&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency &
Remedial Response
Washington, DC 20460
PB95-169751
Publication 9355.0-54
PB95-169751
EPA 540/R-94/041
January 1995
Users
Guide to
the RPM
Site Data
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
I. Objectives of the Data Collection Effort v
n. Approach to Collecting Data v
HI. Using and Interpreting the Information in the Users Data Base vi
Deviations Between the RPM Survey and the RPM Site Data Base vi
RPM Survey Questions That Were Not Answered vii
Not Applicable vii
Skips viii
Don't Know viii
"Other" Responses viii.
Blanks viii
Relationship Between the RPM Site Data Base and CERCLIS ix
Data Files and Fields ix
Installation of Data Base Files x
Responses that Require Multiple Data Files xi
IV. Organization of the RPM Site Data Collection Guide for Data Users xi
RPM SITE DATA HINTS
Overview 1
Deviations Between the RPM Survey and the RPM Survey Hints 1
i Information Provided for Each RPM Survey Question 2
SECTION 1: SITE CHARACTERISTICS
\ E4. SIC Codes - Current and Past Site Uses 3
^ E5. Facility Causing Contamination 4
E6. Activities/Services Causing Contamination 5
E7. Timing of Contamination 6
E8. Legality of Activities Causing Contamination 7
E9. Current Land Uses - On Site and Surrounding 8
E10. Expected Site Construction Completion 10
Ell. Factors Causing Longer Durations to
Site Construction Completion 12
E12. Factors Causing Shorter Durations to
Site Construction Completion 14
SECTION 2: POTENTIALLY LIABLE/RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
General Liability Profiles
E13. Parties Associated With the Site 16
E14. Hazard Substance Contribution by Off-Site Generators/Transporters 17
E15. PRPs Issued General or Special Notice Letters 17
January 1995 i
-------
E17. Volumetric Data to Prepare Waste-In List 19
E18. Waste-In List Preparation/Release 20
E19. Determination of "Minimal" Volumetric Contribution 22
E20. Waste Contributions - <1% or De Minimis 23
Orphan Parties/Orphan Sites
E21. Number of Orphan Parties 24
E22. Owners/Operators 25
E23. Generators/Transporters 26
E24. Waste Volume Attributed to Orphan
Generators/Transporters 27
E25. Basis for Response to Question E24 28
E26. Orphan Sites 28
Other Liability Issues
E27. Expected Future Fund Lead Work 29
E28. Municipalities - Current or Former Owners/Operators 30
E29. Municipal Solid Waste - Generators/Transporters
and Municipalities 30
SECTIONS: RESPONSE ACTIONS
Removal Actions
E30. Ongoing or Approved 34
E31. Primary Objectives 35
Records of Decision (RODs)
E32. Signed or Planned 38
E33. Additional Operable Units/RODs Expected 40
E34. Planned RODs - Media/Materials To Be Addressed 41
E35. Signed RODs - Anticipated Future On-Site and
Surrounding Land Use 43
E36. Signed RODS - Media Addressed and Basis
for Cleanup Standards 44
Groundwater
E37. Reliance on Natural Attenuation,
Future Human Consumption 48
E38. Drinking Water Classifications, Aquifer Discharge 50
E39. Current Uses 53
E40. People Served by Drinking Water Supply Wells 54
E41. Drinking Water Supply Wells Shut Down/People Served 55
E42. Drinking Water Wells Threatened 56
E43. People Served by Potentially Threatened Wells 57
E44.-E47 Likelihood of the Presence of DNAPLs 58
ii January 1995
-------
SECTION 4: COST INFORMATION
Capital Costs
E48. Current Site Cost Expectations 60
E49. Site Costs Expected Over $20 million 61
E50. Factors Driving Site Costs Over $20 million 62
Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
E51. Years Anticipated 63
E52. Average Annual and Total Costs 64
PRP Costs
E53. Dollars Likely To Be Spent by PRPs 66
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Programmatic Definitions A-1
APPENDIX B
RPM Data Base Structure and Data Element Dictionary B-l
APPENDIX C
RPM Survey Responses C-l
January 1995 iii
-------
This Page Intentionally
Left Blank
iv January 1995
-------
INTRODUCTION
I. OBJECTIVES OF THE DATA COLLECTION EFFORT
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is facing increasing requests for
Superfund program data from Congress, independent researchers, and advocacy
groups. Reliable and consistent data are essential to respond to these requests,
evaluate and assess the results of the program, and prepare for reauthorization of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as
amended (CERCLA).
While there is a wealth of historical site information available, in the past the data
were not available or organized in one central location. This led to multiple efforts
and redundant expenditures to collect the same information. Also, some of the data
required to specifically support reauthorization analyses were not available in any of
the existing systems. Accordingly, during the summer of 1993, the Agency
interviewed Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to gather these key data for all final
and deleted sites on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The RPM Site Data Base is EPA's first effort to make available to the public a subset
of this information. It contains data from the RPM interviews as well as key site
identification information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). Further updates to the
data base may be provided in the future.
n. APPROACH TO COLLECTING DATA
Working with its policy offices and Regions, outside interest groups and
representatives from Capitol Hill, EPA identified information that was not
contained in existing data systems that needed to be collected to support current
reauthorization deliberations. Once these data gaps were identified, a data collection
form was developed to gather these data through interviews with RPMs in all ten
EPA Regional offices.
The RPM Site Data Collection Form (RPM survey) was pilot-tested in two Regions.
The pilot testing resulted in an expansion of the data to be collected and refinement
of the possible responses to ensure that the survey conformed to standard survey
protocols. The revised RPM survey was the primary document used in the
Regional data collection effort.
The RPM survey was finalized and the Regional data collection trips scheduled.
While in the Regions, the interview staff collected supporting documentation in
addition to conducting interviews with the RPMs.
January 1995
-------
Within a five week period, EPA conducted face-to-face interviews with over 450
RPMs in all ten EPA Regions. During the interviews, the RPMs were asked to
provide factual information and, in some cases, their best professional judgment as
to conditions at NPL sites. These responses were recorded for the 1,249 final and
deleted sites on the NPL as of August 1993.
m. USING AND INTERPRETING THE INFORMATION IN THE USERS DATA BASE
Information collected during the Regional visits has been entered into a data base
(referred to in this document as the RPM Site Data Base). The data were reviewed
for data entry errors and data quality checks were conducted. During this data
quality effort, data conflicts and inconsistencies were identified and remedied. The
Agency is continually reviewing and updating the data available on the NPL sites.
As new or revised information becomes available, some responses may change.
When analyzing or citing the data in the RPM Site Data Base, the user needs to be
aware that the information reflects site conditions as of August 1993. Though site
conditions may have changed since that time (e.g., Records of Decisions (RODs) that
were planned may have been signed), the data have not been updated at this time.
When interpreting the data it is also very important to take into account the exact
wording of the questions, how they were asked, and the nuances associated with the
information. The Agency recommends that data be used to assess national trends
and not for site-specific analyses.
If users need further clarification on using or interpreting the data, contact the
Superfund Hotline at 1-800-424-9346.
Deviations Between the RPM Survey and the RPM Site Data Base
The Users Guide begins with question E4 of the RPM survey. Questions El through
E3 were not included because they provided identification and background
information on the RPMs interviewed. In addition, question E16 is not included
because it identifies at which sites RPMs provided a list of Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) issued general or special notice letters. These questions do not
provide data that are relevant to users for analyzing national or site-specific trends.
Aggregate data only are provided for questions E17 and E19. The site-specific
information collected from these questions on volumetric contributions by PRPs is
considered enforcement confidential and cannot be released outside of EPA.
Therefore, the data base only contains total response counts; no site names or other
site identification data are provided.
The responses to questions E44, E46 and E47 were not obtained from the RPM
survey. The data source for these responses is the report "An Evaluation of the
Likelihood of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Presence at NPL Sites"
(NTIS #PB93-963343, September 1993). DNAPL data collected on 302 NPL sites are
January 1995 vi
-------
reflected in this study. If a site was not included in the DNAPL study, responses to
questions E44 and E46 through E47 were not reported in the RPM Site Data Base.
The response to question E45 on the technical impracticability of achieving
groundwater standards at sites with DNAPL contamination was provided by sources
within EPA Headquarters. Therefore, there are no site-specific data included in the
RPM Site Data Base.
RPM Survey Questions That Were Not Answered
The RPM survey allows the RPM not to answer certain questions, or to provide an
answer not reflected in the response choices provided on the survey. These "non
answers" and other responses appear in the data base as "Not Applicable", "Skip",
"Don't Know", "Other", and blank, as described below. Only blanks are not included
in the response counts cited in Appendix C, RPM Survey Responses.
Not Applicable
"Not Applicable" is a legitimate response to many questions in the survey. It
means that the question did not apply to the specific conditions at the site. For
example, a "Not Applicable" response to question E5, which asked if the on-site
facility that is responsible for the contamination is still operating, means that
there is no facility on site. The number of times the RPMs answered "Not
applicable" to a specific question is shown in Appendix C, RPM Survey
Responses.
Skips
In many cases, the RPM survey asks a series of questions about a specific program
area; for example, PRPs. Generally the first question in the series is an
introduction to the topic where the response determines, based on site-specific
conditions, whether follow-up questions need to be answered. Using the PRP
topic example, question E13 asks for the total number of PRPs associated with the
site who could potentially be held liable under CERCLA. If the RPM answers
"None," the next 12 questions that requested specific information on the PRPs
were skipped and an 'S' was recorded in the data base. The number of times the
RPMs answered the initial question and appropriately skipped the follow-up
questions is included in the response counts cited in Appendix C, RPM Survey
Responses.
A skipped question can also be viewed as equivalent to a response of "Not
Applicable" because the question is not relevant to the conditions at the site. In
some instances, there is a question in a "skipped" series that allows a "Not
Applicable" answer. (For example, within the PRP series that begins with
question E13, E17 and E19 contain legitimate "Not Applicable" responses.) While
the survey instructed the RPM to skip those questions where a previous
response makes it obvious that subsequent questions are not relevant,
occasionally the RPM proceeded to respond with "Not Applicable." Since the
vii January 1995
-------
result is the same (i.e., no information provided), these "Not Applicable"
responses were maintained in the data base. In Appendix C, these responses are
included in the "Not Applicable" counts, not the skipped counts.
Don't Know
When the RPM survey was developed and pilot tested, the decision was made to
allow the RPM to answer "Don't Know" to all questions relating to the site.
There are a number of reasons for such responses, such as a State taking lead
responsibility for cleanup activities and information not being available at the
time of the survey, or site studies have just started and the RPM does not yet
know what remedy will be selected. Prior to beginning the survey, RPMs were
assured by the data collectors that it was acceptable to answer "Don't Know" if
they felt uncomfortable providing a specific answer. The number of times the .
RPMs answered "Don't Know" to a specific question is included in Appendix C,
RPM Survey Responses.
"Other" Responses
"Other" is a legitimate response to certain questions in the survey. It means that
a situation or activity that occurred at a site was not reflected in the response
choices provided to the RPM. To ensure that such information was not lost, the
RPM was asked to respond with "Other" and provide a description. This
descriptive text, when provided, is contained in the full name field associated
with the "Other" code as follows:
E1402 SIC Code - Full Name
E1504 Groundwater Characteristics - Full Name
E1604 Outlier Factors - Full Name
E2204 Site/Op Unit Land Use - Full Name
E2452 Materials - Full Name
"Other" responses are included in the response counts cited in Appendix C, RPM
Survey Responses.
Blanks
There are two instances where records in the data base may be blank. As
discussed previously, if a site was not one of the 302 sites included in the study
"An Evaluation of the Likelihood of DNAPL Presence at NPL Sites," the
response to question E44 is blank.
Also, there are a small number of blanks that are the result of a question in the
RPM survey that was not answered by the RPM and was not legitimately
"skipped." Though every effort was made to ensure that all questions were
answered while the data collectors were in the Regions, on occasion, RPM survey
January 1995 viii
-------
questions were left blank. This could have occurred if the RPM wanted to do
further research before responding to the question and did not follow-up with
the interviewer. Blanks will be addressed in the future through additional data
collection efforts.
Blanks are not included in the response counts cited in Appendix C, RPM
Survey Responses.
Relationship Between the RPM Site Data Base and CERCLIS
CERCLIS is the official data repository used by the Superfund program for planning,
evaluation, and resources allocation and management. The RPM Site Data Base
includes certain data from CERCLIS that provides important, site identification
information (e.g., Region, State, locational information) as well as key fields that
relate site- and project-level information (e.g., facility identification number,
operable units). The CERCLIS data fields begin with a 'C'. Those data fields that
reflect responses to the RPM survey begin with an 'E'. The data field numbers in
the RPM Site Data Base are not the same as the question numbers in the RPM
survey. The Data Element Dictionary (Appendix B) indicates the RPM survey
question(s) that is (are) answered by each data element.
The information collected in the RPM survey is intended to provide detailed data
on site characteristics. During the interviews, the RPMs provided technical insight
with respect to each site, including projected costs, potential future land use,
additional work to be carried out at the site, and other pertinent information. RPMs
were encouraged to make educated guesses when definitive data were not available.
Therefore, some of the information provided is based solely on the RPM's
experience and historical perspective of the program. The technical perspective
provided by the RPMs was appropriate for the interviews; however, since some of
the information is based on the RPM's understanding of the site, it may not reflect
the data currently in CERCLIS.
Refer to the RPM Site Data Base Structure and Data Element Dictionary in Appendix
B for more information on the relationships between the data fields, the data field
definitions, and the range of codes used to represent the data collected.
Data Files and Fields
Like any data base, the RPM Site Data Base contains certain files that are populated
by fields. A file is like a folder that contains information grouped by some common
set of criteria. For example, the Site File (E0600) contains general information
related to a site. The data that populates the file are called fields. Each field is
identified by a unique number and name as shown below.
ix January 1995
-------
E0600 (Site File) FILE
C0101 FIELD
EPA Facility ID FULL NAME
Data in the RPM Site Data Base is contained in the following nine separate data base
files:
File Number File Description
E0600 Site File
E1300 Operable Unit Cost Estimate/O&M
E1400 SIC Codes
E1500 Groundwater Characteristics
E1600 Outlier Site Characteristics
E2200 Site/Op Unit Land Uses
E2300 Events/Actions
E2450 Materials/Cleanup Standards
E9000 Summary Enforcement
The data base file name is the same as the file number with ".dbf' appended to the
end. For example, the Site File data base file name is "E0600.dbf". These files can be
used by any software program that can access files. Any memory limitations would
be the result of limitations of the software package used. Both data fields that
contain codes and data fields that contain the full name of the codes (e.g., E1501 -
Groundwater Type Code and E1502 - Groundwater Type Code - Full Name) have
been provided to make it easier for the user to translate the code.
Refer to Appendix B, RPM Site Data Base Structure and Data Element Dictionary for
more information on the relationships between the data fields, the data field
definitions, and the range of codes used to represent the data collected.
Installation of Data Base Files
To install these files on a hard drive, approximately 10 megabytes of disk space is
required. Following are instructions for copying the data base files from the
diskettes to a hard drive:
1) Make a "RESPONSE" directory on your hard drive (drive C:).
(Example: "MD RESPONSE" [ENTER])
2) Change directories to "RESPONSE".
(Example: "CD RESPONSE" [ENTER])
3) Insert installation diskette marked "Disk 1 of 1" into drive A:
January 1995 x
-------
4) Copy data files to the "RESPONSE" directory.
(Example: "Copy A:\INSTALL.EXE" [ENTER])
5) Restore data files to the "RESPONSE" directory.
(Example: "INSTALL" [ENTER])
The data files will automatically load onto your hard drive.
Responses that Require Multiple Data Files
To obtain a response to an RPM survey question, it may be necessary to access more
than one data field. For example, any question that requires a response for each
operable unit at a site requires the user to move through various data fields to
obtain a complete response. For example, to answer Question E36 - which asks for
information on the media addressed in each signed ROD at an operable unit and the
basis for the cleanup standards for each media - the user begins the query by
accessing the operable unit number and name fields (CHOI and C1104, respectively).
The user then moves through the data base to access the specific responses to
question E36 for that operable unit: the media/materials addressed by the ROD is
contained in data field E2451, and the basis for cleanup standards is contained in data
fields E2453 through E2462.
There also are certain data fields that are used to answer more than one survey
question. For example, data field E1501, Groundwater Characteristics Type,
identifies specific categories of groundwater characteristics including aquifer
discharges (AQFR) requested in question E38b, groundwater classifications (GWCL)
requested in question 38a, and groundwater use (GWUS) requested in question E39.
Used in conjunction with data field E1503, Groundwater Characteristics Code, the
specific characteristics associated with each of the groundwater types in E1501
provide the actual responses to RPM survey questions E38a, E38b and E39.
This Users Guide identifies those questions where more than one data element
must be examined in order to obtain the response. Refer to Appendix B, RPM Site
Data Base Structure and Data Element Dictionary for more information on the
relationships between the data fields, the data field definitions, and the range of
codes used to represent the data collected.
IV. ORGANIZATION OF THE RPM SITE DATA COLLECTION GUIDE FOR DATA USERS
This Users Guide was developed to assist users in data analysis. The following
information is included:
• RPM Site Data Hints, provides information to assist the users in interpreting
the questions and identifies the data elements used to answer the questions;
xi January 1995
-------
Appendix A - Glossary, contains an alphabetical listing of the programmatic
definitions included in the JRPM Site Data Hints;
Appendix B - RPM Site Data Base Structure and Data Element Dictionary,
illustrates how the data in the RPM Data Base relate and provides a definition
for each data element in the data base and the range of valid responses; and
Appendix C - RPM Survey Responses, contains the counts of the number of
times that the RPM selected a valid response to each of the RPM survey
questions.
January 1995 xii
-------
RPM Site Data Hints
-------
RPM SITE DATA HINTS
OVERVIEW
This section was developed to assist users in data analysis. The Hints are
divided into the same four sections that appear in the RPM survey, which are
grouped by data type:
/ Section 1: Site Characteristics, including information on current and past site
uses and activities;
/ Section 2: Potentially Liable/Responsible Parties, including information on the
types and profiles of responsible parties (e.g., de minimis parties, owners,
generators /transporters, municipalities);
/ Section 3: Response Actions, including information on media being addressed,
future land use assumptions, basis for selected response actions and cleanup
standards; and
/" Section 4: Cost Information, including projected capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
The exhibit on the following page illustrates and briefly explains the information
provided in this section of the Users Guide.
DEVIATIONS BETWEEN THE RPM SURVEY AND THE RPM SURVEY HINTS
The RPM Site Data Hints begins with question E4 of the RPM survey. As noted
earlier, questions El through E3 were not included because they provided
identification and background information on the RPMs interviewed. In
addition, question E16 is not included because it identifies at which sites RPMs
provided a list of PRPs issued general or special notice letters. These questions
do not provide data that are relevant to users in terms of national or site-specific
trends analyses.
January 1995
-------
Information Provided for Each RPM Survey Question
The actual question
from the RPM
survey and all
possible responses
Any nuances associated
with interpreting the data
A listing of the
applicable data files and
fields contained in the
data base to obtain
response information
E4. Using Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, identify
for both current and past, all of the site uses or types.
Possible answers:
2-digit SIC code
EPA "Supplemental" Codes
The purpose of this question is to categorize sites using the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. SIC codes classify establishments •*
by the type of activity in which they are engaged and are intended to
cover the entire field of economic activities. The first two digits of the
applicable SIC codes are provided, which indicate the general
manufacturing sector/service/residential sectors associated with site
uses. In some cases, the SIC codes were inadequate for describing
Superfund sites, especially in the area of waste management activities.
To address this issue, EPA created supplemental codes, which are not
found in the SIC Manual. For example, the EPA supplemental code for
co-disposal landfills is '4A', industrial landfills is '4B, and municipal
landfills is '4C. At sites where no economic activities have or are
currently occurring, '9X' was created to record "Abandoned - No Use."
In addition, '9B' was recorded for "Don't Know," and '00' was used to
capture 'Other' uses. If the RPM answered with "Other," a description
was requested.
The RPMs were asked to provide all codes that represent activities -^
specific to the site. Therefore, more than one code could be recorded for
current and past site uses.
To gain a complete picture of site activities, refer to question E6 for past
contamination activity and question E9 for current land uses of the site.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
SIC Codes
E1401
SIC Code
A short explanati
why the question
asked
The framework i
how the questioi
was answered (e
multiple respons
allowed, legitimi
"skipped" questi
Programmatic
definitions or ot]
Superfund-relat(
information to e
that the data are
correctly interpr
January 1995
-------
SECTION l: SITE CHARACTERISTICS
E4. Using Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, identify for both current
and past, all of the site uses or types.
Possible answers:
2-digit SIC code EPA "Supplemental" Codes
The purpose of this question is to categorize sites using the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes. SIC codes classify establishments by the type of activity in
which they are engaged and are intended to cover the entire field of economic
activities. The first two digits of the applicable SIC codes are provided, which
indicate the general manufacturing sector/service/residential sectors associated with
site uses. In some cases, the SIC codes were inadequate for describing Superfund
sites, especially in the area of waste management activities. To address this issue,
EPA created supplemental codes, which are not found in the SIC Manual. For
example, the EPA supplemental code for co-disposal landfills is '4A', industrial
landfills is '4B', municipal landfills is '4C. At sites where no economic activities
have or are currently occurring, '9X' was created to record "Abandoned - No Use."
In addition, '9B' was recorded for "Don't Know," and '00' was used to capture
'Other' uses. If the RPM answered with "Other," a description was requested and
recorded in the data base.
When analyses are done on co-disposal facilities, it is recommended that only non-
Federal Facility sites be selected. There are a number of Federal Facilities in the data
base that have a co-disposal landfill identified as a current and/or past site use.
However, in the case of Federal Facilities, the co-disposal landfill is typically not the
primary use.
The RPMs were asked to provide all codes that represent activities specific to the
site. Therefore, more than one code could be recorded for current and past site uses.
To gain a complete picture of site activities, refer to question E6 for past
contamination activity and question E9 for current land uses of the site.
Co-Disposal Landfill Definition
A co-disposal landfill is a privately or publicly owned facility where
hazardous waste and/or industrial wastes containing hazardous
constituents are mixed with muiucipal solid wastes resembling household
waste. The definition does not include landfills that accepted or continue
to accept strictly industrial waste or municipal solid waste, or groundwater
contamination sites where a co-disposal facility is one of several sources
contributing to the grotindwater contamination.
January 1995
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: SIC Codes
Field Number: E1401
Field Name: SIC Code
Field Number: E1402
Field Name: SIC Code - Full Name
Field Number: E1403
Field Name: SIC Code, Current Past/Indicator (Indicates
whether the SIC code applies to current or past
use at a site.)
E5. Is a facility that is responsible for the contamination still operating in at least
some capacity?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Not Applicable (no facility on site)
The purpose of this question is to determine if the contamination at the site could
still be occurring. A "Yes" answer to this question means that an on-site facility that
caused the contamination was still operating in some capacity at this site.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0601
Field Name: Contaminating Facility's Status
January 1995
-------
E6. Tell me which of the following waste management activities, product related
services, and miscellaneous activities caused the contamination at the site.
Possible answers:
Discharge to sewer/surface water Storage-raw material
Storage-drums/containers of waste Storage-finished product
Incineration residuals handling Manufacturing process
Land farm/land treatment facility Explosive disposal/detonation
Landfill Dumping-unauthorized
Recycling (other than as a primary operation) Lake or river-disposal in
Waste tank-above ground Ocean disposal
Waste tank-below ground Road oiling
Underground injection Inadvertent spill
Waste pile Other
Lagoon disposal Don't Know
The purpose of this question is to determine which of the site uses caused the
contamination at the site.
RPMs were asked to identify all waste management activities, product related
services, and miscellaneous activities that caused the contamination at the site.
Therefore, more than one answer was allowed. If the RPM responded with "Other,"
a description was requested and recorded in the data base.
The activities reported in this question should be used in concert with the past site
uses reported in question E4 to gain a full picture of the past uses and
activities/services that led to site contamination.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site/Op Unit Land Uses
Field Number: E2201 = CNTM
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use Type
Field Number: E2202
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use Type - Full Name
Field Number: E2203
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use Code (Used in
conjunction with E2201 = CNTM to identify
specific services/activities that caused
contamination.)
Field Number: E2204
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use - Full Name
January 1995
-------
E7a. Did any of the source contamination occur before 1980?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know
The purpose of this question is to determine if the source (not the spread) of
contamination occurred before the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted into law.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0602
Field Name: Contamination Before 1980
E7b. Did any of the source contamination occur in 1980 or later?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know
The purpose of this question is to determine if the source (not the spread of)
contamination occurred after the enactment of CERCLA.
If the response was "No" or "Don't Know", the RPM skipped the next question (E7c)
- whether the contamination occurred after 1986.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0603
Field Name: Contamination In 1980 or Later
E7c. Did any of the source contamination occur after 1986 (i.e., 1/1/87 or later)?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
The purpose of this question is to determine whether the source (not the spread of)
contamination occurred after passage of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA).
January 1995
-------
The RPM skipped this question if he/she answered "No" or "Don't Know" to the
previous question (E7b) - whether contamination occurred in 1980 or later.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0604
Field Name: Contamination in 1987 or Later
E8. a) In your opinion, were site activities that caused the contamination illegal at
the time? b) Was the violation illegal under Federal, State, or local authority?
Possible answers to a):
Definitely Yes Probably Yes
Uncertain Probably Not Definitely Not
Possible answers to b):
Federal State Local
Illegal site activities are those that were subject to a Federal, State or local law,
regulation, order or ordinance that was not complied with, or a violation of a
Federal, State or local permit.
RPMs answered "Definitely Yes" if there were letters or other evidence that the site
owner/operator or others were notified that violations had occurred. An answer of
"Probably Yes" indicates that the RPM believed that the activities were illegal, but
did not have documented proof. RPMs answering "Probably Not" believed that the
activities were not illegal. An answer of "Definitely Not" indicates that either site
activities were not governed by Federal, State or local laws or regulations or the site
file contained information that indicated that all applicable laws and regulations
were met.
If the RPM identified that the activities at the site were illegal (a response of
"definitely yes" or "probably yes"), he/she also was asked to identify which
government entity's laws, regulations, orders or ordinances were violated (Federal,
State, and/or local).
Multiple responses were allowed to indicate that the activities violated the laws of
more than one government entity.
January 1995
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
8a - Site Activities Illegal
File Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
8b - Authority(ies) Violated
File Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
Site
E0605
Illegal Activities Indicator
Site/Op Unit Land Uses
E2201 = ILLG
Site/Op Unit Land Use Type
E2202
Site/Op Unit Land Use Type - Full Name
E2203
Site/Op Unit Land Use Code (Used in
conjunction with E2201 = ILLG to identify which
government authority(ies) were violated)
E2204
Site/Op Unit Land Use - Full Name
E9. What are a) the current land uses of the site and b) the current uses of land
surrounding the site?
Possible answers:
Agricultural
Commercial (includes light industrial e.g.,
warehouses)
Industrial
RCRA Facility, Active
RCRA Facility, Inactive
TSCA Facility
Residential
Recreational
Educational
None (e.g., abandoned)
Other
The same land use categories were provided to characterize both the current site use
and the current use of the land surrounding the site. The RPM was asked to identify
all uses that applied, so multiple responses were collected.
Multiple industrial land use categories were provided, including a general
industrial category, active and inactive Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) facility, and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) facility. The RPMs that
reported that land use at the site or surrounding the site is "Industrial," could
January 1995
8
-------
further classify this industrial use as an active or inactive RCRA facility or a TSCA
facility.
TSCA facilities are defined as those that produce chemicals or byproducts subject to
TSCA disposal regulations. RCRA facilities are defined as those facilities that must
obtain a permit under Subtitle C of the RCRA law (i.e., RCRA treatment, storage or
disposal facilities).
If the RPM responded with a site or surrounding land use of "Other," he/she was
asked for a description, which was recorded in the data base.
For a complete description of the current uses of the site, also refer to question E4,
which identified the current site uses/types using SIC codes.
NOTE: To answer how many sites or surrounding land use are industrial, the
"Industrial," "RCRA Facility - Active," "RCRA Facility - Inactive," and
"TSCA Facility" responses must be combined to ensure that there is no
double counting. For example, at those sites where the RPM indicated that
the current site use was "Industrial" and "RCRA Facility - Inactive," the site
should only be counted once in the industrial category.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site/Op Unit Land Uses
Field Number: E2201 = CSLU or CSSU
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use Type (The CSLU code
represents on-site land use and the CSSU code
represents land use surrounding the site)
Field Number: E2202
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use Type - Full Name
Field Number: E2203
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use Code (Used in
conjunction with E2201 = CSLU or CSSU to
identify specific land uses on or surrounding the
site)
Field Number: E2204
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use - Full Name
January 1995
-------
E10. What calendar year is construction completion expected at the site?
The purpose of this question is to determine the calendar year that all construction
of the remedy(ies) selected for a site is (are) expected to be completed. This does not
necessarily mean that the cleanup goals specified in the ROD(s) have been met, but
that all components of the remedy have been built.
Construction at a National Priorities List (NPL) site is considered complete when:
• "Physical construction" (building the cleanup technology) is complete for the
entire site as a result of one or several cleanup actions (either removal or
remedial cleanup actions);
• A Record of Decision (ROD) is signed for the only operable unit (see below)
stating that no remediation is required (i.e., a No Action ROD);
• A ROD is signed for the final operable unit at the site stating that all necessary
remediation was previously completed as a result of one or several cleanup
actions; or
• A ROD is signed for the only or final operable unit stating that the only
remediation necessary is the implementation of an institutional control(s) (e.g.,
land use restrictions).
Record of Decision (ROD) Definition
The ROD is the document identifying the planned remedial action. It is
prepared after completion of the public comment period on the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and a Proposed Plan that identifies
the Agency's preferred remedy. The ROD is signed by the Regional
Administrator or the Assistant Administrator for fee Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. The ROD can either address the entire site
cleanup (more than one medium), one phase of the site cleanup (for
example, soil contamination), or determine that no further action is
needed.
Operable Unit Definition
An operable unit is a discrete action at a site that provides an incremental
step toward completing site cleanup. Operable units may address
geographical areas or specific site problems. Operable units allow certain
elements of a project to be started ahead of {others to lessen the hazards
present at the site and to complete some work elements ahead of more
complex and hazardous work elements. Thus, each element can move at
its own rate to completion. Examples of two separate operable units are
source control and groimdwater cleanup. _____^^____
January 1995 10
-------
Sites that have reached construction completion will have no further response
actions other than the ongoing "long-term response action" component of other
cleanup actions being performed at the site.
Long-Term Response Action
Longrterm response aqfipii is defined>as a response aetipit imHertaken for
'^e'piyj^ose^f'r€Stdrhtjg,;gr0uiid^ate:r or surface' water; quality. -"111686
actioristareiEjuim a cbiititiuoitis period of on-«ite activity: before the 4eam*P
levels/ sSjp^rid^tavti^-'b1- or Action .Memorandum-/ 'are achieved,' ik>r
irtvolv^ng •treatirjerit or ;'
-groimdwater..'^ surface -water •
;;or mea5tii?es-Sdr;a'i>6rJEod 'of, ap. to
10 years alter ^Uieconstaiction ©r insttaHation and commencement;ef
•" ' , • ' ^ t. "• ',"•.'' , ; ' - •• , , '.
operation is cenMdered long-term response action. ' .. -
The years given for future construction completion are, of necessity, estimates. Real
world problems, such as Superfund resource limitations (i.e., insufficient dollars
available to fund all construction activities), unforeseen site conditions encountered
after remedy selection, and enforcement issues could cause delays and prevent these
dates from being met.
The year of construction completion was used to calculate the duration between
final NPL listing and construction completion in questions Ell and E12, and the
factors that cause the durations to be less than or greater than the national average.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
file Name: Site
Field Number: E0606
Field Name: Expected Construction Complete
11 January 1995
-------
Ell. For sites whose duration from NFL listing to construction completion is or is
expected to be longer than the time frames listed below, what major factors do
you believe are responsible?
Timeframes:
Sites with 1 operable unit with a duration greater than 12 years
Sites with more than 1 operable unit with a duration greater than 14 years
Possible answers:
Not Applicable
Novel contamination problem
required long RI/TS
Different areas required many
separate RI/FSs
Funding constraints
Staffing constraints
Constraints on equipment size,
availability
Community objections to selected
remedy
State objections to selected remedy
PRP objections to selected remedy
Use of CERCLA settlement tools
Other FRF negotiation delays
Lead changes
ROD amended because of discoveries
in RD phase
ROD amended (or second remedy
required) after RA start
Other
Don't Know
Duration was calculated as the number of years between final NPL listing and
construction completion based on the final NPL listing date in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) and the construction completion date projected in question E10. If the
duration was not within the timeframe provided in the question, the RPM selected
"Not Applicable" and moved to question E12.
The national average duration from final NPL listing to construction completion is
10 years if there is only one operable unit at a site or 12 years if there is more than
one operable unit.
If the calculated duration is within two years of the national average, the RPM also
answered "Not Applicable" to question Ell and to question E12, "Site's Duration is
not Expected to be Two or More Years Shorter than the National Average."
EPA assigns leads for individual site activities such as studies, design or
construction. These site activities are often led by one or several parties over the
course of the entire cleanup process (i.e., the potentially responsible parties (PRPs),
the State, Federal Facility, Indian Tribal government, or EPA). "Lead change" means
that the entity that led one site activity (e.g., site study) did not lead another activity
(e.g., design). Typically, this occurs when a settlement with a PRP is reached to
perform the work or when EPA assumes responsibility for an activity when the PRP
is out of compliance with an agreement.
If the factors selected were "Use of CERCLA settlements tools," "Other," or "Don't
Know," the RPM was asked to provide more specific information that explained
why the factor was selected, which was recorded in the data base.
January 1995
12
-------
Multiple factors were allowed. The primary factor was identified with a "P".
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
Estimated Duration
File Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
Site
E0649
Site Duration
E0647
Number of Operable Units (Used in conjunction
with E0649 to determine the number of Operable
Units to compare actual or expected site
duration to the national average)
Factors Causing Longer Durations
File Name: Outlier Site Characteristics
Field Number:
Field Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
Field Number:
Field Name:
E1601 = RSNL
Outlier Factors Type
E1602
Outlier Factors Type - Full Name
E1603
Outlier Factors Code (Used in conjunction with
E1601 = RSNL to identify specific reasons for a
duration greater than the national average.)
E1604
Outlier Factors - Full Name
E1605
Outlier Factors - Primary Qualifier (Used in
conjunction with El603 to indicate whether the
outlier factor is a "primary" cause for durations
greater than the national average.)
13
January 1995
-------
E12. For sites whose duration from NPL listing to construction completion is or is
expected to be shorter than the timeframe listed below, what major factors do
you believe are responsible?
Timeframes:
Sites with 1 operable unit with a duration less than 8 years
Sites with more than 1 operable unit with a duration less than 10 years
Possible answers:
Site's duration is not or is not expected
to be two or more years shorter
than the national average
Contamination problem was not
complex (includes no-action sites)
Standard (though not inexpensive)
problem allowed short RI/FS
Unusual funding commitment within
EPA
Unusual stability of EPA staff
Innovative technology
Unusual community cooperation (e.g.,
request for simpler remedy)
State lead
Other unusual State cooperation
Site is single-party
Use of CERCLA settlement tools
Other unusual PRP cooperation
Site is orphan
Site is not orphan, but negotiations
for RP-lead cleanup was quickly
abandoned
Other
Don't Know
Duration was calculated as the number of years between final NPL listing and
construction completion based on the final NPL listing date in CERCLIS and the
construction completion date projected in question E10. If the duration was not
within the timeframe provided in the question, the RPM selected "Site's duration is
not or is not expected to be two or more years shorter than the national average"
and moved to question E13.
The national average duration from final NPL listing to construction completion is
10 years if there is only one operable unit at a site or 12 years if there is more than
one operable unit.
If the calculated duration is within two years of the national average, the RPM
answered "Not Applicable" to question Ell and "Site's Duration is not Expected to
be Two or More Years Shorter than the National Average" to question E12.
EPA assigns leads for individual site activities such as studies, design or
construction. These site activities are often led by one or several parties over the
course of the entire cleanup process (i.e., the potentially responsible parties (PRPs),
the State, Federal Facility, Indian Tribal government, or EPA). "Lead change" means
that the entity that led one site activity (e.g., site study) did not lead another activity
(e.g., design). Typically, this occurs when a settlement with a PRP is reached to
perform the work or when EPA assumes responsibility for an activity when the PRP
is out of compliance with an agreement.
January 1995
14
-------
If the factors selected were "Use of CERCLA settlements tools," "Other," or "Don't
Know," the RPM was asked to provide more specific information that explained
why the factor was selected.
Multiple factors were allowed. The primary factor(s) were identified with a "P".
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
Estimated Duration
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0649
Field Name: Site Duration
Field Number: E0647
Field Name: Number of Operable Units (Used in conjunction
with E0649 to determine the number of Operable
Units to compare actual or expected site
duration to the national average)
Factors Causing Shorter Durations
File Name: Outlier Site Characteristics
Field Number: E1601 = RSNS
Field Name: Outlier Factors Type
Field Number: E1602
Field Name: Outlier Factors Type - Full Name
Field Number: E1603
Field Name: Outlier Factors Code (Used in conjunction with
E1601 = RSNS to identify specific reasons for a
duration shorter than the national average)
Field Number: E1604
Field Name: Outlier Factors - Full Name
Field Number: E1605
Field Name: Outlier Factors - Primary Qualifier (Used in
conjunction with E1603 to indicate whether the
outlier factor is a "primary" cause for durations
shorter than the national average)
15 January 1995
-------
SECTION 2: POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTIES/PRPS
E13. What is the best estimate of the total number of parties associated with
this site who could potentially be held liable under CERCLA?
Possible answers:
None 101-500
1 501-1,000
2-10 > 1,000
11-50 Don't Know
51-100
RPMs provided their best estimates of the total number of parties associated
with the site who could "potentially" be held liable under CERCLA, including
any third parties at Federal Facilities (e.g., on-site contractors operating
DOD/DOE facilities). This is the total universe of potentially responsible
parties, irrespective of whether EPA decides to pursue all of them.
"Party Associatea with ttie Site" Pefiaifioti
A party associated with a sifeis
-------
E14. Were any hazardous substances contributed to the site by off-site
generators/transporters?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
If the RPM responded that there were no parties associated with the site that
could potentially be held liable under CERCLA (question E13), this question
was skipped.
If the RPM answered "No" to this question, the only PRPs at the site are
owners/operators. Sites with only owner/operator parties are those sites
where no hazardous substances were contributed by off-site
generators/transporters.
A_ge;rie.*atox is a ,p^r^;&at'"^eiier:atecJ";lia2arddus substances .that
were theptearspprfed'to/thefSite^vA^trar^porter is anyone who
faansporteci Waste to the sijfe. !/•'••!-'• • ' ' • - -
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0608
Field Name: Off-site Gen/Tran Indicator
E15. What is the total number of PRPs who have been issued general or
special notice letters?
Possible answers:
None 101-500
1 501-1,000
2-10 >1,000
11-50 Not applicable
51-100 Don't Know
Skip
The purpose of this question was to verify and update the information in the
Site Enforcement Tracking System (SETS).
If the RPM responded that there are no parties associated with the site that
could potentially be held liable under CERCLA (question E13), this question
was skipped.
17 January 1995
-------
The number of parties issued general or special notice is less than or equal to
the number of parties associated with the site that could potentially be held
liable under CERCLA (question E13).
General Notice tetter Definition
A general notice letter is a letter sent-fey EPA iriforming recipients of
their potential EaMlity for .cleanup aetioris at thesj&s;. It is usually
sent out as parties are identified to simp'ly inform ;tiierri of their
potential liability. ' •
Special Notice Letter Definition ;
A' special=- notice ;16fte^is, *a'litter from EPA to thePiRPs mforming
them of their pc^enilal. liaBiiity and inviting -tiKem to offer to
c©nduct ^j^^t^^^Es^:^<^6^.^l^':s!^. This letter, issued
under Sec^oii 422£e}' o£SAftA\, -tnggers>&n^^
allowing tlfei^Bs%, comii^'=;BJPiy's invitaldnrS negotiate. /EPA '
cannot conduct fe^||tJ^e-a(Mbns;iiufinjgv|he moratorium, except'In
emergency situations ;0r where ;1PA determines ;ftat negotiations
are unnecessary becmse'bf the lack pf viaMe .parties to conduct the
response action. ,The moratorium period varies depending on the
response action (i,e:, EI/FS vs. iSD/KA) to be conducted and can be
extended if necessary. Special notice letters are commonly issued
twice daring the Superfuhd pipeline^ Just prior to the initiation of
the JRI/FS and at ttie tpie the deanap alternative is selected, just
prior to me RD/RA. The special notice letter signals ;the start of
negotiations. ' ' . '
If neither general or special notice letters have been issued but are anticipated,
the RPM was requested to respond with "Not applicable" rather than "0".
The number of parties issued general or special notice letters is the starting
point for identifying the number of parties that are likely to have contributed
less than one percent of waste to the site (question E20a) and the number of
parties likely to be considered de minimis (question 20b).
NOTE: It is common for both general and special notice letters to be issued at
a site. The question asks that the number of PRPs issued general or special
notice letters be reported, not the number of letters issued. Therefore, if a PRP
was sent both a general and a special notice, the PRP was only counted once.
Likewise, if a PRP was issued a special notice prior to RI/FS and a special
notice prior to RD/RA, the PRP was only counted once.
January 1995 18
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0609
Field Name: PRPs Issued Notice Letters: Range
E17. Does sufficient volumetric data exist in order for EPA to develop a waste-
in list?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Not Applicable
The purpose of this question was to determine if there was complete
volumetric information for the site to prepare a waste-in list (see below for
definition).
NOTE: Since these data are considered "enforcement sensitive," only
aggregate information (the total number of site responses) is provided; no
site-specific data (list of applicable sites) have been released.
If the RPM responded that there are no parties associated with the site that
could potentially be held liable under CERCLA (question E13), this question
was skipped. In addition, if the RPM responded that the only PRPs are
owner/operators (question E14), this question was skipped.
If the RPM answered "Not Applicable," he/she was asked to provide an
explanation. An example explanation given was an illegal spill where no
records of waste volume are kept. The response to this question would also
be "Not Applicable" if the only parties associated with the site were
owners/operators. Also, if the RPM answered "Not Applicable," questions
E18a, E18b, E18c and E19 were skipped. These questions asked for more
information on the waste-in list.
19 January 1995
-------
Waste-In list pcfiniMoti
A volumetric ianMrig_0r "waste-in" list is an feyentdry of all the
off-site waste generatorsinvolved at a site and ihe waste
contribution, of each. A waste-in list can be prepared by either the
EPA or the PEBs, Q^^^^iK-^is^^^i^tx^ffs of (contribution
volume, this rarilfeig f|icMit?fctes deteraflination of -each j>aorty 's
relative cont^utioii,to>5tevpte:: 'inVorderftd |adli,tate settlement. It
may«also assist EPA in; raaMngla determination of which parties, if
any, should beconsider^^
Although an extensive waste-in list frequently identifies some
number/ol Ae minrniis parties/ some sites where a waste-in Mst has
been (or could be) prepare5*! may not involve any de minimis
parties, ';'••.• .••••.'.:;-Vs-;• •••' ' "
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E9001 - E9004
Field Name: Waste-In List: Possibility
E18a. Has a waste-in list been prepared?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
This question was skipped if the RPM responded that there are no parties
associated with the site that could potentially be held liable under CERCLA
(question E13). In addition, if the RPM reported that the previous question
(E17) on whether sufficient volumetric data exist to develop a waste-in list
was "Not Applicable," this question in most cases was skipped. There are
some instances where EPA determined that there was not enough data to
prepare a waste-in list, however, PRPs developed their own lists. In these
cases, a response of "Yes" was accepted.
If the RPM answered "No" or "Don't Know," questions E18b and E18c were
skipped. These questions ask additional information on the waste-in list.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0610
Field Name: Waste-In List: Existence
January 1995 20
-------
E18b. Who was the waste-in list prepared by?
Possible answers:
EPA PRPs Skip
EPA and/or the PRPs may prepare a waste-in list.
This question was skipped if the RPM responded:
• There are no parties associated with the site that could potentially be
held liable under CERCLA (question E13);
• "Not Applicable" to the question on whether sufficient volumetric data
exist to develop a waste-in list (question El 7); or
• A waste-in list had not been prepared or he/she did not know if a waste-
in list had been prepared (question E18a).
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0611
Field Name: Waste-In List: Author
E18c. Regardless of who prepared the waste-in list, has a waste-in list been
released to all PRPs?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
Waste-in lists are released to the PRPs to facilitate settlement.
This question was skipped if the RPM responded:
• There are no parties associated with the site that could potentially be
held liable under CERCLA (question E13);
• "Not Applicable" to the question on whether sufficient volumetric data
exist to develop a waste-in list (question El7); or
• A waste-in list had not been prepared or he/she did not know if a waste-
in list had been prepared (question E18a).
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0612
Field Name: Waste-In List: Release
21 January 1995
-------
E19. In your opinion, does EPA have sufficient information to determine that
one or more individuals volumetric contribution is "minimal" as
compared to the total volume of waste at the site?
Possible answers:
Definitely Yes Probably Not
Probably Yes Definitely Not
Uncertain Not Applicable
The purpose of this question was to determine if there was enough
information for EPA to make a determination on whether there are parties at
the site that are de minimis. If the RPM responded that there are no parties
associated with the site that could potentially be held liable under CERCLA
(question E13), this question was skipped.
NOTE: Since these data are considered "enforcement sensitive," only
aggregate information (the total number of site responses) is provided; no
site-specific data (list of sites) have been released.
If the RPM answered "Not Applicable," he/she was asked to provide an
explanation. Two example explanations given were single party and illegal
spill. The response to this question also was "Not Applicable" if the only
parties associated with the site were owners/operators.
minimis Party Definition
De minimis waste contributors are generators or transporters whose
waste contribution is minimal - in both volume and toxfdty -
compared to the other hazard substances at the site, frequently
these parties have contributed less than one percent of the waste at
the site. However, whether individuals qualify for a dfe minimis
settlement depends on a variety of site-specific factors. For example,
the cut-off established for de mi«imis eligibility often varies from
site to site. Under previous: guidance, a waste-in list was necessary
to make this detemuumtion; however, under mew 1EA guidance
(7/30/93) it is only necessary to demonstrate that a party's
contribution is "minimal as;compared to the total waste volume at
the site", Previous guidance reqidred that the cbntrffi>utiori be
minimal as compared to all other contributorsat fee site.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E9005-E9010
Field Name: Minimal Contaminant Contribution
January 1995 22
-------
E20a. How many of the PRPs identified in E15 (i.e., the number that were
issued general or special notice letters) are likely to have contributed
less than one percent of waste to the site?
Possible answers:
None 101-500
1 501-1,000
2-10 >1,000
11-50 Don't Know
51-100 Skip
The purpose of this question was to identify how many of the parties who
have been issued notice letters have contributed a small enough amount of
waste to the site to be considered de minimis. Site-specific conditions will be
the determining factors in any de minimis settlement.
If the RPM responded that there are no parties associated with the site that
could potentially be held liable under CERCLA (question E13), this question
was skipped.
The number of parties identified in this question is less than or equal to the
number of parties issued general or special notice letters (E15), except at sites
where the general/special notice process is not yet complete.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0613
Field Name: PRPs: Waste Contribution <1% - Range
E20b. How many of the PRPs identified in E15 (i.e., the number that were
issued general or special notice letters) are likely to be considered de
minimis?
Possible answers:
None 101-500
1 501-1,000
2-10 >1,000
11-50 Don't Know
51-100 Skip
The purpose of this question was to identify how many parties at the site
could be considered de minimis. Site-specific conditions will be the
determining factors in any de minimis settlement.
23 January 1995
-------
If the RPM responded that there are no parties associated with the site that
could potentially be held liable under CERCLA (question E13), this question
was skipped.
The number of parties identified in this question is less than or equal to the
number of parties issued general or special notice letters (E15).
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0614
Field Name: PRPs: Estimated De Minimis - Range
E21. How many of the total number of parties associated with this site
(identified in E13) does EPA believe are not financially viable, or cannot
be located (i.e., orphan parties)?
Possible answers:
None 101-500
1 501-1,000
2-10 >1,000
11-50 Don't Know
51-100 Skip
The purpose of this question was to identify the number of "non-viable"
parties.
"Non-Viable" Responsible Party Definition
A "non-viable" responsible party is defined as a party associated
with ttie site w&o the Agency carmot locate or believes is not
fimanq^ilyjvialble. TAiese paiii|s |ia^e no enforcement potential for
either response actions :or cost ^recovery. : . . •
If the RPM responded that there are no parties associated with the site that
could potentially be held liable under CERCLA (question E13), this question
was skipped.
When the RPM responded that all the parties associated with the site
(response of "None") are financially viable or "don't know," there are no
responses recorded for subsequent questions associated with "non-viable"
parties. These inapplicable questions include how many "non-viable" parties
are owners/operators or only generator/transporters, the estimate of their
contributed waste volume, and whether the Superfund will have to pay for
January 1995 24
-------
100 percent of the study and cleanup costs associated with the site (questions
E22 - E26).
The "Don't Know" responses may include sites where baseline PRP search
activities or analysis of financial capability have not been completed.
Therefore, some or all of the parties at these "unknown" sites may be "non-
viable". An answer of "Don't Know" also can mean that the RPM does not
know how many parties are associated with the site and, therefore, does not
know how many of the parties are "non-viable".
The number of parties identified in this question is less than or equal to the
number of parties associated with the site (E13). Once the total number of
"non-viable" parties was identified, these parties were classified by the RPM
as either owners/operators or generators/transporters in the next two
questions (E22 and E23).
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0615
Field Name: PRPs: Potential Non-viable - Range
E22. Of the orphan parties identified in E21, how many are owners/
operators?
Possible answers:
None >50
1 Don't Know
2-10 Skip
11-50
The purpose of this question was to identify how many of the "non-viable"
parties are owner/operators.
If the RPM responded that there are no parties associated with the site that
could potentially be held liable under CERCLA (question E13), this question
was skipped. The question also was skipped if the RPM reported that there
were no financially viable parties or the number of non-viable parties was
unknown (question E21).
The number of "non-viable" owners/operators is less than or equal to the
number of non-viable parties identified in question E21. The number of
"non-viable" owners/operators reported here plus the number of "non-
viable" generators/transporters (question E23) is equal to the number of
25 January 1995
-------
"non-viable" parties (E21). Though there may be some "non-viable" parties
that are both owners/operators and generators/transporters, question E23 asks
for the number of parties that are only generators/transporters, making the
data sets mutually exclusive.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0616
Field Name: Non-viable PRPs: Owner/Oper - Range
E23. Of the orphan parties identified in E21, how many are only
generators/transporters?
Possible answers:
None 101-500
1 501-1,000
2-10 >1,000
11-50 Don't Know
51-100 Skip
The purpose of this question was to identify how many of the "non-viable"
parties are only generators/transporters.
Getiemtor/lTrans|>iSrter Definition
A generator is a party that "generated" hazardous substances that
were then transported to the site. A transporter is anyone who
brought waste to
If the RPM responded that there are no parties associated with the site that
could potentially be held liable under CERCLA (question E13), this question
was skipped. The question was also skipped if the RPM reported that there
were no financially viable parties or the number of non-viable parties was
unknown (question E21).
The number of "non-viable" generators/transporters is less than or equal to
the number of "non-viable" parties identified in question E21. The number
of "non-viable" owners/operators (question E22) plus the number of "non-
viable" generators/transporters is equal to the number of "non-viable" parties
(E21). Though there may be some "non-viable" parties that are both
owners/operators and generators/ transporters, this question asks for the
number of parties that are only generators/ transporters, making the data sets
mutually exclusive.
January 1995 26
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0617
Field Name: Non-viable PRPs: Gen/Tran - Range
E24. What is the estimate at this time of the percent of waste volume at the
site that can be attributed to the orphan generators/transporters
identified in E23?
Possible answers:
0 -100% Skip Don't Know
The purpose of this question is to determine the percent of total waste
attributable to non-viable generator/transporter parties - referred to as the
"orphan share." It does not include waste that cannot be attributed to a
known party, often referred to as the "unallocable share."
This question was skipped if the RPM reported the following:
• There are no parties associated with the site that could potentially be
held liable under CERCLA (question E13);
• There are no financially viable parties or the number of "non-viable"
. parties is unknown (question E21); or
• There are no "non-viable" generators/transporters (question E23).
If the RPM did not know the volume of waste that could be attributed to non-
viable generators/transporters, "999" was entered. If the response was "don't
know," the next question (E25) on how the waste volume was estimated was
skipped.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0618
Field Name: Waste Volume % Due to Orphan
Gen/Tran
27 January 1995
-------
E25. Is the estimate provided in response to E24 based on volumetric data or
your best professional judgment?
Possible answers:
Volumetric Data Professional Judgment Skip
This question was skipped if the RPM reported the following:
• There are no parties associated with the site that could potentially be
held liable under CERCLA (question E13);
• There are no financially viable parties or the number of "non-viable"
parties is unknown (question E21);
• There are no "non-viable" generators/transporters (question E23); or
• The percent of waste volume at the site that can be attributed to
generators/transporters is unknown (question E24).
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0619
Field Name: Waste Volume % Data Source
E26. Is this an "orphan" site (i.e., will the Trust Fund have to pay for 100% of
the study and cleanup costs at this site because all responsible parties
cannot be located or are not financially viable)?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
This question was skipped if the RPM answered there are financially viable
parties or when the number of "non-viable" parties is unknown (question
E21).
Orphan Site Definition ;
Orphan sites are sites where all .the responsible parties are not
financially viable or cannot be located. There is no enforcement
potential at orphan sites either |pr PRP response or cost recovery.
The Superfund wfll pay lor 100 percent of the study and cleanup
costs at this site. ,
January 1995 28
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0620
Field Name: Orphan Site Indicator
E27. If the site is not currently Fund-lead, do you expect any Fund-lead work
at the site in the future?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Not Applicable Skip
If the RPM responded that the site is an "orphan" site (question E26), this
question was skipped. The RPM responded "Not Applicable" if the site is
currently Fund-lead or is a Federal Facility.
EPA assigns leads only to individual event or site activities such as site
studies, design or construction. These site activities are often led by one or
several parties (i.e., the PRPs, the State, Federal Facility, Indian tribal
government or EPA) over the course of the entire site cleanup process.
While some sites are currently Fund-lead and others may have future Fund-
financed work, their status is subject to change as response actions progress.
Therefore, any given site can have events financed by both PRPs and the
Superfund.
Fund-leadSite Definition
A Fund-lead site is defioiecl ats A site where all site study (KI/FS),
design (RD) arid eonstructioii^RA) events have been or are now
being paid for by the Superfund. (Some State dollars also may have
been'spent.) • ' ' ;
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0623
Field Name: Fund-Lead Future Takeover Indicator
29 January 1995
-------
E28. How many parties which are current or former owners/operators of the
site are also municipalities?
Possible answers:
None >50
1 Don't Know
2-10 Skip
11-50
The RPM was asked to report the number of parties within the ranges
provided. The number of owners/operators that are also municipalities is
less than or equal to the number of parties associated with the site as indicated
in question E13. If the RPM responded that the site was an "orphan" site
(question E26), this question was skipped.
Municipality Definition
The term "municipalities" refers -to any political subdivision of a
State and may include cities, counties, towns, townships and other
local government entities.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0624
Field Name: PRPs: Municipal Owner/Operator -
Range (The numbers reflected are
owners/operators that also are
municipalities.)
E29a. How many parties associated with the site (from E13) are
generators/transporters who contributed only municipal solid waste to
the site?
Possible answers:
None 501-1,000
1 >1,000
2-10 Don't Know
11-50 Not Applicable
51-100 Skip
101-500
The purpose of this question is to determine how many parties contributed
only municipal solid waste (MSW). MSW generators/transporters are not
necessarily municipalities, but are any party who contributed only MSW. If a
party contributed both MSW and hazardous substances, it is not counted here.
January 1995 30
-------
If the RPM responded that the site is an "orphan" site (question E26), this
question was skipped.
When the RPMs responded that there were "no" genera tors/transporters
who contributed municipal solid waste to the site, or that the question was
"not applicable," there is no response recorded for the subsequent question
regarding how many of these municipal solid waste generators/transporters
are municipalities (E29b).
Under EPA policy, the Agency generally will not pursue a generator or
transporter of only municipal solid waste, absent site-specific evidence that
hazardous substances were contained in the municipality's contribution of
waste.
Municipal ;isol4 waste often releiss Ito solid waste generated by
houseHolds, jbut may include some contribution of wastes from
Gominereial».rihsMtiitional^^ ^d fedustrial sources as weU. As defined
wnderRCR&, mimM^ those wastes that
are not required 'ip-'be managed as hazardous wastes under Subtitle
C of RCl^ (e^g./ nbn%a^
Wastes or ;smatl quantity generator wastes). Although, the actual
composition 6f such wastes Varies considerably at individual sites,
municipal solid waste iss generally, composed of large volumes of
non-hazardous substances (e-g., yard waste, food waste, glass, and ;
aiuminiim) and may Contain small quantities of household ;
hazardous waste (e.g., r^sticides and solvents) as well as small |
quantity generator wastes. Many industrial solid wastes are I
managed separately from household wastes, but may enter the !
murticipai solid waste system. - - \
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0621
Field Name: PRPs: Gen/Tran Municipal Waste
Range
31 January 1995
-------
E29b. How many of the municipal solid waste generators/transporters
identified in E29a are municipalities?
Possible answers:
None 101-500
1 501-1,000
2-10 >1,000
11-50 Don't Know
51-100 Skip
The number of municipal solid waste genera tors/transporters that are
municipalities is less than or equal to the number of municipal solid waste
genera tors/transporters indicated in question E29a. If the RPM responded
that the site was an "orphan" site (question E26), this question was skipped.
Municipality Definition
Hie term "miistcipaMt^" asefers *o-£ny political subdivision of a
State and may incliide cities; counties, towiis, townships and other
local government entities. : -
Data Information:
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0622
Field Name: PRPs: Municipal Gen/Tran - Range
E29c. Of the waste at the site, in your opinion what percentage is municipal
solid waste?
Possible answers:
None 51-75%
1-10% 76-99%
11-25% 100%
26-50% Don't Know
Skip
RPMs were asked to estimate the percentage of municipal solid waste (MSW)
at the site within the ranges provided if generators of such waste were
identified in question E29a.
MSW referred to here could have been contributed by MSW-only generators
(see E29a) as well as those who contributed both MSW and hazardous
substances.
January 1995 32
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0625
Field Name: Municipal Solid Waste % Range
Field Number: E0626
Field Name: Municipal Solid Waste % (The actual
percent of solid waste RPM estimates is
municipal, if provided)
33 January 1995
-------
SECTIONS: RESPONSE ACTIONS
E30. How many removal actions under CERCLA authority, including emergency actions,
were conducted at the site, are ongoing, or are currently approved?
The purpose of this question was to identify the number of Fund or PRP-lead removal
actions conducted at the site or that were upcoming. If no removals were conducted, are
ongoing, or are currently approved at the site, '00' was recorded and are not reflected in th
response counts included in Appendix C. "Currently approved removals" are defined as
those supported by a signed action memorandum and where the date the contractor or
PRP is expected to mobilize at the site to perform the action is known.
Emergency, time critical and non-time critical early actions conducted under removal
authority are included in the total number of removals conducted at the site. Emergency
actions are taken within hours of discovery while time-critical removals require response
actions within six months of discovery; non-time critical removals are performed in
response to releases requiring action that can start later than six months.
The following types of removals were not included:
• Removals conducted by the PRPs under the terms of an EPA order, consent decree or
judgment;
• Voluntary removals; and
• Removals conducted by the State without EPA oversight or Superfund financing.
Removal Definition
A removal is a response action taken to prevent or mitigate a threat to public
health, welfare or the environment posed by the release or:potential release of a
CERCLA hazardous substance, or an imminent or substantial risk posed by a
pollutant or contaminant. Removal actions funded by EPA are subject to the
statutory limitations of 12 months arid $2 million, unless an exemption is
justified,
Action Memorandum Definition
An action memoranduin is the primary decision document supporting the
selection and authorization of art early action under removal authority. The
action memorandum provides a concise, written record of the decision to
perform an appropriate removal action. The action memorandum is signed by
the Regional On-Scene Coordinator, Regional Administrator or Assistant
Administrator for the Office of SoM/Waste and Emergency Response.
When respondents replied that no removals were conducted, there is no response
recorded for the subsequent question (E31) requesting additional information on the
removals.
January 1995 34
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0627
Field Name: Removal Action Count
E31. For each removal action, indicate a) the primary objective of the work, b) whether
the removal precluded the need for a particular remedial operable unit (e.g., source
control), and c) whether the removal implemented an RI/FS.
Possible answers for a:
Emergency Source Control
Stabilization Permanent Water Supply
Surface Cleanup Other
Skip
Possible answers for b:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
Possible answers for c:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
The respondent was asked to provide the information requested in questions a, b, and c for
each of the removals reported in question E30. If the respondent indicated that no
removals were conducted, this question was skipped.
Part a)
The respondent also reported the operable unit (OU) number of the removal, the removal
event type code (from CERCLIS), and the removal start date. The operable unit number
for most removals is "00". If a removal was performed after a ROD was signed and instead
of a remedial action, the operable unit number for the removal would be the same as the
operable unit number of the ROD.
The CERCLIS removal event codes that may be found in this file are:
• ER = Expedited Response Action - an early action that is taken under remedial
authority, using remedial funds;
• IM = Initial Remedial Measure - an early action that is taken under remedial
authority, using remedial funds (historical code - preserved but no longer
used to record removal actions);
• IR = Immediate Removal - a time critical removal (historical code - preserved but no
longer used to record removal actions);
• PR = Planned Removal - a non-time critical removal (historical code - preserved but
no longer used to record removal actions);
35 January 1995
-------
• RV = Removal Action - an emergency, time critical or non-time critical action taken
under removal authority (the majority of removal actions are coded 'RV');
and
• UR = Underground storage tank removal.
For removals where an action memorandum has been signed but field work had not
actually begun, the respondent needed to enter a start date. If a start date was not known,
the removal action was not reported. The start date is defined as the date the removal
contractor mobilizes on the site to begin the removal action. The start date is reported in
the month/day/year (MM/DD/YY) format. If only a fiscal year and quarter were known,
the last day of the quarter was reported as the start date.
The respondents used the definitions below to answer which were the primary objective(s)
of a removal at a site.
Primary Objectives of Removal Actions
Emergency Removal is a response to ongoing, immediate endangerment (e.g.,
fire, spill, threat of explosion or catastrophic release).
Stabilization is a response to potential, significant threats (e»g., drain lagoon that
could overflow and release hazardous materials).
Surface Cleanup {e.g., drum removal) is a response to remove obstacles to safe
and efficient assessment and remedial work.
Source Control is the elimination of the cause of continuing contamination (e.g.,
removal or excavation of contaminated soil).
Permanent Water Supply is a response where a permanent source of water is
provided as a result of contamination of existing wells. It does not include the
provision of bottled water or any other temporary water supply.
More than one primary objective may have been reported for each removal. If the
respondent answered that the primary objective was "Other" - either as the only response
or in conjunction with another primary objective - he/she was asked to specify the
"Other" objective.
Part b)
An answer of "Yes" to the question of whether the removal "precluded an operable unit"
means that a removal action was performed on a certain portion of the site instead of a
remedial action. This commonly occurs in a source control action. In a source control
action, often drums, tanks and contaminated surface soil are removed from the site. Since
the source of the contamination was eliminated, there is no need to perform a source
control study under the remedial program. The remedial program may still need to
January 1995 36
-------
perform site studies, design and construction activities, for example, on the contaminated
groundwater under the site that resulted from contaminants on the surface.
Part c)
An answer of "Yes" to the question of whether the removal "implemented an RI/FS"
means that a ROD was signed but a removal action was performed instead of performing
traditional design and construction activities. Therefore, the removal action implemented
the remedy selected in the ROD. In this situation, the ROD would be the decision
document that provides the authority to perform the removal; an action memorandum
would not be necessary.
ROD Pefiaiticm
The ROD is the document ideMMng the planned remedial action. It is prepared
;\ •, " ... "
-------
(Primary Objectives)
Field Number: E2305 - E2310
Field Name: Primary Objectives of Removal (Used in conjunction
with C2101 to identify the primary objective(s) of the
removal action)
31b - Precluded Operable Unit
File Name: Events/Actions
Field Number: E2311
Field Name: Removal Precluded Op Unit Indicator
31c - Implemented RI/FS
File Name: Events!Actions
Field Number: E2312
Field Name: Removal Implemented RI/FS Indicator
E32. Please verify the number of OUs, the names of each OU, circle whether a ROD has
actually been signed (A) or is planned (P) at the OU, and the ROD OU/Event.
Possible answers:
Event Complete: Actual Event Completed: Planned
In addition to verifying the number of OUs at each site, RPMs were asked to provide the
operable unit numbers, operable unit names, ROD event code, whether the ROD was
planned or had actually been signed, and the actual or planned ROD signature date. The
operable unit number, operable unit name and ROD data matches the ROD data in
CERCLIS. Each operable unit number has an associated operable unit name. The ROD wa:
identified with an "A" if it had actually been signed. The ROD was identified with a "P" if
it had not been signed, but was planned to be signed at some future date. The
planned/actual ROD signature or ROD completion date is provided in the
month/day/year (MM/DD/YY) format. RPMs were asked to provide information for all
planned and actual RODs, planned and actual ROD amendments and Explanations of
Significant Differences (ESD).
The operable unit number assigned follows the CERCLIS operable unit coding instructions
that state that all operable units be related to RODs. Thus a ROD at OU01 that leads to two
separate designs (RD1 and RD2) would still be recorded at OU01. If a site has more than
one ROD, each must address an aspect of the site or remedy not developed in the previous
ROD(s). A ROD amendment is coded in CERCLIS as a second ROD at the same operable
unit number.
January 1995 38
-------
An operable unit is a discrete action at a site that provides an incremental step
toward completing site cleanup. Operable units may address geographical areas
or specific site problems. Operable units sallow certain elements of a project to be
started alhead of others to lessen the hazards present at the site and to complete
some work elements ahead of more complex and hazardous work elements.
Thus, each element can move at its own rate to completion. Examples of two
separate operable units are source control ;and grpundwater cleanup.
ROD Definition
The ROD is the document identifying ;me planned remedial action. It is prepared
after completion of the public comment period on the Remedial
mvestig^ori7Feasfl?ilit^ Smidy^^fe)abd a Proposed Plan that identifies the
Agency's preferred remedy. The;ROD is signed by the Regional Administrator or
fihe Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response: The ROD cart either address the entire site cleanup (more than one
medium), one phase of the site cleanup (for example, soil contamination), or
determine that no further action is needed.
ROD Amendment Definition
After a ROD is signed, new oiformandn might be generated that could affect the
selected remedy. 'When the5 hazardous waste management approach selected in
the ROD is/reconsidered, it is denned as a fundamental change to the remedy.
For example,: the inftovative tecnnplogy originally selected in the ROD did not
perform satisfactorily during the pilot scale testing, and a decision was made to
switch to another remedy. When such fundamental changes are made to a
remedy, the ROD development process is repeated (revised proposed plan, public
comment period, public meeting, responsiveness summary), and a new ROD is
signed (pue^ ROD amendment).
Explanation of Significant Differences Definition
When significant changes are made to a component of a remedy that do not
fund^inentaliy alter the overfall approach intended by the remedy, an
Explanati®mo£Signiricant TJftfferences is prepared. For example, a change in the
costofihe^^ remedy: would qualify as a significant change and an Explanation of
Significant Differences would be jprepared. The Explanation of Significant
Differences is made available to; the public; however, a formal public comment
period and public meeting are not required. An Explanation of Significant
Differences is not a new ROD and is not recorded as such in CERCLIS.
If only one ROD was signed or is planned at a site, "entire site" was placed in the operable
unit name file associated with the 'Ol' operable unit.
Additional information on the planned RODs is provided in question E34. Additional
information on actual RODs is provided in questions E35 and E36.
39 January 1995
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the operable unit level.
File Name: Op Unit Events/Actions
Field Number: CHOI
Field Name: Operable Unit ID
Field Number: C1104
Field Name: Operable Unit Name
Field Name: C2301
Field Name: Event Type - Full Name (ROD)
Field Number: C2131
Field Name: Event Complete: Planned
Field Number: C2141
Field Name: Event Complete: Actual
E33. Do you expect additional OUs?
Possible answers:
Yes
No
Don't Know
The purpose of this question was to determine whether more OUs/RODs were expected at
the site beyond those that had been planned and recorded as such in CERCLIS. Therefore,
responses to "additional operable units" do not include operable units with planned RODs
identified in the previous question. If the RPM knew additional operable units would be
added but did not know how many, "Don't Know" was recorded.
Operable Unit Definition
An operable unit is a discrete action =at a site that pro\tides an incremental step
toward completing site cleanup. Operable ttrvits may address geographical areas
or specific site problems. Operable urtits allow certain elements of a project to be
started ahead of others to lessen the hazards present at the site and to complete
some work elements ahead ol more complex and hazardous work elements.
Thus, each element can move at its own rate to completion. Examples of two
separate operable units are source control and groundwater cleanup.
January 1995 40
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0628
Field Name: Additional Op Unit Indicator
E34. For RODs that are planned (identified in E32), what media/materials will be
addressed by the remedies included in each ROD?
Possible answers:
Air Soil
Groundwater Sludge
Surface Water Solid Waste
Sediment RCRA Hazardous Waste
Debris Don't Know
Liquid Waste Other
Man-made Structures
The information was requested for planned RODs only; therefore, the media/material to
be addressed would be identified for all planned RODs reported in question E32. If no
RODs were planned, "Not Applicable" was recorded. The operable unit number and name
for the planned RODs were transferred from question E32.
A ROD can address more than one medium/material, so multiple responses were allowed.
Planned "No Action" RODs are included. In "No Action" RODs, the Agency has decided
not to take a response action to address the media/materials at an operable unit or site.
Media/Materials Definition
The media/materials that may be found in this file are:
Groundwater: Groundwater is defined; as fresh water found beneath the earth's
surface, which is ofteri,used;for supplying wells and springs, and is grouped into
classes according to its intended use.;
Surface W&ter: Surface water includes contamination of rivers, ;ponds,
reservoirs, lakes, lagoons or other natural or man-made water bodies.
Sediment: Sediment is soil or other material that settles to the bottom of a
surface water.
Debris: Debris is defined as any rubbish or trash found on the site (e.g.,
household trash, lumber and dry wall from a construction site or wood shavings
from a wood treatment facility.)
41 January 1995
-------
Media/Materials Definition (cont'd)
Liquid Waste: Liquid Waste includes leachate (solution produced by movement
of liquid through contaminated soil, solid or hazardous waste), as well as any
liquid waste materials found in storage tanks, pits, ;holding ponds, etc.
Man-made Structures: Manrmade Structures include buildings, pipes, concrete
pads, etc. , : •• ' ' ' ; , ' ,
Soil: Son includes both surface and subsurface soil contamination.
Sludge: Sludge is mtidlike deposits covering the ground or at the bottom of
bodies of water. TyjpicaEyx tile term sludge refers to the material at the bottom of
settling ponds or waste lagooiis;
Solid Waste: Solid waste includes those wastes mat are riot required to be
managed as hazardous wastes imder Subtitle C of RCRA (e.g., non-hazardous
substances, household hazardous wastes, or small quantity generator wastes).
RCRA Hazardous Waste: I Rf the site cleanup (for example, soil contamination), or
determine that no further action is needed.
January 1995 42
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the operable unit level.
File Name: Materials!Cleanup Standards
Field Number: E2451
Field Name: Materials Code
Field Number: E2452
Field Name: Materials - Full Name
E35. For each ROD that was signed (identified in E32), please indicate the future site land
use and future use of the land surrounding the site that is anticipated as a result of
the remedy to be implemented.
S = Future Site Land Use A = Future Use of Land Surrounding the Site
Possible answers:
Agriculture Residential
Commercial Other
Educational Don't Know
Industrial None
Recreational
The information was requested for actual (signed)RODs only. The future site land use and
the future use of land surrounding the site was reported for all actual RODs indicated in
question E32. If no RODs have been signed, the RPM skipped this question. If the RPM
responded with "Other," he/she was asked to provide a description, which was recorded in
the data base. There is no future land use information recorded for planned RODs. The
list of possible answers was the same for future site use and the future uses of the land
surrounding the site. Multiple responses were allowed for both future site use and future
use of the land surrounding the site.
NOTE: Under CERCLA, land use is not a criteria or specified component of remedy
selection. Consequently, responses to this question represent the judgement of the RPM.
Land use is considered as part of determining what exposures may occur and what baseline
risks may be present.
"No Action RODs" are included in this question. In "No Action" RODs, the Agency has
decided not to take a response action to address the media/materials at an operable unit or
a site.
Future Land Use Definition
Future land use is defined as anticipated future site use and future use of the
land surrounding the site after the remedy is implemented.
43 January 1995
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the operable unit level.
File Name: Site/Op Unit Land Uses
Field Number: E2201 = FLUA or PLUS
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use Type (The FLUA code
represents the expected future site land use and the
PLUS code represents the expected future use of land
surrounding the site.)
Field Number: E2202
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use Type - Full Name
Field Number: E2203
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use Code (Used in conjunction
with E2201 = FLUA or PLUS to identify specific land
uses on or surrounding the site)
Field Number: E2204
Field Name: Site/Op Unit Land Use Code - Full Name
E36. For each ROD that is signed (identified in E32), please indicate the media addressed
and the basis for the cleanup standard for that media.
Possible "Media/Materials" answers:
Air Man-made Structures
Groundwater Soil (Surface and subsurface)
Surface Water Sludge
Sediment Solid Waste
Debris RCRA Hazardous Waste
Liquid Waste Don't Know
Possible "Basis for Cleanup Standard" answers:
Health Risk Assessment State ARARs
Ecological Risk Assessment Citizen Concerns
MCL To Be Considered
MCLG Don't Know
Federal ARAR Not Applicable
The information was requested for actual RODs only; therefore, the media/materials and
basis for cleanup standards is reported only for the actual RODs indicated in question E32.
If no RODs have been signed, the RPM skipped this question. There is no information
reported for planned RODs.
January 1995 44
-------
More than one medium/material may be addressed in a ROD; therefore, multiple
responses were allowed. There also can be more than one basis for the cleanup standard
for a media; therefore, multiple responses were allowed.
"No Action" RODs are included in this question. In "No Action" RODs, the Agency has
decided not to take a response action to address the media/materials at an operable unit or
site.
Media/Materials Definition
Themedia/materials-'i^'i^
Groundwater: Grpundwater is defined as fresh water found beneath the earth's
surface,iMhieh;is often;use^fpr;,supplying wells and springs, and is grouped into
classes according to its intended use.
Surface Water: Surface water mcludes contammalion of rivers, ponds,
reservoirs, lakes, lagoons or other natural or man-made wafer bodies.
Sediment:, Sediment is sdil:or 6ttier material that settles to the bottom of a
surface-water. l- -' •">,/•'• : • '•'•• , •
Debris: Debris is defined as any rubbish, or trash found on the site (e.g.,
household trash, Iraiiber and:'>d:ry wall from a construction site or wood shavings
from a wood treatment facility.)
Liquid Waste: liquid Waste includes leachate (solution produced by movement
of liquid through contaminated soil, solid or hazardous waste), as well as any
liquid waste materials found in storage tanks, pits, holding ponds, etc.
Man-made Structures: Man-made Structures include buildings, pipes, concrete
pads, etc
Soil: Soil includes both surface and subsurface soil contamination.
Sludge: Sludge is inudlike deposits covering the ground or at the bottom of
bodies 0fwafcer» Typically, the term sludge refers to the material at the bottom of
settlingpoiicls of waste lagoons.
Solid Waste: Solid waste includes those wastes that are not required to be
managed as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA (e.g., non-hazardous
substances, household hazardous wastes, or small quantity generator wastes).
RCRA Hazardous Waste: RCRA Hazardous Waste includes those wastes that are
required^ to be managed as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA.
45 January 1995
-------
If a response of "Groundwater" was provided, the RPM was also required to answer
questions later in the survey (E39-E47) regarding reliance on natural attenuation for
cleanup, future human consumption, groundwater classifications, aquifer discharge, and
population served.
A response for the basis for cleanup standard of "Not Applicable" is reported when
exposure control is the only remedy (i.e., no contaminant cleanup standard used).
If the RPM reported the basis for cleanup standard was "Federal Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR)" or "To Be Considered," he/she was asked to
specify the Federal ARAR or "to be considered" used.
Cleanup Standards DefiMtioii
Cleanup standards are identified in the ROD. They provide numeric
concentration levels or risk management to be achieved by the remedy. CERCLA
requires Superfurid actions to meet: standards developed by State or Federal
agencies under other laws. For example, cleanup standards have been developed
undeir the Safe DrinkingWatei Act,; including Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) or MaximumContaminant Level Goals (MCLGs}. States can have then-
own standards which may be more stringent than Federal standards. Some
States have also developed cleanup standards for soil.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLG) Deimitions
Primary drinking water regulations include MCLs for specific contaminants.
MGLs are enforceable standards which apply to specified contaminants mat EPA
has determined have an adverse effect on human health. MCLs are set at levels
that are protective of human health, and are set as close to MCLGs as is feasible
taking into account available treatment technologies and the costs to large public
water systems. MCLGs, in contrast, are strictly health-based and do not take cost
or feasibility into account. As health goals, MCLGs are established at levels at
which no known or anticipated adverse: effects on the health of persons occur
and feat allow an adequate margin of safety.
Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Definition
A risk assessment characterized risks, Both actual and potential, posed to human
health and the environment:by site contaminants. Site managers use the results
of the risk assessment to help determine appropriate remedies for addressing the
risks posed by the site.
January 1995 46
-------
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) Definition
CERCIA requires remedial actions td;attam legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal and State standards, requirements, criteria or limitations,
unless such requirements; are waived, There are three types of ARARs:
chemicalr,: location- and action-specific. Cfeemical^sjpecific requirements define
acceptable exposure levels. Location-specific requirements set restrictions on
activities witnin;spec|r|eiocations such aa:floodplains or wetlands. Action-
specific requirements set contrpfe or restrictions for particular treatment and
disposal activities related to the management of hazardous Wastes. Identification
of ARARs must :be done on a site-specific basis.
federal ARARs mclaefet (TSCA), the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SI^WAJ, the Glean Air Act (CAA), the Marine Protection,
Research, amd $anctearfes ;''Acf iJMPIiSA) Ihe; Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA),
• '
State :. ,
SARA xequireis ithat remedial actions atteiin promulgated State requirements
under a State -eByirotmientiil -or facility siting Jaw that is more stringent tiian any
Federal requireiiient and has been identified by the State in a timely manner.
To Be Considered Definition
To be considiereii material (TBGs) are non-promulgated advisories or guidance
issiied b^,peder!al;pr Sfekte government ihat are not legally binding and do not
haye ih£^t&ixisfof i|^otento:; ARA^, ^OfeweverA in many circumstences, TBCs
will be;c0nsiderect,along^ with ARARs as part of tihe site risk assessment and may
be-us6d ffi;ide;teririMin|;;-|Eieniecessary:ievel of cleanup for prbifection of human
health or the renvkonntent.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the operable unit level.
Media/Materials
File Name: Materials/Cleanup Standards
Field Number: E2451
Field Name: Materials Code
Field Number: E2452
Field Name: Materials - Full Name
47 January 1995
-------
Basis for Cleanup
File Name: Materials/Cleanup Standards
Field Number: E2453 - E2462
Field Name: Basis for Cleanup Standard (Contains the range of
indicators for determining the basis for the cleanup
standard)
E37a. Does the cleanup of the plume rely on natural attenuation (i.e., are we expecting
part of the plume to cleanse itself)?
Possible answers:
Yes OU# OUName
No
Don't Know
Skip
The RPM answered this question only if the ROD at the site is addressing or expected to
address the "groundwater" medium. If an actual or planned ROD does not address
groundwater, the RPM in most cases skipped this question and the other groundwater
questions (E39-E43). When the RPM felt that groundwater would be addressed, but the site
was in such early evaluation stages that it was not possible to project which ROD would
address the contamination, a response was allowed.
NOTE: A "Yes" response may mean that natural attenuation is a component or part of a
broader response action.
Groundwater Definition
Groundwater is defined as fresh5 water found beneath the earth's surface, which
is often used for supplying wells and springs, and is grouped into classes
according to its intended use. \ ,,
Plume Definition .
A plume is defined as area of contaminated groundwater.
Natural Attenuation Definition
Natural attenuation refers totiie processes of biodegradation, dispersion,
dilution, and absorption of contaminants found in groundwater. In limited
situations, where the chemical? andbioldglcal conditions of the contaminated
aquifers are favorable, na%raljatteWation may be capable of reducing
contaminant concentrations iio acceptable health-based levels over time.
However, for natural attenuation to be effective, it must generally be preceded by
source removal or control measures, and include groundwater monitoring and
effective, reliable institutional controls to prevent use of the contaminated
groundwater. Conditions that potentially favor the use of natural attenuation
include: groundwater that is naturally unsuitable for consumption; low mobility
contaminants; low concentrations of contaminants; low potential for exposure;
low projected demand for future use of the groundwater; and discharge to
surface water, :
January 1995 48
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site and operable unit level for those sites with groundwater
contamination.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0629
Field Name: Natural Attenuation of Plume (Identifies whether site
cleanup will rely on natural attenuation)
File Name: Op Unit/Cost Estimate/O&M
Field Number: . E1309
Field Name: Natural Attenuation Indicator (Used in conjunction
with E0629 to link the natural attenuation response to
the appropriate Operable Unit/ROD)
E37b. Did/will the risk assessment (if the risk assessment drove the remedy selection as
identified in E36) or ROD assume future human consumption of onsite
contaminated groundwater?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
The RPM answered this question only if a signed ROD for the site is addressing or expected
to address the "groundwater" medium. If a signed ROD does not address groundwater, the
RPM skipped this question and the other groundwater questions (E38-E43).
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level for those sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0630
Field Name: Risk Assessment: Human GW Consumption
E37c. Did/will the risk assessment (if the risk assessment drove the remedy selection as
identified in E36) or ROD assume future human consumption of groundwater
downgradient of the contaminated plume?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
The RPM answered this question only if a signed ROD at the site is addressing or expected
to address the "groundwater" medium. If a signed ROD does not address groundwater, the
RPM skipped this question and the other groundwater questions (E38-E43).
49 January 1995
-------
Dowrtgradiertt Definition ;
Wells fttatare dowirigyaliieitb ,&f tke ^contaminated plume are located outside the
area of contamination and in thedirection of the movement of the groundwater.
Data Information:
The data were collected on the site level for those sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0631
Field Name: Risk Assessment: Human GW Consumption DG
E38a. What are the drinking water classifications of the aquifer underneath or adjacent to
the site?
Possible answers:
Class I Class III
Class Ila State Classification
Class II b Groundwater Class Not Provided
Class II Don't Know
The RPM answered this question only if an actual or planned ROD at the site is addressing
or expected to address the "groundwater" medium. If an actual or planned ROD does not
address groundwater, the RPM skipped this question and the other groundwater questions
(E38-E43).
For each site where groundwater is contaminated, RPMs were instructed to report the
groundwater classification that was actually stated in the RI/FS or ROD. In the absence of £
stated classification in the RI/FS or ROD, the RPM was instructed to respond
"Groundwater Class Not Provided" ('NP'). If the RPM responded that the State had
classified the groundwater, he/she was asked to describe the State classification, which was
recorded in the data base.
There may be multiple aquifers underneath or adjacent to the site. Therefore, multiple
classifications may be reported.
January 1995 50
-------
Groundwater Classification Definition
To help achieve coiislsteriiiy among programs, groondwater: classification
guidelines, based on the poBcy that different groundwaters have different
intended uses that merit different levels>c*f protection, were developed by EPA.
Groundwater is classified based upon ecological importance, replaceability, and
vulnerability considerations. The Federal classification scheme distinguishes
between groundwaters that &re currently used lor drinking water purposes, those
that are potentially usable for clrinkingand those that, due to poor quality or
insufficient quantity, are fibt suitables iior Drinking water purposes. States also
may have their own unique classification scheme.
Aquifer Definition
An aquifer is an underground^water-bearing bed or layer of permeable rock,
sand, gravel or soil capable of supplying groundwater to wells and springs.
Standard groundwater classifications were provided to RPMs for selection as described
below.
Groundwater Classifications
Class I DefinMoa - Groundwater from a sole source aquifer used for drinking or
flowing to & pristine environment (e.g., wetlands).
Class Ila Definition - Groundwater currently used as drinking water, other
sources available,
Classf pb Befiaitwin -Groundwater that is a potential drinking water source.
Class II Definition'- 0sable or potentially usable as a drinking water source (ROD
does not specify Class Ha or nb).
Class IDE Definition - Groundwater that is not useful for consumption (i.e., high
levels of dissolved solids or very low recharge rates).
Data Information:
The data were collected on the site level for those sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Groundwater Characteristics
Field Number: E1501 = GWCL
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristic Type
Field Number: E1502
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristic Type - Full Name
51 January 1995
-------
Field Number: E1503
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristic Code (Used in conjunction
with E1501 = GWCL to identify applicable groundwater
classification codes)
Field Number: E1504
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristics - Full Name
E38b. Does the aquifer discharge to one of the following?
Possible answers:
Discharge to a drinking water aquifer (currently None of these
used or that potentially could be used) Not applicable
Discharges to surface water Don't Know
Discharges to a sensitive ecological environment
Other
The RPM answered this question only if an actual or planned ROD at the site is addressing
or expected to address the "groundwater" medium. If an actual or planned ROD does not
address groundwater, the RPM skipped this question and the other groundwater questions
(E38-E43).
RPMs selected the response "discharge to a drinking water aquifer (currently used or that
potentially could be used)" only where there is a hydraulic exchange between the two
aquifers, including adjacent and shallow/deep aquifers.
If the RPM selected "Other," he/she was asked for a description, which was recorded in the
data base.
An aquifer may discharge into multiple environs; therefore, multiple responses were
allowed.
Data Information:
The data were collected on the site level for those sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Groundwater Characteristics
Field Number: E1501 = AQFR
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristic Type
Field Number: E1502
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristic Type - Full Name
Field Number: E1503
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristics Code (Used in
conjunction with E1501 = AQFR to identify applicable
aquifer discharge responses.)
January 1995 52
-------
Field Number: E1504
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristics - Full Name
E39. What is the current use of the ground water underneath or adjacent to the site?
Possible answers:
Agricultural (crop irrigation, livestock watering) Public Water Supply
Commercial/Recreational (drinking water) Private well - domestic use
Commercial/Recreational (non-drinking water) Private well - non-drinking water use only
Industrial (drinking water) Don't Know
Industrial (non-drinking water) Not Currently in Use
The RPM answered this question only if an actual or planned ROD at the site is addressing
or expected to address the "groundwater" medium. If an actual or planned ROD does not
address groundwater, the RPM skipped this question and the other groundwater questions
(E38-E43).
Groundwater with a classification of Class lib (question E38a) would not have a current
drinking water use.
Commercial/Recreational (non-drinking water) includes the following uses: public
buildings, car washes, airplane washes, truck washes, fountains, and theme parks.
Industrial (non-drinking water) includes the following uses: process water and nuclear
plant cooling.
Private well (domestic use) includes the following: drinking, bathing and cooking.
Private well (non-drinking water) use includes the following: sewerage, heat pumps,
gardens, and car washes.
Public Water Supply Definition
EPA considers water supplies to be pubEc if the water system has at least 15
service connections or serves jan average of at least 25 year-round residents. EPA
regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act apply to all public water supplies.
Certain IP A drinking water standards also apply to wafer systems that regularly
serve at least 25 of the same people for more than 6 months per year (e,gv rural
schools).
Since the groundwater may be used for more than one purpose, multiple responses were
allowed.
53 January 1995
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level for those sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Groundwater Characteristics
Field Number: E1501 = GWUS
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristic Type
Field Number: E1502
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristic Type - Full Name
Field Number: E1503
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristic Code (Used in conjunction
with E1501 = GWUS to identify current use of
groundwater)
Field Number: E1504
Field Name: Groundwater Characteristics - Full Name
E40. Please indicate the total number of people served by any drinking water supply wells
in the aquifer.
Possible answers:
0 people served 1,001-5,000 people served
1-24 people served 5,001-10,000 people served
25-100 people served 10,001-1000,000 people served
101-500 people served >100,000 people served
501-1,000 people served Don't Know
Skip
The RPM answered this question only if an actual or planned ROD at the site is addressing
or expected to address the "groundwater" medium. If an actual or planned ROD does not
address groundwater, the RPM skipped this question and the other groundwater questions
(E38-E43).
Aquifer Definition
An aquifer is art undergifOJund water-bearing bed or layer of permeable rock,
sand,, gravel or soil capable 61 supplying groundwater to wells and springs.
The population indicated are those people using public or private supply wells for
drinking water purposes. People using wells only for agricultural,
commercial/recreational (non-drinking water), industrial (non-drinking water) or other
non-drinking water purposes are not included in the response.
January 1995 54
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level for those sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0632
Field Name: People Using Aquifer Drinking-Water
E41a. Have water supply wells been shut down or replaced due to contamination levels
above health-based levels (e.g., MCLs or other health based levels)?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
The RPM answered this question only if an actual or planned ROD at the site is addressing
or expected to address the "groundwater" medium. If an actual or planned ROD does not
address groundwater, the RPM skipped this question and the other groundwater questions
(E38-E43).
This question refers only to drinking water wells that have been shut down or replaced
due to contamination levels above health-based levels. It does not include wells used only
for agricultural, commercial/recreational (non-drinking water), industrial (non-drinking
water) or other non-drinking water purposes.
Only when RPMs responded "Yes" to this question is there a response to the next question
(E41b).
Data Information:
The data were collected on the site level for sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0633
Field Name: Wells Shut Down: Indicator
E41b. How many people were served by the wells now shut down or replaced?
Possible answers:
1-24 people served 10,001-1000,000 people served
25-100 people served >100,000 people served
101-500 people served 0 people served
501-1,000 people served Don't Know
1,001-5,000 people served Skip
5,001-10,000 people served
People who were drinking from private or public drinking water supply wells that were
shut down or replaced are included in this response (i.e., the RPM answered "Yes" to
55 January 1995
-------
question E41a). People who used the wells for non-drinking water purposes only are not
included.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level for those sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0634
Field Name: Wells Shut Down: # of People Affected
E42. Are drinking water wells potentially threatened by a contaminated plume?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know Skip
The RPM answered this question only if an actual or planned ROD at the site is addressing
or expected to address the "groundwater" medium. If an actual or planned ROD does not
address groundwater, the RPM skipped this question and the other groundwater questions
(E38-E43)
Only when RPMs responded "Yes" to this question is there a response to the next question
(E43) on the number of people that are affected.
RPMs were asked to classify drinking water wells as potentially threatened regardless of
whether they lied downgradient, sidegradient, or upgradient of the plume. The responses
do not include wells already shut down due to contamination levels above health-based
levels, which were captured in question E41a. Responses also do not include wells used
only for non-drinking water purposes.
Downgradient Definition
Wells that are downgradient of the contaminated plume are located outside the
area of contamination and in the direction of the movement of the groundwater.
Sidegradient Definition
Wells that are sidegradient are located beside the site and the plume but outside
the area of contamination.
January 1995 56
-------
Weils that are upgradient of the contaminated plume are located outside the area
of contamination and in the opposite direction from the movement of the
groundwater. Upgradient wells are commonly used to collect background
information during field investigations because it is Highly unlikely they would
be affected by contamination from the site. There are situations where
"upgradient'' wells could become contaminated, -including intensive
groundwater pumping in the area that pauses changes in the well intake zone or
changes in the directionof ihe groundwater flow as a result of tidal or other
natural influences.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level for those sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0635
Field Name: Wells Threatened: Indicator
E43. How many people are served by the wells that are potentially threatened?
Possible answers:
1-24 people served 5,001-10,000 people served
25-100 people served 10,001-1000,000 people served
101-500 people served >100,000 people served
501-1,000 people served Don't Know
1,001-5,000 people served Skip
This question has a response only if the RPM answered "Yes" to question E42 - the wells
are potentially threatened by a contaminated plume.
The population indicated are those people that use the public or private wells for drinking
water purposes. People who use the wells for non-drinking water purposes only are not
included in the response.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level for sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0636
Field Name: Wells Threatened: # of People Affected
57 January 1995
-------
E44 - E47. DNAPLs (Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids)
Possible answers for question E44:
Definite DNAPL presence Medium Likelihood
High Likelihood Low Likelihood
Blank (Not Applicable)
Possible answers for question E46:
Yes No Don't Know
Possible answers for question E47:
Yes No Don't Know Blank (Not Applicable)
The results of the evaluation of 302 NPL sites reflected in the September 1993 DNAPLs
survey is provided in this version of the RPM survey database in lieu of the data collected
during the RPM interviews in August 1993. Since the information in the DNAPLs survey
(e.g., focused review of well drilling logs) is more thorough than the responses to the RPM
interview questions, EPA determined that the results of the DNAPLs survey were a more
accurate representation of the potential for DNAPLs to be present in the groundwater at
NPL sites. It was this data that was used as the basis for responding to the DNAPL
questions posed by Congressmen Swift and Dingell.
In addition, EPA Headquarters was in the process of providing training seminars to the
Regions to explain DNAPL characterization and recent Agency guidance, and technical
information from a recently performed DNAPLs survey that would be released in
September 1993 had not been shared with all the Regions at the time of the RPM
interviews. Therefore, it was premature to expect the RPMs to reflect these data in their
responses to the interview questions.
For more information on the DNAPLs survey, "Evaluation of the Likelihood of DNAPL
Presence at NPL Sites, National Results," contact the National Technical Information
Service NTIS at 1-800-336-4700 and request a copy of Document #PB93-963343 (September
1993).
January 1995 58
-------
DNAPLs Deif irtitioii
DNAPl^are: contaminants that do not readily mix with and are more dense than
water In their uhdilutecl form, DNAPLs include a wide range of chemical types
and mixtures, including chlorinated solvents/creosote, coal tars, PCBs
(polychlorinated Mphenyls) and somejpesticides. Chlorinated solvents, the most
prevalertl-iQNAPIiS; -can, sink to; great^epths and migrate over large distances
from Iheif :releasejpM^ can be difficult to locate in' the
sutesuiface and often !jg£>''undetected; \&&DJ^A1?W migrate through the subsurface,
a portionl>ee»meS;^^ soil pore spaces or fractures ar^the; remainder
can contmue.to Migrate p| jferrriipoQis tri:the soil or aquifer malrix. Hie portion
of DNAPLs ttiat can continue tic* migrate is called free-phase DNAJPLs. DNAPLs
make-grourtidwater cfeartupimctre difficult because, even though they do not mix,
they slowly^release^ dissolved chemic|ils over a long time, forming a plume of
contaminants in tfie:]grdiaidwater adjacent :to the DNAPLs.
Since the DNAPL survey does not cover all NPL sites, responses left blank are not
necessarily equivalent to "no (or low) probability of DNAPL contamination."
NOTE: Responses to questions E45a and E45b on technical impracticability waivers for
achieving cleanup standards were provided by EPA Headquarters and not collected from
the RPMs. Therefore, no data are provided.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level for sites with groundwater contamination.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0652
Field Name: DNAPL Likelihood
Field Number: E0657
Field Name: DNAPL Goal to DW Standard
Field Number: E0658
Field Name: DNAPL Plume Containment
59 January 1995
-------
SECTION 4: COST INFORMATION
E48. Please provide the current expected total capital cost for cleanup by operable unit if it
can be reasonably estimated.
Possible answers:
<$100,000 $10,000,001 - 15,000,000
$1000,000 - 50,000 $15,000,001 - 20,000,000
$500,001 - 1,000,000 $20,000,001 - 40,000,000
$1,000,001 - 3,000,000 $40,000,001 - 100,000,000
$3,000,001 - 5,000,000 >$100,000,000
$5,000,001-10,000,000 Don't Know
The RPM was asked to provide the current expected total capital cost by operable unit only
if it could be reasonably estimated. Estimates for both planned and actual RODs were
requested. Where capital costs could not be estimated on an operable unit basis, the RPM
was asked to provide a reasonable estimate of site-wide costs. If the total site capital cost or
the capital cost for an operable unit could not be estimated, the RPM responded "Don't
Know".
In addition to the capital cost, the RPM was asked to provide the operable unit number and
name. If costs could only be estimated on a site-wide basis, "entire site" was placed in the
operable unit name field and the operable unit number was enter as '99.' If the site has
only one operable unit, the operable unit number would be reported as '01' and "entire
site" also would be placed in the operable unit name data field.
Capital Cost Definition
Capital costs consist of direct (construction) and indirect (non-construction and
overhead) costs necessary to construct the selectedremedial action. Direct costs
include expenditures for equipment, labor, and iMterials. Indirect costs include
expenditures for engineering, financial, and other services that are riot part of
actual installation activities but are required to complete the installation of
remedial alternatives. Included in fee capital costs are up to 10 years of long-
term response action costs (e.g., operating a grotindwater treatment system), the
operational and functional period prior to acceptance of the project, and any
service contracts Ifor operating costs (e.g., burning materials in an incinerator).
Operation and maintenance costs (including operating a groundwater treatment
system beyond 10 years) are not capital costs.
The RPM used the response to this question as the basis for answering questions E49 and
E50: whether the total site capital costs exceed $20 million and the factors driving the costs
to exceed $20 million.
January 1995 60
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the operable unit level. If information was not available on an
operable unit level, it was collected at the site level (Operable Unit ID = '99').
File Name: OU/Cost EstimatefO&M
Field Number: CHOI
Field Name: Operable Unit ID
Field Number: C1104
Field Name: Operable Unit Name
Field Number: E1301
Field Name: Op Unit Total Capital Cost Code
Field Number: E1302
Field Name: Op Unit Total Capital Cost Range
E49. Based on your estimates in £48, is the total site capital cost expected to be over $20
million?
Possible answers:
Yes No Don't Know
The RPM used the capital costs indicated in question E48 to calculate the total site capital
costs. The operable unit capital costs were added together or the entire site capital cost was
examined to determine whether the total site capital costs exceed $20 million.
If the RPM answered "No" or "Don't Know," the following question (E50) on factors
driving the costs to exceed $20 million was skipped.
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0637
Field Name: Site Cost > $20 M
61 January 1995
-------
E50. If the capital costs exceed $20 million, what is the major factor(s) driving the costs?
Possible answers:
Large volume of highly contaminated High unit cost of treatment of soil/sludge/solid
soil/sludge/solid waste waste
Large volume of soil overall High unit cost of treatment of groundwater
Large volume of contaminated sediment High unit cost of treatment of surface water
Large volume of contaminated groundwater Second remedy was required after first remedy
Site hazards pose danger to cleanup workers failed
Complex hydrogeology Other
Complex mixture of contaminants Don't Know
The RPM skipped this question if the total capital costs were less than $20 million. If the
RPM responded "Other," he/she was asked to specify the factor that caused the site capital
costs to exceed $20 million, which was recorded in the data base.
More than one factor could be reported for any given site. The primary cause(s) for capital
costs greater than $20 million were identified with a 'P.'
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
File Name: Outlier Site Characteristics
Field Number: E1601 = CCMF
Field Name: Outlier Factors Type
Field Number: E1602
Field Name: Outlier Factors Type - Full Name
Field Number: E1603
Field Name: Outlier Factors Code (Used in conjunction with E1601
= CCMF to identify the factors that cause the total site
capital costs to be greater than $20 million.)
Field Number: E1604
Field Name: Outlier Factors - Full Name
Field Number: E1605
Field Name: Outlier Factors - Primary Qualifier (Used in
conjunction with El 603 to identify the "primary"
cause(s) for greater costs.)
January 1995 62
-------
E51. How many years do you anticipate Operation and Maintenance (O&M) will be
required?
Possible answers:
0-3 >30
4-10 Don't Know
11 - 20 No O&M Requked
21-30
RPMs were asked to provide the number of years they anticipated O&M by operable unit.
Estimates for both planned and actual RODs were requested. Where O&M duration could
not be estimated on an operable unit basis, the RPM was asked to provide a reasonable
estimate of the site wide duration for O&M. If the total site O&M duration or the O&M
duration for an operable unit could not be estimated, the RPM responded "Don't Know".
In addition to the O&M duration, the RPM was asked to provide the operable unit number
and name. If the O&M duration could only be estimated on a site-wide basis, "entire site"
was placed in the operable unit name field and the operable unit number was entered as
'99.' If the site has only one operable unit, the operable unit number was reported as '01'
and "entire site" also was placed in the operable unit name field.
If the response was "No O&M Required," the next two questions (E51a and E51b) on the
costs associated with O&M were skipped.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Definition
O&M encompasses those activities necessary to ensure the continued
effectiveness of title remedy after trie remedial action goals are met or after the 10
year long-term response action period (e;g., groundwater treatment system). The
cost ol O&M is borne by the PRP or a State government. Therefore, there is no
Superfimd-fjnariced O&M,
Data Information:
The data were collected at the operable unit level. If the information was not available on
the operable unit level, it was collected at the site level (Operable Unit ID = '99').
File Name: Op Unit/Cost Estimate/O&M
Field Number: CHOI
Field Name: Operable Unit ID
Field Number: C1104
Field Name: Operable Unit Name
63 January 1995
-------
Field Number: E1303
Field Name: Op Unit O & M Duration Code
Field Number: E1304
Field Name: Op Unit O&M Duration Range
E52a. By operable unit, whether a ROD was signed or not, what is your best estimate of the
average annual O&M cost?
Possible answers:
$1 - 500 $20,001 - 30,000
$501 - 1, 000 $30,001 - 50,000
$1,001 - 3,000 >$50,000
$3,001 - $5,000 $0
$5,001 - 7,000 Don't Know
$7,001 -10,000 Skip
$10,001 - 20,000
RPMs were asked to provide the estimated cost of O&M by operable unit. Estimates for
both planned and actual RODs were requested. Where O&M costs could not be estimated
on an operable unit basis, the RPM was asked to provide a reasonable estimate of the site
wide O&M costs. If the total site O&M costs or the O&M costs for an operable unit could
not be estimated, the RPM responded "Don't Know".
In addition to the O&M costs, the RPM was asked to provide the operable unit number and
name. If O&M costs could only be estimated on a site-wide basis, "entire site" was placed
in the operable unit name field and the operable unit number was entered as '99.' If the
site has only one operable unit, the operable unit number was reported as '01' and "entire
site" also was placed in the operable unit name data field.
This question was skipped, if the RPM answered "No O&M Required" in the previous
question (E51).
Since the cost of O&M is borne by the PRP or a State government (except in a very limited
number of circumstances), the O&M costs cited by EPA will always be an estimate.
If O&M is required to maintain the effectiveness of any removal actions taken at the site,
the RPM was asked to provide those costs and show them at operable unit "00".
January 1995 64
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the operable unit level. If the operable unit information was not
available, it was collected at the site level (Operable Unit ID = '99').
File Name: Op Unit/Cost Estimate!O&M
Field Number: CHOI
Field Name: Operable Unit ID
Field Number: C1104
Field Name: Operable Unit Name
Field Number: E1305
Field Name: Op Unit O&M Avg. Cost Code
Field Number: E1306
Field Name: Op Unit O&M Average Cost Range
E52b. By operable unit, whether a ROD was signed or not, what is your best estimate of the
cost over the life of O&M?
Possible answers:
$500 - 1,000 $1,000,000 - 5,000,000
$1001 - 5,000 $5,000,001 - 20,000,000
$5,001 - 20,000 $0
$20,001 - 100,000 Don't Know
$100,001 -1,000,000 Skip
RPMs were asked to provide the estimated cost over the life of O&M by operable unit.
Estimates for both planned and actual RODs were requested. Where O&M costs could not
be estimated on an operable unit basis, the RPM was asked to provide a reasonable
estimate of the site wide cost over the life of O&M. If the total site costs over the life of
O&M or the costs over the life of O&M for an operable unit could not be estimated, the
RPM responded "Don't Know".
In addition to the cost over the life of O&M, the RPM was asked to provide the operable
unit number and name. If O&M costs could not be estimated on a site-wide basis, "entire
site" was placed in the operable unit name field and the operable unit number was entered
as '99.' If the site has only one operable unit, the operable unit number was reported as
'01' and "entire site" also was placed in the operable unit name data field.
This question was skipped, if the RPM answered that no O&M was required (E51).
Since the cost of O&M is borne by the PRP or a State government (except in a very limited
number of circumstances), the O&M costs cited by EPA will always be an estimate.
If O&M is required to maintain the effectiveness of any removal actions taken at the site,
the RPM was asked to provide those costs and show them at operable unit "00".
65 January 1995
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the operable unit level. If the operable unit information was no
available, it was collected at the site level (Operable Unit ID = '99').
File Name: Op Unit/Cost Estimate/O&M
Field Number: CHOI
Field Name: Operable Unit ID
Field Number: C1104
Field Name: Operable Unit Name
Field Number: E1307
Field Name: Op Unit O & M Life Cost Code
Field Number: E1308
Field Name: Op Unit O & M Life Cost Range
E53. Estimate a) the dollar range that represents the money spent or likely to be spent by
the PRPs for site cleanup, and b) all the events included in this estimate.
Possible answers for a) Dollar range:
Not applicable. No PRPs $10,000,001 - 15,000,000
<$100,000 $15,000,001 - 20,000,000
$100,000 - 500,000 $20,000,001 - 40,000,000
$500,001 - 1,000,000 $40,000,001 - 100,000,000
$1,000,001 - 3,000,000 >$100,000,000
$3,000,001-5,000,000 Don't Know
$5,000,001 - 10,000,000
Possible answers for b) All events included in dollar range:
Removal Remedial Action
Remedial Investigation Long-Term Response
Feasibility Study Operation and Maintenance
Remedial Design Unknown
Attorney or other transaction costs are not included in the dollars spent by the PRPs for site
cleanup. The dollar range reported includes all money actually spent or likely to be spent
by the PRPs.
If the RPM responded "Not Applicable, No PRPs" to part a) of the question regarding the
dollars spent by the PRPs for site cleanup, there is not a response to part b) on the events
that the PRPs funded.
If the RPM responded "Don't Know" to the question on the dollars spent by the PRPs for
site cleanup (question E53a), he/she also reported "Don't Know" to the question on the
events that the PRPs funded (question E53b).
January 1995 66
-------
Data Information:
The data were collected at the site level.
53a. PRP Money Likely Spent
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0638
Field Name: Site Cost: Estimated PRP Expenditure
53b. Events in Dollar Range
File Name: Site
Field Number: E0639 - E0647
Field Name: PRP Contribution at Event (Flags indicating events
included in cost estimate)
67 January 1995
-------
This Page Intentionally
Left Blank
January 1995 68
-------
Appendix A
Glossary of
Programmatic Definitions
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary contains an alphabetical listing of the programmatic definitions
included in the RPM Site Data Hints.
Action Memorandum: An action
memorandum is the primary
decision document supporting the
selection and authorization of an
early action under removal
authority. The action memorandum
provides a concise, written record of
the decision to perform an
appropriate removal action. The
action memorandum is signed by the
Regional On-Scene Coordinator,
Regional Administrator or Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARAR):
CERCLA requires remedial actions to
attain legally applicable or relevant
and appropriate Federal and State
standards, requirements, criteria or
limitations, unless such
requirements are waived. There are
three types of ARARs: chemical-,
location- and action-specific.
Chemical-specific requirements
define acceptable exposure levels.
Location-specific requirements set
restrictions on activities within
specific locations such as floodplains
or wetlands. Action-specific
requirements set controls or
restrictions for particular treatment
and disposal activities related to the
management of hazardous wastes.
Identification of ARARs must be
done on a site-specific basis.
Federal ARARs: The Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), and
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
State ARARs: SARA requires that
remedial actions attain
promulgated State requirements
under a State environmental or
facility siting laws that are more
stringent than any Federal
requirement and have been
identified by the State in a timely
manner.
Aquifer: An aquifer is an
underground water-bearing bed or
layer of permeable rock, sand, gravel
or soil capable of supplying
ground water to wells and springs.
Capital Cost: Capital costs consist of
direct (construction) and indirect
(non-construction and overhead)
costs necessary to construct the
selected remedial action. Direct costs
include expenditures for equipment,
labor, and materials. Indirect costs
include expenditures for engineering,
financial, and other services that are
not part of actual installation
activities but are required to complete
the installation of remedial
alternatives. Included in the capital
costs are up to 10 years of long-term
response action costs (e.g., operating a
groundwater treatment system), the
operational and functional period
prior to acceptance of the project, and
any service contracts for operating
costs (e.g., burning materials in an
incinerator). Operation and
maintenance costs (including
A-l
January 1995
-------
GLOSSARY
operating a groundwater treatment
system beyond 10 years) are not
capital costs.
Cleanup Standards: Cleanup
standards are identified in the ROD.
They provide numeric concentration
levels or risk management to be
achieved by the remedy. CERCLA
requires Superfund actions to meet
standards developed by State or
Federal agencies under other laws.
For example, cleanup standards have
been developed under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, including
Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) or Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals (MCLGs). States can
have their own standards which may
be more stringent than Federal
standards. Some States also have
developed cleanup standards for soil.
Co-Disposal Landfill: A co-disposal
landfill is a privately or publicly
owned facility where hazardous
waste and/or industrial wastes
containing hazardous constituents
are mixed with municipal solid
wastes resembling household waste.
The definition does not include
landfills that accepted or continue to
accept strictly industrial waste or
municipal solid waste, or
groundwater contamination sites
where a co-disposal facility is one of
several sources contributing to the
groundwater contamination.
Debris: Debris is defined as any
rubbish or trash found on the site
(e.g., household trash, lumber and
dry wall from a construction site or
wood shavings from a wood
treatment facility.)
De minimi's Party: De minimis
waste contributors are generators or
transporters whose waste
contribution is minimal - in both
volume and toxicity - compared to
the other hazard substances at the
site. Frequently these parties have
contributed less than one percent of
the waste at the site. However,
whether individuals qualify for a de
minimis settlement depends on a
variety of site-specific factors. For
example, the cut-off established for de
minimis eligibility often varies from
site to site. Under previous guidance,
a waste-in list was necessary to make
this determination; however, under
new EPA guidance (7/30/93) it is only
necessary to demonstrate that a
party's contribution is "minimal as
compared to the total waste volume
at the site". Previous guidance
required that the contribution be
minimal as compared to all other
contributors at the site.
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
(DNAPLs): DNAPLs are
contaminants that do not readily mix
with and are more dense than water
in their undiluted form. DNAPLs
include a wide range of chemical
types and mixtures, including
chlorinated solvents, creosote, coal
tars, PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls) and some pesticides.
Chlorinated solvents, the most
prevalent DNAPLs, can sink to great
depths and migrate over large
distances from their release point. As
a result, DNAPLs can be difficult to
locate in the subsurface and often go
undetected. As DNAPLs migrate
through the subsurface, a portion
becomes trapped in the soil pore
spaces or fractures and the remainder
January 1995
A-2
-------
GLOSSARY
can continue to migrate or form
pools in the soil or aquifer matrix.
The portion of DNAPLs that can
continue to migrate is called free-
phase DNAPLs. DNAPLs make
groundwater cleanup more difficult
because, even though they do not
mix, they slowly release dissolved
chemicals over a long time, forming
a plume of contaminants in the
groundwater adjacent to the
DNAPLs.
Downgradient: Wells that are
downgradient of the contaminated
plume are located outside the area of
contamination and in the direction
of the movement of the
groundwater.
Emergency Removal: A response to
ongoing, immediate endangerment
(e.g., fire, spill, threat of explosion or
catastrophic release).
Explanation of Significant
Differences: When significant
changes are made to a component of
a remedy that do not fundamentally
alter the overall approach intended
by the remedy, an Explanation of
Significant Differences is prepared.
For example, a change in the cost of
the remedy would qualify as a
significant change and an
Explanation of Significant Differences
would be prepared. The Explanation
of Significant Differences is made
available to the public; however, a
formal public comment period and
public meeting are not required. An
Explanation of Significant Differences
is not a new ROD and is not recorded
as such in CERCLIS.
Fund-lead Site: A Fund-lead site is
defined as a site where all site study
(RI/FS), design (RD) and construction
(RA) events have been or are now
being paid for by the Superfund.
(Some State dollars also may have
been spent.)
Future Land Use: Future land use is
defined as anticipated future site use
and future use of the land
surrounding the site after the remedy
is implemented.
General Notice Letter: A general
notice letter is a letter sent by EPA
informing recipients of their
potential liability for cleanup actions
at the site. It is usually sent out as
parties are identified to simply
inform them of their potential
liability.
Generator/Transporter: A generator
is a party that "generated" hazardous
substances that were then transported
to the site. A transporter is anyone
who brought waste to the site.
Groundwater: Groundwater is
defined as fresh water found beneath
the earth's surface, which is often
used for supplying wells and springs,
and is grouped into classes according
to its intended use.
Groundwater Classifications: To help
achieve consistency among
programs, groundwater classification
guidelines, based on the policy that
different groundwaters have
different intended uses that merit
different levels of protection, were
developed by EPA. Groundwater is
classified based upon ecological
importance, replaceability, and
A-3
January 1995
-------
GLOSSARY
vulnerability considerations. The
Federal classification scheme
distinguishes between groundwaters
that are currently used for drinking
water purposes, those that are
potentially usable for drinking and
those that, due to poor quality or
insufficient quantity, are not suitable
for drinking water purposes. States
also may have their own unique
classification scheme.
Class I - Groundwater from a sole
source aquifer used for drinking or
flowing to a pristine environment
(e.g., wetlands).
Class Ila - Groundwater currently
used as drinking water, other
sources available.
Class lib - Groundwater that is a
potential drinking water source.
Class II - Usable or potentially
usable as a drinking water source
(ROD does not specify Class Ha or
lib).
Class III - Groundwater that is not
useful for consumption (i.e., high
levels of dissolved solids or very
low recharge rates).
Health and Ecological Risk
Assessment: A risk assessment
characterizes risks, both actual and
potential, posed to human health
and the environment by site
contaminants. Site managers use the
results of the assessment to help
determine appropriate remedies for
addressing the risks posed by the site.
Liquid Waste: Liquid waste includes
leachate (solution produced by
movement of liquid through
contaminated soil, solid or hazardous
waste), as well as any liquid waste
materials found in storage tanks, pits,
holding ponds, etc.
Long-Term Response Action: Long-
term response action is defined as a
response action undertaken for the
purpose of restoring groundwater or
surface water quality. These actions
require a continuous period of on-
site activity before the cleanup levels,
specified in the ROD or Action
Memorandum, are achieved. For
Superfund-financed Remedial
Actions (RAs) involving treatment
or other measures to restore
contaminated groundwater or surface
water quality, the operation of such
treatment or measures for a period of
up to 10 years after the construction
or installation and commencement
of operation is considered long-term
response action.
Man-made Structures: Man-made
structures include buildings, pipes,
concrete pads, etc.
Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) and Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals (MCLG): Primary
drinking water regulations include
MCLs for specific contaminants.
MCLs are enforceable standards
which apply to specified
contaminants that EPA has
determined have an adverse effect on
human health. MCLs are set at levels
that are protective of human health,
and are set as close to MCLGs as is
feasible taking into account available
treatment technologies and the costs
to large public water systems.
MCLGs, in contrast, are strictly
January 1995
A-4
-------
GLOSSARY
health-based and do not take cost or
feasibility into account. As health
goals, MCLGs are established at levels
at which no known or anticipated
adverse effects on the health of
persons occur and that allow an
adequate margin of safety.
Media/Materials: See Groundwater,
Surface Water, Sediment, Debris,
Liquid Waste, Man-made Structures,
Soil, Sludge, Solid Waste, RCRA
Hazardous Waste
Municipal Solid Waste: Municipal
solid waste often refers to solid waste
generated by households, but may
include some contribution of wastes
from commercial, institutional and
industrial sources as well. As defined
under RCRA, municipal solid waste
contains only those wastes that are
not required to be managed as
hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of
RCRA (e.g., non-hazardous
substances, household hazardous
wastes or small quantity generator
wastes). Although the actual
composition of such wastes varies
considerably at individual sites,
municipal solid waste is generally
composed of large volumes of non-
hazardous substances (e.g., yard
waste, food waste, glass, and
aluminum) and may contain small
quantities of household hazardous
waste (e.g., pesticides and solvents) as
well as small quantity generator
wastes. Many industrial solid wastes
are managed separately from
household wastes, but may enter the
municipal solid waste system.
Municipality: The term
"municipality" refers to any political
subdivision of a State and may
include cities, counties, towns,
townships and other local
government entities.
Natural Attenuation: Natural
attenuation refers to the processes of
biodegradation, dispersion, dilution,
and absorption of contaminants
found in ground water. In limited
situations, where the chemical and
biological conditions of the
contaminated aquifers are favorable,
natural attenuation may be capable of
reducing contaminant concentrations
to acceptable health-based levels over
time. However, for natural
attenuation to be effective, it must
generally be preceded by source
removal or control measures, and
include groundwater monitoring and
effective, reliable institutional
controls to prevent use of the
contaminated groundwater.
Conditions that potentially favor the
use of natural attenuation include:
groundwater that is naturally
unsuitable for consumption; low
mobility contaminants; low
concentrations of contaminants; low
potential for exposure; low projected
demand for future use of the
groundwater; and discharge to
surface water.
"Non-Viable" Responsible Party: A
"non-viable" responsible party is
defined as a party associated with the
site who the Agency cannot locate or
believes is not financially viable.
These parties have no enforcement
potential for either response actions
or cost recovery.
A-5
January 1995
-------
GLOSSARY
Operable Unit: An operable unit is a
discrete action at a site that provides
an incremental step toward
completing site cleanup. Operable
units may address geographical areas
or specific site problems. Operable
units allow certain elements of a
project to be started ahead of others to
lessen the hazards present at the site
and to complete some work elements
ahead of more complex and
hazardous work elements. Thus,
each element (operable unit) can
move at its own rate to completion.
Examples of two separate operable
units are source control and
groundwater cleanup.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M):
O&M encompasses those activities
necessary to ensure the continued
effectiveness of the remedy after the
remedial action goals are met or after
the 10 year long-term response action
period (e.g., groundwater treatment
system). The cost of O&M is borne by
the PRP or a State government.
Therefore, there is no Superfund-
financed O&M.
Orphan Site: Orphan sites are sites
where all the responsible parties are
not financially viable or cannot be
located. There is no enforcement
potential at orphan sites either for
PRP response or cost recovery. The
Superfund will pay for 100 percent of
the study and cleanup costs at such
sites.
Party Associated with the Site: A
party associated with a site is one that
EPA identifies as being potentially
liable under CERCLA, and may
include owners or operators of the
site, generators of the hazardous
substances, or transporters who
disposed of material at the site.
Permanent Water Supply: A
response where a permanent source
of water is provided as a result of
contamination of existing wells. It
does not include the provision of
bottled water or any other temporary
water supply.
Plume: A plume is defined as area of
contaminated groundwater.
Public Water Supply: EPA considers
water supplies to be public if the
water system has at least 15 service
connections or serves an average of
at least 25 year-round residents. EPA
regulations under the Safe Drinking
Water Act apply to all public water
supplies. Certain EPA drinking water
standards also apply to water systems
that regularly serve at least 25 of the
same people for more than 6 months
per year (e.g., rural schools).
RCRA Hazardous Waste: RCRA
hazardous waste includes those
wastes that are required to be
managed as hazardous waste under
Subtitle C of RCRA.
Record of Decision (ROD): The ROD
is the document identifying the
planned remedial action. It is
prepared after completion of the
public comment period on the
Remedial Investigation / Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) and a Proposed Plan
that identifies the Agency's preferred
remedy. The ROD is signed by the
Regional Administrator or the
Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. The ROD can either
January 1995
A-6
-------
GLOSSARY
address the entire site cleanup (more
than one medium), one phase of the
site cleanup (for example, soil
contamination), or determine that no
further action is necessary.
ROD Amendment: After a ROD
is signed, new information might
be generated that could affect the
selected remedy. When the
hazardous waste management
approach selected in the ROD is
reconsidered, it is defined as a
fundamental change to the
remedy. For example, the
innovative technology originally
selected in the ROD did not
perform satisfactorily during the
pilot scale testing, and a decision
was made to switch to another
remedy. When such
fundamental changes are made to
a remedy, the ROD development
process is repeated (revised
proposed plan, public comment
period, public meeting,
responsiveness summary), and a
new ROD is signed (i.e., ROD
amendment).
Removal: A removal is a response
action taken to prevent or mitigate a
threat to public health, welfare or the
environment posed by the release or
potential release of a CERCLA
hazardous substance, or an
imminent or substantial risk posed
by a pollutant or contaminant.
Removal actions funded by EPA are
subject to the statutory limitations of
12 months and $2 million, unless an
exemption is justified.
Sediment: Sediment is soil or other
material that settles to the bottom of
a surface water.
Sidegradient: Wells that are
sidegradient are located beside the
site and the plume but outside the
area of contamination.
Sludge: Sludge is mudlike deposits
covering the ground or at the bottom
of bodies of water. Typically, the
term sludge refers to the material at
the bottom of settling ponds or waste
lagoons.
Soil: Soil includes both surface and
subsurface soil contamination.
Solid Waste: Solid waste includes
those wastes that are not required to
be managed as hazardous wastes
under Subtitle C of RCRA (e.g., non-
hazardous substances, household
hazardous wastes, or small quantity
generator wastes).
Source Control: The elimination of
the cause of continuing
contamination (e.g., removal or
excavation of contaminated soil).
Special Notice Letter: A special
notice letter is a letter from EPA to
the PRPs informing them of their
potential liability and inviting them
to offer to conduct the planned
response actions at the site. This
letter, issued under Section 122(e) of
SARA, triggers a negotiation
moratorium allowing the PRPs to
consider EPA's invitation to
negotiate. EPA cannot conduct
response actions during the
moratorium, except in emergency
situations or where EPA determines
that negotiations are unnecessary
because of the lack of viable parties to
conduct the response action. The
moratorium period varies depending
A-7
January 1995
-------
GLOSSARY
on the response action (i.e., RI/FS vs.
RD/RA) to be conducted and can be
extended if necessary. Special notice
letters are commonly issued twice
during the Superfund cleanup
pipeline - just prior to the initiation
of the RI/FS and at the time the
cleanup alternative is selected and
just prior to the RD/RA. The special
notice letter signals the start of
negotiations.
Stabilization: A response to
potential, significant threats (e.g.,
drain lagoon that could overflow and
release hazardous materials).
Surface Cleanup: A response where
obstacles to safe and efficient
assessment and remedial work are
removed (e.g., drum removal).
Surface Water: Surface water
includes rivers, ponds, reservoirs,
lakes, lagoons or other natural or
man-made water bodies.
"To Be Considered" Criteria: To be
considered criteria (TBCs) are non-
promulgated advisories or guidance
issued by Federal or State
government that are not legally
binding and do not have the status of
potential ARARs. However, in
many circumstances, TBCs will be
considered along with ARARs as part
of the site risk assessment and may be
used in determining the necessary
level of cleanup for protection of
human health or the environment.
Upgradient: Wells that are
upgradient of the contaminated
plume are located outside the area of
contamination and in the opposite
direction from the movement of the
groundwater. Upgradient wells are
commonly used to collect
background information during field
investigations because it is highly
unlikely they would be affected by
contamination from the site. There
are situations where "upgradient"
wells could become contaminated,
including intensive groundwater
pumping in the area that causes
changes in the well intake zone or
changes in the direction of the
groundwater flow as a result of tidal
or other natural influences.
Waste-In List: A volumetric ranking
or "waste-in" list is an inventory of
all the off-site waste generators
involved at a site and the waste
contribution of each. A waste-in list
can be prepared by either the EPA or
the PRPs. Organized in descending
order of contribution volume, this
ranking facilitates determination of
each party's relative contribution to
the site in order to facilitate
settlement. It may also assist EPA in
making a determination of which
parties, if any, should be considered
de minimis waste contributors.
Although an extensive waste-in list
frequently identifies some number of
de minimis parties, some sites where
a waste-in list has been (or could be)
prepared may not involve any de
minimis parties.
January 1995
A-8
-------
Appendix B
RPM Data Base Structure and
Data Element Dictionary
-------
APPENDIX B
RPM SITE DATA BASE STRUCTURE
AND DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY
HOW IS THE DATA STRUCTURED?
To facilitate use of the data by researchers, the RPM Site Data Base was organized
into a two-tiered data structure (see the data structure chart following this
overview). The top layer of this structure contains site-level information and the
bottom layer contains related information that is linked to the site and arranged into
logical groupings (files). For example, all groundwater information associated with
sites is contained in the Groundwater Characteristics file (E1500).
WHAT'S IN THE RPM SITE DATA BASE?
The data base contains files that are populated by fields. A file is like a folder that
contains information grouped by some common set of criteria. For example, the
Site File (E0600) contains information that describes general characteristics of the site
(e.g., location). The data that populates the file are called fields. Each field has a
unique number that identifies it and a unique element name as shown below:
E0600 (Site File) FILE
C0110 FIELD
Street Address FULL NAME
C0110 (the field number) and the corresponding field name (Street Address) are both
contained in the E0600 Site File. Exhibit I lists the files and fields contained in each
file in the RPM Site Data Base.
In addition to the data collected during RPM interviews, data from the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) have been included in the data base to provide
important site identification information (e.g., Region, State, locational
information) as well as key fields that relate site- and project-level information (e.g.,
facility identification number, operable unit). CERCLIS fields numbers begin with
the letter C, while the RPM Site Data field numbers begin with the letter E.
B-l January 1995
-------
Exhibit I
RPM Site Data Files and Fields
EPA Facility ID*
Site Name
Region
State
Street Address
City
Zip Code
County
Congressional District
Federal Facility Indicator
SMSA
RPM/OSC Name
RPM/OSC Phone
NPL Status
Latitude
Longitude
Lat/Long Source
Lat/Long Accuracy
USGS Hydro Unit
Contaminating Facility's Status
Contamination Before 1980
Cotamination in 1980 or Later
Cotamination in 1987 or Later
Illegal Activities Indicator
Expected Construction Completion
Estimated Total PRPs
Off-site Gen/Tran Indicator
PRPs Issued Notice Letters
Waste-In List: Existence
Waste-In List: Author
Waste-In List: Release
PRPs: Waste Contribution^ %
Site File fEOSOO)
PRPs: Estimated De Minimis
PRPs: Potential Non-viable
Non-viable PRPs: Owner/Oper
Non-viable PRPs: Gen/Tran
Waste Volume % Due to Orphan Gen/Tran
Waste Volume % Data Source
Orphan Site Indicator
PRPs: Gen/Tran Muni Waste
PRPs: Municipal Gen/Tran
Fund-Lead Future Takeover Indicator
PRPs: Municipal Owner/Oper
Municipal Solid Waste %
Removal Action Count
Additional Op Unit Indicator
Natural Attenuation of Plume
Risk Assess: Human GW Consumption
Risk Assess: Human GW Consumption
People Using Aquifer DW
Wells Shut Down: Indicator
Wells Shut Down: # People Affected
Wells Threatened: Indicator
Wells Threatened: # People Affected
Site Cost > $20M
Site Cost: Estim. PRP Expenditure
PRP Contribution at Event
Number of Operable Units
Additional Op Unit Count
Site Duration
Stage of Most Advanced OU
Stage of Least Advanced OU
DNAPL Likelihood
OU Cost Estimate/O&M (E1300)
EPA Facility ID*
Site Name
Region
Federal Facility Indicator
Operable Unit ID*
Operable Unit Name
Op Unit Total Capital Cost
Op Unit O&M Duration
Op Unit O&M Avg. Cost
Op Unit O&M Life Cost
Natural Attenuation Indicator
Current Status of the OU
Groundwater Characteristics (E1500)
EPA Facility ID* Federal Facility Indicator
Site Name Groundwater Characteristic Type*
Region Groundwater Characteristic Code
Site/Op i
EPA Facility ID*
Site Name
Region
Federal Facility Indicator
Operable Unit ID*
Operable Unit Name
Site/Op Unit Land Use Type*
Site/Op Unit Land Use
Materials/Cleanup Stanc
EPA Facility ID*
Site Name
Region
Federal Facility Indicator
Operable Unit ID*
Operable Unit Name
Materials*
Basis for Cleanup Std
SIC Codes (E1400)
EPA Facility ID*
Site Name
Region
Federal Facility Indicator
SIC Code*
SIC Code, Current Past Indicator
Outlier Site Characteristics (E1600)
EPA Facility ID* Federal Facility Indicator
Site Name Outlier Factor Type*
Region Outlier Factors
Outlier Factors-Primary Factor Qualifier
Events/Actions f E23001
EPA Facility ID*
Site Name
Region
Federal Facility Indicator
Operable Unit ID*
Operable Unit Name
Event Type*
Event Sequence Number
Event Lead Responsibility
Event Complete, Plan
Event Start: Actual
Event Complete: Actual
Primary Objective of Removal
Removal Precluded Op Unit
Programmatic Sort Order Removal Implemented Rl/FS
Key Fields
January 1995
Summary Enforcement (E9000)
Waste-In List Possibility
Minimal Contamination Contribution
B-2
-------
How Do I USE THE DATA BASE?
Each of the files in the data base contain unique information that is accessed via
"key fields". Key fields are used to define a unique element and to link or relate two
data bases. As explained above, a file is unique and contains information specific
only to that particular file. To access those elements that are relevant to a query, key
fields are used. For example, if querying on a particular material, the E2450
(Materials/Cleanup Standards) file is used. To determine specifically which
material is being addressed (matched) to which Operable Unit, the Operable Unit ID
must be used. Therefore, there is a key for the Operable Unit in the E2450 file that
provides for the required relationship between the E2450 file and the E2200 (Site/Op
Unit Land Uses) file from which the Operable Unit information is taken. This
"link" takes the desired Operable Unit ID and Name fields from the applicable data
base and "imports" them into the E2450 file. This key field "link" allows for the
operable unit information to be contained in the same file as the Materials/Cleanup
Standards file (E2450).
The following is an example of how to use the data base and its key fields to query
data. As illustrated in this example, both fields that contain "codes" and fields that
contain the full "name" of the code have been provided in the data base.
Using Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, identify for both current
and past, municipal landfills.
Data Information
The response to this question is contained in data fields E1401 (SIC Code),
E1402 (SIC Code - Full Name) and E1403 (SIC Code - Past/Current Indicator).
The E1401 field is found in the E1400 (SIC Code) file in the Data Element
Dictionary (DED). Associated with E1401 are the actual SIC Codes used in site
classification (00, 01, 02, etc.). For example, a user seeking information on
municipal landfills would query on E1401 = 4C.
The E1402 field also is found in the E1400 (SIC Code) file. This field provides
the full name of each of the SIC Codes identified in E1401, and could be used
to print out the name for the 4C code - "Municipal Landfill" - on a report.
The E1403 field also is in the E1400 (SIC Code) file. This field indicates
whether the selected SIC code appearing in E1401 applies to a current or past
use at a site.
Although the EPA Facility ID (C0101) is not listed here, it is a KEY FIELD in the
E1400 file and, therefore, must be utilized to link SIC code data to the applicable site.
Because the EPA ID is a unique identifier, it ensures that all SIC Code information
B-3 January 1995
-------
accessed is unique to a site with the applicable EPA ID. Key fields in each of the RPM
Site Data Base files are identified in the Data Element Dictionary that follows.
How Do I USE THE DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY?
The RPM Site Data Base DED is utilized primarily by programmers to assist in
developing queries of the data. The data structure chart following this overview
illustrates the two-tier structure created to relate the data. The chart also delineates
each of the files maintained in the data base (e.g., E0600, E1300).
The DED presents files and fields in alpha-numeric order and contains the following
information:
• File - a unique number and name appearing in the top left hand corner of the
page that identifies the file containing the fields (e.g., E1400: SIC Codes);
• Field - a unique number, not related to the question number in the RPM Survey,
that identifies the field (e.g., C0101 = EPA Facility ID);
• Full Name - a unique name associated with the field (e.g., EPA Facility ID);
• Typ - the type of field (i.e., character, numeric, or date);
• Len - the length of the field (i.e., how many characters or numbers the field
contains);
• Description - a description of the field that includes the valid codes associated
with the field that can be used for data queries; and
• Ques Num - the RPM survey question number(s) that the field supports.
Used together, the RPM Survey, the DED, and the structure chart are instrumental
in understanding the content and relationship between the RPM Site Data Base files.
This understanding is essential for building queries.
January 1995 B-4
-------
DATA STRUCTURE
RPM SITE DATA BASE
SITE
(E0600)
OU Cost Est/
O&M
(E1300)
SIC Codes
(E1400)
GW
Characteristics
(E1500)
Outlier Site
Characteristics
(E1600)
Site/Op Unit
Land Uses
(E2200)
Events/
Actions
(E2300)
Materials/
Cleanup Stds
(E2450)
Summary
Enforcement
(E9000)
LEGEND:
xk
A
Min. Occur
1
0
Max. Occur.
Many
Many
-------
This Page Intentionally
Left Blank
January 1995 B-6
-------
08/08/94
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 1
E0600 : Site File
Field Nun Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Num
Key C0101 EPA Facility ID
C0001 Region
C0002 State
12 A unique identification number used to identify a
Superfund site. It is assigned by the Region
using EPA's Facility Index system. It is the
primary key of all of the files and thus
is found in all files in this data dictionary.
2 Code that identifies the EPA Region in which the
site is physically located, or the Region
responsible for response activity.
01 = CT, MA, ME, NH, VT
02 = NJ, NY, PR, VI
03 = DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
04 = AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
05 = IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
06 = AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
07 = IA, KS, MO, NE
08 = CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
09 = AS, AZ, CM, GU, HI, MQ, NN, NV, PI, TT, WQ
10 = AK, ID, OR, WA
2 Code that identifies the state or territory in
which a site is located.
AK = Alaska
AL = Alabama
AR = Arkansas
AS = American Samoa
AZ = Arizona
CA = California
CM = Northern Marianas
CO = Colorado
CT = Connecticut
DC = D.C.
DE = Delaware
FL = Florida
GA = Georgia
GU = Guam
HI = Hawaii
IA = Iowa
ID = Idaho
IL = Illinois
IN = Indiana
tCS = Kansas
KY = Kentucky
LA = Louisiana
MA = Massachusetts
MD = Maryland
ME = Maine
MI = Michigan
MN = Minnesota
MO = Missouri
MQ = Midway
MS = Mississippi
MT = Montana
NC = North Carolina
ND = North Dakota
NE = Nebraska
NH = New Hampshire
NJ = New Jersey
NM = New Mexico
NN = Navajo Nation
NV = Nevada
NY = New York
OH = Ohio
OK = Oklahoma
OR = Oregon
PA = Pennsylvania
PI = Pacific Islands
PR = Puerto Rico
RI = Rhode Island
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Field Hum Full Name
Typ Len Description
C0002 State (continued)
C0104
C0110
Site Name
Street Address
SC = South Carolina
SD = South Dakota
TN = Tennessee
TT = Trust Territ.
TX = Texas
UT = Utah
VA = Virginia
VI = Virgin Islands
VT = Vermont
WA = Washington
UI = Wisconsin
UQ = Wake Island
UV = West Virginia
WY = Wyoming
C 40 The official site name for a Superfund site
from the Federal Register.
C 40 Physical location of a site.
com
City
C0112 Zip Code
C0120 County Name
C0121 County Code
C0130 Congressional District
C0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Code
E0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Name
C0140 SMSA
C0204 RPM/OSC Name
C0205 RPM/OSC Phone
C0305 NPL Status Type
E0305 NPL Status - Name
C0322 Latitude
C 25 Name of the city, town, village, or other
municipality in which a site is located.
C 9 Zip code that identifies the USPS delivery area in
which a site is located.
C 25 Name of the county where site is located.
C 3 Code that identifies the county where the site is
located.
C 2 The congressional district in which the site is
located.
C 1 Code that identifies whether or not the site is a
federal facility.
Y = Yes
N = No
D = Status Undetermined
C 22 Name of the indicator depicting whether or
not the site is a federal facility.
Federal Facility
Not a Federal Facility
Status Undetermined
C 4 Code that identifies the standard metropolitan
statistical area in which a site is located.
C 20 The name of the OSC in charge of the incident or
the RPM in charge of the site.
C 10 The phone number of the OSC in charge of the
incident or the RPM in charge of the site.
C 1 Code that identifies the status of an NPL site.
D = Deleted
F = Final
' '= Blank
C 26 Name of the status of an NPL site.
Deleted from the Final NPL
Currently on the Final NPL
Blank
C 10 The latitude of a site, expressed as degrees,
minutes, seconds, tenths, and hundredths of a
seconds.
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 3
Field Num Full Name
Typ Len Description
Ques Nurr
C0323
C0326
Longitude
Lat/Long Source Type
E0326
Lat/Long Source - Name
11 The longitude of the site or incident, expressed
in degrees, minutes, seconds, tenths and
hundredths of a seconds.
1 The source of the site or incident Iat/long
coordinates. For example, GPS, Topo. map,
zip code.
E = EPIC
G = Geograph
R = Regional
' '= Blank
50 Name of the source of the site or incident
1 at/long coordinates.
Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center (EPIC)
GEOGRAPH Database
Regional, Researched by the Region
Blank
C0327
Lat/Long Accuracy Type
E0327
Lat/Long Accuracy - Name
C0364
USGS Hydro Unit
1 Indicator of the accuracy/precision of the site
latitude/longitude data.
1 = 1/100 of a Second
2 = 1/10 of a Second
3=1 Second
4 = 10 Seconds
5 = 30 Seconds
6 = 1 Minute
7 = 10 Minutes
8 = 30 Minutes
9 = 1 Degree
16 Name of the indicator of the accuracy/precision
of the site latitude/longitude data.
1/100 of a Second
1/10 of a Second
1 Second
10 Seconds
30 Seconds
1 Minute
10 Minutes
30 Minutes
1 Degree
8 The hydrologic location of a site, as designed by
the USGS and the US Water Resources Council. Site
USGS Hydro Unit corresponds to a location on a
USGS State hydrologic unit map.
-------
08/08/94
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
E0600
Site File
Field Num Full Name
Typ Len Description
Qu
E0601
E0701
E0602
E0702
E0603
E0703
E0604
E0704
E0605
E0705
Contaminating Facility's Status-Name
Contamination Before 1980-Name
Contamination Before 1980-Code
Contamination in 1980 or Later-Name
Contamination in 1980 or Later-Code
Contamination in 1987 or Later-Name
Contamination in 1987 or Later-Code
Illegal Activities Indicator-Name
Illegal Activities Indicator-Code
14 Name of the indicator of whether the on-site facility
responsible for the contamination is still
operating.
Don't Know
No
Not Applicable
Yes
Contaminating Facility's Status - Code C 1
Code indicating whether the on-site facility
responsible for the contamination is still
operating.
D = Don't Know
N = No
X = Not Applicable
Y = Yes
10 Name of the indicator of whether the source
contamination occurred before 1980.
Don't Know
No
Yes
1 Code indicating whether the source contamination
occurred before 1980.
D = Don't Know
N = No
Y = Yes
10 Name of the indicator of whether the source
contamination occurred in 1980 or later.
Don't Know
No
Yes
1 Code indicating whether the source contamination
occurred in 1980 or later.
D = Don't Know
N = No
Y = Yes
10 Name of the indicator of whether the source
contamination occurred in 1987 or later.
Don't Know
No
Skip
Yes
1 Code indicating whether the source contamination
occurred in 1987 or later.
D = Don't Know
N = No
S = Skip
Y = Yes
14 Name of the indicator of whether the contaminating
activities were illegal at the time.
Definitely not
Probably not
Uncertain
Definitely yes
Probably yes
2 Code indicating whether the contaminating activities
were illegal at the time.
ND = Definitely not
NP = Probably not
UN = Uncertain
YD = Definitely yes
YP = Probably yes
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 5
Field Num Full Name
Typ Len Description
Ques Num
E0606 Expected Construction Completion
E0607 Estimated Total PRPs: Range-Name
E0707 Estimated Total PRPs: Range-Code
E0608
Off-site Gen/Tran Indicator-Name
E0708
Off-site Gen/Tran Indicator-Code
E0609
PRPs Issued Notice Letters: Range-Name
4 The calendar year in which E10
construction completion is expected
at the site.
10 Name of the range for estimated total E13
number of parties associated with the
site who could be held liable under
CERCLA whether EPA decides to pursue or not.
0
10
14
1
2 -
11
51 •
101
501
10
50
100
- 500
- 1000
> 1000
Don't Know
The code for the range for estimated total
number of parties associated with the site
who could be held liable under CERCLA
whether EPA decides to pursue or not.
01 = 0
E13
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
1
2 -
11
51 •
101
501
10
50
100
- 500
- 1000
= > 1000
99 = Don't Know
Name of the indicator of whether any
hazardous substances were contributed
to the site by off-site generators/
transporters.
Don't Know
No
Skip
Yes
Code indicating whether any hazardous
substances were contributed to the
site by off-site generators/transporters.
D = Don't Know
N = No
S = Skip
Y = Yes
Name of the range of the total number of
PRPs issued General or Special Notice
Letters.
0
1
2 - 10
11 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
> 1000
Not Applicable
Don't Know
Skip
E14
E14
E15
-------
OS/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 6
Field Num
Full Name
Typ ten Description
Ques Num
E0709
PRPs Issued Notice Letters: Range-Code C
Code for the range of the total number of E15
PRPs issued General or Special Notice Letters.
01 = 0
02
03 = 2 - 10
04 = 11 - 50
05 = 51 - 100
06 = 101 - 500
07 = 501 - 1000
08 => 1000
09 = Not Applicable
99 = Don't Know
S = Skip
E0610
Waste-In List: Existence-Name
E0710
Waste-In List: Existence-Code
E0611
E0711
E0612
Waste-In List: Author-Name
Waste-In List: Author-Code
Waste-In List: Release-Name
E0712
Waste-In List: ReIease-Code
E0613
10 Name of the indicator of whether a Waste-In E18a
List has been prepared.
Don't Know
No
Skip
Yes
1 Code indicating whether a Waste-In List has
been prepared.
D = Don't Know
N = No
S = Skip
Y = Yes
4 Name of who prepared the Waste-In List
EPA
PRPs
Skip
2 Code indicating who prepared the
Waste-In List
01 = EPA
02 = PRPs
S = Skip
10
PRPs: Waste Contribution<1%:Range-Name C 10
E!8a
Name of the indicator of whether the
Waste-In List has been released to all PRPs.
Don't Know
No
Skip
Yes
Code indicating whether the Waste-In List
has been released to all PRPs.
D = Don't Know
N = No
S = Skip
Y = Yes
Name of the estimated range of PRPs
contributing less than one percent
of waste to the site.
0
1
2 - 10
11 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
> 1000
Don't Know
Skip
E18b
El8b
E18C
E18C
E20a
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 7
Field Nun
Full Name
Typ ten Description
Dues Nun
E0713
PRPs: Waste Contribution<1%:Range-Code C
E0614
PRPs: Estimated De Hinimis.-Range-Name C 10
E0714
PRPs: Estimated De Minimis:Range-Code C
E0615
PRPs: Potential Non-viable:Range-Name C 10
E0715
PRPs: Potential Non-viable:Range-Code C
Code of the estimated range of PRPs E20a
contributing less than one percent
of waste to the site.
01 = 0
02 = 1
03 = 2 - 10
04 = 11 - 50
05 = 51 - 100
06 = 101 - 500
07 = 501 - 1000
08 => 1000
99 = Don't Know
S = Skip
Name of the estimated range of PRPs the RPM E20b
thinks will be considered "de minimi's".
0
1
2 - 10
11 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
> 1000
Don't Know
Skip
Code of the estimated range of PRPs the RPH E20b
thinks will be considered "de nrinimis".
01 = 0
02
03 = 2 - 10
04 = 11 - 50
05 = 51 - 100
06 = 101 - 500
07 = 501 - 1000
08 => 1000
99 = Don't Know
S = Skip
Name of the estimated range of PRPs E21
considered potentially financially non-viable.
0
1
2 - 10
11 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
> 1000
Don't Know
Skip
Code of the estimated range of PRPs E21
considered potentially financially non-viable.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
99
S
0
1
2 -
11
51
101
501
10
- 50
- 100
- 500
- 1000
> 1000
Don't Know
Skip
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 8
Field Hum Full Name
Typ ten 'Description
dues Num
E0616
Non-viable PRPs: Owner/Oper:Range-Name C
E0716
E0617
Non-viable PRPs: Gen/Tran:Range-Name
E0717
Non-viable PRPs: Gen/Tran:Range-Code
E0618
Waste Volume % Due to Orphan Gen/Tran
E0619
Waste Volume % Data Source-Name
10 Name of the range of PRP owner/operators
considered potentially non-viable
or unlocatable.
0
1
2-10
11 - 50
> 50
Don't Know
Skip
Non-viable PRPs: Owner/Oper:Range-Code C 02
10
E22
E22
E23
Code of the range of PRP owner/operators
considered potentially non-viable
or unlocatable.
01 = 0
02 = 1
03 = 2 - 10
04 = 11 - 50
05 = > 50
99 = Don't Know
S = Skip
Name of the range of PRPs that are only
generators/transporters and are considered
potentially financially non-viable or
unlocatable.
0
1
2 - 10
11 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
> 1000
Don't Know
Skip
2 Code of the range of PRPs that are only E23
generators/transporters and are considered
potentially financially non-viable or
unlocatable.
01 = 0
02 = 1
03 = 2 - 10
04 = 11 - 50
05 = 51 - 100
06 = 101 - 500
07 = 501 - 1000
08 => 1000
99 = Don't Know
S = Skip
4 The current estimated percentage of the E24
waste volume at the site that can be
attributed to orphan generators/transporters.
0-100 = Real Value
Skip = Skip
999 = Don't Know
21 Name of the source of the estimated E25
percentage of waste volume at the site
that is attributable to orphan
generators/transporters.
Professional Judgment
Skip
Volumetric Data
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA OICTIOMARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 9
Field Hum Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Num
E0719
Waste Volume X Data Source-Code
E0620
Orphan Site Indicator-Name
E0720
Orphan Site Indicator-Code
E0621
PRPs: Gen/Tran Muni. Waste:Range-Name
E0721
PRPs: Gen/Tran Muni. Waste:Range-Code
E0622
PRPs: Municipal Gen/Tran:Range-Name
10
14
10
Code of the source of the estimated E25
percentage of waste volume at the site
that is attributable to orphan
generators/transporters.
PJ = Professional Judgment
S = Skip
VD = Volumetric Data
Name of the indicator of whether the site is E26
an orphan site. (Must the Trust Fund pay
all study & cleanup costs because no
responsible parties can be located or are
financially viable?)
Don't Know
No
Skip
Yes
Code indicating of whether the site is
an orphan site. (Must the Trust Fund pay
all study & cleanup costs because no
responsible parties can be located or are
financially viable?)
D = Don't Know
N = No
S = Skip
Y = Yes
Name of the range of PRPs who are
generators/transporters contributing only
municipal solid waste.
None
1
2 - 10
11 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
> 1000
Don't Know
Not Applicable
Skip
Code of the range of PRPs who are
generators/transporters contributing only
municipal solid waste.
01 = None
1
10
50
100
- 500
- 1000
E26
E29a
E29a
2 -
11 -
51 -
101
501
02
03
04
05
06
07
08 => 1000
99 = Don't Know
NA = Not Applicable
S = Skip
Name of the range of municipal solid
waste generators/transporters who are
municipalities.
None
1
2 - 10
11-50
51 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
> 1000
Skip
E29b
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA. DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 10
Field Nun Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Mum
E0722 PRPs: Municipal Gen/Tran:Range-Code
E0623
Fund-Lead Future Takeover Indicator-Name C 14
E0723
Fund-Lead Future Takeover Indicator-Code C
E0624 PRPs: Municipal Owner/Oper:Range-Name C 10
E0724
PRPs: Municipal Owner/Oper:Range-Code
E0625
Municipal Solid Waste % Range-Name
Code of the range of municipal solid
waste generators/transporters who are
municipalities.
01 = None
1
2 - 10
11 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
E29b
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
S
> 1000
Skip
Name of the indicator of whether Fund-lead
work will begin in the future if it is not
momentarily occurring.
Don't Know
No
Skip
Not Applicable
Yes
1 Code indicating whether Fund-Lead
work will begin in the future if it is not
momentarily occurring.
D = Don't Know
N = No
S = Skip
X = Not Applicable
Y = Yes
E27
E27
Name of the range indicating number of
PRPs, current or former owner/operators,
that are also municipalities.
0
1
2 - 10
11 - 50
> 50
Don't Know
Skip
Code of the range indicating number of
PRPs, current or former owner/operators,
that are also municipalities.
01 = 0
02 = 1
03 = 2 - 10
04 = 11 - 50
05 = > 50
99 = Don't Know
S = Skip
10 Name of the percentage range of municipal
solid waste at the site.
None
E28
E28
E29c
10%
25%
50%
75%
99%
100%
Don't
Skip
1 -
11
26
51
76
Know
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 11
Field Num Full Name
Typ ten Description
Ques Num
E0725
Municipal Solid Waste % Range-Code
E0626
E0627
E0628
E0728
E0629
Municipal Solid Waste %
Removal Action Count
Additional Op Unit Indicator-Name
Additional Op Unit Indicator-Code
Natural Attenuation of Plume-Name
E0729
Natural Attenuation of Plume-Code
E0630
E0730
Risk Assess: Human GW Consumption-Code C
1
Code of the percentage range of
municipal solid waste at the site.
01 = None
Risk Assess: Human GW Consumption-Name C 10
E29c
02
03
04
05
06
1 •
11
26
51
76
10%
- 25%
- 50%
- 75%
- 99%
07 = 100%
99 = Don't
S = Skip
Know
4 Percentage of municipal solid waste at the
site.
1-100 = Percent
Skip = Skip
2 The total number of removal actions under
CERCLA authority, including emergency
actions, conducted at the site.
10 Name of the indicator of whether additional
Operable Units are expected at a site.
Don't Know
No
Yes
1 Code indicating whether additional
Operable Units are expected at a site.
D = Don't Know
N = No
Y = Yes
10 Name of the indicator of whether plume
cleanup relies on natural attenuation.
Don't Know
No
Yes
Skip
E29c
E30
E33a
E33a
E37a
Code indicating whether plume
cleanup relies on natural attenuation.
D = Don't Know
N = No
Y = Yes
S = Skip
Name of the indicator of whether the risk
assessment driving cleanup goals assumes
future human consumption of onsite
contaminated groundwater.
Don't Know
No
Yes
Skip
Code indicating whether the risk
assessment driving cleanup goals assumes
future human consumption of onsite
contaminated groundwater.
D = Don't Know
N = No
Y = Yes
S = Skip
E37a
E37b
E37b
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 12
Field Num Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Num
E0631
Risk Assess: Hunan GU Consumption DG
- Name
E0731
Risk Assess: Human GU Consumption DG
- Code
E0632
People Using Aquifer DW-Name
E0732
People Using Aquifer DW-Code
E0633
Wells Shut Down: Indicator-Name
E0733
Wells Shut Down: Indicator-Code
10 Name of the indicator of whether the risk E37c
assessment driving cleanup goals assumes
future human consumption of groundwater
downgradient from the contaminated plume.
Don't know
No
Yes
Skip
1 Code indicating whether the risk E37c
assessment driving cleanup goals assumes
future human consumption of groundwater
downgradient from the contaminated plume.
D = Don't know
N = No
Y = Yes
S = Skip
16 Name of the range of people served by E40
drinking water supply wells in the aquifer
pertaining to the site.
0
1 - 24
25 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1,000
1,001 - 5,000
5,001 - 10,000
10,001 - 100,000
> 100,000
Don't Know
Skip
2 Code of the range of people served by E40
drinking water supply wells in the aquifer
pertaining to the site.
01 = 0
02 = 1 - 24
03 = 25 - 100
04 = 101 - 500
05 = 501 - 1,000
06 = 1,001 - 5,000
07 = 5,001 - 10,000
08 = 10,001 - 100,000
09 => 100,000
99 = Don't Know
S = Skip
10 Name of the indicator of whether water supply E41a
wells have been shut down or replaced due to
contamination levels above health
requirements.
Don't Know
No
Yes
Skip
1 Code indicating whether water supply E41a
wells have been shut down or replaced due to
contamination levels above health
requirements.
D = Don't Know
N = No
Y = Yes
S = Skip
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 13
Field Hum Full Name
Typ Len Description
Ques Hum
E0634
Wells Shut Down:* People Affected-Name C 16 Name of the range of people who were served E41b
by wells now shut down or replaced.
1 - 24
25 - 200
101 - 500
501 - 1,000
1,001 - 5,000
5,001 - 10,000
10,001 - 100,000
> 100,000
0
Don't Know
Skip
E0734
Wells Shut Down:* People Affected-Code C
Code of the range of people who were served
by wells now shut down or replaced.
01 = 1 - 24
02 = 25 - 200
03 = 101 - 500
04 = 501 - 1,000
05 = 1,001 - 5,000
06 = 5,001 - 10,000
07 = 10,001 - 100,000
08 => 100,000
09 = 0
99 = Don't Know
S = Skip
E41b
E0635
Wells Threatened: Indicator-Name
10
E0735
Wells Threatened: Indicator-Code
E0636
Wells Threatened: # People Affected-Name C 16
E0736
Wells Threatened: # People Affected-Code C 2
Name of the indicator of whether drinking-
water wells are potentially threatened by a
contaminated plume.
Don't Know
No
Yes
Skip
Code indicating whether drinking-water
wells are potentially threatened by a
contaminated plume.
D = Don't Know
N = No
Y = Yes
S = Skip
Name of the range of people who are served
by wells that are potentially threatened.
1 - 24
25 - 200
101 - 500
501 - 1,000
1,001 - 5,000
5,001 - 10,000
10,001 - 100,000
> 100,000
Don't Know
Skip
Code of the range of people who are served
by wells that are potentially threatened.
01 = 1 - 24
02 = 25 - 200
03 = 101 - 500
04 = 501 - 1,000
1,001 - 5,000
5,001 - 10,000
10,001 - 100,000
> 100,000
Don't Know
Skip
E42
E42
£43
E43
05
06
07
08
99
S
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 14
Field Nun Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Hum
E0637
Site Cost > $20M-Name
E0737
Site Cost > $20H-Code
E0638
E0738
Site Cost: Estim. PRP Expenditure-Code C
E0639
E0640
E0641
PRP Contribution at Event - Unknown
PRP Contribution to Removal
PRP Contribution to Remedial Investig.
10 Name of the indicator of whether the
estimated total site cost is expected to
exceed $20 million.
Don't Know
No
Yes
1
Site Cost: Estim. PRP Expenditure-Name C 25
E49
Code indicating whether the estimated
total site cost is expected to
exceed $20 million.
D = Don't Know
N = No
Y = Yes
Name of the dollar range of money spent
or likely to be spent by the PRPs for
site cleanup.
Not Applicable
< $100,000
$100,000 - 500,000
1,000,000
3,000,000
5,000,000
10,000,000
- 15,000,000
- 20,000,000
- 40,000,000
100,000,000
E49
E53a
$500,001 -
$1,000,001
$3,000,001 -
$5,000,001 -
$10,000,001
$15,000,001
$20,000,001
$40,000,001
> $100,000,000
Don't Know
Code of the dollar range of money spent
or likely to be spent by the PRPs for
site cleanup.
00 = Not Applicable
01 =< $100,000
02 = $100,000 - 500,000
03 = $500,001 - 1,000,000
04 = $1,000,001 - 3,000,000
05 = $3,000,001 - 5,000,000
06 = $5,000,001 - 10,000,000
07 = $10,000,001 - 15,000,000
08 = $15,000,001 - 20,000,000
09 = $20,000,001 - 40,000,000
10 = $40,000,001 - 100,000,000
11 => $100,000,000
99 = Don't Know
Indicator of whether the cleanup acti-
vities on which the PRP has or is likely
to spend money is known.
Y = Yes
N = No
Indicator of whether the PRP has or
is likely to spend money on a Removal
at the site
Y = Yes
N = No
Indicator of whether the PRP has or
is likely to spend money on a Remedial
Investigation at the site.
Y = Yes
N = No
E53a
E53b
E53b
E53b
-------
08/08/94
E0600 : Site File
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 15
Field Nun Full Name
Typ Len Description
Dues Num
E0642
E0643
E0644
E0645
E0646
E0647
E0648
E0649
E0650
E0651
E0652
E0752
PRP Contribution to Feasibility Study
PRP Contribution to Remedial Design
PRP Contribution to Remedial Action
PRP Contribution to Long-Term Response C 1
PRP Contribution to Op & Maint.
Number of Operable Units
Additional Op Unit Count
Site Duration
Stage of Most Advanced OU
Stage of Least Advanced OU
DNAPL Likelihood-Name
DNAPL Likelihood-Code
1 Indicator of whether the PRP has or
is likely to spend money on a Feasibility
Study at the site.
Y = Yes
N = No
1 Indicator of whether the PRP has or
is likely to spend money on a Remedial
Design at the site.
Y = Yes
N = No
1 Indicator of whether the PRP has or
is likely to spend money on a Remedial
Action at the site.
Y = Yes
N = No
Indicator of whether the PRP has or
is likely to spend money on a Long-Term
Response at the site.
Y = Yes
N = No
1 Indicator of whether the PRP has or
is likely to spend money on O&M at.
Y = Yes
N = No
3 The total number of Operable Units
currently at the site (not including
planned OUs).
2 The estimated number of additional
Operable Units expected at a site.
2 The number of years from the date of the
NPL Final Listing to the actual or
expected construction completion. This
number is used in conjunction with the
number of Operable Units (E0647) to
compare the site to the National Average.
24 The last completed event for the OU
at the most advanced stage in the
Remedial Pipeline.
24 The last completed event for the OU
at the least advanced stage in the
Remedial Pipeline.
10 Name of the indicator that expresses the
likelihood of DNAPLs being present in the
grounduater at a site.
Definite
High
Low
Medium
Not Applicable
1 Code that expresses the likelihood of
DNAPLs being present in the groundwater
at a site.
D = Definite
H = High
L = Low
M = Medium
X = Not Applicable
E53b
E53b
E53b
E53b
E53b
Derived
(E11)
E33b
Derived
(E11)
Derived
Derived
DNAPL
database
DNAPL
database
-------
08/08/94
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 16
E0600
Site File
Field Num Full Name
Typ Len Description
Ques Num
E0657
DNAPL Goal to DU Standard-Name
E0757
DNAPL Goal to DW Standard-Code
E0658
DNAPL Plume Containment-Name
E0758
DNAPL Plume Containment-Code
14 Name indicating whether, at sites where E46
DNAPL presence is definite or high (E652),
a remedy was selected with a goal of
returning groundwater to all drinking
water standards.
Yes
No
Don't Know
Not Applicable
1 Code indicating whether, at sites where E46
DNAPL presence is definite or high (E752),
a remedy was selected with a goal of
returning groundwater to all drinking
water standards.
Y = Yes
N = No
D = Don't Know
X = Not Applicable
14 Name indicating whether, at sites where E47
DNAPL presence is definite or high (E652),
a remedy was selected with a goal of
containing the plume by pumping.
Yes
No
Don't Know
Blank (not applicable)
1 Code indicating whether, at sites where E47
DNAPL presence is definite or high (E652),
a remedy was selected with a goal of
containing the plume by pumping.
Y = Yes
N = No
D = Don't Know
"= Blank (not applicable)
-------
08/08/94
E1300 : OU Cost Estimate/O&M
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 17
Field Nun Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Num
Key C0101 EPA Facility ID
C0104
C0001
Site Name
Region
C0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Code
E0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Name
Key C1101 Operable Unit ID
C11CK Operable Unit Name
E1301 Op Unit Total Capital Cost Code
12 A unique identification number used to
identify a Superfund site. It is assigned
by the Region using EPA's Facility Index
system. It is the primary key of all of
the files and thus is found in all files
in this data dictionary.
40 The official site name for a Superfund site from
the Federal Register.
2 Code that identifies the EPA Region in which the
site is physically located, or the Region
responsible for response activity.
01 = CT, MA, ME, NH, VT
02 = NJ, NY, PR, VI
03 = DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
04 = AL, FL, GA, ICY, MS, NC, SC, TN
05 = IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH, WI
06 = AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
07 = IA, KS, MO, NE
08 = CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, UY
09 = AS, AZ, CM, GU, HI, MQ, NN, NV, PI, TT, WQ
10 = AK, ID, OR, WA
1 Code that identifies whether or not the site is a
federal facility.
Y = Yes
N = No
D = Status Undetermined
22 Name of the indicator depicting whether or not
the site is a federal facility.
Status Undetermined
Not a Federal Facility
Federal Facility
2 A designation of the Operable Unit at E31
which events are occurring.
The designation is required to
relate events to operable units for
site/project and incident planning and
tracking.
30 The official name of the Operable Unit as
determined by the Region.
2 Two digit code for the Current Expected E48
Total Capital Cost of cleanup for the
Operable Unit.
01 =< $100,000
02 = $100,000 - 500,000
03 = $500,001 - 1,000,000
04 = $1,000,001 - 3,000,000
05 = $3,000,001 - 5,000,000
06 = $5,000,001 - 10,000,000
07 = $10,000,001 - 15,000,000
08 = $15,000,001 - 20,000,000
09 = $20,000,001 - 40,000,000
10 = $40,000,001 - 100,000,000
11 => $100,000,000
99 = Don't Know
-------
08/08/94
E1300 : OU Cost Estimate/O&M
RESEARCHERS DATA 01CTIOKARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 18
Field Num Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Num
E1302
Op Unit Total Capital Cost Range
E1303
Op Unit O&M Duration Code
E1304
Op Unit O&M Duration Range
E1305
Op Unit O&M Avg. Cost Code
25
E1306
Op Unit O&M Avg. Cost Range
The dollar range of the Op Unit Total E48
Capital Cost.
< $100,000
$100,000 - 500,000
$500,001 - 1,000,000
$1,000,001 - 3,000,000
$3,000,001 - 5,000,000
$5,000,001 - 10,000,000
$10,000,001 - 15,000,000
$15,000.001 - 20,000,000
$20,000,001 - 40,000,000
$40,000,001 - 100,000,000
> $100,000,000
Don't Know
10
Two digit code for the Current expected
length in years of required Operation &
Maintenance program for the Operable Unit.
00 = Not Reqd
01 = 0 - 3
02 = 4 - 10
03 = 11 - 20
04 = 21 - 30
05 = > 30
99 = Don't Know
The range of years for the estimated
duration of O&M at the Op Unit.
Not Reqd
0 - 3
4 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
> 30
Don't Know
Two digit code for the estimated average
annual Operations & Maintenance cost
for the Operable
Unit.
00
16
E51
E51
E52a
$0
01 = $1 -
500
1,
000
3,000
5,000
7,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
50,000
02 = $501 -
03 = $1,001
04 = $3,001
05 = $5,001
06 = $7,001
07 = $10,001
08 = $20,001
09 = $30,001 -
10 => $50,000
99 = Don't Know
S = Skip
The range of the estimated Average Annual
O&M Cost at the Op Unit.
$0
$1 - 500
$501 - 1,000
$1,001 - 3,000
$3,001 - 5,000
$5,001 - 7,000
$7,001 - 10,000
$10,001 - 20,000
$20,001 - 30,000
$30,001 - 50,000
> $50,000
Don't Know
Skip
E52a
-------
08/08/94
E1300 : OU Cost Estimate/O&M
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTKJKARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 19
Field Nun Full Name
Typ Len Description
Ques Hum
E1307
Op Unit O&M Life Cost Code
E1308 Op Unit O&M Life Cost Range
E1309 Natural Attenuation Indicator
23
E1310 Current Status of the OU
Two digit code for the estimated cost over E52b
the life of the Operations & Maintenance
program for the Operable Unit.
00 = 0
01 = $500 - 1,000
02 = $1,001 - 5,000
03 = $5,001 - 20,000
04 = $20,001 - 100,000
05 = $100,001 - 1,000,000
06 = $1,000,001 - 5,000,000
07 = $5,000,001 - 20,000,000
08 = > $20,000,000
99 = Don't Know
S = Skip
E52b
The range of the estimated Lifetime
Cost of O&M at the OP Unit.
0
$500 - 1,000
$1,001 - 5,000
$5,001 - 20,000
$20,001 - 100,000
$100,001 - 1,000,000
$1,000,001 - 5,000,000
$5,000,001 - 20,000,000
> $20,000,000
Don't Know
Skip
10 Indicator of whether the groundwater plume E37a
contamination will be remedied by natural
attenuation.
Don't Know
No
Yes
24 Name of the most advanced event (cleanup
action) at the operable unit.
Derived
-------
08/08/94
E1400 : SJC Codes
Pa
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Field Nun Full Name
Typ Len Description
Ques Num
Key C0101 EPA Facility ID
C0104 Site Name
C0001 Region
C0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Code
E0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Name
Key E1401 SIC Code
12 A unique identification number used to
identify a Super-fund site. It is assigned
by the Region using EPA's Facility Index
system. It is the primary key of all of
the files and thus is found in
the Federal Register.
40 The official site name for a Superfund site from
the Federal Register.
2 Code that identifies the EPA Region in which the
site is physically located, or the Region
responsible for response activity.
01 = CT, MA, ME, NH, VT
02 = NJ, NY, PR, VI
03 = DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
04 = AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
05 = IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
06 = AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
07 = IA, KS, MO, NE
08 = CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
09 = AS, A2, CM, GU, HI, MQ, NN, NV, PI, TT, WQ
10 = A(C, ID, OR, WA
1 Code that identifies whether or not the site is a
federal facility.
Y = Yes
N = No
D = Status Undetermined
22 Name of the indicator depicting whether or not
the site is a federal facility.
Status Undetermined
Not a Federal Facility
Federal Facility
2 The first two digits of the Standard E04
Industrial Classification (SIC) code
(supplemented by codes developed by EPA for
Superfund sites) that applies to the site.
SIC 00 = Other
SIC 01 = Agricultural Production - Crops
SIC 02 = Agricultural Production - Livestock
SIC 07 = Agricultural Services (e.g., fumigation
SIC 08 = Forestry
SIC 09 = Fishing, Hunting and Trapping
SIC 10 = Metal Mining
SIC 12 = Coal Mining
SIC 13 = Oil and Gas Extraction
SIC 14 = Nonmetallic Minerals, except fuels
SIC 15 = General Building Contractors
SIC 16 = Heavy Construction, except building
SIC 17 = Special Trade Contractors
SIC 20 = Food and Kindred Products
SIC 24 = Lumber and Wood Products
SIC 26 = Paper and Allied Products
SIC 27 = Printing and Publishing
SIC 28 = Chemicals and Allied Products
SIC 29 = Petroleum and Coal Products
SIC 30 = Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products
SIC 31 = Leather and Leather Products
SIC 32 = Stone, Clay and Glass Products
SIC 33 = Primary Metal Industries
SIC 34 = Fabricated Metal Products
SIC 35 = Industrial Machinery and Equipment
SIC 36 = Electronic & Other Electric Equipment
SIC 37 = Transportation Equipment
SIC 38 = Instruments and Related Products
SIC 40 = Railroad Transportation
SIC 41 = Local and Interurban Passenger Transit
-------
08/08/94
EHOO : SIC Codes
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page. 21
Field Num Full Name
Typ ten Description
dues Num
E1401
SIC Code (continued)
E1402
SIC Code-Full Name
40
SIC 42 = Trucking and Warehousing
SIC 44 = Water Transportation
SIC 45 = Transportation by Air
SIC 46 = Pipelines, except natural gas
SIC 47 = Transportation Services
SIC 49 = Electric, Gas and Sanitary Service
SIC 4A = Co-Disposal Landfill
SIC 48 = Industrial Landfill
SIC 4C = Municipal Landfill
SIC 50 = Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods
SIC 51 = Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods
SIC 52 = Building Materials & Garden Supplies
SIC 55 = Automotive Dealers & Service Stations
SIC 56 = Apparel, and Accessory Stores
SIC 65 = Real Estate
SIC 72 = Personal Services
SIC 73 = Business Services
SIC 75 = Auto Repair, Services and Parking
SIC 76 = Misc. Repair Services
SIC 79 = Amusement & Recreation Services
SIC 80 = Health Services
SIC 82 = Educational Services
SIC 88 = Private Households
SIC 95 = Admin, of Environ. Programs (e.g., USD
SIC 96 = Admin, of Economic Programs (e.g., DOE
SIC 97 = Nat'I Security (e.g., DOD)
SIC 99 = Undeveloped Land (e.g., forests, fields)
SIC 9B = Don't Know
SIC 9X = Abandoned - No Use
The full name of the SIC Code Category.
Other *
Agricultural Production - Crops
Agricultural Production - Livestock
Agricultural Services (e.g., fumigation
Forestry
Fishing, Hunting and Trapping
Metal Mining
Coal Mining
Oil and Gas Extraction
Nonmetallic Minerals, except fuels
General Building Contractors
Heavy Construction, except building
Special Trade Contractors
Food and Kindred Products
Lumber and Wood Products
Paper and Allied Products
Printing and Publishing
Chemicals and Allied Products
Petroleum and Coal Products
Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products
Leather and Leather Products
Stone, Clay and Glass Products
Primary Metal Industries
Fabricated Metal Products
Industrial Machinery and Equipment
Electronic & Other Electric Equipment
Transportation Equipment
Instruments and Related Products
Railroad Transportation
Local and Interurban Passenger Transit
Trucking and Warehousing
Water Transportation
Transportation by Air
Pipelines, except natural gas
Transportation Services
Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services
Co-Disposal Landfill
E04
* Description of "Other" response contained in field if provided by the RPM
-------
08/08/94
E1400 : SIC Codes
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page
Field Nun Full Name
Typ ten Description
dues Mum
E1402
SIC Code-Full Name (continued)
E1403
SIC Code, Current/Past Indicator
Industrial Landfill
Municipal Landfill
Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods
Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods
Building Materials & Garden Supplies
Automotive Dealers & Service Stations
Apparel and Accessory Stores
Real Estate
Personal Services
Business Services
Auto Repair, Services and Parking
Misc. Repair Services
Amusement & Recreation Services
Health Services
Educational Services
Private Households
Admin, of Environ. Programs (e.g., USD
Admin, of Economic Programs (e.g., DOE
Nat'I Security (e.g., DOD)
Undeveloped Land (e.g., forests, fields)
Don't Know
Abandoned - No Use
Indicator of whether the SIC code reported
in E1401 applies to current or past use
at a site.
Current
Past
E04
-------
08/08/94
E1500 : Groundwater Characteristics
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 23
Field Hum Full Name
Typ Len Description
Ques Num
Key C0101 EPA Facility ID
C0104 Site Name
C0001 Region
C0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Code
£0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Name
Key E1501 Groundwater Characteristic Type Code
E1502 Groundwater Characteristic Type-Full
E1503 Groundwater Characteristic Code
12 A unique identification number used to
identify a Superfund site. It is assigned
by the Region using EPA's Facility Index
system. It is the primary key of all of the
files and thus is found in all files in
this data dictionary.
40 The official site name for a Superfund site
from the Federal Register.
2 Code that identifies the EPA Region in which the
site is physically located, or the Region
responsible for response activity.
01 = CT, MA, ME, NH, VT
02 = NJ, NY, PR, VI
03 = DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
04 = AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
05 = IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
06 = AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
07 * IA, KS, MO, NE
08 = CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
09 = AS, AZ, CM, GU, HI, MQ, NN, NV, PI, TT, UQ
10 = AK, ID, OR, WA
1 Code that identifies whether or not the site is a
federal facility.
Y = Yes
N = No
D = Status Undetermined
22 Name of indicator depicting whether or not
the site is a federal facility.
Status Undetermined
Not a Federal Facility
Federal Facility
4 The four digit code that identifies E38a&b,E39
specific categories of groundwater
characteristics. Used in conjunction
with E1503, the two fields provide
detailed characteristics for each
category.
AQFR = Aquifer Discharges
GWCL = Ground Water Classifications
GUUS = Ground Water Use
28 The full name of the type of ground water E38a&b,E39
characteristic used to define a site.
Aquifer Discharges
Ground Water Classifications
Ground Water Use
2 The code of the specific groundwater E38a&b,E39
characteristic that applies to the site.
It is used in conjunction with E1501
to define specific characteristics of the
groundwater.
E1501 E1503
AQFR 01 = Discharges to a drinking water
aquifer
AQFR 02 = Discharges to surface water
AQFR 03 = Discharges to a sensitive
ecological environment
AQFR 04 = Other
AQFR 05 = None of These
AQFR 06 = Not Applicable
AQFR 99 = Don't Know
GWCL 1 = Class I
GWCL 2 = Class II
-------
08/08/94
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 24
E1500 : Groundwater Characteristics
Field Nun
Full Name
Typ ten Description
dues Mum
E1503
Groundwater Characteristic Code (continued)
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
Ila
lib
III
Know
Class NP
State Classification
AG = Agricultural
CD = Commercial/Recreational
(Drinking water)
CN = Commercial/Recreational
(Non-drinking water)GWUS
DK = Don't Know
ID = Industrial (Drinking water)
IN = Industrial (Non-drinking
water)
NU = Not Currently in Use
PU = Public water supply
WD = Private well-domestic use
UN = Private well-non drinking
water use only
El 504
Groundwater Characteristics - Full Name C 60
The full name of the code that identifies E38a&b, E39
the specific groundwater characteristics that
apply to the site.
E1504
Discharges to a drinking water
aquifer
Discharges to surface water
Discharges to a sensitive
ecoIog i caI envi ronment
Other *
None of These
Not Applicable
AQFR
AQFR
AQFR
AQFR
AQFR
AQFR
GWCL
GWCL
GWCL
GWCL
GWCL
GWCL
GWCL
GWCL
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
GWUS
Don't Know
Class I
Class II
Class Ila
Class lib
Class III
Don't Know
Class NP
State Classification
Agricultural
Commercial/Recreational
(Drinking water)
Commercial/Recreational
Don't Know
Industrial (Drinking water)
Industrial (Non-drinking
water)
Not Currently in Use
Public water supply
Private well-domestic use
Private well-non drinking
water use only
* Description of "Other" response contained in field if provided by the RPM
-------
08/08/94
E1600 : Outlier Site Characteristics
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 25
Field Num Full Name
Typ ten Description
dues Num
Key C0101 EPA Facility ID
CO104 Site Name
C0001 Region
C0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Code
E0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Name
Key E1601 Outlier Factor Type Code
E1602 Outlier Factor Type-Full Name
E1603 Outlier Factors Code
C 12 A unique identification number used to
identify a Superfund site. It is assigned
by the Region using EPA's Facility Index
system. It is the primary key of all of
the files and thus is found in this data
dictionary.
C 40 The official site name for a Superfund site
from the Federal Register.
C 2 Code that identifies the EPA Region in which the
site is physically located, or the Region
responsible for response activity.
01 = CT, MA, ME, NH, VT
02 - NJ, NY, PR, VI
03 = DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
04 = AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
05 = IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, UI
06 = AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
07 = IA, KS, MO, NE
08 = CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
09 = AS, AZ, CM, GU, HI, MQ, NN, NV, PI, TT, WQ
10 = AK, ID, OR, WA
C 1 Code that identifies whether or not the site is a
federal facility.
Y = Yes
N = No
D = Status Undetermined
C 22 Name of indicator depicting whether or not
the site is a federal facility.
Status Undetermined
Not a Federal Facility
Federal Facility
C 4 The four digit code that identifies the E11,E12,E50
specific outlier factor being analyzed.
Used in conjunction with E1603, the two
fields provide an explanation for why a
site is an outlier in a specific category.
CCMF = Capital Cost Major Factors
RSNL = Reasons for Greater than Nat I.
Avg.
RSNS = Reasons for Shorter than Nat I.
Avg.
C 35 The full name of the factor type that E11,E12,E50
identifies an outlier category.
Capital Cost Major Factors
Reasons for Greater than Nat I. Avg.
Reasons for Shorter than Nat I. Avg.
C 2 The coded value that identifies the E11,E12,E50
specific reason for a site falling into
an outlier category.
E1601 El603
CCMF 01 = Large vol. of highly
contaminated soil/sludge/
solid waste
CCMF 02 = Large volume of soil overall
CCMF 03 = Large volume of contaminated
sediment
CCMF 04 = Large volume of contaminated
groundwater
CCMF 05 = Site hazards pose danger to
cleanup workers
CCMF 06 = Complex hydrogeology
-------
08/08/94
Pa<
RESEARCHERS DATA OICTIOKARY - FILE STRUCTURES
E1600
Outlier Site Characteristics
Field Num
Full Name
Typ Len Description
Ques Num
E1603
Outlier Factors Code (continued)
El601 El603
CCMF 07 = Complex mixture of contaminants
CCMF 08 = High unit cost of treat, of
soil/sludge/solid waste
CCMF 09 = High unit cost of treatment
of groundwater
CCHF 10 = High unit cost of treatment
of surface
CCMF 11 = Second remedy was required
after first
CCMF 12 = Other
CCMF 99 = Don't Know
RSNL 00 = Not Applicable
RSNL 01 = Novel contamination problem
required long RI/FS
RSNL 02 = Different areas required
many separate Rl/FSs
RSNL 03 = Funding constraints
RSNL 04 = Staffing constraints
RSNL 05 = Constraints on equipment
s i ze/avaiIabiIi ty
RSNL 06 = Community objections to
selected remedy
RSNL 07 = State objections to
selected remedy
RSNL 08 = PRP objections to selected
remedy
RSNL 09 = Use of CERCLA settlements tools
RSNL 10 = Other PRP negotiation delays
RSNL 11 = Lead changes
RSNL 12 = ROD amended because of
discoveries in RD phase
RSNL 13 = ROD amended (or second
remedy reqd) after RA start
RSNL 14 = Other
RSNL 99 = Don't Know
RSNS 00 = Site's duration not expected
to be shorter
RSNS 01 = Contamination problem was
not complex
RSNS 02 = Standard problem allowed
short RI/FS
RSNS 03 = Unusual funding commitment
within EPA
RSNS 04 = Unusual stability of
EPA staff
RSNS 05 = Innovative technology
RSNS 06 = Unusual community cooperation
RSNS 07 * State lead
RSNS 08 - Other unusual State cooperation
RSNS 09 = Site is single-party
RSNS 10 = Use of CERCLA settlement tools
RSNS 11 = Other unusual PRP cooperation
RSNS 12 = Site is orphan
RSNS 13 = Site is not orphan,
negotiations abandoned
RSNS 14 = Other
RSNS 99 = Don't Know
E1604
Outlier Factors-Full Name
64
The full name of the coded value that
identifies the specific reason for a
site falling into a specific outlier
category.
E1601 El604
CCMF Large vol. of highly
contaminated soil/sludge/
solid waste
CCMF Large volume of soil overall
E11,E12,E50
-------
08/08/94
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 27
E1600
Outlier Site Characteristics
Field Nun
Full Name
Typ Len Description
Ques Num
E1604
Outlier Factors-Full Name (continued)
E1601 E1604
CCMF Large volume of contaminated
sediment
CCMF Large volume of contaminated
groundwater
CCMF Site hazards pose danger to
cleanup workers
CCMF Complex hydrogeology
CCMF Complex mixture of contaminants
CCMF High unit cost of treat, of
soil/sludge/solid waste
CCMF High unit cost of treatment
of groundwater
CCMF High unit cost of treatment
of surface
CCMF Second remedy was required
after first
CCMF Other *
CCMF Don't Know
RSNL Not Applicable
RSNL Novel contamination problem
required long RI/FS
RSNL Different areas required
many separate
RI/FSs
RSNL Funding constraints
RSNL Staffing constraints
RSNL Constraints on equipment
size/availabiIity
RSNL Community objections to
selected remedy
RSNL State objections to
selected remedy
RSNL PRP objections to selected
remedy
RSNL Use of CERCLA settlements tools
RSNL Other PRP negotiation delays
RSNL Lead changes
RSNL ROD amended because of
discoveries in RD phase
RSNL ROD amended (or second
remedy reqd) after RA start
RSNL Other *
RSNL Don't Know
RSNS Site's duration not expected
to be shorter
RSNS Contamination problem was
not complex
RSNS Standard problem allowed
short RI/FS
RSNS Unusual funding commitment
within EPA
RSNS Unusual stability of
EPA staff
RSNS Innovative technology
RSNS Unusual community cooperation
RSNS State lead
RSNS Other unusual State cooperation
RSNS Site is single-party
RSNS Use of CERCLA settlement tools
RSNS Other unusual PRP cooperation
RSNS Site is orphan
RSNS Site is not orphan,
negotiations abandoned
RSNS Other *
RSNS Don't Know
* Description of "Other" response contained in field if provided by the RPM
-------
08/08/94 Page 28
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
E1600 : Outlier Site Characteristics
Field Nun Full Name
E1605 Outlier Factors-Primary Factor Qualifier
Typ Len Description
C 7 Indicator of whether the outlier factor
Dues Hum
E11,E12,E50
reported in E1603 is a primary reason
for the site duration greater or lesser
than the national average or site cost
greater than $20 million.
-------
08/08/94
E2200 : Site/Op Unit Land Uses
RESEARCHER? DATA. DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 29
Field Nun
Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Num
Key C0101
EPA Facility ID
C0104
C0001
Site Name
Region
C 12 A unique identification number used to
identify a Superfund site. It is assigned
by the Region using EPA's Facility Index
system. It is the primary key of all of
the files and thus is found in all files
in this data dictionary.
C 40 The official site name fop a Superfund site from
the Federal Register.
C 2 Code that identifies the EPA Region in which the
site is physically located, or the Region
responsible for response activity.
01 =.CT, MA, ME, NH, VT
02 = NJ, NY, PR, VI
03 = DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
04 = AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
05 = IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH, WI
06 = AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
07 = IA, KS, MO, NE
08 = CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
09 = AS, AZ, CM, GU, HI, MQ, NN, NV, PI, TT, WQ
10 = AK, ID, OR, WA
C 1 Code that identifies whether or not the site is a.
federal facility.
Y = Yes
N = No
D = Status Undetermined
C 22 Name of indicator depicting whether or not
the site is a federal facility.
Status Undetermined
Not a Federal Facility
Federal Facility
C 2 A designation of the Operable Unit at
which events are occurring. The
designation is required to relate events
to operable units for site/project
and incident planning and tracking.
C 30 The official name of the Operable Unit as
determined by the Region.
C 4 Code to indicate the site/op unit land E06,E08,E09
use type. This code is used to distinguish E35
between a variety of land use statistics
recorded about the site. It is used in
conjunction with E2203 to define specific
land use characteristics.
CNTM = Cause of Contamination Entries
CSLU = Current Site Land Use
CSSU = Current Land Use Surrounding Site
FLUA = Future Land Use, Adjacent
to the Site
FLUS = Future Land Use, At the Site
ILLG = Authority Under Which Violation
Illegal
E2202 Site/Op Unit Land Use Type - Full Name C 40 The full name of the site/op unit land use E06,E08,E09
C0135
E0135
Key C1101
C1104
Key E2201
Federal Facility Indicator - Code
Federal Facility Indicator - Name
Operable Unit ID
Operable Unit Name
Site/Op Unit Land Use Type Code
category.
Cause of Contamination Entries
Current Site Land Use
Current Land Use Surrounding Site
Future Land Use, Adjacent
to the Site
Future Land Use, At the Site
Authority Under Which Violation
Illegal
E35
-------
08/08/94
E2200 : Site/Op Unit Land Uses
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 30
Field Nun
Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Num
E2203
Site/Op Unit Land Use Code
Coded value to indicate the specific E06,E08,E09
characteristic describing the site. It is E35
used in conjunction with E2301 to define
specific site/op unit land use
characteristics.
= Discharge to sewer/surface
water
Storage - drums/containers
of waste
Incineration residuals
Landfarm/land treatment
facility
Landfill
06 = Recycling (Other than
primary operation)
07 = Waste tank - above ground
Waste tank - below ground
Underground injection
Waste pile
Lagoon disposal
12 = Storage - raw material
13 = Storage - finished product
14 = Manufacturing process
15 = Explosive disposal/detonation
16 = Dumping - unauthorized
17 = Lake or river - disposal in
Ocean disposal
Road oiling
Inadvertent spill
Other
Don't Know
Agricultural
Commercial
Industrial
RCRA Facility, Active
RCRA Facility, Inactive
TSCA Facility
Residential
Recreational
Educational
None
Other
Don't Know
= Agricultural
Commercial
Industrial
RCRA Facility, Active
RCRA Facility, Inactive
TSCA Facility
Residential
Recreational
Educational
None
Other
Don't Know
None
Agricultural
Commercial
Educational
Industrial
Recreational
Residential
Other
Don't Know
None
= Agricultural
E2201
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CNTM
CSLU
CSLU
CSLU
CSLU
CSLU
CSLU
CSLU
CSLU
CSLU
CSLU
CSLU
CSLU
CSSU
CSSU
CSSU
CSSU
CSSU
CSSU
CSSU
CSSU
CSSU
CSSU
CSSU
CSSU
FLUA
FLUA
FLUA
FLUA
FLUA
FLUA
FLUA
FLUA
FLUA
FLUS
FLUS
FLUS
FLUS
E2203
01 = I
I
02 = !
I
03 =
04 = I
05 = I
06 = I
I
07 = I
08 = \
09 = I
10 = I
11 =
12 = :
13 = :
14 = 1
15 = I
16 = I
17 =
18 = i
19 = I
20 =
21 = i
99 = I
01 = ,
02 =
03 =
04 =
05 =
06 =
08 =
09 =
10 =
11 =
12 =
99 =
01 =
02 =
03 =
04 =
05 =
06 =
08 =
09 =
10 =
11 =
12 =
99 =
00 =
01 =
02 =
03 =
04 =
05 =
06 =
07 =
99 =
00 =
01 =
02 =
03 =
-------
08/08/94 Pa9e 31
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
E2200 : Site/Op Unit land Uses
Field Num Full Name Typ ten Description Ques Num
E2204 Site/Op Unit Land Use Code (continued) E2201
FLUS
FLUS
FLUS
FLUS
FLUS
ILLG
ILLG
ILLG
E2203
04 =
05 =
06 =
07 =
99 =
F =
L =
S =
Industrial
Recreational
Residential
Other
Don't Know
Federal
Local
State
E2204 Site/Op Unit Land Use - Full Name C 55 The full name of the coded value that E06,E08,E09
describes the site within a specific E35
site/op unit land use category.
E2201 E2204
CNTM Discharge to sewer/surface
water
CNTM Storage - drums/containers
of waste
CNTH Incineration residuals
CNTH Landfarm/land treatment
facility
CNTH Landfill
CNTH Recycling (Other than
primary operation)
CNTH Waste tank - above ground
CNTM Waste tank - below ground
CNTM Underground injection
CNTM Waste pile
CNTM Lagoon disposal
CNTM Storage - raw material
CNTH Storage - finished product
CNTH Manufacturing process
CNTM Explosive disposal/detonation
CNTM Dumping - unauthorized
CNTM Lake or river - disposal in
CNTH Ocean disposal
CNTM Road oiling
CNTM Inadvertent spill
CNTH Other *
CNTH Don't Know
CSLU Agricultural
CSLU Commercial
CSLU Industrial
CSLU RCRA Facility, Active
CSLU RCRA Facility, Inactive
CSLU TSCA Facility
CSLU Residential
CSLU Recreational
CSLU Educational
CSLU None
CSLU Other *
CSLU Don't Know
CSSU Agricultural
CSSU Commercial
CSSU Industrial
CSSU RCRA Facility, Active
CSSU RCRA Facility, Inactive
CSSU TSCA Facility
CSSU Residential
CSSU Recreational
CSSU Educational
CSSU None
CSSU Other *
CSSU Don't Know
FLUA None
FLUA Agricultural
FLUA Commercial
FLUA Educational
* Description of "Other" response contained in field if provided by the RPM
-------
08/08/94 Page 32
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
€2200 : Site/Op Unit Land Uses
Field Mum Full Name Typ Len Description Ques Nun
E2204 Site/Op Unit Land Use - Full Name (continued) E2201 E2204
FLUA Industrial
FLUA Recreational
FLUA Residential
FLUA Other *
FLUA Don't Know
FLUS None
FLUS Agricultural
FLUS Commercial
FLUS Educational
FLUS Industrial
FLUS Recreational
FLUS Residential
FLUS Other *
FLUS Don't Know
ILLG Federal
ILLG Local
ILLG State
* Description of "Other" response contained in field if provided by the RPM
-------
08/08/94
E2300 : Events/Actions
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 33
Field Nun Full Name
Typ Len Description
Oues Num
Key C0101 EPA Facility ID
C0104 Site Name
C0001 Region
C0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Code
E0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Name
Key C1101 Operable Unit ID
C1104 Operable Unit Name
Key C2101 Event Type Code
E2301 Event Type - Full Name
E2302 Action Programmatic Sort Order
12 A unique identification number used to
identify a Superfund site. It is assigned
by the Region using EPA's Facility Index
system. It is the primary key of all of
the files and thus is found in all files
in this data dictionary.
40 The official site name for a Superfund site
from the Federal Register.
2 Code that identifies the EPA Region in which the
site is physically located, or the Region
responsible for response activity.
01 = CT, MA, ME, NH, VT
02 = NJ, NY, .PR, VI
03 = DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
04 = AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
05 = IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, UI
06 = AR, LA, MM, OK, TX
07 = IA, KS, MO, NE
08 = CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
09 = AS, AZ, CM, GU, HI, MQ, NN, NV, PI, TT,
10 = AK, ID, OR, UA
WQ
1 Code that identifies whether or not the site is a
federal facility.
Y = Yes
N = No
D = Status Undetermined
22 Name of indicator depicting whether or not
the site is a federal facility.
Status Undetermined
Not a Federal Facility
Federal Facility
2 A designation of the Operable Unit at
which events are occurring. The
designation is required to relate events
to operable units for site/project
and incident planning and tracking.
30 The official name of the Operable Unit as
determined by the Region.
4 A code for a specific response or support E31,E32,E34
event within the pre-remedial, remedial,
removal and comnunity relations components
of the Superfund Program.
30 Name of a specific response, non-response Derived
(generic) or support event within the (E31,E32,E34)
pre-remedial, remedial, removal and
community relations components of the
Superfund Program.
1 Sequence number assigned to each remedial Derived
action so that lists of actions will be
displayed in programmatic order.
1 = Remedial Investigation
2 = Feasibility Study
3 = Combined RI/FS
4 = Record of Decision
5 = Remedial Design
6 = Remedial Action
7 = Operations & Maintenance
8 = Long-Term Response
-------
08/08/94
E2300 : Events/Actions
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 34
Field Nun
Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Num
E2303
Event Sequence Number
1 A number to indicate the sequence of a
particular action if more than one of the
same action occurs at the site or operable
unit.
Derived
C2117 Event Lead Responsibility
E2304 Event Lead - Full Name
C2131 Event Complete, Plan
C2140 Event Start: Actual
C2141 Event Complete: Actual
E2305 Prime Obj of Removal-Emergency
E2306 Prime Obj of Removal-Stabilization
2 Name of the organization with primary
responsibility for the event.
CG = Coast Guard
EP = EPA In-House
F = EPA Fund-Financed
FE = Federal Enforcement
FF = Federal Facilities
MR = Hixed Funding Federal/RP
PS = PRP Response Under State
RP = Responsible Party
S = State, Fund Financed
SE = State Enforcement
SN = State, No Fund Money
SR = PRP Lead Under State
TR = Tribal Lead, Fund-Financed
26 The full name of the organization with
primary responsibility for the event.
Coast Guard
EPA In-House
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
FederaI Fac iIi t i es
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
PRP Response Under State
Responsible Party
State, Fund Financed
State Enforcement
State, No Fund Money
PRP Lead Under State
Tribal Lead, Fund-Financed
8
Current planned completion date for the
event
8 The actual start date for the remedial or
removal event or action.
8 The actual completion date for the
remedial or removal event or action.
determined by the Region.
1 Indicator of whether the primary objective
of the removal was 'Emergency'. *
Y = Yes
N = No
1 Indicator of whether the primary objective
of the removal was 'Stabilization'. *
Y = Yes
N = No
E2308 Prime Obj of Removal-Source Control
Derived
E32.E34
E31,E32
E32
E31
E31
E2307 Prime Obj of Removal-Surface Cleanup C 1 Indicator of whether the primary objective E31
of the removal was 'Surface Cleanup'. *
Y = Yes
N = No
C -1 Indicator of whether the primary objective E31
of the removal was 'Source Control'. *
Y = Yes
N = No
E2305 through E2310 should be used together to identify all of the primary objectives of removal at a site.
-------
08/08/94
E2300 : Materials/Cleanup Standards
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - TILE STRUCTURES
Page 35
Field Nun Full Name
Typ ten Description
Dues Num
E2309 Prime Obj of Removal-Perm Uater Supply C 1 Indicator of whether the primary objective E31
of the removal was 'Permanent Water
Supply'. *
Y = Yes
N = No
E2310 Prime Obj of Removal-Other
C 40 Text describing the primary objective of E31
the removal if the objective is 'Other'.*
E2311 Removal Precluded Op Unit Indicator
E2312 Removal Implemented RI/FS Indicator
C 10 Indicator of whether the Removal precluded E31
a Remedial Operable Unit.
Don't Know
No
Yes
C 10 Indicator of whether the Removal
implemented a remedy identified in
a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study.
Don't Know
No
Yes
E31
* E2305 through E2310 should be used together to identify all of the primary objectives of removal at a site.
-------
08/08/94
E2450 : Materials/Cleanup Standards
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 36
Field Nun
Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Mum
Key C0101
EPA Facility ID
C0104
C0001
Site Name
Region
C0135
Federal Facility Indicator - Code
12 A unique identification number used to
identify a Superfund site. It is assigned
by the Region using EPA's Facility Index
system. It is the primary key of all of
the files and thus is found in all files
in this data dictionary.
40 The official site name for a Superfund site
from the Federal Register.
2 Code that identifies the EPA Region in which the
site is physically located, or the Region
responsible for response activity.
01 = CT, MA, ME, NH, VT
02 = NJ, NY, PR, VI
03 = DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
04 = AL, FL, GA, ICY, MS, NC, SC, TN
05 = IL, IN, MI, MN. OH, UI
06 = AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
07 = IA, KS, MO, NE
08 = CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
09 = AS, AZ, CM, GU, HI, MQ, NN, NV, PI, TT,
10 = AK, ID, OR, WA
WQ
1 Code that identifies whether or not the site is a
federal facility.
Y = Yes
N = No
D = Status Undetermined
E0135 Federal Facility Indicator - Name
Key C1101 Operable Unit ID
C1104 Operable Unit Name
Key E2451 Materials Code
22 Name of indicator depicting whether or not
the site is a federal facility.
Status Undetermined
Not a Federal Facility
Federal Facility
2 A designation of the Operable Unit at
which events are occurring. The
designation is required to relate events
to operable units for site/project
and incident planning and tracking.
30 The official name of the Operable Unit as
determined by the Region.
2 A code to indicate the type of media/ E34
material present at a site or operable
unit.
AI = Air
DB = Debris
DK = Don't Know
GU = Groundwater
LU = Liquid Waste
MS = Man-made Structures
OT = Other
RC = RCRA Hazardous Waste
SD = Sediment
SL = Sludge
SO = Soil
ST = Solid Waste
SW = Surface Water
-------
08/08/94
E2450 : Materials/Cleanup Standards
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 37
Field Hum
Full Name
Typ Len Description
Ques Num
E2452
E2453
E2454
E2455
E2456
E2457
E2458
E2459
E2460
E2461
E2462
Materials - Full Name
Basis for Cleanup Std-Health Risk Assess C 1
Basis for Cleanup Std-Ecol. Risk Ass C 1
C 19 The full name of the media/material E34
present at a site or operable unit.
Air
Debris
Don't Know
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
Man-made Structures
Other *
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Indicator of whether the basis for cleanup E34,E36
standards is the 'Health Risk Assessment'.**
Y = Yes
N = No
Indicator of whether the basis for cleanup E34.E36
standards is the 'Ecological Risk**
Assessment.'
Y = Yes
N = No
Basis for Cleanup Std-MCL
Basis for Cleanup Std-MCLG
C 1
C 1
Basis for Cleanup Std-Federal ARAR C 40
Basis for Cleanup Std-State ARAR
C 1
Indicator of whether the basis for
cleanup standards is the 'MCL'.**
Y = Yes
N = No
Indicator of whether the basis for
cleanup standards is the 'MCLG'.**
Y = Yes
N = No
The name of the Federal ARAR that is
the basis for cleanup standards.**
Indicator of whether the basis for
cleanup standards is a State 'ARAR'.**
Y = Yes
N = No
Basis for Cleanup Std-Citizen Concerns C 1 Indicator of whether the basis for
cleanup standards is 'Citizen Concerns'.**
Y = Yes
N = No
E34.E36
E34.E36
E34.E36
E34.E36
E34.E36
Basis for Cleanup Std-To Be Considered C 40
The name of the basis for cleanup standard E34.E36
'To be considered'.**
Basis for Cleanup Std-Don't Know
C 1
Indicator of whether the basis for
cleanup standards is "Don't Know".**
Y = Yes
N = No
Basis for Cleanup Std-Not Applicable C 1 Indicator of whether the basis for
cleanup standards is 'Not Applicable'.**
Y = Yes
N = No
E34.E36
E34.E36
* Description of "Other" response contained in field if provided by the RPM
** E2453-E2462 should be used together to identify all of the bases for cleanup standards in planned RODs (question E34)
actual RODs (question E36).
-------
08/08/94
E9000 : Summary Enforcement
RESEARCHERS DATA DICTIONARY - FILE STRUCTURES
Page 33
Field Hum
Full Name
Typ Len Description
dues Nun
E9001
Waste-In List Possibility - Yes
4 Count of the Superfund sites responding E17
that sufficient volumetric data does exist
for EPA to develop a Waste-In List. *
E9002 Waste-In List Possibility - No
E9003 Waste-In List Possibility - Don't Know N
E9004 Waste-In List Possibility - Not Applic N
E9005 Minimal Contaminant Contribution - N
Definitely Yes
E9006 Minimal Contaminant Contribution
Probably Yes
E9007 Minimal Contaminant Contribution
Uncertain
E9008 Minimal Contaminant Contribution - N
Probably Not
E9009 Minimal Contaminant Contribution - N
Definitely Not
E9010 Minimal Contaminant Contribution - N
Not Applicable
Count of the Superfund sites responding E17
that sufficient volumetric data does not
exist for EPA to develop a Waste-In List. *
Count of the Superfund sites responding E17
that they didn't know if sufficient
volumetric data exists for EPA to develop
a Waste-In List. *
Count of the Superfund sites responding E17
that developing a Waste-In List is not
applicable at the site. *
Count of the Superfund sites responding E19
.that it is definitely possible to determine
that one or more individuals' volumetric
contribution is "minimal" as compared to
the total volume of waste at the site. *
Count of the Superfund sites responding E19
that it is probably possible to determine
that one or more individuals' volumetric
contribution is "minimal" as compared to
the total volume of waste at the site. *
Count of the Superfund sites responding E19
whether it is possible to determine that
one or more individuals' volumetric
contribution is "minimal" as compared to
the total volume of waste at the site. *
Count of the Superfund sites responding E19
that it is probably not possible to
determine that one or more individuals'
volumetric contribution is "minimal" as
compared to the total volume of waste
at the site. *
Count of the Superfund sites responding E19
that it is definitely not possible to
determine that one or more individuals'
volumetric contribution is "minimal" as
compared to the total volume of waste at
the site. *
Count of the Superfund sites responding E19
that determining minimal contribution
is not applicable at the site. *
* E9001-E9004 should be used together to identify all of the counts for whether sufficient volumetric data exist to <
a Waste-In List. E9005-E9010 should be used together to identify all the counts for whether it is possible to det
whether volumetric contribution to a site is considered "minimal."
-------
Appendix C
RPM Survey Responses
-------
APPENDIX C
RPM SURVEY RESPONSES
WHAT'S IN THE APPENDIX?
This appendix contains the questions from the RPM Site Data Collection Form
(RPM survey), all possible responses to the questions, and the number of times
the RPMs selected each valid response. The numbers provided are national
numbers and reflect responses for the 1,249 final and deleted sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
WHAT DO THESE NUMBERS MEAN?
The counts reflect the number of times the RPM provided a specific response to a
question. For questions that were asked at the site level, the number of responses
will equal the number of sites. For example, the number of times the RPM
responded "Yes" to question E5, is equivalent to the number of sites where a
facility that is responsible for the contamination is still operating in at least some
capacity. However, for questions that were asked at the operable unit or project
level, the number of responses does not equal the number of sites. For example,
the numbers provided in question E35 reflect the number of signed Records of
Decisions (RODs) that anticipate a certain future land use based on the remedy
selected. The "total number" line at the bottom of each question indicates
whether the numbers provided reflect site or response counts. The only
exception is question E32. The responses provided here are the number of
planned and actual RODs; however, the total number at the bottom indicates the
number of sites where responses were provided.
WHAT is 'TF" AND "NON-FF7
The counts for each response are found in two columns titled "FF" and "Non-FF".
The numbers under the "FF" column reflect the responses at Federal Facility sites.
The "Non-FF" numbers are response counts at non-Federal Facility sites. There
are 126 Federal Facilities on the final or deleted NPL as of August 1993. These
are sites that are currently or formerly owned by the Federal government and are
designated as Federal Facilities in the Federal Register listing for the NPL. There
are 1,123 non-Federal Facility sites on the final or deleted NPL as of August 1993.
RPM SURVEY QUESTIONS THAT WERE NOT ANSWERED
The RPM survey allow the RPM not to answer certain questions. These "non
answers" are "Not Applicable", "Don't Know", and "Skip" and are legitimate
responses to certain questions. The number of times the RPMs gave these
C-l January 1995
-------
responses is reflected in the response counts provided in the Appendix. Blanks
(i.e., no response) are not reflected in the Appendix.
In many cases, the RPM survey asks a series of questions about a specific
program area. Generally the first question in the series is an introduction to the
topic. The response to this question determines, based on site-specific
conditions, whether the follow-up questions need to be answered. If the survey
instructed the RPM not to answer the follow-up questions, the responses are
reported as "skips" in the RPM Site Data Base and the RPM Survey Responses.
A skipped question can also be viewed as equivalent to a response of "Not
Applicable" because the question is not relevant to the conditions at the site. In
some instances, there is a question in a "skipped" series that allows a "Not
Applicable" answer. While the survey instructed the RPM to skip those
questions where a previous response makes it obvious that subsequent questions
are not relevant, occasionally the RPM proceeded to respond with "Not
Applicable." These responses are included in the "Not Applicable" counts, not
the skipped counts.
RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS NOT PROVIDED
Responses to questions El through E3 are not included because they provided
identification and background information on the RPMs interviewed. In
addition, question E16 is not included because it identifies at which sites RPMs
provided a list of PRPs issued general or special notice letters. These questions
do not provide data that are relevant to users for analyzing national or site-
specific trends.
RESPONSES THAT DO NOT REFLECT THE SURVEY RESULTS
The responses to questions E44, E46 and E47 were not obtained from the RPM
survey. The data source for these responses is the report "An Evaluation of the
Likelihood of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Presence at NPL
Sites" (NTIS #PB93-963343, September 1993). The DNAPL data collected on 302
sites are reflected in the RPM survey response counts.
The response to question E45 on the technical impracticability of achieving
groundwater standards at sites with DNAPL contamination was provided by
sources within EPA Headquarters. Therefore, there is no data included in the
RPM Site Data Base.
January 1995 C-2
-------
APPENDIX C
RPM SURVEY RESPONSES
National •
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
E4. Using SIC codes, identify all site uses/types ((a) current and (b) past). (12)
Hand Attachment S-l at the end of this survey to the RPM for a list of possibilities. Ask them to
identify all the SIC codes and the site use descriptions that apply. If you don't know the current or
past uses enter "9999B" in the SIC code box. Where you do not know enough detail, you can record
the first two numbers followed by "»**". This will indicate the general manufacturing
sector/service/residential sector. If other, enter "00000" and specify in the description.
(a) Current Site Use/Type
(b) Past Site Use/Type
SIC Code
00
01
02
07
08
09
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
24
26
27
££
12
6
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2
86
0
0
0
0
NON-FF
79
25
14
1
1
1
11
0
2
10
13
2
6
0
17
3
0
SIC Code
00
01
02
07
08
09
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
24
26
27
££
10
5
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
85
0
0
0
0
NON-FF
70
42
22
4
0
2
29
7
11
29
11
1
17
2
58
3
1
January 1995
C-3
Includes Erratta
-------
Natteiial '••:'/;v
E4. (continued)
(a) Current Site Use/Type
(b) Past Site Use/Type
SIC Code
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
40
41
42
44
45
46
47
49
4A
4B
4C
50
51
££
2
0
0
0
0
0
9
2
1
0
0
1
4
0
1
15
5
1
29
9
16
10
8
1
NON-FF
72
12
14
0
0
46
58
18
50
7
1
13
9
18
2
7
8
0
69
247
38
63
51
2
SIC Code
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
40
41
42
44
45
46
47
49
4A
4B
4C
50
51
££
7
1
1
0
0
2
9
1
1
0
0
3
3
0
2
15
3
0
36
20
18
16
9
1
NON-FF
139
17
18
4
4
81
89
19
67
6
3
20
5
6
2
7
5
0
207
247
113
138
110
3
January 1995
C-4
-------
INctUUJIttU
E4. (continued)
(a) Current Site
SIC Code
52
55
65
72
73
75
76
79
80
82
88
99
9B
9X
v
Use/Type
£F NON-FF
0
0
16
6
4
3
0
0
10
8
3
30
0
7
18
3
49
25
9
13
0
7
7
14
62
65
18
398
Total number of sites responding:
E5. Is a facility that
Please circle the
Code
Y
N
D
X
is responsible for
(b) Past Site Use/Type
SIC Code
52
55
65
72
73
75
76
79
80
82
88
99
9B
9X
1,247
££
0
0
10
10
2
2
0
0
6
6
4
22
0
0
the contamination still operating in at least some
NON-FF
20
2
24
26
46
6
1
6
12
6
43
55
8
1
capacity?
code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Response
Yes
No
Don't know
Not Applicable
£F NON-FF
109 379
16 674
1 26
0 42
(no facility on site)
Total number of sites responding:
1,247
C-5
January 1995
-------
National
E6. Tell me which of the following waste management activities, product related services, and
miscellaneous activities caused the contamination at the site. (12)
Please circle all the codes that apply.
Waste Management Activities
Code Response ££ NON-FF
01 Discharge to sewer/
surface water 66 215
02 Storage - drums/containers
of waste 79 318
03 Incineration residuals
handling 29 40
04 Landfarm/land treatment
facility 8 36
05 Landfill 106 401
06 Recycling (Other than as a
primary operation) 13 70
07 Waste tank - above ground 50 153
08 Waste tank - below ground 70 140
09 Underground injection 14 33
10 Waste pile 40 191
11 Lagoon disposal 53 320
Product Related Services
12 Storage - raw material 38 132
13 Storage - finished product 31 108
14 Manufacturing process 38 307
Miscellaneous Activities
15 Explosive disposal/
detonation 55 22
16 Dumping - unauthorized 48 265
17 Lake or river - disposal in 15 47
18 Ocean disposal 4 1
19 Road oiling 8 13
20 Inadvertent spill 78 272
January 1995 C-6
-------
Natioital
E6. (Continued)
Code Response ££ NON-FF
99 Don't know 1 21
21 Other, please specify (e.g.,
gaseous releases to the air is
not a specific category above
and should be designated
as other) 33 161
Total number of sites responding: 1,249
E7a. Did any of the source contamination occur before 1980?
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code Response ££ NON-FF
Y Yes 124 1,067
N No 1 22
D Don't know 1 33
Total number of sites responding: 1,248
E7b. Did any of the source contamination occur in 1980 or later?
Note: This should be additional contamination NOT spread of same contamination over tune.
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code Response ££ NON-FF
Y Yes
GotoE7c 87 539
N No
GotoES 22 482
D Don't know
GotoES 17 100
Total number of sites responding: 1,247
C-7 January 1995
-------
E7c. Did any of the source contamination occur after 1986 (i.e., 1/1/87 or later)?
Note: This should be additional contamination NOT spread of same contamination over time.
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
E8.
Code
Y
N
D
S
Response
Yes
No
Don't know
Skip
Total number of sites responding:
EE
46
25
16
39
1,245
NON-FF
157
328
52
582
a) In your opinion, were site activities that caused the contamination illegal at the time? b) Was the
violation illegal under Federal, State, or local authority?
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response. Illegal site activities are those
that are subject to a Federal, State, or local law, regulation, order or ordinance that was not complied
with or in violation of a Federal, State, or local permits.
a) Code
YD
YP
UN
NP
ND
Response
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Uncertain
Probably not
Definitely not
Total number of sites responding:
b)Code
F
S
L
Response
Federal
State
Local
£E
6
10
26
68
16
1,246
EE
10
10
4
NON-FF
183
210
199
321
207
NON-FF
197
322
112
Total number of sites responding:
389
January 1995
C-8
-------
National
E9. What are a) the current land uses of the site and b) the current uses of land surrounding the site?
(10a, lOb)
Please circle all the codes that correspond to the appropriate land uses.
a) Current
Site Land Use
FF NON-FF
b) Current Land Use
Surrounding the Site
£F NON-FF
01 Agricultural
02 Commercial (includes
light industrial e.g.,
warehouses)
03 Industrial
04 RCRA Facility, Active
05 RCRA Facility,
Inactive
06 TSCA Facility *
08 Residential
09 Recreational
10 Educational
11 None (e.g., abandoned)
12 Other, please specify:
17
53
39
56
15
8
50
48
20
8
65
52
264
243
94
37
6
142
90
35
433
224
71
64
29
4
1
1
105
64
21
1
15
362
501
304
54
18
3
879
291
95
17
94
99 Don't know 0 12 0 12
* produces chemicals or byproducts subject to TSCA disposal regulations
Total number of sites responding: 1,247
C-9
January 1995
-------
NatioaM
E10. What calendar year is construction completion expected at the site? (4)
Construction at a NPL site is considered complete when:
• Physical construction under removal authority (Final Close-Out Report required) or remedial
authority (Preliminary Close-Out Report required) is complete for the entire site as a result of one
or several cleanup actions; or
• A ROD is signed for the only OU stating that no remediation is required; or
• A ROD is signed for the final OU stating that all necessary remediation was previously completed;
or
• A ROD is signed for the final OU stating that the only remediation necessary is the
implementation of an institutional control(s).
Year (enter "9999" if don't know)
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
January 1995 C-10
££
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
8
7
13
13
7
7
NON-FF
4
3
1
5
5
2
14
7
9
20
84
70
53
112
138
149
107
90
35
-------
National
E10. (continued)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
2010
2011
2013
2015
2018
2020
2024
2025
9999
Total number of sites responding:
EE
2
1
2
0
4
1
2
5
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
46
NON-FF
9
2
4
1
3
1 '
0
3
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
187
1,249
Note: Site Duration for questions E11/E12 will be calculated based on the answer to E10 (construction
completion year expected minus the year of final NFL Listing).
C-ll
January 1995
-------
National
Ell. For sites whose duration from NPL listing to construction completion is or is expected to be LONGER than
the timeframe listed below, what major factors do you believe are responsible? (CBO 2A)
1 OU > 12 years (national average plus two years)
more than 1 OU > 14 years (national average plus two years)
Please circle the codes that correspond to all major factors; be sure to mark the PRIMARY factor with a
"F1 in the box:
Code
00
01
02
03
04
05 D
06
07
08 U
09 D
10
11
12 D
13
Response
Not applicable.
Go to next question.
Novel contamination
problem required long RI/FS
Different areas required
many separate RI/FSs
Funding constraints
Staffing constraints
Constraints on equipment
size, availability
Community objections to
selected remedy
State objections to
selected remedy
PRP objections to
selected remedy
Use of CERCLA settlements
tools (Specify:
)
Other PRP negotiation
delays
Lead changes
ROD amended because of
discoveries in RD phase
ROD amended (or second
remedy required) after
RA start
££
NON-FF
Primary
0
5
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Other
71
9
15
18
9
7
4
3
2
0
1
0
Primary
2
31
27
9
14
1
5
12
13
4
21
20
Other
754
31
42
36
44
3
27
20
46
14
63
28
10
January 1995
C-12
-------
National
Ell. (Continued)
Code
14
99
Response
Other, specify
Don't Know (explain)
Total number of sites responding:
FF NON-FF
Primary Other Primary Other
12
0
14
14
84
60
69
1,205
E12. For sites whose duration from NPL listing to construction completion is or is expected to be SHORTER than
the timeframe listed below, what major factors do you believe are responsible? (CBO 2B)
1 OU < 8 years (national average minus two years)
more than 1 OU < 10 years (national average minus two years)
Please circle the codes that correspond to all major factors; mark the PRIMARY factor with a "P" in the
box:
Code
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
D
D
Response
Site's duration is not or is
not expected to be two or more
years shorter than the
national average. Go to next
question.
Contamination problem was
not complex (includes
no-action sites)
Standard (though not
inexpensive) problem allowed
short RI/FS
Unusual funding commitment
within EPA
Unusual stability of
EPA staff
Innovative technology
Unusual community
cooperation (e.g., request for
simpler remedy)
££ NON-FF
Primary Other Primary Other
10
1
0
69
9
6
128
15
28
3
625
65
46
57
4
18
C-13
January 1995
-------
E12. (Continued)
Code
07
D
Response
State lead
££ NON-FF
Primary Other Primary Other
0
Total number of sites responding:
1,181
18
20
08
09
10
11 1
12
13 1
14
99
Other unusual State
cooperation 1 41
Site is single-party 4 19 26
Use of CERCLA settlement
tools (specify:
1 1 0 13
Other unusual PRP
cooperation 5 5 26
Site is orphan 0 06
Site is not orphan, but
negotiations for RP-lead
cleanup were quickly
abandoned 0 03
Other, specify
10 12 70
Don't Know (explain)
20
64
15
50
19
10
50
78
January 1995
C-14
-------
National
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
Site-specific information/questions in italics is considered enforcement confidential and should not be
released to groups outside EPA. This information can only be released in aggregate form.
E13. What is the best estimate of the total number of parties associated with this site who could potentially
be held liable under CERCLA? (13) This is the total universe of PRPs, irrespective of whether EPA
decides to pursue all of them. Note: for Federal Facilities: DO include third party suits in this number
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate range for the total number of PRPs.
Number of PRPs
—>Go to E26
Code
01
02
03
04
05
None —
1
2-10
11-50
51-100
££
14
88
19
2
0
NON-FF
17
192
448
194
64
Code
06
07
08
99
Number of PRPs
101-500
501-1000
>1000
Don't know
EE
1
0
0
2
NON-FF
101
24
17
66
Total number of sites responding:
1,249
E14. Were any hazardous substances contributed to the site by off-site generators/transporters (an answer of
"No" indicates that owners/operators are the only PRPs)? Note: Generators/transporters include anyone
who brought waste to site (not just the RCRA definition) (15)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code
Y
N
D
S
Response
Yes
No
Don't know
Skip
Total number of sites responding:
FJE
11
92
7
14
1,243
NON-FF
577
455
70
17
C-15
January 1995
-------
National
E15. What is the total number of PRPs who have been issued general or special notice letters?
Please circle the code (if applicable) that corresponds to the appropriate response. PRPs issued both
general and special notice letters should be counted only once. If notice letters have not yet been issued but
are anticipated, the answer should be "NA" rather than zero.
Code Number of PRPs
01
02
03
04
05
06
None
1
2-10
11-50
51-100
101-500
££
46
30
4
2
0
0
NON-FF
126
187
376
191
45
71
Code
07
08
09
99
S
Number of PRPs
501-1000
>1000
Not applicable
Don't know
Skip
££
0
0
26
4
14
NON-FI
9
2
29
70
17
Total number of sites responding:
1,249
El7. Does sufficient volumetric data exist in order for EPA to develop a waste-in list? (16)
A waste-in list is a list of off-site entities that contributed waste to site, similar to a volumetric list.
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code
y
N
D
X
Response
Yes
No
Don't know
Not applied
party, illegal spill)
please explain:
S Skip
Total number of sites responding:
FF
2
16
9
NON-FF
195
471
99
83
—> Go to E20
14
1,246
340
17
January 1995
C-16
-------
National
-•. *>s ;•* -s
' * y," ';."- '- '•
UM -"-'X^- ;!-:~-
if/i-)f' ;;•,': -.-:;
^ \ '.''/, ••', '-T ''-'"• . '' '''",*,/ \"-;:' -'!
',••..},* '^;' ''•••' V, \i? /> '""''' i ; t' :• •
E18a. Has a waste-in list been prepared? (16)
Please circle
Code
Y
N
D
S
the code that corresponds to
Response
Yes
GotoElSb
No
GotoE19
Don't know
GotoE19
Skip
Total number of sites responding:
the appropriate
££
1
21
5
97
1,243
response.
NON-FF
142
554
66
357
E18b. Who was the waste-in list prepared by?
Please circle
Code
01
02
S
the code that corresponds to the appropriate
Response
EPA
PRPs
Skip
Total number of sites responding:
E18c. Regardless of who prepared the waste-in
Please circle
Code
Y
N
D
S
the code that corresponds to
Response
Yes
No
Don't know
Skip
££
0
1
123
1,240
response.
NON-FF
105
34
977
list, has a waste-in list been released to all PRPs?
the appropriate
££
1
0
0
123
response.
NON-FF
102
25
16
977
Total number of sites responding: 1,244
C-17 January 1995
-------
National
E19. In your opinion, does EPA have sufficient information to determine that one or more individuals
volumetric contribution is "minimal" as compared to the total volume of waste at the site. (16)
E£
I
1
1
6
2
16
97
1,245
NON-FF
142
124
134
134
142
89
356
Code Response
YD Definitely Yes
YP Probably Yes
UN Uncertain
NP Probably Not
ND Definitely not
NA Not applicable (e.g., single
party, illegal spill)
please explain:
S Skip
Total number of sites responding:
E20a. How many of the PRPs identified in E15 (i.e., the number that were issued general or special notice
letters) are likely to have contributed less than one percent of waste to the site? (16)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate range for the number of PRPs that contributed
less than one percent of the waste. Provide the actual number if known.
Code Number of PRPs
01 None
02 1
03 2-10
04 11-50
05 51-100
Total number of sites responding:
££
96
2
1
0
0
NON-FF
528
53
95
50
20
Code
06
07
08
99
S
Number of PRPs
101-500
501-1000
>1000
Don't know
Skip
£E
0
0
0
7
14
NON-FF
34
7
2
309
17
1,235
January 1995
C-18
-------
National
E20b. How many of the PRPs identified in E15 (i.e., the number that were issued general or special notice
letters) are considered de minims? (16)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate range for the number of PRPs that are
considered de minimis Provide the actual number if known.
Code Number of PRPs
01 None
02 1
03 2-10
04 11-50
05 51-100
££
98
0
0
0
0
NON-FF
641
31
53
44
15
Code
06
07
08
99
S
Number of PRPs
101-500
501-1000
>1000
Don't know
Skip
££
0
0
0
8
14
NON-FF
32
5
2
272
17
Total number of sites responding:
1,232
E21. How many of the total number of parties associated with this site (identified in E13) does EPA believe
are not financially viable, or cannot be located (i.e., orphan parties)? (17)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate range for the number of orphan parties.
Provide the actual number if known.
Code Number of PRPs
01 None > Go to E27
02 1
03 2-10
04 11-50
05 51-100
££
102
2
1
0
0
NON-FF
451
116
214
58
21
Code
06
07
08
99
Number of PRPs
101-500
501-1000
>1000
Don't know — >
GotoE27
££
l
0
0
4
NON-FF
14
1
4
226
Skip
14
17
Total number of sites responding:
1,246
C-19
January 1995
-------
National
E23.
E24.
LiV^iiciJt ''.-'.-',,-'" •',,'''
Of the orphan parties identified in E21, how many are owners /operators? (17)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate range for the number of orphan
owners/operators. Provide the actual number if known.
Code Number of PRPs £F NON-FF Code Number of PRPs £F
01 None 3 85 05 > 50 0
02 1 1 186 99 Don't know 0
03 2-10 1 135 — >GotoE30
04 11-50 06 S Skip 117
Total number of sites responding: 1,243
Of the orphan parties identified in E21, how many are only generators/transporters? (17)
NON-F1
5
11
693
Generators/transporters include anyone who brought waste to the site not just the RCRA definition.
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate range for the number of orphan
generators/transporters. Provide the actual number if known.
Code Number of PRPs ££ NON-FF Code Number of PRPs £F
01 None > Go to E26 4 212 06 101-500 1
02 1 1 41 07 501-1000 0
03 2-10 0 84 08 >1000 0
04 11-50 0 40 99 Don't know 1
05 51-100 0 15 S Skip 117
NON-FF
9
1
4
21
693
Total number of sites responding:
1,244
What is the estimate at this time of the percent of waste volume at the site that can be attributed to
the orphan generators/transporters identified in E23? (17)
Generators/transporters include anyone who brought waste to the site not just the RCRA definition.
FF AVG.
00%
(Enter "999" if insufficient data and go to E26.)
NON-FF AVG.
36%
January 1995
C-20
-------
National
E25. Is the estimate provided in response to E24 based on volumetric data or your best professional judgment?
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code Response ££ NON-FF
VD Volumetric data 0 29
PJ Professional judgment 0 48
S Skip 126 1,045
Total number of sites responding: 1,248
E26. Is this an "orphan" site (i.e., will the Trust Fund have to pay for 100% of the study and cleanup costs at
this site because all responsible parties cannot be located or are not financially viable)? (18)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code Response ££ NON-FF
Y Yes > Go to E30 0 86
N No 18 341
D Don't know 1 18
S Skip 106 675
Total number of sites responding: 1,245
E27. If the site is not currently fund-lead, do you expect any fund-lead work at the site in the future? (19)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code Response ££ NON-FF
Y Yes > Go to E30 3 77
N No 47 646
D Don't know 0 86
X Not applicable (currently
fund-lead or Federal
Faciltiy-lead) 76 216
S Skip 0 87
Total number of sites responding: 1,238
C-21 January 1995
-------
E28. How many parties which are current or former owners/operators of the site are also municipalities?
The term "municipalities" refers to any political subdivision of a State and may include cities, counties,
towns, townships, and other local government entities.
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate range for the number of PRPs that are
owner/operators and local governments. Provide the actual number if known.
Code Number of PRPs Code Number of PRPs
01 None
02 1
03 2-10
Total number of sites responding: 1,236
FF
117
3
1
NON-FF
752
196
37
04
05
99
S
11-50
>50
Don't know
Skip
EE
0
0
2
0
NON-f
6
0
35
87
January 1995 C-22
-------
National
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
E29a. How many parties associated with the site (from E13) are generators/transporters who contributed only
municipal solid waste to the site?
The term "municipal solid waste" (MSW) refers to solid waste generated by households, but may
include some contribution of wastes from commercial, institutional and industrial sources as well. As
defined under the Resource Recovery and Conservation 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 (SQC)
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 aluminum) and may contain small quantities of household hazardous waste (e.g., pesticides and
solvents) as well as small quantity generator wastes. Many industrial solid wastes are managed
separately from household wastes, but may enter the MSW waste system.
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate range for the number of PRPs that are
generators/transporters who contributed municipal solid waste. Provide the actual number if known.
Code Number of PRPs
01 None >Go to E29c
02 1
03 2-10
04 11-50
05 51-100
06 101-500
Total number of sites responding:
££
99
10
1
0
0
0
NON-FF
721
28
32
23
7
4
Code
07
08
99
NA
S
Number of PRPs FF NON-FF
501-1000 0 3
>1000 0 0
Don't know 4 156
Not Applicable—> 8 54
Go to E29c
Skip 0 69
1,219
E29b. How many of the municipal solid waste generators/transporters identified in E29a are municipalities?
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate range for the number of municipal solid waste
generators/transporters that are municipalities. Provide the actual number if known.
Code Number of PRPs
Code Number of PRPs
01
02
03
04
05
None
1
2-10
11-50
51-100
££
22
3
0
0
0
NON-FF
55
42
21
16
0
06
07
08
99
S
101-500
501-1000
>1000
Don't know
Skip
££
0
0
0
5
93
NON-FF
0
0
0
135
822
Total number of sites responding:
1,214
C-23
January 1995
-------
Matioiial
E29c. Of the waste at the site, in your opinion what percentage is municipal solid waste?
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate percentage range. Provide the actual number
if known.
Code % of Municipal Waste
01 None
02 1 -10%
03 11 -25%
04 26 - 50%
Total number of sites responding:
FF
7
7
4
1
NON-FF
88
12
2
14
Code
05
06
07
99
S
% of Municipal
Waste
51 - 75%
76 - 99%
100%
Don't know
Skip
EE
2
1
0
6
93
NON-F1
33
58
5
88
784
1,205
RESPONSE ACTIONS
E30. How many removal actions under CERCLA authority, including emergency actions, were
conducted at the site, are ongoing/or are currently approved?
Currently approved removals have an order or a signed action memo. DO NOT include removals
without EPA oversight or involvement (eg SN or SR lead). DO include all actual or currently
approved removals.
If no removals were conducted, enter a "00" in the box and go to question E32. Do not include
voluntary removals.
Removals
0
1
2
3
4
5
>5
££
76
16
14
9
3
0
8
NON-FF
618
276
128
50
25
18
8
Total number of sites responding with at least one removal: 555
January 1995
C-24
-------
National
E31. For each removal action, indicate a) the primary objective of the work, b) whether the removal
precluded the need for a particular remedial OU (e.g., source control), and c) whether the
removal implemented an RI/FS.
Circle Y(Yes), N(No), or D(Don't know) in the appropriate columns to indicate if the removal precluded
a remedial OU or if the removal implemented an RI/FS. Place an "X" in the appropriate column to
indicate the primary objective of the removal action.
For planned removals, enter only if a firm start date is known. If only fiscal year and quarter are known,
enter last day of quarter as date. If start date not known, action does not count.
Removals
FF
NON-FF
a) Primary Objective
(definition of objectives appear on the
following page)
Emergency
7
215
<-!
Stabilizatiol
35
222
(X
G
Surface Clez
21
173
g
£
6
V
1
O
C/3
74
294
>,
Permanent
Water Supp
3
37
MH
CO
01
fe CO
V (9
10
218
b) Precluded an
OU
^
0
II ii "
>* Z Q
Y N D
15 122 12
175 619 111
c) Implemented
an RI/FS
^
0
JH Z D
ii ii 1"
Y N D
25 105 19
122 667 107
Total number of removals included in a: 1,018
Total number of removals included in b: 1,054
Total number of removals included in c: 1,045
Primary Objective Definitions:
Fjnergency
Stabilization
Surface Cleanup
Source Control
Permanent Water Supply
Respond to ongoing, immediate endangerment (e.g., fire, spill,
threat of explosion or catastrophic release)
Respond to potential, significant threats (e.g., drain lagoon that
could overflow and release hazardous materials)
Remove obstacles to safe and efficient assessment and remedial
work
Eliminate the cause of continuing contamination (e.g., remove
contaminated soil)
Removal program use to provide a permanent source of water supply
as a result of contamination of existing wells. Does not include
bottled water or a temporary action.
C-25
January 1995
-------
E32.
E33.
Please verify the number of OUs, the name of each OU, circle whether a ROD has actually been
signed (A) or is planned (P) at the OU, and the ROD OU/Event. (3)
The OU number and OU name should be transferred from the Site Information Form (see Event
Pipeline) since it represents official CERCLIS data. Please verify the number of OUs we are
tracking and the accuracy of the information provided. The NCP defines OUs as "discrete actions
that comprise incremental steps toward the final remedy." An OU is the division of a project into
meaningful work elements (events) that can be implemented on different schedules, resulting in
acceleration of cleanup.
NOTE: See SIF (Event Pipeline) for OU and ROD data from CERCLIS. This is official Superfund
data. Information collected in this survey must correspond to this official data. Remind the RPM
that CERCLIS relates all OUs to RODs. Thus a ROD at OU1 that leads to two separate designs
(RDs) would still be at the same OU - OU1RD1 and OU1RD2. If you disagree with the OUs
recorded in CERCLIS, contact your IMC at a later date.
RODs
FF
NON-FF
Actual (A)/Planned (P)
A P
126 460
1,162 570
Total number of sites responding: 1,239
(a) Do you expect to add additional OUs?
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code
Y
N
D
Response
Yes
No
Don't know
Total number of sites responding:
EE
60
51
15
1,242
NON-FF
81
935
100
January 1995
C-26
-------
National
E34. For RODs that are planned (identified in E32), what media/materials will be addressed by the
remedies included in each ROD? (3)
Please transfer the OU number and an Abbreviated OU name from E32, complete the table, and provide
the requested information for any planned RODs that are not listed. Place an "X" in all the columns
that represent the media/materials that will be addressed by the remedies included in the ROD.
Enter N/A if no RODs planned. If response is other, please insert name of appropriate media/material.
Planned RODs
FF
NON-FF
Media/Materials
3
AI
78
61
IH
Groundwatc
GW
339
392
cu
Surface Wat
SW
132
175
Sediment
SD
154
184
CO
•c
,0
D
DB
93
70
Si
co
I
&
LW
56
38
Man-made
Structures
MS
58
56
'o
SO
372
345
bO
5J
F— 1
co
SL
52
62
£
CO
rt
3
J— <
O
CO
ST
108
96
CO
O
'S
RCRA Haza
Waste
RC
71
63
O
c
o
D
DK
57
33
cu
6
or
7
16
Tofa/ number of RODs:
1,082
E35. For each ROD that was signed (identified in E32), please indicate the future site land use and future use
of the land surrounding the site that is anticipated as a result of the remedy to be implemented. (lOd)
Please place an "X" in all the columns that represent Future Site Land Use (S) and Future Use of Land
Surrounding Site (A) at each OU.
S = Future Site Land Use
A = Future Use of Land Surrounding the Site
Future Use
FF
NON-FF
FF
NON-FF
S/A
S
A
Future Land Use
eu
9
u
1
01
4
71
54
308
(
• V*
J^
cu
e
s
5
02
48
279
51
444
_
P*
o
o
3
TS
w
03
9
31
28
64
•rj
^^
CO
-o
04
40
380
52
362
„
C
0
*fi
«
cu
IH
u
Ol
tf
05
24
164
56
333
«
'S
jj
cu
3
CO
cu
06
33
286
78
841
*CJ
cu
O,
CO
^^
)H
CU
4«*
o
07
57
133
22
51
^
O
V
"c
o
Q
99
6
119
8
32
cu
§
00
12
167
1
15
Total number of RODs:
1,293
C-27
January 1995
-------
National!
E36.
For each ROD that is signed (identified in E32), please indicate the media addressed and the basis for
the cleanup standard for that media. (9)
Please insert the code for the appropriate media/materials and place an "X" in the column(s)
corresponding to the basis for cleanup standard for that media/material. Soil covers surface and
subsurface.
Code
AI
GW
SW
SD
DB
LW
Media/Materials
Air
Groundwater
Surface Water
Sediment
Debris
Liquid Waste
Code
MS
SO
SL
ST
DK
Media/Materials
Man-made Structures
Soil (surface & subsurface)
Sludge
Solid Waste
Don't Know
Media/
Materials
Air
Groundwater
Surface
Water
Sediment
Debris
Signed
RODs
FF
NON-FF
FF
NON-FF
FF
NON-FF
FF
NON-FF
FF
NON-FF
Basis for Cleanup Standard
Health Risk
Assessment
01
i
55
21
323
5
63
17
150
3
61
V
«>
Ecological Ri
Assessment
02
0
14
2
39
4
32
7
63
0
13
y
03
0
13
51
461
3
29
1
22
1
8
MCLG
04
0
4
6
81
0
6
0
5
0
5
C£
Federal ARA
(specify)
05
4
8
3
21
2
14
2
5
3
9
State ARARs
06
2
31
31
236
6
64
3
46
1
26
(A
eu
Citizen Cone
07
1
7
1
22
0
9
1
6
0
5
%3
2J
0>
CO «u
5t
08
0
0
1
15
0
7
1
11
0
3
O
e
X
o
D
99
0
3
1
20
0
12
0
16
0
9
*
O
i— t
•s
u
• ^N
"cL
s
«t-i
o
Z
00
4
7
9
65
1
14
1
19
2
18
* Not applicable. Check this when exposure control is the only remedy (i.e., no contaminant cleanup standard use
January 1995
C-28
-------
N)
\O
0)
8-
O
to
K
Ol
§
n
o
I
§
8
I
Don't Know
1 *
S3
N> 1-1
O O
O O
0 0
O 0
K) O
0 0
0 0
tfc. O
C o
Solid Waste
! -
£ w
£
oo o
N> O
XI t->
rf^ KJ
H-» '
OJ O
£ o
VO O
h-> .^
VI ^
en
E4
*
1 «
^
^ *»
vj O
I— »
VD M
Man-Made
Structures
I'
£ „
Ox l->
K) O
K> O
\D if»
K °
xi o
*>. o
(Jl O
£J KJ
r.
t
&<
I
1 «
fl
fc w
s °
S w
U) t->
a
g N>
CT\ O
rfi. O
""
81
0 Health Risk
M Assessment
o Ecological Risk
N Assessment
8 MCL
2 MCLG
o Federal ARAR
(specify)
8 State ARARs
xi Citizen Concerns
0 To Be Considered
00 (specify)
vS Don't Know
§ Not Applicable*
Basis for Cleanup Standard
m
n
§
ff
-------
,' % ' •, u ,
National
Answer questions E37-E47pjily_ if the ROD is addressing or is expected to address groundwater cleanup.
Answer for planned as well as signed RODs. Otherwise go to Question E48.
Groundwater - Fresh water found beneath the Earth's surface, which is often used for supplying wells
and springs. Groundwater is grouped into classes according to its intended use.
E37a. Does the cleanup of the plume rely on natural attenuation (i.e., are we expecting any part of the plume
to cleanse itself)? (7e)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response. If yes, please indicate the OU
number and abbreviated OU name (from E36).
Code Response ££ NON-FF
Y Yes 18 204
N No 66 576
D Don't Know 30 155
S Skip 9 178
Total number of sites responding: 1,236
E37b. Did the risk assessment (if the risk assessment drove the remedy selection as identified in E36) or ROD
assume future human consumption of onsite contaminated groundwater? (7d)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code Response ££ NON-FF
Y Yes 63 577
N No 17 221
D Don't Know 30 107
S Skip 13 208
Total number of sites responding: 1,236
January 1995 C-30
-------
National
E37c. Did the risk assessment (if the risk assessment drove the remedy selection as identified in E36) or ROD
assume future human consumption of groundwater downgradient of the contaminated plume? (7d)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code
Y
N
D
S
Response
Yes
No
Don't Know
Skip
FF
63
14
33
13
NON-FF
591
186
128
207
Total number of sites responding: 1,235
E38a. What are the drinking water classifications of the aquifer underneath or adjacent to the site? (7b)
Groundwater - Fresh water found beneath the Earth's surface, which is often used for supplying wells
and springs. Groundwater is grouped into classes according to its intended use.
The specific groundwater class must actually be stated in the RI/FS or ROD otherwise select "NP."
Circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate possible classification of groundwater in the
following table:
Federal/State Ground Water Classification
Code Class Description
1
2a
2b
2
3
S
NP
99
Class I Ground water from a sole-source aquifer used for drinking or
flowing to a pristine environment (i.e., wetlands)
Class Ha Ground water currently used as drinking water, other
sources available
Class lib Ground water that is potential drinking water source
Class II Usable or potentially usable as a drinking water source
(ROD did not specify Ha or Hb)
Class III Ground water that is not useful for consumption (i.e., high
levels of dissolved solids or very low recharge rates)
State
Classification State defined. Please describe:
Class NP Ground water class not provided
Don't Know
FF
27
28
31
15
3
4
19
5
NON-FF
133
259
169
90
44
28
193
72
Total number of sites responding
1,048
C-31
January 1995
-------
E38b. Does the aquifer discharge to one of the following?
An aquifer discharges to a drinking water acquifer if there is a hydraulic exchange between the two
acquifers. This includes adjacent and shallow/deep acquifers.
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response, if applicable.
Code
01
02
03
04
05
06
99
Response
Discharges to a drinking
water aquifer (currently used
or that potentially could
be used)
Discharges to surface water
Discharges to a sensitive
ecological environment
Other, please specify
None of these
Not applicable
Don't Know
££
60
78
41
3
8
1
5
NON-f
355
572.
159
31
38
14
160
Total number of sites responding: 1,052
E39. What is the current use of the groundwater underneath or adjacent to the site? (7a)
Please circle all the codes in the following table that correspond to the current use of groundwater. The
groundwater use codes are:
Code Response ££ NON-FF
AG Agricultural (crop irrigation,
livestock watering, etc.) 55 200
CD Commercial/Recreational
(drinking water) 45 134
CN Commercial/Recreational
(non-drinking water) - e.g.,
public buildings, car washes,
airplane washes, truck washes,
fountains, theme parks, etc. 34 126
ID Industrial (drinking water) 30 92
IN Industrial (non-drinking water) -
e.g., process water, nuclear plant
cooling, etc. 34 197
WD Private well - domestic use
(drinking, bathing, cooking) 55 404
January 1995 C-32
-------
N"«
E39.
tcMPg
(Continued)
Code
PW
WN
DK
NU
,;,v vr r--^ Ir j 100,000 people served
Don't Know
Skip
appropriate population range.
EE
19
4
3
4
2
8
6
27
13
29
9
NON-FF
199
75
60
46
24
56
48
105
62
251
183
Total number of sites responding:
1,233
C-33
January 1995
-------
Matidrial'';X'°v:^°"/•;""'';''':-^V"'""'• -'•/"'' • "'" --.-'/ '
E41a. Have water supply wells been shut down or replaced due to contamination levels above health-
based levels (e.g., MCLs or other health based levels)?
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code Response £E NON-FF
Y Yes
GotoE41b 42 313
N No
GotoE42 65 563
D Don't know
GotoE42 7 63
S Skip 10 175
Total number of sites responding: 1,238
E41b. How many people were served by the wells now shut down or replaced?
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate population range.
Code Response FF NON-FF
01 1-24 people served 5 94
02 25-100 people served 4 47
03 101-500 people served 9 37
04 501-1,000 people served 4 10
05 1,001-5,000 people served 6 20
06 5,001-10,000 people served 1 10
07 10,001-100,000 people served 7 27
08 >100,000 people served 1 13
09 0 people served 0 1
99 Don't Know 5 52
S Skip 82 802
Total number of sites responding: 1,237
January 1995 C-34
-------
E42. Are drinking water wells potentially threatened by a contaminated plume?
Drinking water wells that are potentially threatened can include those that are sidegradient,
upgradient and downgradient of the plume.
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
E43.
Code
Y
N
D
Response
Yes
GotoE43
No
GotoE44
Don't know
GotoE44
Skip
Total number of sites responding:
££
73
29
14
8
NON-FF
482
335
121
176
1,238
How many people are served by the wells that are potentially threatened?
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate population range.
Code Response
01 1-24 people served
02 25-100 people served
03 101-500 people served
04 501-1,000 people served
05 1,001-5,000 people served
06 5,001-10,000 people served
07 10,001-100,000 people served
08 >100,000 people served
99 Don't Know
S Skip
Total number of sites responding:
EE
4
7
7
2
5
5
16
8
19
51
NON-FF
77
80
44
12
36
23
55
36
116
635
1,238
C-35
January 1995
-------
E44 - E47 Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs)
The results of the evaluation of 302 NPL sites included in the "Evaluation of the Likelihood of DNAPL
Presence'at NPL Sites, National Results" are reflected here in lieu of the data collected during the RPM
interviews in August 1993. (These results represent sites from Regions I, III, V, VI, and IX only.) There are
two reasons why the DNAPL survey data are used: (1) EPA Headquarters was in the process of providing
training seminars throughout the country to explain DNAPL characterization and recent Agency
guidance; and (2) technical information from a recently performed DNAPLs survey that would be
released in September 1993 had not been shared with all the Regions at the time of the RPM interviews.
Since the information in the DNAPLs survey (e.g., focused review of well drilling logs) is more thorough
than the responses to the RPM interview questions, EPA determined that the results of the survey were a
more accurate representation of the potential for DNAPLs to be present in the groundwater at NPL sites.
It was these data that were used as the basis for responding to the DNAPL questions posed by
Congressmen Swift and Dingell. In addition, since the technical data from the DNAPL survey were being .
shared for the first time with the Regions in August 1993, it was premature to expect the RPMs to reflect
these data in their responses to the interview questions.
E44. Has free-phase DNAPL contamination been identified in the groundwater zone? (Represents 302
sites in Regions I, III, V, VI, and IX only.)
Code Response ££ NON-FF
D Definite DNAPL presence 0 40
H High likelihood 7 98
M Medium likelihood 8 57
L Low likelihood 6 86
E45a. Has EPA waived a groundwater ARAR for a DNAPL due to the technical impracticability of
achieving the standard? (8d)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code Response
Y Yes NOTE: Numbers provided by EPA Headquarters.
N No No Regional numbers collected.
D Don't know
X Not applicable
E45b. Does the remedy selected include a contingency technical impracticability waiver?
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code Response
Y Yes NOTE: Numbers provided by EPA Headquarters.
N No No Regional numbers collected.
D Don't know
X Not applicable
January 1995 C-36
-------
E46.
E47.
At sites where DNAPL presence is definite or highly likely, was a remedy selected with a goal of
returning groundwater to all drinking water standards? (8b) (Represents 302 sites in Regions I, III, V,
VI, and IX only.)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code
Y
N
D
X
Response
Yes
No
Don't know
Not Applicable
££
Sites
3
3
0
1
NON-FF
Sites
70
38
23
3
At sites where DNAPL presence is definite or highly likely, was a remedy selected with a goal of
containing the plume by pumping? (8c) (Represents 302 sites in Regions I, III, V, VI, and IX only.)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code
Y
N
D
X
Response
Yes
No
Don't know
Not Applicable
££
Sites
4
1
1
1
NON-FF
80
31
20
3
C-37
January 1995
-------
National
COST INFORMATION
E48. Please provide the current expected total capital cost for cleanup by operable unit if it can be
reasonably estimated? (1)
Please answer this question for all OUs, whether or not a ROD has been signed. If a reasonable
estimate cannot be made, place an "X" in the Don't Know column. Capital costs include all remedial
action costs including construction, up to 10 years of operating a groundwater treatment system, any
operational and functional period prior to acceptance of the project, and can include any service
contracts for operating costs (e.g., burning materials in an incinerator). This does not include O&M costs.
Note: If total site costs are known, write "Entire Site" in column "Abbreviated OU Name "with dollar
range.
Please place an "X" in the column that represents the appropriate dollar range.
E49.
Capital Cost
FF
NON-FF
Dollar Range
o
o
o
ov
o
rH
C/3
V
01
32
71
§
0
i
§
o
rH
ffe
02
27
73
o
o
§v
o
o
ov
o
m
03
26
101
o
g
o
o
«
g
<=
0
s.
rH
04
41
253
o
g
ov
o
o_
g
V
o
3
CO
05
29
186
o
o
o^
1
g
0_
V
1ft
06
29
218
§"
o
10
TH
S
§
ov
rH
07
16
124
o
o
o
ov
o
o"
o
§
S
rH
08
18
78
o
^^
o
o1
o
1
CM
09
13
122
o
o
o
,-J-
\^J
0
CJ^
o
o
§
o
0
0
ft
10
9
66
§
<«J
g.
o
rH
A
11
9
16
^
o
c
^
o
99
296
364
Total number of operable units: 2,217
Based on your estimates in E48, is the total site capital cost expected to be over $20 million? (2)
Please circle the code that corresponds to the appropriate response.
Code
Y
N
D
Response
Yes
GotoE43
No
Go to E44
Don't know
GotoE44
Total number of sites responding:
££
66
32
27
1,236
NON-FF
231
. 721
159
January 1995
C-38
-------
National
E50. If the capital costs exceed $20 million, what is the major factor(s) driving the costs? (2)
Please circle the codes that correspond to all major factors.
Code
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
99
Major Factor
Large volume of highly
contaminated soil/sludge/
solid waste
Large volume of soil overall
Large volume of contaminated
sediment
Large volume of contaminated
groundwater
Site hazards pose danger to
cleanup workers
Complex hydrogeology
Complex mixture of
contaminants
High unit cost of treatment of
soil/sludge/solid waste
High unit cost of treatment
of groundwater
High unit cost of treatment
of surface water
Second remedy was required
after first remedy failed
Other, please specify
Don't know
££
30
31
15
38
16
24
25
14
16
4
1
31
2
NON-F1
132
87
38
107
28
59
57
76
47
9
5
66
2
Total number of sites responding:
296
C-39
January 1995
-------
Nati(mal';': v;;K;' ':H:*';:';;::--:'.••', -•••"•"'"-•• '. •'• •• :
E51. How many years do you anticipate Operation and Maintenance (O&M) will be required? (1)
O&M activities are those pertaining to operating and maintaining the site once remedial action goals
are met, or after the 10 year operational period that EPA can pay for groundwater treatment systems.
Please place an "X" in the column corresponding to the appropriate year range.
If RPM can estimate years of O + M only for entire site - write "entire site" in column "Abbreviated OU
Names" with year range.
Projected
O&M
Duration
FF
NON-FF
Year Range
0-3
01
44
127
4-10
02
24
181
11-20
03
44
96
21-30
04
74
250
>30
05
76
440
Don't
Know
99
254
351
*No
O&M
Required
00
41
243
* If answer to E51 is "No O + M Required" >Go to E53
Total number of operable units: 2,245
January 1995
C-40
-------
National
E52a. By operable unit, whether a ROD was signed or not, what is your best estimate of the average annual
O&M cost? (1)
O&M costs are the costs necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness after goals are met, or after the
10 year operational period that EPA can pay for groundwater treatment systems. The cost is borne by
the PRP or a State government (except in a very limited number of circumstances) and, so, the O&M cost
cited by EPA will always be an estimate.
Note: If RPM can estimate average annual O&M only for entire site, write "Entire Site" in column
"Abbreviated OU Name" with dollar range.
Please place an "X" in the column that represents the appropriate dollar range associated with the
average annual cost of O&M. If O&M is required for any removals, please provide those costs and show
them at OU "00".
Average
Annual
O&M Cost
FF
NON-FF
Dollar Range
Average Annual O&M
£
00
20
81
o
£
01
24
41
o
3
fi
02
7
13
o
I
o
rH
03
2
37
o
S-
o
o
CO
04
9
45
0
i
o
o
in
05
1
26
o
o
|
o
<=>
tx
06
3
42
o
o
o
rH
&
rH
iff
07
12
81
o
§
rH
ov
r4
08
3
66
0
o"
ID
rH
v
&
09
15
80
o
0
o
0
ID
A
10
65
476
£
O
c
o
Q
99
379
556
.&1
Cfl
S
14
145
Total number of operable units:
2,243
C-41
January 1995
-------
E52b. By operable unit, whether a ROD was signed or not, what is your best estimate of the cost over the life
ofO&M? (1)
Please place an "X" in the column that represents the appropriate dollar range associated with the cos1
over the life of O&M. If O&M is required for any removals please provide those costs and show them
at OU "00".
If RPM can estimate cost only for entire site, write "Entire Site" in column "Abbreviated OU Name"
with dollar range.
E53.
O&M
Cost Over
Life
FF
NON-FF
Dollar Range
Life of O&M
o
00
27
78
o
8
TH"
8
01
13
20
o
|g"*
•n
^
8
d
02
9
16
§
v
0
rH
0
°v
in
03
5
39
0
o
§
o
1
§
04
12
93
o
8
1
rH~
|
05
35
245
8
o
P.
in
^H
o
0
ov
8
^
06
17
227
o
0
s
T*H
8
o
o
in"
07
34
167
o
o
<=
o
5
A
08
11
60
|
O
&
Q
D
99
368
571
.&-
C/3
S
19
164
Total number of operable units:
2,230
Estimate a) the dollar range that represents the money spent or likely to be spent by the PRPs for site
cleanup, and b) all the events included in this estimate.
Please circle the codes corresponding to the appropriate dollar range and all the events that are
included in this dollar range. If you don't know, circle "DK." Do not include attorney or other
transaction costs.
a) Dollar range: (circle one)
Code
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
Range
Not applicable. No PRPs.
<100,000
100,000 - 500,000
500,001 - 1,000,000
1,000,001 - 3,000,000
3,000,001 - 5,000,000
5,000,001 - 10,000,000
FF
8
0
1
0
3
1
3
NON-FF
96
44
25
29
91
95
122
January 1995
C-42
-------
National
E53.
(Continued)
Code
07
08
09
10
11
99
Range
10,000,001 - 15,000,000
15,000,001 - 20,000,000
20,000,001 - 40,000,000
40,000,001 - 100,000,000
>100,000/000
Don't Know
Total number of sites responding:
b) All events
Code
RV
RI
FS
RD
RA
LT
OM
DK
included in the dollar range:
Range
Removal
Remedial Investigation
Feasibility Study
Remedial Design
Remedial Action
Long-Term Response
Operation and Maintenance
Don't Know
££
6
8
19
16
23
38
1,234
(circle all
FF
64
86
85
81
81
53
71
21
NON-FF
75
72
108
74
30
247
that apply)
NON-FF
268
605
585
635
646
315
580
168
Total number of sites responding:
1,034
C-43
January 1995
------- |