites.
EPA/540/A5-89/008
EPA/9380.0-35
Assessment of International
Technologies for Superfund
Applications: Technology
Review and Trip Report
Results
1988 53 pages
Order No.: PB90-106428
Provides an overview of site
remediation technologies being
used in the U.S. and in Europe.
Recommends efforts to transfer
European technologies to the U.S.
EPA/540/2-88/003
EPA/9380.0-10
Assessment of Technologies
for the Remediation of
Radioactively Contaminated
Superfund Sites
January 1990 115 pages
Order No.: PB90-204140
Screens and evaluates information
needs in developing generic
treatability studies for the
remediation of Superfund radiation
sites on the NPL. It categorizes the
25 radiation sites currently
proposed or listed on the NPL, and
provides a rating system for
evaluating technologies that may be
used to remediate these sites. Also
identifies gaps in site assessment
and technology data and pro
information about and
recommendations for technology
development.
EPA/540/2-90/001
EPA/9380.0-20
Covers for Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites
September 1985 554 pages
Order No.: PB87-119483
Provides guidance for the design of
cover systems for uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. Offers
information on soil properties tests,
materials for impermeable
applications, site preparation,
support material, equipment, and
quality control and assurance.
EPA/540/2-85/002
EPA/9380.0-13
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
32
-------
Determining Soil Response
Action Levels Based on
Potential Contaminant
Migration to Ground Water:
A Compendium of Examples
October 1989 152 pages
Order No.: PB90-183575
Presents methods and models used
to establish soil cleanup levels at
Superfund sites where threats to
ground water resources exist. Case
studies, intended for reference use
only, illustrate how methods can be
used at Superfund sites to derive
soil cleanup levels based on the
potential for hazardous
constituents to migrate to and
contaminate ground water.
Examples are not designed to
support or recommend any specific
approach in determining soil
response action levels, and do not
constitute guidance.
EPA/540/2-89/057
EPA/9380.0-07
Dust Control at Hazardous
Waste Sites; Handbook
November 1985 99 pages
Order No.: PB86-190105
Describes methods of controlling
contaminated fugitive dust from
contaminated land surfaces.
Information on equipment,
decontamination, and worker
protection is included. Possible
non-air impacts arising from the
use of dust suppressant measures
are also discussed.
EPA/540/2-85/003
EPA/9380.0-14
Forum on Innovative
Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and
International
September 1989 329 pages
Order No.: PB90-183799
Compiles technical papers
presented at the July 19-21,1989
conference on Domestic and
International Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies in Atlanta.
This conference introduced new
international technologies,
showcased the results of U.S. EPA
Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) program
technologies, and demonstrated
other domestic innovative
technologies.
EPA/540/2-89/056
EPA/9380.0-16
Guide to Treatment
Technologies for Hazardous
Wastes at Superfund Sites
March 1989 20 pages
Order No.: PB89-190821
Addresses alternative technologies
that can be used to treat wastes at
Superfund sites. This guide is
designed for use by EPA Regional
Offices, States, remedial
contractors, and others to aid in the
identification of alternative
technologies that have been or are
currently being developed.
EPA/540/2-89/052
EPA/9380.0-18
Handbook on In Situ
Treatment of Hazardous
Waste-Contaminated Soils
January 1990 157 pages
Order No.: PB90-155607
Updates Volume I of "Review of In-
Place Treatment Techniques for
Contaminated Surface Soils."
Provides state-of-the-art
information on in situ treatment
technologies for contaminated soils.
EPA/540/2-90/002
EPA/9380.0-22
HAZCON Solidification
Process, Douglassville, PA:
Applications Analysis
Report
May 1989 65 pages
Order No.: PB89-206031
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
33
-------
Evaluates the HAZCON
solidification technology and its
applicability as an on-site treatment
method for waste site cleanup. A
demonstration was held at the
Douglassville, Pennsylvania site in
the fall of 1987.
EPA/540/A5-89/001
EPA/9380.0-38
Shirco Infrared Incineration
System: Applications
Analysis Report
June 1989 137 pages
Order No.: PB89-233423
Provides an evaluation of the
Shirco infrared thermal destruction
technology and its applicability as
an on-site treatment method for
waste site cleanup.
EPA/540/A5-89/010
EPA/9380.0-36
The Superf und Innovative
Technology Evaluation
Program: Technology
Profile
November 1989 129 pages
Order No.: PB90-249756
Profiles 52 demonstration and
emerging technologies being
evaluated under the SITE Program.
Each profile describes a technology,
discusses its applicability to various
wastes, updates its development or
demonstration status, and presents
any available demonstration
results.
EPA/540/5-89/013
EPA/9380.0-24
Superfund Treatment
Technologies: A Vendor
Inventory
1986 540 pages
Order No.: PB87-184578
Provides current information on
capability and availability of mobile
treatment units for Superfund
waste, including descriptions and
technical information.
EPA/540/2-86/004F
EPA/9380.0-09
Technological Approaches to
the Cleanup of
Radiologically
Contaminated Superfund
Sites
August 1988 136 pages
Order No.: PB89-122121
Describes a joint project with EPA's
Office of Research and
Development and the Office of Air
and Radiation to identify
technologies for removing or
stabilizing radiological
contamination at Superfund sites.
Exclusive remediation of soil is
addressed. Various technologies
and the need for additional
assessment studies are evaluated.
EPA/540/2-88/002
EPA/9380.0-21
Technology Evaluation
Report: CF Systems
Organics Extraction System
New Bedford, MA
January 1990 107 pages
Order No.: PB90-258468
Analyzes CF Systems Corporation's
organics extraction technology.
Contains information on the
performance and cost of the process
for use in site assessments.
EPA/540/5-90/002
EPA/9380.0-47
Technology Evaluation
Report: SITE Program
Demonstration Test,
International Waste
Technologies In Situ
Stabilization/Solidification,
Hialeah, Florida, Volume I
June 1989 105 pages
Order No.: PB89-194161
Analyzes the International Waste
Technologies' proprietary in situ
stabilization/solidification process
and represents the sixth
demonstration in the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) program. This report
discusses information on the
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
34
-------
performance and cost of the
technology for assessing its use at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
EPA/540/5-89/004a
EPA/9380.0-37
Technology Evaluation
Report: SITE Program
Demonstration Test,
Soliditech, Inc.
S olidification/S tabilization
Process, Volume I
February 1990 138 pages
Order No.: PB90-191750
Analyzes the Soliditech, Inc.
solidification/ stabilization
technology. The technical criteria
discussed include: (1) contaminant
mobility based upon leaching and
permeability tests and, (2) the
structural integrity of the solidified
material based upon physical and
morphological tests.
EPA/540/5-89/005a
EPA/9380.0-39
Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum
Extraction System:
Applications Analysis
Report
July 1989 65 pages
Order No.: PB90-119744
Evaluates the Terra Vac in situ
vacuum extraction system and its
applicability as a treatment method
for waste site cleanup.
EPA/540/A5-89/003
EPA/9380.0-46
Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) Qs & As
May 1989 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-273780
Summarizes applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) policy that remedial
actions conform to the current
National Contingency Plan (NO?).
First in a planned series, this fact
sheet discusses current program
practices and the policies and
language of the proposed NCP.
EPA/9234.2-01/FS
Approval of Long-Term
Contracting Strategy for
Superfund (Superfund
Management Review:
Recommendation E.2)
August 32,1990 42 pages
Order No.: PB90-273822
Summarizes the issues, findings,
analysis and recommendations for
the Superfund Long Term
Contracting Strategy which was
developed to analyze the long term
contract needs of the Superfund
program and to design a portfolio
of Superfund contracts to meet
those needs over the next 10 years.
EPA/9242.6-07
ARARs Qs & As:
Compliance with Federal
Water Quality Criteria
June 1990 11 pages
Order No.: PB90-274267
Part of a series of fact sheets that
provide answers to questions that
arose in developing applicable or
relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) policies,
training sessions, and in identifying
and complying with ARARs at .
specific sites. This particular fact
sheet addresses compliance with
Federal Water Quality Criteria as
ARARs.
EPA/9234.2-09/FS
ARARs Qs & As:
Compliance with the
Toxicity Characteristics
Rule: Parti
May 1990 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-273814
Part of a series of fact sheets that
provide answers to questions that
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
35
-------
^y^v^s -.v.-.-,-, -. VrtX- •» •"• •» - "v- •• *""• vs* X^ <* V •• ' O ""^ .
^ s " ,\ " " "" \ s t ^4XH V..
'.^j^ '
Program
Mgt.
arose in developing applicable or
relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) policies,
training sessions, and in identifying
and complying with ARARs at
specific sites. This fact sheet
addresses compliance with the
recently promulgated Toxicity
Characteristics Rule (55 FR11798,
March 29,1990).
EPA/9234.2-08/FS
CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual:
CERCLA Compliance with
the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and the Safe Drinking Water
Act(SDWA)
February 1990 10 pages
Order No.: PB90-273806
Provides a guide to Chapters 3 and
4 of Part I of the "CERCLA
Compliance with Other Laws
Manual." The sixth in a series, this
fact sheet focuses on CERCLA
compliance with the dean Water
Act in Chapter 3, and the Safe
Drinking Water Act in Chapter 4,
and discusses statutes with
provisions relevant to surface
water or drinking water.
EPA/9234.2-06/FS
CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual:
CERCLA Compliance with
State Requirements
December 1989 8 pages
Order No.: PB90-272543
Provides a guide to Chapter 6 of
Part II of the "CERCLA Compliance
with Other Laws Manual." The
fifth in a series, this fact sheet
discusses CERCLA compliance
with State requirements, based on
policies in proposed revisions to the
National Contingency Plan.
EPA/9234.2-05/FS
CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual: Guide
to Manual
September 1989 7 pages
Order No.: PB90-274242
Serves as a guide to the use of the
"CERCLA Compliance with Other
Laws Manual." The second in a
series, this fact sheet discusses
implementation of applicable or
relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) provisions
in the proposed revisions to the
National Contingency Plan.
EPA/9234.2-02/FS
CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual:
Overview of Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)-
Focus on ARAR Waivers
December 1989 8 pages
Order No.: PB90-273798
Summarizes Chapter I of Part I of
the "CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual" The third in a
series, this fact sheet provides an
overview of applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) based on policies in
proposed revisions to the National
Contingency Plan.
EPA/9234.2-03/FS
CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual, Part I
(Interim Final)
August 1988 246 pages
Order No.: PB90-272535
Developed to provide guidance to
Remedial Project Managers, State
personnel at State-led Superfund
sites, On-Scene Coordinators, and
others responsible for planning
response actions under the national
hazardous waste laws. This
guidance is intended to assist in the
selection of on-site remedial actions
that meet the applicable, or relevant
and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Ac
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
36
-------
fClean. Water Act, Safe Drinking
Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other
Federal and State environmental
laws as required by CERCLA.
EPA/540/G-89/006
EPA/9234.1-01
CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual, Part II:
Clean Air Act and other
Environmental Statutes and
State Requirements
August 1989 176 pages
Order No.: PB90-148461
The purpose of the CERCLA
Compliance with Other Laws
Manual is to assist Remedial Project
> Managers in identifying and
'complying with all applicable or
relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) for remedial
actions taken at Superfund sites.
This part of the guidance manual
addresses CERCLA compliance
with the Clean Air Act and other
environmental statutes for remedial
actions.
EPA/540/G-89/009
EPA/9234.1-02
CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual: RCRA
(Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act) ARARs
(Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements)
— Focus on Closure
Requirements
October 1989 9 pages
Order No.: PB90-274259
Serves as a guide to the use of the
"CERCLA Compliance with Other
Laws Manual: Parts I and II." The
fourth in a series, this fact sheet
addresses Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984, with a focus
on the RCRA Subtitle C disclosure
requirements.
EPA/9234.2-04/FS
CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual,
Summary of Part II: CAA,
TSCA, and Other Statutes
April 1990 11 pages
Order No.: PB90-272550
Provides a guide to Chapters 2 and
3 of Part II of the "CERCLA
Compliance with Other Laws
Manual". The sixth in a series, this
fact sheet focuses on CERCLA
compliance with the Clean Air Act;
the Toxic Substances Control Act;
and the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
Also, it discusses other statutes that
set standards for radioactive
wastes, mining wastes, and other
resource protection statutes that are
potential applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs)
for CERCLA actions.
EPA/9234.2-07/FS
CERCLIS Data Handling
Support Policy Statement
May 30,1990 3 pages
Order No.: PB90-258328
Updates the policy statement
published on March 31,1986,
regarding management of the data
handling support contract for
CERCLIS. This update contains no
major changes in policy, but rather
presents information in accordance
with the current document
management standards.
EPA/9221.0-02
Federal Facilities Hazardous
Waste Compliance Manual
(Final Report)
January 9,1990 780 pages
Order No.: PB90-188749
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
37
-------
V>A
Program
Mgt.
Presents an overview of the Federal
facilities hazardous waste
compliance program, relevant
statutory authorities, model
provisions for Federal facility
agreements, enforcement and other
applicable guidance, Federal
facilities docket and NPL listings,
data management information,
selected DOD and DOE program
guidance, and organization charts
and contacts. This compendium
may be used as a reference by
Regional RCRA and CERCLA
enforcement personnel and
Regional Counsels, particularly as
an orientation guide for new
Federal facilities staff.
EPA/9992.4
The Final National
Contingency Plan: New
Directions for Superfund
February1930 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-272600
Describes how the Superfund
"Management Review" ("90-Day
Study") and the final National
Contingency Plan established a
management and regulatory
blueprint for implementation of
the Superfund law. This fact sheet
summarizes Superfund's new goals
for hazardous waste cleanup, and
how those goals will be achieved.
EPA/9319.0-01/FS
Guidelines for Producing
Superfund Documents
February 9,1987 U pages
Order No.: PB90-249475
Summarizes the philosophy and
policy for planning, writing, and
issuing Superfund guidance
documents. Helps writers produce
documents that are readable,
concise, and well-referenced.
EPA/9200.4-01
Hazardous Waste Sites:
Descriptions of Sites on
Current National Priorities
List, October 1984
December 1984 569 pages
Order No.: PB85-224756
Compiles one-page descriptions of
the 538 sites that EPA placed on its
NPL. These sites are targeted for
possible long-term cleanup under
CERCLA, the Superfund law.
Conditions at the sites are
described at the time EPA first
proposed the site for the NPL, and
the status of any cleanup activities
is given as of October 1984. The
document brings together in one
volume descriptions made
available earlier (in September
1983, May 1984, and September
1984) when the sites were placed on
the NPL.
EPA/HW-8.5
EPA/9320.6-01
Management Review of the
Superfund Program
June 1989 126 pages
Order No.: PB90-153875
Presents the findings of what is
commonly called the "90-Day
Study," a self-critical examination of
the program. Contents of the
review include: clear strategy for
Superfund; strengthening
enforcement and maximizing
responsible party work at
Superfund sites; accelerating and
improving remedial action;
bringing innovative technologies to
bear on improving remedial action;
an aggressive program of
community involvement;
management and administratic
freeing up the skills and tools f
the job; accounting for
achievement; and communicating
progress to the public.
EPA/540/8-89/007
EPA/9201.01-A
Management Review of the
Superfund Program:
Implementation Plan
September 21,1989 173 pages
Order No.: PB90-153883
The Superfund 90-Day Study set
forth a comprehensive long-term
strategy for the Superfund program
(see previous Management Review
abstract). This document discusses
the basic elements of the strate
which are to: immediately
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
38
-------
acute threats; deal with the worst
sites and the worst problems first;
carefully monitor and maintain
sites over the long term; emphasize
enforcement to induce private-
party cleanup; seek new
technologies for more effective
cleanup; improve the efficiency of
program operations; and encourage
full participation by communities.
EPA/540/8-89/009
EP A/9201.02-A
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OSWER) Comparative Risk
Project: Executive Summary
and Overview
November 1989 72 pages
Order No.: PB90-272501
Discusses the study undertaken by
the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) to
explore the comparative risks
posed by various waste
management practices regulated by
and/or under OSWER purview.
Describes the study's position as an
early step in the larger strategic
planning process, undertaken to
gain experience in performing
comparative analysis.
EPA/540/1-89/003
EPA/9200.5-004
OSWER Integrated Health
and Safety Policy
August 16,1988 35 pages
Order No.: PB90-258344
Articulates the requirement that all
EPA employees comply with
Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (OSHA) as well as
EPA Health and Safety Directives.
The 27-page manual outlines the
conditions of this policy and
employees' roles and
responsibilities in meeting them.
The policy applies to all Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response employees engaged in
hazardous substances response
activities.
EPA/9285.0-01
OSWER Superfund
Telephone Directory
October 1990 36 pages
Order No.: PB90-249434
Telephone directory of Superfund
Headquarters and Regional
contacts. This directory is
published on a semi-annual basis.
EPA/9200.0-03B
Progress Toward
Implementing Superfund:
FY-87 — Report to Congress
April 1989 436 pages
Order No.: PB90-233548
Progress Toward
Implementing Superfund:
FY-88 — Report to Congress
April 1990 484 pages
Order No.: PB90-249442
Presents EPA's Annual Report on
the progress made by the Agency in
implementing the national
hazardous waste law and its
amendments (CERCLA and
SARA). The reports provide an
overall perspective on progress,
contain information that Congress
specifically requested, and an
evaluation of newly developed
feasible and achievable permanent
treatment technologies.
EPA/540/8-89/003 (1987)
EPA/9200.2-10 (1987)
EPA/540/8-90/004 (1988)
EPA/9200.2-11 (1988)
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
39
-------
Program
Mgt.
ROD (Record of Decision)
Annual Report, FY-86
January 1987 185 pages
Order No.: PB87-199550
ROD (Record of Decision)
Annual Report, FY-87
July 1988 240 pages
Order No.: PB89-114144
ROD (Record of Decision)
Annual Report, FY-88
July 1989 495 pages
Order No.: PB89-235212
ROD (Record of Decision)
Annual Report, FY-89
April 1990 379 pages'
Order No.: PB90-258484
Presents the Regional and
Headquarters staff with summary
data on RODs. The reports feature
specific accomplishments in the
ROD process and summarizes each
year's RODs by describing site
conditions and key contaminants,
selected remedial actions, specific
remedy performance standards and
goals, and institutional controls.
EPA/9355.6-03 (1986)
EPA/540/8-89/006 (1988)
EPA/92005-210 (1988)
EPA/540/8-90/006 (1989)
EPA/9355.6-02 (1989)
Superfund: A Six-Year
Perspective
October 1986 45 pages
Order No.: PB90-249483
An historical look at how the
Superfund program came to be,
how it operates, and what was
achieved through the program in
the first six years of its existence.
EPA/9200.5-000
Superfund: Getting Into the
Act — Contracting and
Subcontracting
Opportunities in the
Superfund Program
April 1989 65 pages
Order No.: PB89-233431
Assists those interested in
providing contractual services to
the Superfund program. Describes
current Superfund contracts and
provides contact points, addresses,
and telephone numbers of firms
with Superfund contracts.
EPA/540/G-89/003a
EPA/9200.5-402
Superfund: Looking Back,
Looking Ahead
December 1987 26 pages
Order No.: PB90-249491
Provides an overview of the
Superfund hazardous wastes
cleanup process and key aspects of
the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA). Also addresses the quest
for alternative technologies,
emergency planning and
community right-to-know, the
leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund, State involvement, and
challenges for Superfund for the
future.
EPA/9200.5-001
Superfund Program
Management Manual, FY-90:
Volume 1
July 1989 205 pages
Order No.: PB90-204199
Superfund Program
Management Manual, FY-90:
Volume 2, Appendices
July 1989 225 pages
Order No.: PB90-204207
Superfund Program
Management Manual, FY-91:
Volumes 1 & 2
June 1990 411 pages
Order No.: PB90-273707
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
40
-------
I Illustrates the relationships among
the major Superfund management
tools including identifying program
goals and priorities, translating
priorities into targets and measures
that are planned and tracked
through the Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments
Plan (SCAP), allocating resources
through targets and measures, and
evaluating SCAP to determine
whether program goals are being
met.
EPA/9200.3-01C (FY-90, Volume 1)
EPA/9200.3-01C (FY-90, Volume 2)
EPA/9200.3-01D (FY-91, Volumes 1
&2)
Superfund
Academy
Inauguration of the On-Site
Coordinator (OSC)/
Remedial Project Manager
(RPM) Program
February 3,1989 W pages
Order No.: PB90-274309
Announces the commencement of
several principal components of the
On-Site Coordinator/Remedial
Project Manager (OSC/RPM)
support program and solicits
estimates of participants for the
first class of the OSC/RPM Basic
Training Academy.
EPA/9285.9-01
what the requirements are, and
why training is necessary.
EPA/9285.9-06
Mandatory Training
Requirements for On-Scene
Coordinators and Remedial
Project Managers
September 29,1989 6 pages
Order No.: PB90-272584
Formally announces the mandatory
training requirements for On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs) and Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs) at all
levels. The directive addresses
Congressional, EPA management,
and employee concerns raised
about the preparation of OSCs and
RPMs to perform their jobs.
EPA/9285.9-05
Mandatory Community
Relations Training:
Superfund Management
Review Implementation
Product (Recommendation:
#43.P(i))
October 31,1989 5 pages
Order No.: PB90-272592
Formally announces mandatory
community relations training for
Remedial Project Managers, On-
Scene Coordinators, and other
Regional staff and managers who
attend public meetings or deal with
the public. The document explains
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
41
-------
Compute]
! Materials
Computer
Materials
CERCLIS Site Location
Extract
July 1988 magnetic tapes
Order No.: PB90-591310
Contains data on potential
hazardous waste sites that have
been reported to EPA by States,
municipalities, private companies,
and private persons, pursuant to
Section 103 of CERCLA, the
national hazardous waste law. The
file lists sites by name, alias,
location, and indicators for
National Priorities List status and
Federal facilities. These tapes are
available on a subscription basis
and are updated periodically.
Inorganic Contract
Compliance Screening
System (ICCSS) Software
(for Microcomputers)
February 12,1990 1 diskette
Order No.: PB90-591700
Inorganic Contract Compliance
Screening System (ICCSS) software
is a version of a mainframe-based
application developed for EPA's
National Contract Laboratory
Program. ICCSS is designed to
automate the determination of
contractual compliance and
completeness of data submitted to
the EPA under the Routine
Analytical Services (RAS) programs
of CERCLA and SARA, the
national hazardous waste
legislation.
Inorganic Contract
Compliance Screening
System (ICCSS) Software for
the PC (Version 3/90) User
Manual
February1990 138 pages
Order No.: PB90-213836
Serves as the user manual for
Inorganic Contract Compliance
Screening System (ICCSS) software.
ICCSS software is a version of a
mainframe-based application
developed for EPA's National
Contract Laboratory Program.
ICCSS automates the determination
of contractual compliance and
completeness of data submitted to
EPA under the Routine Analytical
Services (RAS) programs of
CERCLA and SARA.
Organic Contract
Compliance Screening
System (OCCSS) Software
(for Microcomputers)
February 12,1990 1 diskette
Order No.: PB90-591690
Developed for EPA's National
Contract Laboratory Program,
Organic Contract Compliance
Screening (OCCSS) automates the
determination of contractual
compliance and completeness of
data submitted to the EPA under
the Routine Analytical Services
(RAS) programs of CERCLA and
SARA, the national hazardous
waste legislation.
Organic Contract
Compliance Screening
System (OCCSS) Software
for the PC, User Manual
February 1990 167 pages
Order No.: PB90-213844
Serves as the user manual for the
Organic Contract Compliance
Screening System (OCCSS)
software which automates the
determination of contractual
compliance and completeness of
data submitted to EPA under the
Routine Analytical Services (RAS)
programs of CERCLA and SARA,
the national hazardous waste
legislation.
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
42
-------
Removal Cost Management
System: Version 3.2
May 1990 211 pages
Order No.: PB90-272691
Serves as a reference manual for
software used to perform cost
projections and daily cost tracking.
This user's guide for the Removal
Cost Management System (RCMS)
can also be used to create Cost
Projection reports, the 1900-55
Form, a Daily Cost Summary, an
Incident Obligation Log, and Site
Summary Reports.
EPA/540/P-90/003
EPA/9360-Q-02C '
Superfund Automated
Records of Decision System
(RODS): User Manual
August 1988 164 pages
Order No.: PB90-193004
Provides instructions for using the
Agency's ROD database for
planning a course of action to clean
up a Superfund site proposed or
listed on the NPL.
EPA/540/G-89/005
EPA/9355.1-04
EPA employees may order documents by calling: FTS-475-8864
43
-------
-------
In an effort to be more responsive
to the extensive public demand for
Superfund documents, EPA has
entered all of its current bibliogra-
phy into the archives of the Na-
tional Technical Information
Service (NTIS).
All documents in this catalog
should be purchased from NTIS,
using the unique NTIS document
number which begins with the
letters "PB." While NTIS charges
for each document based on cost
per page, it also has designed
} several unique standing order
systems for Superfund documents.
Those standing orders allow
regular readers to subscribe annu-
ally, thus guaranteeing the immedi-
ate receipt of new documents as
soon as they become available.
The new Superfund bibliography is
a current feature of NTIS' long
history of service to the scientific
and engineering communities
throughout the world in providing
prompt access to government
research and technology. NTIS also
serves as an historical archive for
technical information from many
agencies and can offer comprehen-
sive literature searches.
One-Step Easy Ordering
For EPA Employees
Persons employed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
should continue to order their
documents through the Agency by
calling-FTS-475-8864. Agency
callers to NTIS will be referred back
to the EPA phone number. The title
and EPA document number listed
in the catalog should be provided at
the time the order is placed.
Orders From the
General Public
Customers may order from NTIS
by:
Telephone - 703-487-4650,
(TDD) 703-487-4639; 8:30
am to 5:30 pm EST.
FAX-703-321-8547. For
assistance, call 703-487-4679.
Telex - 89-9405 (domestic), or
64617 (international).
Online Service Orders -
DIALOG: 800-334-2564;
OCLC: 800-848-5800,in
Ohio: 800-848-8286;
ORBIT: 800421-7229, in
Virginia: 703-442-0900
and,STN: 800-848-6533, in
Ohio: 800-848-6538.
Mail Orders - Send order form
to: NTIS, Springfield, VA
22161.
QuikSERVICE- Know the cost in
advance, availability restrictions,
and the approximate time of
shipment. The $3.00 handling fee is
waived. For information and an
application, call 703-487-4650 and
ask for department PR-846.
Orders may be charged to a NTIS
Deposit Account, American
Express, VISA, or Mastercard.
Checks or money orders are to be
made payable to NTIS in U.S.
dollars. Orders for foreign
destinations are subject to foreign
prices. If a purchase order is used,
add $7.50 to the total order (U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico only).
Shipping and Handling
A $3.00 handling fee per order
applies to orders from the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico. For other
countries, the handling fee is $4.00.
Orders are sent first class or
equivalent in the U.S. Orders to
other countries are shipped surface
mail. Air mail is $3.50 per report to
Canada and Mexico and $7.50 per
report to other countries.
Technical report rush orders are
guaranteed to be processed within
24 hours and sent First Class mail
or equivalent service. Add $12.00
to the price of each title. Outside
U.S., Canada, or Mexico, add
$14.50.
Technical report express orders
available only in the United States
are guaranteed to be processed
within 24 hours and delivered by
overnight courier to most U.S.
cities. Add $22.00 to the price of
each tide and $5.00 additional for
each additional copy of the same
title. For either service, call 800-
336-4700; in VA, 703-487^4650.
Computer product rush orders are
guaranteed to be processed within
five business days and delivered by
overnight courier to most U.S.
cities. Add $50.00 for each title
ordered in magnetic tape; $25.00 for
.each title with 10 or fewer diskettes;
or $50.00 for each title with more
than 10 diskettes. This service is
only available in the U.S., Canada
45
-------
and Mexico. Call 800-336-4700; in
VA, 703-487-4650.
In the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, rush or regular
service orders can be delivered.
Fees start at $11.00 depending on
customer location. Call NTIS at
703-487-4650.
Orders may be picked up at NTIS,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
V A (U.S. 495, exit 5 west) between
8:30 am and 5:30 pm.
Discounts and Credits
A 25 percent discount is available
for most documents if 5 to 100
copies of a single title are ordered at
the same time and shipped to the
same address. For discounts on
more than 100 copies call NTIS at
703-487-4650.
Academic libraries can receive a 10
percent discount education credit
on orders. Call NTIS at 703-487-
4660.
State and local governments and
State universities can get immediate
credit and shipment of orders with
"special credit" accounts. Use the
purchase order system without
being charged the standard $7.50
fee. Call NTIS at 703-487-4064, or
write to NTIS, Attn: Department
PR-220.
46
-------
NTIS ORDER FORM
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
Call (703) 487 - 4650
FAX (703) 321 - 8547
RUSH (800) 336 - 4700
1 Address Information
DATE:
Last Name
First Initial
Title
Telephone
Company/Organization
Address
City/State/Zip
2 Method of Payment
I I Charge my NTIS Deposit Account
I | Check/Money order enclosed for $
| | Purchase order attached ADD $7.50
(Payable in U.S. dollars)
Purchase order No.
Charge my | | American Express
Account No.
Signature:
VISA
MasterCard
Exp..
(Required to validate order)
3 Order Selection
QUANTITY
Enter order number(s)
(Ordering by title only will delay your order)
Printed
Copy
Micro-
fiche
Unit
Price
Total
Price
/CCE
/CCE
/CCE
/CCE
/CCE
/CCE
Regular Service Handling Fee per order
Purchase Order Fee if required (7.50)
GRAND TOTAL
$3.00
47
-------
-------
Subject Page
ACTION MEMORANDUM
Superfund Removal Procedures: Action Memorandum Guidance 12
AIR - (See also ARARS, Technology)
Control of Air Emissions From Superfund Air Strippers at Superfund Ground Water Sites 19
Environmental Asbestos Assessment Manual; Superfund Method for the Determination
of Asbestos in Ambient Air (Parts 1 & 2) 12
ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL CONTRACTING STRATEGY (ARCS) - (See also Contracts)
Approval of Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation E.2) 35
ARCS Construction Contract Modification Procedures 17
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES - (See also Technology)
Guide to Treatment Technologies for Hazardous Wastes at Superfund Sites ;. 33
ANALYSIS - (See also Contract Laboratory Program, Data Quality, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, Sampling)
Superfund Analytical Data Review and Oversight 15
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris: Evaluation of Land Ban Impact on Use
of Superfund Treatment Technologies 17
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Qs & As 35
ARARs Qs & As: Compliance With Federal Water Quality Criteria 35
ARARs Qs & As: Compliance With the Toxicity Characteristics Rule: Part 1 :.35
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: CERCLA Compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: CERCLA Compliance with State Requirements 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Guide to Manual 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Overview of Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) - Focus on ARAR Waivers 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I (Interim Final) 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part II: Clean Air Act and other
Environmental Statutes and State Requirements 37
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)
ARARs (Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements) - Focus on Closure Requirements 37
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Summary of Part II: CAA, TSCA, and Other Statutes 37
CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Eligibility of Facilities in Assessment Monitoring 17
CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Providing Notice to Facilities 17
Control of Air Emissions From Superfund Air Strippers at Superfund Ground Water Sites 19
Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 20
Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Compliance Manual (Final Report) 37
Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance on Non-Contiguous Sites and On-Site Management
of Waste and Treatment Residue 25
Notification of Out-of-State Shipments of Superfund Site Wastes 26
Policy for Superfund Compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions .....,™ 26
Superfund LDR Guide #1: Overview of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
49
-------
Subject Pa8e
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs), continued
Supcrfund LDR Guide #2: Complying with the California List Restrictions
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #3: Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Supcrfund LDR Guide #4: Complying with the Hammer Restrictions Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 30
Supcrfund LDR Guide #5: Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are "Applicable"
to CERCLA Response Actions 30
Supcrfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts 31
ASBESTOS - (See also Technology)
Environmental Asbestos Assessment Manual; Superfund Method for the Determination of Asbestos
in Ambient Air (Parts 1 & 2) 12
AUDITS
Audits and the Superfund Program Manager 17
Debarment and Suspension 19
Involvement of Superfund Program Managers in Superfund Response Agreement Audits 25
BIOREMED! ATION - (See also Technology)
Uscof Office of Research and Development's Bioremediation Expertise in Superfund Removal Program 32
CLAIMS - (See also Cost Management)
Procurement Under Preauthorization/Mixed Funding
CLEAN AIR ACT- (See also ARARs)
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I (Interim Final) 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part II: Clean Air Act and other
Environmental Statutes and State Requirements 37
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Summary of Part II: CAA, TSCA, and Other Statutes 37
CLEAN WATER ACT - (See also ARARs)
ARARs Qs & As: Compliance with Federal Water Quality Criteria 35
Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 20
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I (Interim Final) 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part II: Clean Air Act and other
Environmental Statutes and State Requirements 37
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Summary of Part II: CAA, TSCA, and Other Statutes 37
CLEANUP STRATEGY
Emergency Response Cleanup Services Contracts (ERCS) 9
Guidance on Cleanup of Surface Impoundment Sites 21
Guidance on Cleanup of Surface Tank and Drum Sites 21
Use of Expanded Removal Authority to Address NPL and Proposed NPL Sites 12
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Community Relations In Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Guidance) 18
Community Relations: Use of Senior Environmental Employees in Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation 43.KJL) 18
Mandatory Community Relations Training: Superfund Management Review Implementation Product
(Recommendation: #43.P(i)) 41
Planning for Sufficient Community Relations 26
Proposed Method to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Community Involvement in Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43.A) 26
Resource Distribution for the Technical Assistance Grant Program 27
Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a Community Relations Program for Remedial Response 28,
Superfund Community Relations Program: A Guide to Effective Presentations With Visual Aids3
50
-------
Subject Page
COMMUNITY RELATIONS, continued
Superfund Responsiveness Summaries (Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43E) 30
Superfund Technical Assistance Grants 30
COMPARATIVE RISK - (See also Risk)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Comparative Risk Project:
Executive Summary and Overview 39
COMPLIANCE - (See also ARARs)
Criminal Investigations and the Superfund Program 19
Debarmentand Suspension 19
Guidance on Oversight of Potentially Responsible Party Performed Remedial Design and Remedial Action 22
Policy for Superfund Compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions ; 26
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY
INFORMATION SYSTEM (CERCLIS)
CERCLIS Data Handling Support Policy Statement 37
CERCLIS Site Location Extract 42
COMPUTER MATERIALS
CERCLIS Site Location Extract 42
Inorganic Contract Compliance Screening System (ICCSS) Software (For Microcomputers) 42
Inorganic Contract Compliance Screening System (ICCSS) Software for the PC (Version 3/90) User Manual 42
Organic Contract Compliance Screening System (OCCSS) Software (For Microcomputers) 42
Organic Contract Compliance Screening System (OCCSS) Software for the PC, User Manual 42
Removal Cost Management System: Version 3.2 43
Superfund Automated Records of Decision System (RODS): User Manual 43
CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM (CLP)
Guidelines for Effective Management of the Contract Laboratory Program,
Part 1: Contract Award, Part 2: Contract Administration 13
User's Guide to Contract Laboratory Program 16
CONTRACTS
Approval of Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation E.2) 35
ARCS Construction Contract Modification Procedures 17
Decentralization of Superfund Bottle Repository Functions 12
Emergency Response Cleanup Services Contracts (ERCS) <9
Guidelines for Effective Management of the Contract Laboratory Program,
Parti: Contract Award, Part 2: Contract Administration 13
Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund 25
Procurement Under Preauthorization/Mixed Funding 26
Superfund: Getting Into the Act - Contracting and Subcontracting Opportunities in the Superfund Program 40
Treatability Studies Contractor Work Assignments 31
USAGE Preplaced and Rapid Response Contracts 31
Use of Removal Approaches to Speed Up Remedial Action Projects 12
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS - (See also Interagency Agreement, State and Local Programs)
Audits and the Superfund Program Manager 17
Involvement of Superfund Program Managers in Superfund Response Agreement Audits 25
SI/HRS Information Bulletin 15
COST MANAGEMENT
Audits and the Superfund Program Manager 17
EPA/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Payment Process, Direct Site/Revised Reimbursement Methods 20
Procurement Under Preauthorization/Mixed Funding 26
51
-------
Subject
Page
COST MANAGEMENT, continued
Removal Cost Management Manual 11
Removal Cost Management System: Version 3.2 43
Reimbursement to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases 11
Scoper's Notes: A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Costing Guide 28
COVERS - (See also Technology)
Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites 3
DATA QUALITY - (See also Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QQ)
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities (Volumes 1 & 2) 19
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance for Removal Activities: Sampling QA/QC Plan and Data
Validation Procedures (Interim Final) 10
Superfund Analytical Data Review and Oversight 15
DATABASES
The Emergency Response Notification System 9
User's Guide to Contract Laboratory Program 16
DIRECTORIES
Directory of EPA/State Contacts by Specialty 19
National On-Scene Coordinator Directory 10
OSWER Integrated Health and Safety Policy 39
Superfund Risk Assessment Information Directory 30
DRUG LABORATORIES
Guidelines for the Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratories
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - (See also Pre-Remedial, Risk)
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual 15
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Compliance Manual (Final Report) 37
FIELD ACTIVITIES - (See also Remedial, Removal, Safety, Sampling)
A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations 18
Field Screening Methods Catalog 13
Field Test of the Proposed Revised Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 13
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) Under CERCLA 21
The Remedial Investigation: Site Characteristics and Treatability Studies 27
GENERAL SUPERFUND MATERIAL
Preliminary Assessment Petition 15
Superfund: A Six-Year Perspective 40
Superfund: Getting Into the Act - Contracting and Subcontracting Opportunities in the Superfund Program 40
Superfund: Looking Back, Looking Ahead 40
GROUND WATER -(See also Remedial, Removal, Technology)
Basics of Pump and Treat Ground Water Remediation Technology 17
Control of Air Emissions From Superfund Air Strippers at Superfund Ground Water Sites 19
Determining Soil Response Action Levels Based on
Potential Contaminant Migration to Ground Water: A Compendium of Examples 33
Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies (Volumes 1,2 & 3) 20
Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites 22
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) - (See also Listing, National Priorities List (NPL))
Field Test of the Proposed Revised Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 13
SI/HRS Information Bulletin 15
52
-------
Subject
Page
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
A Study of Joint Use of Vehicles for Transportation of Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Materials
(Report to Congress) 11
HEALTH - (See also Safety)
Field Test of the Proposed Revised Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 13
A Guide on Remedial Action at Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination 23
Guidelines for the Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratories 10
HAZMAT Team Planning Guidance 10
Health and Safety Audit Guidelines: SARA Title I, Section 126 10
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables Fourth Quarter FY-89 13
OSWER Integrated Health and Safety Policy 39
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A 15
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual 15
Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual 16
HEALTH EFFECTS - (See also Health, Safety)
IN SITU - (See also Technology)
Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste-Contaminated Soils 33
Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test, International Waste Technologies
In Situ Stabilization/Solidification, Hialeah, Florida, Volume 1 34
Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System: Applications Analysis Report 35
INCINERATION - (See also Technology)
American Combustion Pyretron Destruction System: Applications Analysis Report 32
Shirco Infrared Incineration System: Applications Analysis Report 34
INDIAN INVOLVEMENT - (See also State and Local Programs)
Indian Tribal Involvement in the Superfund Program 24
Reimbursement to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases "... 11
Revised Interim Final Guidance on Indian Involvement in the Superfund Program 27
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY - (See also Technology)
Advancing the Use of Treatment Technologies for Superfund Remedies 16
Evaluation of Ground water Extraction Remedies (Volumes 1,2 & 3) 20
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA (Interim Final) 22
Innovative Technology: BEST Solvent Extraction Process 24
Innovative Technology: Glycolate Dehalogenation 24
Innovative Technology: In Situ Vitrification 24
Innovative Technology: Slurry Phase Biodegradation 24
Innovative Technology: Soil Washing 24
INORGANIC CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING SYSTEM (ICCSS) - (See also Computer Materials, Databases)
Inorganic Contract Compliance Screening System (ICCSS) Software (for Microcomputers) 42
Inorganic Contract Compliance Screening System (ICCSS) Software
for the PC (Version 3/90) User Manual 42
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT - (See also Audits, Cooperative Agreements)
EPA/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Payment Process, Direct Cite/Revised Reimbursement Methods 20
LAND BAN-(See also ARARs, Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), RCRA/CERCLA Interface)
Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris:
Evaluation of Land Ban Impact on Use of Superfund Treatment Technologies 17
Superfund LDR Guide #1: Overview of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #2: Complying with the California List Restrictions Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) ....29
53
-------
Subject Pa8e
LAND BAN, continued
Supcrfund LDR Guide #3: Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #4: Complying with the Hammer Restrictions
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 30
Superfund LDR Guide #5: Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are "Applicable"
to CERCLA Response Actions 30
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDR) - (See also ARARs, Land Ban, RCRA/CERCLA Interface)
Policy for Superfund Compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions 26
Superfund LDR Guide #1: Overview of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Supcrfund LDR Guide #2: Complying with the California List Restrictions
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
* Superfund LDR Guide #3: Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #4: Complying with the Hammer Restrictions
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 30
Superfund LDR Guide #5: Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are "Applicable"
to CERCLA Response Actions • 30
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts
LANDFILLS - (See also RCRA/CERCLA Interface)
Listing Municipal Landfills on the National Priorities List
Streamlining the RI/FS for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites 28
LISTING - (See also Hazard Ranking System (HRS), National Priorities List (NPL), Pre-Remedial)
Expanded Site Inspection: Guidance for FY-88 13
Field Test of the Proposed Revised Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 13
Indian Tribal Involvement in the Superfund Program '. 24
Listing Municipal Landfills on the National Priorities List 14
MIXED FUNDING
Procurement Under Preauthorization/Mixed Funding 26
NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP)
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Qs & As 35
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Guide to Manual 36
The Final National Contingency Plan: New Directions for Superfund 38
A Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial Actions 23
Indian Tribal Involvement in the Superfund Program 24
Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a
Community Relations Program for Remedial Response 28
Supcrfund Removal Procedures: Revision Number Three 12
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL) - (See also Hazard Ranking System (HRS), Listing, Pre-Remedial, Remedial,
State and Local Programs)
Accelerated Response at NPL Sites Guidance 9
Expanded Site Inspection: Guidance for FY-88 13
Field Test of the Proposed Revised Hazard Ranking System (HRS) -.13
Hazardous Waste Sites: Descriptions of Sites on Current National Priorities List, October 1984 38
Listing Municipal Landfills on the National Priorities List 14
Preliminary Assessment Petition 15
Update to the "Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites"
Guidance Document Regarding the Performance of Five-Year Reviews
Use of Expanded Removal Authority Authority to Address NPL and Proposed NPL Sites
54
-------
Subject page
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL), continued
Use of Removal Approaches to Speed Up Remedial Action Projects 12
90 DAY STUDY
The Final National Contingency Plan: New Directions for Superfund 38
Management Review of the Superfund Program 33
Management Review of the Superfund Program: Implementation Plan 38
NOTIFICATION
The Emergency Response Notification System 9
Impacts of CERCLA Release Notification Requirements on Transportation of Products
Containing Hazardous Substances 14
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103 (c) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (Regions I-X) 14
OFF-SITE - (See also ARARs, RCRA/CERCLA Interface)
CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Eligibility of Facilities in Assessment Monitoring 17
CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Providing Notice to Facilities "...17
Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) .'.'"." 20
Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance on Non-Contiguous Sites and On-Site Management of
Waste and Treatment Residue 25
Notification of Out-of-State Shipments of Superfund Site Wastes !...!!"".'"'.!!"26
OIL SPILLS - (See also Bioremediation, Response Emergency, Removals, Technology)
The Emergency Response Notification System 9
Use of Office of Research and Development's Bioremediation Expertise in Superfund Removal Program 32
ON-SCENE COORDINATOR/REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGER (OSC/RPM)
Inauguration of the On-Site Coordinator (OSQ/Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Program 41
Mandatory Community Relations Training: Superfund Management Review Implementation Product
(Recommendation: #43.P(i)) 41
Mandatory Training Requirements for On-Scene Coordinators and Remedial Project Managers ...A\
National On-Scene Coordinator Directory 10
Removal Cost Management Manual H
ORGANIC CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING SYSTEM (OCCSS) - (See also Computer MateriaisrDatabasesJ
Organic Contract Compliance Screening System (OCCSS) Software (for Microcomputers) 42
Organic Contract Compliance Screening System (OCCSS) Software for the PC, User Manual 42
ORGANIC EXTRACTIONS (See also Ground Water, Technology)
Basics of Pump and Treat Ground Water Remediation Technology 17
Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies (Volumes 1,2 & 3) .....!!""H.".20
Technology Evaluation Report: CF Systems Organics Extraction System New Bedford, MA 34
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - (See also Pre-Remedial)
Health and Safety Audit Guidelines: SARA Title I, Section 126 10
Preliminary Assessment Petition 15
PRE-REMEDIAL '
Decentralization of Superfund Bottle Repository Functions 12
Environmental Asbestos Assessment Manual; Superfund Method for the Determination of
Asbestos in Ambient Air (Parts 1 & 2) : 12
Expanded Site Inspection: Guidance for FY-88 Z"Z""""!""""."""""!l3
Field Screening Methods Catalog '" \3
Field Test of the Proposed Revised Hazard Ranking System (HRS) : !..!...!.'""!!.'""""l3
Guidelines for Effective Management of the Contract Laboratory Program,
Part 1: Contract Award, Part 2: Contract Administration 13
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables Fourth Quarter FY-89 !Z!"""Z!Z!"".'.™Z"l3
55
-------
Subject Pa§e
PRE-REMEDIAL, continued
Impacts of CERCLA Release Notification Requirements on Transportation of Products
Containing Hazardous Substances 14
Listing Municipal Landfills on the National Priorities List 14
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103 (c) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (Regions I-X) 14
Preliminary Assessment Petition 15
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A 15
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual 15
Sl/HRS Information Bulletin •• 15
Superfund Analytical Data Review and Oversight 15
Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual 16
Update to the "Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites" Guidance
Document Regarding the Performance of Five-Year Reviews 16
User's Guide to Contract Laboratory Program 16
PROCESS - (See also Technology)
Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS 21
PROCUREMENT - (See also Cost Management, Contracts)
ARCS Construction Contract Modification Procedures 17
Procurement Under Preauthorization/Mixed Funding 26
USAGE Preplaced and Rapid Response Contracts 31
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Qs & As 35
Approval of Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund (Superfund Management Review: Recommendation E.2).. 35
ARARs Qs& As: Compliance With Federal Water Quality Criteria 35
ARARs Qs & As: Compliance With the Toxicity Characteristics Rule: Part 1 35
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: CERCLA Compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: CERCLA Compliance with State Requirements 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Guide to Manual 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Overview of Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)-Focus on ARAR Waivers 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I: (Interim Final) 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part II: Clean Air Act and Other Environmental Statutes and
State Requirements 37
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)
ARARs (Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements) - Focus on Closure Requirements 37
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Summary of Part II: CAA, TSCA, and Other Statutes 37
CERCLIS Data Handling Support Policy Statement •. 37
A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations 18
Expediting Remedial Construction « 20
Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Compliance Manual (Final Report) 37
The Final National Contingency Plan: New Directions for Superfund 38
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) Under CERCLA 21
Guidance on Expediting Remedial Design and Remedial Action 22
Guidelines for Effective Management of the Contract Laboratory Program,
Part 1: Contract Award, Part 2: Contract Administration 13
Guidelines for Producing Superfund Documents 38
56
-------
Subject Page
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, continued
Involvement of Superfund Program Managers in Superfund Response Agreement Audits 25
Management Review of the Superfund Program 3g
Management Review of the Superfund Program: Implementation Plan Z."ZZ"!ZZ"."."38
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Comparative Risk Project:
Executive Summary and Overview oq
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A !Z!""I"ZZ"ZZI 15
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual 15
OSWER Integrated Health and Safety Policy !.!""!!Z1Z!!"!!1! 39
OSWER Superfund Telephone Directory Z" 39
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund - Report to Congress (FY-87, FY-88) ."."!.".'."."!.".'."."! 39
ROD (Record of Decision) Annual Report (FY-86, FY-87, FY-88, FY-89) ZZZ!ZZZ!ZZZ!!" 40
Superfund: A Six-Year Perspective '^ 40
Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual .'.'..'.ZZ!!!".ZZ!.ZZ.Z!!!!.Z»».'» 16
Superfund Federal-Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook !ZZZ!!'ZZ!!!"'.29
Superfund: Getting Into the Act - Contracting and Subcontracting Opportunities in the Superfund Program 40
Superfund: Looking Back, Looking Ahead 40
Superfund Program Management Manual (FY-90, FY-91) ZZZZ"ZZ"ZZ""ZZ" 40
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) Guidance !!!."Z"Z!.ZZZZ"!!!.'"!ZZ!ZZZ""30
Superfund State-Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook ZZZ"Z"Z""Z..30
PROTOCOLS - (See also Interagency Agreement, State and Local Programs)
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities (Volumes 1 & 2) 19
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance for Removal Activities:
Sampling QA/QC Plan and Data Validation Procedures (Interim Final) 10
User's Guide to Contract Laboratory Program 16
POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES (PRP) - (See also Remedial) '
Guidance on Oversight of Potentially Responsible Party Performed Remedial Design and Remedial Action 22
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTWs) - (See also ARARs, Clean Water Act, Off-Site, Technology)
CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual „.... 18
Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)". 20
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) - (See also Analysis, Contract Laboratory Program, Data Quality)"
A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations '___ ^
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities (Volumes 1 & 2) !Z"!Z1ZZ11"Z"Z"!! 19
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance for Removal Activities:
Sampling QA/QC Plan and Data Validation Procedures (Interim Final) 10
Superfund Analytical Data Review and Oversight 15
RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINANTS -(See also Technology) '
Assessment of Technologies for the Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Superfund Sites 32
Technological Approaches to the Cleanup of Radiologically Contaminated Superfund Sites 34
RCRA/CERCLA INTERFACE - (See also ARARs, Land Ban, Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), Landfills,Off-Site, Technology)
Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris: Evaluation of Land Ban Impact on Use of
Superfund Treatment Technologies 17
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I: (Interim Final) ZZZ.ZZZZ."!".ZZZZ!.ZZ.ZZ.»".."ZZ36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part II: Clean Air Act and Other Environmental Statutes and
State Requirements 37
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)
ARARs (Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements) - Focus on Closure 37
CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Eligibility of Facilities in Assessment Monitoring 17
CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Providing Notice to Facilities \\?
A Guide to Delisting of RCRA Wastes for Superfund Remedial Responses !!""!" 23
57
-------
Subject Pa8C
RCRA/CERCLA INTERFACE, continued
Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance on Non-Contiguous Sites and On-Site Management of Waste and ^
Treatment Residue
Listing Municipal Landfills on the National Priorities List •• **
Notification of Out-of-State Shipments of Superfund Site Wastes **>
Policy for Superfund Compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions **>
Superfund LDR Guide #1: Overview of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) &
Superfund LDR Guide #2: Complying with the California List Restrictions
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
Superfund LDR Guide #3: Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
Superfund LDR Guide #4: Complying with the Hammer Restrictions
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) ;;
Superfund LDR Guide #5: Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are "Applicable
to CERCL'A Response Actions
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) - (See also Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS))
A Guide to Developing Superfund Records of Decision
Results of Record of Decision Analysis (FY-88, FY-89) ^
ROD Annual Report (FY-86, FY-87, FY-88, FY-89)
Superfund Automated Records of Decision (RODS): User Manual
REGIONS - (See also Program Management) 7
Audits and the Superfund Program Manager
A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations
Decentralization of Superfund Bottle Repository Functions ^
Emergency Response Cleanup Services Contracts (ERCS) •« •-•••••• *
Final Guidance on Implementation of the "Consistency" Exemption to the Statutory Limits on Removal Actions 9
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (Regions I-X) 14
Superfund Federal-Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook ^
Use of Removal Approaches to Speed Up Remedial Action Projects ^
REIMBURSEMENT-(Seealso Cost Management)
EPA/U.S Army Corps of Engineers Payment Process, Direct Site/Revised Reimbursement Methods A>
Reimbursements to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases "
RELEASE-(See flfco Response, Removal)
The Emergency Response Notification System.... » •• •••••» •••••• "
Reimbursements to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases 11
REMEDIAL J 1f-
Advancing the Use of Treatment Technologies for Superfund Remedies L°
An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study ••
Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris: Evaluation of Land Ban Impact on Use of
Superfund Treatment Technologies
ARCS Construction Contract Modification Procedures ; •"•••"""• a?
Assessment of Technologies for the Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Superfund Sites ^
Audits and the Superfund Program Manager
Basics of Pump and Treat Ground Water Remediation Technology
CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Eligibility of Facilities in Assessment Monitoring l/
CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Providing Notice to Facilities
CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual lg|
CERCLA Waste Capacity Assurance -„*
Community Relations In Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Guidance)
58
-------
Subject Page
REMEDIAL, continued
Community Relations: Use of Senior Environmental Employees in Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation 43.KJL) 18
A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations 18
Control of Air Emissions From Superfund Air Strippers at Superfund Ground Water Sites 19
Criminal Investigations and the Superfund Program 19
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities (Volumes 1 & 2) 19
Debarment and Suspension 19
Directory of EPA/State Contacts by Specialty 19
Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) ""'."".\""'""""".2Q
EPA/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Payment Process, Direct Site/Revised Reimbursement Methods 20
Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies (Volumes 1,2 & 3) .-. 20
Expediting Remedial Construction 20
The Feasibility Study: Detailed Analysis of Remedial Action Alternatives '""^".20
The Feasibility Study: Development and Screening of Remedial Action Alternatives 21
Field Screening Methods Catalog 13
Final Guidance on Implementation of the "Consistency" Exemption to the
Statutory Limits on Removal Actions 9
Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS ".!!!"""".!.'".!!'21
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) Under CERCLA 21
Guidance on Cleanup of Surface Impoundment Sites 21
Guidance on Cleanup of Surface Tank and Drum Sites 21
Guidance on Expediting Remedial Design and Remedial Action 22
Guidance on Oversight of Potentially Responsible Party Performed Remedial Design and Remedial Action 22
Guidance on Providing Alternative Water Supplies 22
Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites 22
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA (Interim Final) """"."!!.".""!!"!!!!!22
A Guide on Remedial Action at Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination 23
A Guide on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water 23
A Guide to Delisting of RCRA Wastes for Superfund Remedial Responses ZZ!'.!!!!'.!!!""'."'.23
A Guide to Developing Superfund Proposed Plans "m 23
A Guide to Developing Superfund Records of Decision 23
A Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial Actions 23
Guidelines for Effective Management of the Contract Laboratory Program, Part 1: Contract Award,
Part 2: Contract Administration 13
Indian Tribal Involvement in the Superfund Program 24
Innovative Technology: BEST Solvent Extraction Process !!!!!]!!!"!!!"Z'.!24
Innovative Technology: Glycolate Dehalogenation 24
Innovative Technology: In Situ Vitrification ; .'.'.'.!."!.'"."."24
Innovative Technology: Slurry Phase Biodegradation ".'.'..21
Innovative Technology: Soil Washing 24
Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance on Non-Contiguous Sites and On-Site Management of
Waste and Treatment Residue 25
Involvement of Superfund Program Managers in Superfund Response Agreement Audits 25
Leachate Plume Management 25
Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund 25
Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes 25
Modeling Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites 25
Notification of Out-of-State Shipments of Superfund Site Wastes 26
Planning for Sufficient Community Relations 26
59
-------
Subject PaSe
REMEDIAL, continued
Policy for Superfund Compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions 26
Political Subdivision Involvement in Superfund 26
Procurement Under Preauthorization/Mixed Funding 26
Proposed Method to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Community Involvement in Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43.A) 26
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance for Removal Activities:
Sampling QA/QC Plan and Data Validation Procedures (Interim Final) 10
The Remedial Investigation: Site Characterization and Treatability Studies 27
Resource Distribution for the Technical Assistance Grant Program 27
Results of Record of Decision Analysis (FY-88 & FY-89) 27
Revised Interim Final Guidance on Indian Involvement in the Superfund Program 27
RI/FS Improvements ^7
RI/FS Improvements Follow-Up 27
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A 15
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual 15
Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a Community Relations Program for Remedial Response 28
Scopcr's Notes: A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Costing Guide 28
State and Local Involvement in the Superfund Program 28
Status of State Involvement in the Superfund Program: FY-80 to FY-89 28
Streamlining the RI/FS for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites 28
Superfund Community Relations Program: A Guide to Effective Presentations With Visual Aids 28
Superfund Federal-Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook 29
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program: Progress and Accomplishments in FY-87 29
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Strategy and Program Plan 29
Superfund LDR Guide #1: Overview of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #2: Complying with the California List Restrictions
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #3: Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #4: Complying with the Hammer Restrictions Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 30
Superfund LDR Guide #5: Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are "Applicable"
to CERCLA Response Actions 30
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) Guidance , 30
Superfund Responsiveness Summaries (Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43E) 30
Superfund Risk Assessment Information Directory 30
Superfund State-Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook 30
Superfund Technical Assistance Grants •• 30
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts 31
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges 31
Treatability Studies: Contractor Work Assignments 31
Trcatability Studies Under CERCLA: An Overview 31
Update: Superfund Technical Assistance Grants 31
Update to the "Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites"
Guidance Document Regarding the Performance of Five-Year Reviews 16
USAGE Preplaced and Rapid Response Contracts 31
Use of Expanded Removal Authority to Address NPL And Proposed NPL Sites 12
Use of Office of Research and Development's Bioremediation Expertise in Superfund Removal Program 32
Use of Removal Approaches to Speed Up Remedial Action Projects 12
User's Guide to Contract Laboratory Program I6
60
-------
Subject Page
REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION (RD/RA) - (See also Remedial)
Guidance on Expediting Remedial Design and Remedial Action 22
Guidance on Oversight of Potentially Responsible Party Performed Remedial Design and Remedial Action 22
Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites 22
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) Guidance 30
Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An Overview 31
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY (RI/FS) - (See also Remedial, Record of Decision (ROD))
A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations 18
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities (Volumes 1 & 2) 19
The Feasibility Study: Detailed Analysis of Remedial Action Alternatives 20
The Feasibility Study: Development and Screening of Remedial Action Alternatives 21
Field Screening Methods Catalog 13
Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS 21
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) Under CERCLA 21
The Remedial Investigation: Site Characterization and Treatability Studies 27
RI/FS Improvements 27
RI/FS Improvements Follow-Up 27
Scoper's Notes: A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Costing Guide 28
Streamlining the RI/FS for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites 28
REMOVAL - (See also Technology)
Accelerated Response at NPL Sites Guidance 9
Assessment of Technologies for the Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Superfund Sites 32
CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Eligibility of Facilities in Assessment Monitoring 17
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Guidance) 18
Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 20
Emergency Response Cleanup Services Contracts (ERCS) 9
The Emergency Response Notification System 9
Final Guidance on Implementation of the "Consistency" Exemption to the Statutory Limits on Removal Actions 9
Guidance for Conducting Federal-Lead Underground Storage Tank Corrective Actions 9
Guidance on Non-NPL Removal Actions Involving Nationally Significant or Precedent-Setting Issues 9
Guidance for the Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratories 10
HAZMAT Team Planning Guidance 10
Health and Safety Audit Guidelines: SARA Title I, Section 126 10
National On-Scene Coordinator Directory 10
Notification of Out-of-State Shipments of Superfund Site Wastes 26
Planning for Sufficient Community Relations 26
Policy for Superfund Compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions 26
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance for Removal Activities:
Sampling QA/QC Plan and Data Validation Procedures (Interim Final) 10
Reimbursement of Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases 11
Removal Cost Management Manual 11
Standard Operating Safety Guides 11
A Study of Joint Use of Vehicles for Transportation of Hazardous and Nonhazardous Materials
(Report to Congress) •. 11
Superfund Emergency Response Actions: A Summary of Federally-Funded Removals (Volumes 1,2 & 3) 11
Superfund Removal Procedures: Action Memorandum Guidance 12
Superfund Removal Procedures: Revision Number Three 12
Treatability Studies Contractor Work Assignments 31
Use of Expanded Removal Authority to Address NPL and Proposed NPL Sites 12
Use of Office of Research and Development's Bioremediation Expertise in Superfund Removal Program 32
61
-------
, t
Subject
REMOVAL, continued
Use of Removal Approaches to Speed Up Remedial Action Projects 1Z
REPORTS '
Criminal Investigations and the Superfund Program ^
Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies (Volumes 1,2 & 3) 20
Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International 33
Hazardous Waste Sites: Descriptions of Sites on Current National Priorities List, October 1984 38
Impacts of CERCLA Release Notification Requirements on Transportation of Products
Containing Hazardous Substances ^f
Management Review of the Superfund Program 38
Management Review of the Superfund Program: Implementation Plan 38
' Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (Regions I-X) 14
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Comparative Risk Project:
Executive Summary and Overview 3^
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund - Report to Congress (FY-87, FY-88) 39
Results of Record of Decision Analysis (FY-88, FY-89) • 2/
ROD (Record Of Decision) Annual Report (FY-86, FY-87, FY-88, FY-89) 40
Status of State Involvement in the Superfund Program: FY-80 to FY-89 ,
A Study of Joint Use of Vehicles for Transportation of Hazardous and Nonhazardous Materials
(Report to Congress)
Superfund Emergency Response Actions: A Summary of Federally-Funded Removals (Volumes 1,2 & 3) ll
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program: Progress and Accomplishments in FY-87 29
RESPONSE - (See also Removal, Remedial)
Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 2U
Procurement Under Preauthorization/Mixed Funding v 2°
Standard Operating Safety Guides •••••• JJ
Superfund Emergency Response Actions: A Summary of Federally-Funded Removals (Volumes 1,2 & 3) 11
RESPONSE, EMERGENCY - (See also Removal)
Accelerated Response at NPL Sites Guidance 9
The Emergency Response Notification System •••:
Health and Safety Audit Guidelines: SARA Title I, Section 126 ™
National On-Scene Coordinator Directory ™
Reimbursements to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases 11
RISK - (See also Health, Safety)
Environmental Asbestos Assessment Manual; Superfund Method for the Determination of
Asbestos in Ambient Air (Volumes 1 & 2) j2
Field Test of the Proposed Revised Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 13
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables Fourth Quarter FY-89 13
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Comparative Risk Project:
Executive Summary and Overview 3jl
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A 15
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual 15
Streamlining the RI/FS for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites 28
A Study of Joint Use of Vehicles for Transportation of Hazardous and Nonhazardous Materials
(Report to Congress)
Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual
Superfund Risk Assessment Information Directory • 3|
SAFETY - (See also Health)
A Guide on Remedial Action At Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination
62
-------
Subject Page
SAFETY, continued
Guidelines for the Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratories 10
HAZMATTeam Planning Guidance 10
Health and Safety Audit Guidelines: SARA Title I, Section 126 10
OSWER Integrated Health and Safety Policy ""39
Standard Operating Safety Guides 11
SAMPLE ANALYSIS - (See also Analysis, Sampling)
SAMPLING - (See also Analysis, Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QQ)
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities (Volumes 1 & 2) 19
Decentralization of Superfund Bottle Repository Functions 12
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance for Removal Activities:
Sampling QA/QC Plan and Data Validation Procedures (Interim Final) 10
Superfund Analytical Data Review and Oversight 15
User's Guide to Contract Laboratory Program 16
SITE ASSESSMENT
Environmental Asbestos Assessment Manual; Superfund Method for the Determination of
Asbestos in Ambient Air (Parts 1 & 2) 12
Field Screening Methods Catalog 13
Technology Evaluation Report: CF Systems Organics Extraction System New Bedford, MA 34
SITE INSPECTION - (See also Pre-Remedial)
Decentralization of Superfund Bottle Repository Functions 12
Expanded Site Inspection: Guidance for FY-88 13
Field Screening Methods Catalog 13
SI/HRS Information Bulletin 15
SITE INVESTIGATION - (See also Pre-Remedial)
Expanded Site Inspection: Guidance for FY-88 13
SOIL AND DEBRIS - (See also Technology)
Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris: Evaluation of Land Ban Impact on Use of Superfund
Treatment Technologies ; 17
Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites 32
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities (Volume 1 & 2) 19
Determining Soil Response Action Levels Based on Potential Contaminant Migration to Ground Water:
A Compendium of Examples 33
Guidance for Conducting Federal-Lead Underground Storage Tank Corrective Actions 9
Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste-Contaminated Soils 33
Innovative Technology: Soil Washing 24
Superfund LDR Guide #1: Overview of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #2: Complying with the California List Restrictions
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #3: Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #4: Complying with the Hammer Restrictions Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 30
Superfund LDR Guide #5: Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are "Applicable"
toCERCLA Response Actions 30
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts 31
Technological Approaches to the Cleanup of Radiologically Contaminated Superfund Sites 34
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges 31
SOLIDIFICATION
HAZCON Solidification Process, Douglassville, PA: Applications Analysis Report 33
63
-------
Subject FaSe
SOLIDIFICATION, continued
Technology Evaluation Report: Site Program Demonstration Test, International Waste Technologies
In Situ Stabilization/Solidification, Hialeah, Florida, Volume 1 34
Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test, Soliditech, Inc.
Solidification Stabilization Process, Volume I 35
SPILLS - (See also Bioremediation, Response Emergency, Oil Spills, Removal)
Reimbursements to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases 11
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study 16
Audits and the Superfund Program Manager 1?
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: CERCLA Compliance with State Requirements 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I (Interim Final) 36
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part II: Clean Air Act and other
Environmental Statutes and State Requirements 37
CERCLA Waste Capacity Assurance 18
Community Relations In Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Guidance) 18
Directory of EPA/State Contacts by Specialty 19
Guidelines for the Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratories 10
HAZM AT Team Planning Guidance 1°
Indian Tribal Involvement in the Superfund Program 24
Involvement of Superfund Program Managers in Superfund Response Agreement Audits
Notification of Out-of-State Shipments of Superfund Site Wastes
Planning for Sufficient Community Relations 26
Political Subdivision Involvement in Superfund 26
Proposed Method to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Community Involvement in Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43 .A) 26
Reimbursement to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases 11
Resource Distribution for the Technical Assistance Grant Program 27
Revised Interim Final Guidance on Indian Involvement in the Superfund Program 27
Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a Community Relations Program for Remedial Response 28
SI/HRS Information Bulletin 1s
State and Local Involvement in the Superfund Program 28
Status of State Involvement in the Superfund Program: FY-80 to FY-89 • 28
Superfund Responsiveness Summaries (Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43E) 30
Superfund State-Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook 30
Superfund Technical Assistance Grants 30
Update: Superfund Technical Assistance Grants 31
User's Guide to Contract Laboratory Program 16
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM - (See also Technology)
American Combustion Pyretron Destruction System: Applications Analysis Report 32
Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International 33
HAZCON Solidification Process, Douglassville, PA: Applications Analysis Report 33
Shirco Infrared Incineration System: Applications Analysis Report 34
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program: Progress and Accomplishments in FY-87 29
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Strategy and Program Plan 29
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profile 34
Technology Evaluation Report: CF Systems Organics Extraction System New Bedford, MA 34
Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test, International Waste Technologies
In Situ Stabilization/Solidification, Hialeah Florida, Volume 1 34
64
-------
Subject Page
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM, continued
Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test, Soliditech, Inc.
Solidification/Stabilization Process, Volume I .35
Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System: Applications Analysis Report 35
SUPERFUND MANAGEMENT REVIEW - (See also 90 Day Study)
Accelerated Response at NPL Sites Guidance 9
Approval of Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund (Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation E.2) '. 35
Community Relations: Use of Senior Environmental Employees in Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation 43.K,L) 18
Planning for Sufficient Community Relations 26
Proposed Method to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Community Involvement in Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43.A) ; 26
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) Guidance 30
Superfund Responsiveness Summaries (Superfund Management Review: Recommendation .#43E) 30
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS (TAG) - (See also Community Relations)
Resource Distribution for the Technical Assistance Grant Program ; 27
Superfund Technical Assistance Grants 30
Update: Superfund Technical Assistance Grants 31
TECHNOLOGY
Advancing the Use of Treatment Technologies for Superfund Remedies 16
American Combustion Pyretron Destruction System: Applications Analysis Report 32
Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris: Evaluation of Land Ban Impact on
Use of Superfund Treatment Technologies 17
Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund Applications: Technology Review and
Trip Report Results 32
Assessment of Technologies for the Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Superfund Sites 32
Basics of Pump and Treat Ground Water Remediation Technology 17
Control of Air Emissions From Superfund Air Strippers at Superfund Ground Water Sites 19
Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites '. 32
Determining Soil Response Action Levels Based on Potential
Contaminant Migration to Ground Water: A Compendium of Examples 33
Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 20
Dust Control At Hazardous Waste Sites; Handbook 33
Environmental Asbestos Assessment Manual; Superfund Method for the Determination of
Asbestos in Ambient Air (Parts 1 & 2) ; 12
Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies (Volumes 1,2 & 3)
Field Screening Methods Catalog 13
Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International 33
Guidance on Cleanup of Surface Impoundment Sites 21
Guidance on Cleanup of Surface Tank and Drum Sites „ 21
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA (Interim Final) 22
Guide to Treatment Technologies for Hazardous Wastes at Superfund Sites 33
Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste-Contaminated Soils 33
HAZCON Solidification Process, Douglassville, PA: Applications Analysis Report - 33
Innovative Technology: BEST Solvent Extraction Process 24
Innovative Technology: Glycolate Dehalogenation 24
Innovative Technology: In Situ Vitrification 24
Innovative Technology: Slurry Phase Biodegradation 24
Innovative Technology: Soil Washing 24
65
-------
Subject PaSe
TECHNOLOGY, continued
Lcachate Plume Management ~5
Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes 25
Shirco Infrared Incineration System: Applications Analysis Report 34
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profile 34
Superfund LDR Guide #1: Overview of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #2: Complying with the California List Restrictions
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
Superfund LDR Guide #3: Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
• Superfund LDR Guide #4: Complying with the Hammer Restrictions Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 30
Superfund LDR Guide #5: Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are "Applicable"
to CERCLA Response Actions 30
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts 31
Superfund Treatment Technologies: A Vendor Inventory 34
Technological Approaches to the Cleanup of Radiologically Contaminated Superfund Sites 34
Technology Evaluation Report: CF Systems Organics Extraction System, New Bedford, MA 34
Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test, International Waste Technologies
In Situ Stabilization/Solidification, Hialeah, Florida, Volume 1 34
Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test, Soliditech, Inc.
Solidification/Stabilization Process, Volume 1 35
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges 31
Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System: Applications Analysis Report 35
Treatability Studies Contractor Work Assignments 31
Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An Overview 31
Use of Office of Research and Development's Bioremediation Expertise in Superfund Removal Program ...32
TRANSPORTATION - (See also RCRA/CERCLA Interface, Reports)
Impacts of CERCLA Release Notification Requirements on Transportation
of Products Containing Hazardous Substances 14
Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes 25
A Study of Joint Use of Vehicles for Transportation of Hazardous and Nonhazardous Materials
(Report to Congress) 11
TREATABILITY - (See also Technology)
Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris: Evaluation of Land Ban Impact on Use of
Superfund Treatment Technologies W
CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual 18
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA (Interim Final) 22
Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes 25
The Remedial Investigation: Site Characterization and Treatability Studies 27
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts 31
Treatability Studies Contractor Work Assignments 31
Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An Overview 31
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges 31
VALIDATION
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities: (Volumes 1 & 2) 1*
WATER - ( See also Ground Water, Technology)
ARARs Qs & As: Compliance With Federal Water Quality Criteria 35
Basics of Pump and Treat Ground Water Remediation Technology "
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: CERCLA Compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and the Safe Drinking Water Act ,(SDWA) 36
66
-------
Subject
Page
WATER, continued
CERCLA Site Discharge to POTWs: Guidance Manual 18
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities: Example Scenario:
RI/FS Activities at a Site with Contaminated Soils and Ground Water (Volume 2) 19
Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 20
Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies (Volumes 1,2 &3) 20
Guidance for Providing Alternative Water Supplies 22
Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites 22
WORKER PROTECTION- (Seealso Health, Safety)
Dust Control at Hazardous Waste Sites; Handbook 33
Health and Safety Audit Guidelines: SARA Title I, Section 126 10
Guidelines for the Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratories 10
OSWER Integrated Health and Safety Policy 39
Standard Operating Safety Guides • H
-------
-------
Document Number Document Title Page
EPA/540/1-86/061 Superfund Risk Assessment Information Directory 30
EPA/540/1-87/001 A Study of Joint Use of Vehicles for Transportation of Hazardous and
Nonhazardous Materials (Report to Congress) 11
EPA/540/1-88/001 Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual 16
EPA/540/1-89/001 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental
Evaluation Manual , 15
EPA/540/1-89/002 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Part A 15
EPA/540/1-89/003 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Comparative
Risk Project: Executive Summary and Overview 39
EPA/540/2-85/001 Modeling Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites 25
EPA/540/2-85/002 Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites 32
EPA/540/2-85/003 Dust Control at Hazardous Waste Sites: Handbook 33
EPA/540/2-85/004 Leachate Plume Management . 25
EPA/540/2-86/003 Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes 25
EPA/540/2-86/004F Superfund Treatment Technologies: A Vendor Inventory 34
EPA/540/2-88/002 Technological Approaches to the Cleanup of Radiologically Contaminated
Superfund Sites 34
EPA/540/2-88/003 Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund Applications:
Technology Review and Trip Report Results 32
EPA/540/2-88/004 Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges 31
EPA/540/2-88/005 Field Screening Methods Catalog 13
EPA/540/2-89/001 Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts 31
EPA/540/2-89/052 Guide to Treatment Technologies for Hazardous Wastes at Superfund Sites 33
EPA/540/2-89/054 Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies, Volume 1: Summary Report 20
EPA/540/2-89/054b Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies, Volume 2: Case Studies 1-19
(Interim Final) 20
EPA/540/2-89/054c Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies, Volume 3: General Site Data,
Data Base Reports (Interim Final)..».. • 20
EPA/540/2-89/056 Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International • 33
69
-------
Document Number Document Title Page
EPA/540/2-89/057 Determining Soil Response Action Levels Based on Potential Contaminant
Migration to Ground Water: A Compendium of Examples 33
EPA/540/2-89/058 Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA (Interim Final) 22
EPA/540/2-90/001 Assessment of Technologies for the Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated
Superfund Sites 32
EPA/540/2-90/002 Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste-Contaminated Soils 33
EPA/540/2-90/005a Environmental Asbestos Assessment Manual; Superfund Method for the
Determination of Asbestos in Ambient Air, Part 1: Method (Interim Version) 12
EPA/540/2-90/005b Environmental Asbestos Assessment Manual; Superfund Method for the
Determination of Asbestos in Ambient Air, Part 2: Technical Background
Document (Interim Version) 12
EPA/540/5-88/001 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program: Progress and
Accomplishments in FY-87 29
EPA/540/5-89/004a Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test, International
Waste Technologies In Situ Stabilization/Solidification, Hialeah, Florida, Volume 1
EPA/540/5-89/005a Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test,
Soliditech, Inc. Solidification/Stabilization Process, Volume I 35
EPA/540/5-89/013 The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profile 34
EPA/540/5-90/002 Technology Evaluation Report: CF Systems Organics Extraction System, New
Bedford, MA 34
EPA/540/8-89/003 Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: FY-87 — Report to Congress 39
EPA/540/8-89/006 ROD (Record of Decision) Annual Report, FY-88 40
EPA/540/8-89/007 Management Review of the Superfund Program 38
EPA/540/8-89/009 Management Review of the Superfund Program: Implementation Plan 38
EPA/540/8-89/011 An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study 16
EPA/540/8-89/012 User's Guide to Contract Laboratory Program 16
EPA/540/8-90/002 Directory of EPA/State Contacts by Specialty 19
EPA/540/8-90/004 Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: FY-88 — Report to Congress 39
EPA/540/8-90/005 Status of State Involvement in the Superfund Program: FY-80 to FY-89 28
EPA/540/8-90/006 ROD (Record of Decision) Annual Report, FY-89 40
EPA/540/A5-89/001 HAZCON Solidification Process, Douglassville, PA: Applications Analysis
Report 33
EPA/540/A5-89/003 Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System: Applications Analysis Report 35
EPA/540/A5-89/008 American Combustion Pyretron Destruction System: Applications Analysis
Report 32
EPA/540/A5-89/010 Shirco Infrared Incineration System: Applications Analysis Report 34
70
-------
Document Number Document Title Page
EPA/540/G-86/001 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Strategy and
Program Plan 29
EPA/540/G-87/001 Superfund Federal-Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook 29
EPA/540/G-87/002 Superfund State-Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook 30
EP A/540/G-87/003 Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities: Development Process (Volume 1) 19
EPA/540/G-87/004 Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities: Example Scenario:
RI/FS Activities at a Site with Contaminated Soils and Ground Water (Volume 2) 19
EPA/540/G-87/006 Guidance on Providing Alternative Water Supplies .22
EPA/540/G-88/002 Community Relations In Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Guidance) 18
EP A /540/G-88/003 Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund
Sites 22
EP A/540/G-89/001 Superfund Community Relations Program: A Guide to Effective Presentations
With Visual Aids 28
EPA/540/G-89/003a Superfund: Getting Into the Act — Contracting and Subcontracting
Opportunities in the Superfund Program 40
EPA/540/G-89/004 Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
(RI/FS) Under CERCLA 21
EPA/540/G-89/005 Superfund Automated Records of Decision System (RODS): User Manual 43
EPA/540/G-89/006 CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I (Interim Final) 36
EPA /540/G-89/009 CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part II: Clean Air
Act and other Environmental Statutes and State Requirements 37
EPA/540/G-89/010 Health and Safety Audit Guidelines: SARA Title I, Section 126 10
EPA/540/G-90/002 Scoper's Notes: A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
Costing Guide 28
EPA/540/G-90/003 HAZMAT Team Planning Guidance 10
EPA/540/G-90/004 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance for Removal Activities: Sampling
QA/QC Plan and Data Validation Procedures (Interim Final) 10
• EPA/540/G-90/005 CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual 18
EPA/540/G-90/006 Guidance on Expediting Remedial Design and Remedial Action 22
EP A/540/P-87/001 A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations 18
EP A/540/P-90/001 Field Test of the Proposed Revised Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 13
EPA/540/P-90/003 Removal Cost Management System: Version 3.2 43
EPA/540/P-90/005 Guidelines for the Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratories 10
EPA/600/8-90/003 Basics of Pump and Treat Ground Water Remediation Technology 17
EPA/9200.0-03B OSWER Superfund Telephone Directory •. 39
EPA/9200.2-02 Accelerated Response atNPL Sites Guidance 9
71
-------
Document Number Document Title Page
EPA/9200.3-01C Superfund Program Management Manual, FY-90: Volume 1 40
EPA/92003-01C Superfund Program Management Manual, FY-90: Volume 2, Appendices 40
EPA/92003-Q1D Superfund Program Management Manual, FY-91: Volumes 1 & 2 40
EPA/92003-04 Resource Distribution for the Technical Assistance Grant Program 27
EPA/9200.4-01 Guidelines for Producing Superfund Documents 38
EPA/92005-000 Superfund: A Six-Year Perspective 40
EPA/9200.5-001 Superfund: Looking Back, Looking Ahead , 40
EPA/92005-120 National On-Scene Coordinator Directory 10
EPA/92005-208/FS Debarment and Suspension 19
EPA/9200.5-209/FS Update: Superfund Technical Assistance Grants 31
EPA/9200S-250FS Innovative Technology: Soil Washing
EPA/92005-251FS Innovative Technology: In Situ Vitrification 24
EPA/92005-252FS Innovative Technology: Slurry Phase Biodegradation 24
EPA/92005-253FS Innovative Technology: BEST Solvent Extraction Process 24
EPA/92005-254FS Innovative Technology: Glycolate Dehalogenation 24
EPA/92005-301 FS Preliminary Assessment Petition • 15
EPA/92005-302 SI/HRS Information Bulletin 15
EPA/92005-303 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables Fourth Quarter FY-89 13
EPA/9221.0-02 CERCLIS Data Handling Support Policy Statement 37
EPA/9225.1-01 Procurement Under Preauthorization/Mixed Funding 26
EPA/92253-01 FS Reimbursement to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous
Substance Releases H
EPA/9230.0-06 Superfund Responsiveness Summaries (Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation #43E) •• 30
EPA/9230.0-08 Planning for Sufficient Community Relations 26
EPA/9230.0-09 Community Relations: Use of Senior Environmental Employees in Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation 43.K,L) 18
EPA/9230.0-15 Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a Community Relations
Program for Remedial Response 28
EPA/9230.0-19 Proposed Method to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Community Involvement in
Superfund (Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43.A) 26
EPA/9230.1-05/FS Superfund Technical Assistance Grants 30
EPA/9234.2-01/FS Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Qs & As 35
72
-------
Document Number Document Tifle
Page
EP A/9234.2-02/ FS CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Guide to Manual .................................... 36
EPA/9234.2-03/FS CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Overview of Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), Focus on ARAR Waivers ................. 36
EPA/9234.2-04/FS CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: RCRA (Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act) ARARs (Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements),
Focus on Closure Requirements [[[ 37
EPA/9234.2-05/FS CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: CERCLA Compliance with State
Requirements [[[ 36
EPA/9234.2-06/FS CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: CERCLA Compliance with the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) .................................... 36
EPA/9234.2-07/FS CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Summary of Part II: CAA,
TSCA, and Other Statutes [[[ 37
EPA/9234.2-08/FS ARARs Qs & As: Compliance with the Toxicity Characteristics Rule: Part 1 ................... 35
EP A/9234.2-09/ FS ARARs Qs & As: Compliance with Federal Water Quality Criteria .................................... 35
EPA/9240.0-03 Superfund Analytical Data Review and Oversight .......................... ....................................... 15
»P A/9240.0-04-1 &2 Guidelines for Effective Management of the Contract Laboratory Program,
Part 1: Contract Award, Part 2: Contract Administration [[[ 13
: EPA/9240.0-05 Decentralization of Superfund Bottle Repository Functions ................................................. 12
EPA/9242.2-01B Emergency Response Cleanup Services Contracts (ERCS) [[[ 9
EPA/9242.6-07 Approval of Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund (Superfund
Management Review: Recommendation E.2) [[[ 35
EPA/9242.6-07FS Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund [[[ 25
EPA/9283.1-02FS A Guide on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water ........................................ 23
EPA/9285.0-01 OSWER Integrated Health and Safety Policy [[[ 39
EPA/9285.1-01C Standard Operating Safety Guides ........... ......... . [[[ • .................. H
EPA/9285.7-01/FS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Part A [[[ 15
EPA/9285.9-01 Inauguration of the On-Site Coordinator (OSQ/Remedial Project Manager
' ' (RPM) Program [[[ 41
-------
Document Number Document Title Page
EPA/9330.2-04 Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLA Sites into Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) 20
EPA/9330.2-05 CERCLA Off-Site Policy: Providing Notice to Facilities 17
EPA/9330.2-06 CERLCA Off-Site Policy: Eligibility of Facilities in Assessment Monitoring 17
EPA/9330.2-07 Notification of Out-of-State Shipments of Superfund Site Wastes 26
EPA/93353-02FS-1 A Guide to Developing Superfund Records of Decision 23
EPA/9335.3-02FS-2 A Guide to Developing Superfund Proposed Plans 23
EPA/9345.1-02 Expanded Site Inspection: Guidance for FY-88 13
EPA/9347.0-01 Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance on Non-Contiguous Sites and On-Site
Management of Waste and Treatment Residue 25
EPA/9347.1-02 Policy for Superfund Compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions 26
EPA/9347.3-01FS Superfund LDR Guide #1: Overview of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) ......29
EPA/9347.3-02FS Superfund LDR Guide #2: Complying with the California List Restrictions
Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
EPA/93473-03FS Superfund LDR Guide #3: Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology
Requirements Under Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 29
EPA/9347.3-04FS Superfund LDR Guide #4: Complying with the Hammer Restrictions Under
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 30
EPA/9347.3-05FS Superfund LDR Guide #5: Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) are "Applicable" to CERCLA Response Actions 30
EPA/9347.3-09FS A Guide to Delisting of RCRA Wastes for Superfund Remedial Responses 23
EPA/9355.0-04A Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) Guidance 30
EPA/9355.0-20 RI/FS Improvements 27
EPA/9355.0-25A Use of Removal Approaches to Speed Up Remedial Actions Projects 12
EPA/9355.0-26 Advancing the Use of Treatment Technologies for Superfund Remedies 16
EPA/9355.0-27/FS A Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial Actions 23
EPA/9355.0-28 Control of Air Emissions From Superfund Air Strippers at Superfund
Ground Water Sites 19
EPA/9355.0-07B Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities: Volumes 1 & 2 19
EPA/9355.3-01FS1 Getting Ready: Scoping the RI/FS 21
EPA/9355.3-01FS2 The Remedial Investigation: Site Characterization and Treatability Studies 27
EPA/9355.3-01FS3 The Feasibility Study: Development and Screening of Remedial Action
Alternatives
EPA/93553-01FS4 The Feasibility Study: Detailed Analysis of Remedial Action Alternatives
EPA/93553-05 RI/FS Improvements Follow-Up 27
74
-------
Document Number Document Title
Page
EPA/9355.3-07 Results of FY-88 Record of Decision Analysis 27
EPA/9355.3-09 Results of FY-89 Record of Decision Analysis 27
EPA/9355.3-1 IPS Streamlining the RI/FS for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites 28
EPA/9355.4-01FS A Guide on Remedial Action at Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination 23
EPA/9355.5-01 Guidance on Oversight of Potentially Responsible Party Performed Remedial
Design and Remedial Action 22
EPA/9355.5-01/FS ARCS Construction Contract Modification Procedures 17
EPA/9355.5-02/FS Expediting Remedial Construction 20
EPA/9355.5-05/FS USAGE Preplaced and Rapid Response Contracts 31
EPA/9355.5-14/FS EPA/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Payment Process, Direct Site/Revised
Reimbursement Methods 20
EPA/9355.6-03 ROD (Record of Decision) Annual Report, FY-86 40
EPA/9360.0-02B Removal Cost Management Manual 11
EPA/9360.0-03B Superfund Removal Procedures: Revision Number Three 12
^^EPA/9360.0-12A Final Guidance on Implementation of the "Consistency" Exemption to the
^^ Statutory Limits on Removal Actions 9
EPA/9360.0-14 Use of Expanded Removal Authority to Address NPL and Proposed NPL Sites 12
EPA/9360.0-16A Guidance for Conducting Federal-Lead Underground Storage Tank
Corrective Actions 9
EPA/9360.0-19 Guidance on Non-NPL Removal Actions Involving Nationally Significant
or Precedent-Setting Issues 9
EPA/9360.0-21 The Emergency Response Notification System 9
EPA/9360.3-01 Superfund Removal Procedures: Action Memorandum Guidance 12
EPA/9360.6-02 Superfund Emergency Response Actions: A Summary of Federally-Funded
Removals, Volume 1 • H
EPA/9360.6-03 Superfund Emergency Response Actions: A Summary of Federally Funded
Removals, Volume 2 11
EPA/9360.6-04 Superfund Emergency Response Actions: A Summary of Federally Funded
Removals, Volumes 11
EPA/9375.5-01/FS State and Local Involvement in the Superfund Program 28
EPA/9375.5-02/FS Indian Tribal Involvement in the Superfund Program . 24
EPA/9375.5-03/FS Political Subdivision Involvement in Superfund 26
EPA/9375.5-04 Involvement of Superfund Program Managers in Superfund Response
Agreement Audits 25
EPA/9375.5-04/FS Audits and the Superfund Program Manager 17
^EPA/9375.5-08/FS Criminal Investigations and the Superfund Program 19
75
-------
Document Number Document Title
Page
EPA/9375.5-09/FS
EPA/9375502A
EPA/9380.0-03
EPA/9380.0-06
EPA/9380.3-01
EPA/9380.3-02/FS
EPA/9380.3-04
EPA/9380.4-01
EPA/9992.4
EPA/HW-8.5
CERCLA Waste Capacity Assurance 18
Revised Interim Final Guidance on Indian Involvement in the Superfund
Program 27
Guidance on Cleanup of Surface Tank and Drum Sites 21
Guidance on Cleanup of Surface Impoundment Sites 21
Treatability Studies Contractor Work Assignments 31
Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An Overview 31
Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris: Evaluation of Land Ban
Impact on Use of Superfund Treatment Technologies 17
Use of Office of Research and Development's Bioremediation Expertise in
Superfund Removal Program 32
Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Compliance Manual (Final Report) 37
Hazardous Waste Sites: Descriptions of Sites on Current National Priorities
List, October 1984
NTIS Number
Documents having only an NTIS number are listed below.
PB82-213922
PB82-213984
PB82-214008
PB82-214016
PB82-214024
PB82-214032
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980: EPA Region I
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980
.14
.14
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980: EPA Region E
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980: EPA Region III
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980: EPA Region IV
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980: EPA Region V
.14
.14
.14
76
-------
Document Number
PB82-214040
PB82-214057
PB82-214065
PB82-214073
PB82-214081
PB87-110870
PB89-114144
PB90-213836
PB90-213844
PB90-591310
PB90-591690
PB90-591700
Document Title
Page
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980: EPA Region VI 14
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980: EPA Region VII 14
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980: EPA Region VIII 14
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980: EPA Region DC , 14
Notification of Hazardous Waste Sites Required Under Section 103(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980: EPA Region X 14
Impacts of CERCLA Release Notification Requirements on Transportation of
Products Containing Hazardous Substances 14
ROD (Record of Decision) Annual Report, FY-87 40
Inorganic Contract Compliance Screening System (ICCSS) Software for the PC
(Version 3/90) User Manual 42
Organic Contract Compliance Screening System (OCCSS) Software for the PC,
User Manual 42
CERCLIS Site Location Extract 42
Organic Contract Compliance Screening System (OCCSS) Software
(for Microcomputers) 42
Inorganic Contract Compliance Screening System (ICCSS) Software
(for Microcomputers) 41
77
*t U.B. OOVB««ENTPRNnNa OFFICE 190M48-187/2C611
-------
------- |