vv EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9320.1-02
TITLE: Guidance for; Establishing fche: National Priorities
Eist
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OERR/HSCD
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
[ ] A- Pending OMB approval
{ j B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
[ ] C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- .In development or circulating
headquarters
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
fE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Di
-------
03/19/87 United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9320.1-02
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
PARRISH
Ml Code
Office
OERR/HSCD
i
Telephone Number
382-5632
3. Title
GUIDANCE FOR ESTABLISHING THE NFL
4. Summary of Directive (Include brief statement of purpose)
Establishes procedures for implementing the NFL,
mandated by section 105(8)(B) of CERCLA. Addresses
the overall agency strategy for developing and
presenting the list, including selection of
candidate sites, data collection, application of
the Hazard Ranking System, procedures for
submitting candidate sites, and verification or
quality assurance (control procedures). (6/82, 14
pp)
Supplemented by NFL 9320.1-3, 9320.3-1, and
9320.3-3)
5. Keywords
SUPERFUND, CERCLA, NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST, NFL, NPL LISTING,
PROCEDURE
Sa. Does this Directive Supercede Previous Directives)?! | yes | *| No What directive (number, title)
b. Does It Supplement Previous Dlrsctlves(s)? I I yes I xl No What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level
I I A-SignsdbyAA/DAA I I B • Signed by Office Director I I
C - For Review & Comment
In Devetopmen
9. Name and This of Approving Official
W. HEDEMAN
Date
Dats
06/28/82
OSWER
OSWER
OSWER
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFPICEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCV RESPONSE
" ' OSWER Directive 9320.1-2
JUN 28 1982
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Establishing the National Priorities List
FROM: William N. Hedeman/
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO: Superfund Coordinators
Regions I-X
The purpose of this guidance is to establish the procedures
for implementing the National Priorities List mandated in Section
105(8)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response/
Compensation/ and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Specifically/
this memorandum addresses the overall Agency strategy for
developing and presenting the list/ including selection of
candidates/ data collection/ application of the Hazard Ranking
System/ procedures for submitting candidate sites and the
verification or quality assurance/control procedures. The States
and EPA Regional Offices should also consult the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) and other documents referenced in this memo
for additional guidance.
OBJECTIVES
CERCLA states that the National Priorities List is to be
developed for the purpose of taking response actions. The
legislative history states:
The priority lists serve primarily informa-
tional purposes/ identifying for the States and
the public those facilities and sites or other
releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. . ..
Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does
not in itself reflect a judgement of the activities
-------
OSWER Directive 9320.1-2
-3-
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
IDENTIFY
CANDIDATES
(States)
INVESTIGATE
(States/EPA)
SEC. 104(e)
LETTERS
(States/EPA
NOTIFY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
(States/EPA)
APPLY BBS
(SCORE)
(States/EPA)
STATES1
SUBMISSIONS
COMPILE
LIST
(EPA-HQ)
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
(EPA-HQ)
PROPOSE
TM O B
La F • n»
(EPA-HQ)
REVIEW
COMMENTS
(EPA-HQ)
QUALITY
CONTROL
(EPA Regions)
REGIONAL
SUBMISSIONS
TO HQ
PUBLISH
IN F. R.
(EPA-HQ)
REME
DIAL
ACTIONS
-------
OSWER Directive 932'J.i-j'"
-5-
States will not be required to hold public hearings as a
prerequisite to submitting sites for the National Priorities List.
However, EPA does encourage the States to actively involve the
public in the priorities list process, through public meetings or
any other approach the State might, select.
The States or the Regions working with the States are also
encouraged to send letters as early as possible to local
governments in those jurisdictions where candidate sites are
located. This will provide a mechanism for allowing local
governments to participate in providing information on candidate
sites. Since much of the information used to score sites is
most readily available in local government files, these letters
will provide a vehicle for eliciting cooperation and assistance at
the local level.
t
Updating the List
CERCLA requires that the National Priorities List be updated
periodically, and we plan to do this on a quarterly basis. When
the list is updated, EPA will add new sites that become eligible
on the basis of score and will remove sites based on criteria
given in a following section. Scores will not be revised to
reflect partially completed cleanup actions. However, scores may
be revised to reflect .data not available previously.
Updating the list quarterly will have a substantial impact on
how the project is managed. When the interim list was developed,
a firm deadline for formal submission of information was
established, and sites submitted after that date were excluded
from further consideration. Now, rather than establishing a
single deadline, Headquarters will communicate closing dates for
each update. Thus, where particularly complex problems require
lengthy investigations, Regions may defer submission of sites.
However, it is important for all organizations involved to
understand that most of the sites must be scored and submitted by
August 13, 1982.
Presenting the List
Many interested parties have expressed concerns regarding how
the list is presented to the public. In response to comments, we
have decided to present as part of the National Priorities List,
the status of any actions ongoing or planned by EPA and the
States. Facilities will be classified according to the following
categories (some sites will fit more than one category):
Privately funded cleanup
Response status
Emergency response
• Remedial investigation
-------
OSWER Directive 9320.1-2
* " • • f
-7-
enforcement actions do not appear promising. Priorities for
funding within this group will be based upon risks to public
health and the environment/ as measured by the Hazard Ranking
System scores and other available information, and on a
case-by-case evaluation of economic, engineering, and
environmental considerations.
CANDIDATE SELECTION •
\
As discussed in the guidance memoranda of July 2, 1981, and
February 2, 1982, the judgments of State and Regional office staff
provide the primary basis for including sites on the National
Priorities List. Selection criteria should include the apparent
seriousness of the threat to public health, welfare, or sensitive
environmental areas. A decision-tree type screening approach is
being sent to the EPA Regions and may be useful for candidate
selection. All types of releases of hazardous substances or
pollutants or contaminants, and all types of facilities may be
considered for the list except those specifically excluded under
CERCLA. Note that both releases from active facilities (other
than RCRA interim status sites) and "atypical" releases, such as
toxic sediments in rivers, are specifically addressed in the
CERCLA legislative history.and may be included in the NPL where
appropriate. Releases of hazardous substances or pollutants or
contaminants from mining facilities may be submitted for inclusion
on the list* Once such mining sites are listed, EPA will expend
Superfund resources, where necessary, to investigate the problem
and determine responsible parties* EPA will pursue responsible
parties under all available enforcement authorities for these
facilities. EPA will consider fund-financed cleanup for these
sites only after, all available enforcements efforts fail.
./
Radioactive facilities that are not currently licensed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) can be candidates for the
list. Radioactive releases from NRC licensed facilities and
facilities listed under the Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control
Act are not eligible to be candidates.
Regional/State Concurrence
Although the selection of sites for consideration is
primarily the role of the States, the EPA Regional Offices have
the responsibility of adding sites to the list where appropriate.
The Regions are responsible for conducting any additional
investigations needed to score these sites. The possibility
exists that EPA and the State-may not agree on a site listing.
-------
OSWER Directive 9320.1-2
• . •
-9- ~
Consequently, if critical information required by the HRS is
unavailable or does not exist, that site has not been adequately
investigated, and the site should not be included until the
required data are available*
This should not be interpreted to mean that every pathway
needs to be fully documented and scored in order to submit, every
site. In many cases, only one or two pathways may present
significant risks to health or the environment. In such cases,
the Regions and States- should use discretion in expending
resources to develop data solely-to score additional pathways. As
discussed in the February 2, 1982, guidance memorandum, the
Regions and States should develop a plan for site investigations
aimed at satisfying the data requirements at each site for those
pathways which present significant, hazards.
•
Questions occasionally arise regarding the quality or.amount
of investigative work needed to adequately score a factor in the
HRS. Since conditions vary so greatly, EPA does not consider it
feasible to specify appropriate data sources or investigative
activities relevant to each factor. However, examples of typical
activities for data collection are given in "Methodology and
Estimated Costs forvHazard: Ranking System Data Collection", .
available in the Regional Offices. In the end, staff must
exercise good judgment to determine whether the data adequately
support the assigned scores.
i
Letters to Responsible Parties " -
Section 104(e)(l) of CERCLA authorizes the Agency and the
States to request information from responsible parties to assist
in determining the need for response actions. Henceforth it will
be standard procedure to send such a letter to any readily
identifiable potentially responsible parties who might have
information relevant to establishing priorities. While the States
and Regions may exercise discretion in applying this policy, you
are urged to send letters unless there is good reason not to
(i.e., it would interfere with surveillance activities,
potentially responsible parties have not been identified, or known
responsible parties would have no information on site conditions).
This policy does not mean that intensive- research to discover all
potentially liable parties is required before site investigation
and scoring (see the following section). These letters are not to
be confused with notice letters- sent to responsible parties prior
to taking response actions.
\
9 ~
#
Responsible Party Searches •••...-
^^•^^•^••MM^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^H^l^^^^^^M^^^BMHIMMHIMMV x
In order to avoid delays in responding to releases at sites
included on the National Priorities List, responsible party
searches should begin as soon as the Region becomes aware that a
-------
OSWER Directive '9320.1-2
-11-
earlier. This will allow inclusion of any additional data
obtained for interim list sites and will allow comparison of
scores among the older and newer sites. Drastic reductions in
score due to changes in the HRS are not expected. If a major
change occurs and is verified by quality control and quality
assurance efforts, then placement on the National Priority List.
would be based on the new score.
* ~ *
Fire and Explosion/Direct Contact Pathways
Although the scores for the fire and explosion and direct
contact pathways are not factored into the HRS overall rating, the
Regions and States should thoroughly document threats posed by
these pathways where applicable* These subscores are valuable in
determining the need for immediate removal and planned removal
activities. If a site does have a relatively high score for one
of these pathways, you should make sure that the Regional Oil and
Hazardous Materials Coordinator is informed of that fact. For
these two pathways, removal activities already implemented, such
as fencing or drum removal, should be considered in scoring.
Continuing NPL Updates
In light of the Agency's plan to update the National Priority
List on a quarterly basis, site scoring and ranking will become
on-going activities to take into account newly discovered releases
of hazardous substances. Data not available at the first
publication of the list will be used for subsequent revisions.
Nevertheless, it is important that the Regions and the States make
every effort to complete as much investigative work as possible by
July 30, 1982, in time for development of the initial National
List.
SUBMISSION OF PRIORITIES LISTS
Establishing a National Priorities List of at least 400 sites
will require timely submission of information by the Regions and
States. Based on experience with the interim list, our decision
process for the priorities list will be subjected to careful
scrutiny; therefore, we will have to maintain careful records of
the decisions made. Some of that documentation will have to be a
part of the submissions from States to Regions and.from Regions to
Headquarters. The following sections outline the timing and
content of the submissions and documentation.
States' Priorities Lists
Section 105(3)(B) of CERCLA requires the States to submit
priorities lists to the Federal government annually. States may
fully meet that requirement by calculating HRS scores and
-------
OSWER Directive 9320.1-2
-13-
Enforcement-sensitive and other confidential information
should be included in the submitted information package as
separate pages. These pages should be clearly marked as
"CONFIDENTIAL" so that EPA HQ and the EPA regions can readily
separate them from information that must, be 'available to the
public. States and Regions are advised that not all"
enforcement-related information is considered to be confidential.
In. general« site descriptions, monitoring data, and concluded
enforcement* actions are not confidential» Only information about
ongoing and prospective enforcement actions and strategies is"""
confidential and, should be marked as such. If. questions arise
about the* confidential nature of information, the Regional Counsel
should be consulted. ,
i
'
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE APPLICATION OF THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM
Quality assurance is an essential aspect of the development
of the priorities list f a means of ensuring' that Superfund
response funds are appropriately and fairly assigned. Since HRS
scores and documentation will be subjected to scrutiny by various
interested parties, there is further motivation for ensuring that
the work is consistent and verifiable. The approach to QA for
scoring sites will consist of the following major elements:
- HRS training; ""
Interpretation of HRS and answering questions;
Quality Control (QC) check;
- Quality Assurance audit.
HRS Training '.
HRS training will be made available to the States and EPA
Regions by OERR. The major purposes of the training are to:
- Encourage consistent application of the HRS in all
Regions and States; , (
- Present recent revisions to the HRS;
- Present requirements for acquisition and submission of
information;
- Acquaint HRS users with the EPA representative who will
later be available to answer questions and interpret the
HRS.
Training sessions will also present an opportunity for users to
work alongside the QA personnel in actually scoring some sites to
be submitted. The Field Investigation Team (FIT) and HRS
contractors will conduct the training with EPA staff also
participating in some cases. EPA Regions are requested to submit
to OERR as soon as possible, a list of States and corresponding
numbers of personnel to be trained along with information on
Regional needs so we can schedule the locations and dates of
training sessions. At least one training session is anticipated
for each Regional Office. Additional sessions will be scheduled
at Regional or State offices as demand and logistics dictate.
------- |