5EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9320.1-01
TITLE: Guidance for Establishing the National Priorities
List
APPROVAL DATE: February 2, 1982
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 2, 1982
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OERR/HSCD
m FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OS WER OS WER OS WER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
03/19/87 United States environmental Protection Agency 1. Directive Number
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA OSWER Directive Initiation Request 9320.1-01
2. OrIginator information
Name of Contact Person MID Code Offlce. Telephone Number
PARRISH OERR/HSCD 382-5632
3. Title
GUIDANCE FOR ESTABLISHING THE NPL
4. Summary of Directive (Include brief statement of purpose)
Describes the plan for the initial steps for
establishing the NPL and provides detailed
guidance on our short-term objectives. (2/82,.6
pp)
5. Keywords
SUPERFUND, CERCLA, NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST, NPL, NPL LISTING,
PROCEDURE
68. Does this Directive Supercede Previous DIr8CtIVe(S)?D yes D No What directive (number, title)
,
b. Does It Supplement Previous Dlrectlves(s)? D yes, c:::!I No What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level
, 0 A. Signed by AA/DAA DB. SIg,,8d by Offlce Director DC. For Review & ComTIent D In Development
This Request Meets OSWEA Dlrectlv.. System Format
8. Signature of Lead 0fftc8 Dlr8CtIv.. Coordinator Date
9. Name and TItle of Approving Offlclal Date
W. HE DEMAN 02/02/82
';
I
. . .
OSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTI.VEi DIRECTIVE
-------
"",'lO :;r48,I'J'
..)
... ~ ':J
i~~
~t..,.. J~
1-, t;'
" PItO\\.
UNITED STATES E~VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH!NGTON. D.C. 20460
FES 2
1982
OFF 'CE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGE'\ICv RESPO,;SE
OSWER Directive 9320.1-01
MEMORANDUM
--
FROH:
Guidance for Establishing the National Prio~ities
William N. Hedeman, Jr., Directo~~ tQ ~~.~~
Office of Emergency and Remedial ~~po~e
List
SUBJECT:
TO:
Superfund Coordinators
Regions I-X
Introduction
The announcement of the Agency's Interim Priorities List-on
October 23, 1981, marked a milestone in the implementation of
CERCLA. In addition to defining targets for early Superfund
action, the interim list gave us an opportunity to establish
working relationships with the States and provided valuable
experience for implementing the expanded priorities list mandated
under CERCLA. The quality and timeliness of the work and the
spirit of cooperation demonst~ated by the States and Regions was
impressive. I request that you express to the States our
appreciation for the excellent work they did in support of the
interim list and solicit their continuing cooperation in compiling
the National Priorities List.
In order to develop a National Prioritles List of at least
400 sites, it is essential that the Regions and States continue
the work of identifying candidates and evaluating them. This
guidance describes the plan for the initial steps for establishing
the National Priorities List and provides detailed guidance on our
short-term objectives.
OERR is continuing work on the the Hazard Ranking System as a
component of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). We are ~.
currently reviewing the results of scoring for the interim list
and will revise the scoring system where appropriate. However, it
is extremely important to note that we foresee no major changes in
the data required to rank sites. Consequently, the States and
Regions should proceed to develop data needed to score sites.
-------
3
data exist. Rather, a list of candidate sites will provide the
basis for planning field work to be conducted during the next few
months, as discussed in the next section.
A national total of app~oximately 800 candidates, roughly
three times the number submitt~d for the interim list, is
desirable. Based en our analysis of national site inventories,
the anticipated Regional totals would be: Region I, 70-75;
R~gion II, 100-110; Region III, 85-90; Regio~ IV, 100-110;
Region V, 140-150; Region VI, 95-100; Region VII, 45-50;
Region VIII, 30-35; Regi~n IX, 70-7~; Region X, 25-30. However,
these .are not Reg ional quotas, and there is no speci f ied minimum
or maximum number of sites that a Region or State should identify
as candidates.
The States and Regions should identify and list the
candidates by February 19, 1982. Sites identified after that date
will also be considered, but you should identify as many
candidates as possible by the deadline. Reporting ef the results
to Headquarters is discussed in a later section.
Irventory of Data
The Agency is requesting that each State inventory av~ilable
information on the candidates, identifying those areas where
further investigative work is needed. These inventories will form
th€ basis for EPA/Statework plans for site investigations to
support the priorities list. For yo~r convenience, we have
attached a checklist of the data needed to calculate Hazard
Ranking Scores. It may not be necessary to obtain all data
elements to accurately rate a site since in many cases only one
pathway is involved. However, data relevant to direct contact and
fire/explosio~ hazards should be included where appropriate.
EPA/State Work Plans
As soon as possible after the data inventories have been
completed, the Regions Ehould meet with each St~te to develop a
plan for acquiring the data necessary to set ?riorities. The
plans will include estimates of the resources needed, scheduling,
and division of responsibility between the Region and State, The
purpose of the work plans, beyond establishing responsibility for
investigations, is to facilitate allotment of resources (e.g., FIT
subcontracting, lab contractors, etc.) and scheduling.
"
Reports ~o Headquarters
Since the purpose for requesting States to identify
ca~didates and cooperate in developing work plans is to ensure
that resource allocations and scheduling are reasonable,
Headquarters is requesting only summary information from the
Regions. You should report the following items on a State-by-
State basis to me by March 5, 1982: number of candidates;
-------
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
CHECKLIST OF DATA REQUIREMENTS
Site Name:
Notes:
DATA ELEMENT/PATHWAY
Available
Ground and Surface
1. Waste physlca1
2. Persistence
3. Toxicity
4. Quantity
Ground Water
1. Monltorlng data OR
la. Depth of aquifer
lb. Net precipitation
lc. Permeability
2. Ground water use
3. Distance to nearest down-
gradient well
4. Population served by wells
within 3 miles
Water and Air
state
Surface Water
1. Monltorlng data OR
la. Slope and terrain
1 b . Ra i n fa 11 in ten sit Y
lc. Distance to surface
ld. Flood potential
Surface water use
Critical habitats
Population served
water
2.
3.
4.
Air
~ Monitoring data
2. Waste reactivity
3. Incompatibility
4. Toxicity
5. Distance to nearest population
6. Population within 1 mile
7. Critical environments
8. Land use
Not
A?propriate
~.
------- |