United States
             Environmental Protection
            Office of
            Solid Waste and
            Emergency Response

TITLE: Promulgation of the National Priorities List

APPROVAL DATE: May 17, 1984

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 1984





REFERENCE (other documents):
               dements 9320.1-02: Guidance for Establishing thed
             National Priorities List

 03/19/87      United States Environmental Protection Agency
                      Washington, D.C. 20460

  EPA   OSWER Directive Initiation Request
                                  1. Directive Number
                            2. Originator Information
 Name of Contact Person
    Mail Code
Telephone Number
 3. Title
 4. Summary of Directive (Include brief statement of purpose)

  wefines the  Region's roles  and responsibilities in
  addressing comments and developing the final
  rulemaking for the NPL.          (5/83, 7
  pp)Supplements directive 9320.1-02.  Supplemented
  by 9320.3-01 and 9320.3-03.
 5. Keywords
6a. Does this Directive Supercede Previous Dlrectlve(8)7|   |  yes  |  X| No     What directive (number, title)

b. Does It Supplement Previous Directives^)?   |  X |  yes
                  I   I  No   What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level

    A  Signed by AA/DAA
B  Signed by Office Director
       C - For Review & Comment
          In Development
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
8. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
9. Name and Title of Approving Official


       OSWER           OSWER            OSWER
                DIRECTIVE        DIRECTIVE

                       WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                         MAY  I T IS83
                                                        OFFICE OF
                                               SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                               OSWER Directive 9320.1-03

SUBJECT:  Promulgation of the National Priorities  List

FROM:     William N. Hedeman, Jr., Directo^n^^j). b\ac)karft CXW
          Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

TO:       Superfund Coordinators, Regions I-X


     In response to the request for comments on  the  proposed
National Priorities List (NPL), the Agency has received  a
large volume of information.  The Agency must consider those
comments prior to promulgating the NPL.  This guidance defines
the Regions' roles and responsibilities in addressing comments
and developing the final rulemaking for the NPL.

     Recognizing that the States and Regions have  identified
additional potential NPL sites since the list was  proposed, the
Agency will update the NPL in a separate notice  that would be
issued shortly after the proposed NPL  is promulgated.  The
procedures for updating the NPL will be addressed  in a separate
guidance memorandum. Thus, only the original 418 sites on the
proposed NPL plus the Times Beach, Missouri, site  will be
considered for the final rulemaking.


     To develop a final rule for the NPL, EPA must carefully
consider all relevant public comments.  This includes both general
comments (e.g., those relating to the  exclusion  of Federal
facilities), and site-specific comments (e.g., the way the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) was applied to a  particular site).  The  EPA
must treat all parties fairly and explain the rationale  for the
decisions.  Finally, in carrying out the work, OERR  must avoid
severely disrupting other Regional Superfund activities.  Thus,
the major technica'l work will be directed by OERR, even  though
the site-specific technical determinations will  be made  by
the Regions.

                    OSWER Directive 9320.1-03



     The first step after the close of the comment period has been
for OERR to sort the comments according to Region and types:
nonrelevant; general (relates to overall policy); generic HRS
(e.g., toxicity values for a substance not covered in HRS instruc-
tions); and site-specific technical comments.  All relevant
comments should have been delivered to the appropriate Regions;
however, the Regions will be expected to respond to issues raised
in these comments only in the ways indicated below.

Analysis and Response

     After completing the sorting, OERR will analyze the general
comments and generic HRS issues and respond  to them.  The
contractor staff who previously conducted quality assurance (QA)
reviews of the NPL submissions will evaluate the site-specific
technical issues.  They are reviewing all relevant materials in the
Regional files and, where necessary, State files.  The QA staff
will recommend a score for the site based upon all available infor-
mation and present it to the Region for review.  If the Region
agrees, the QA staff will forward the recommendation to OERR.
If the Region does not accept the QA staff recommendation then
the Region should notify OERR (Steve Caldwell, FTS-382-3999) to
resolve issues.  The Regions will determine  final scores for sites
(see below), and OERR will draft the response to comments.


     The Regions will be responsible for five reports described in
the following sections: final scores for sites; updated HRS work-
sheets and Documentation Record forms; updated narrative summaries;
updated status reports; and site inspection  reports.  Deadlines
for these reports are given in the attached  schedule.

Final Scores

     The key Regional report will be the final HRS scores.  OERR
is responsible for analyzing information submitted by the public
and for developing recommendations on how that information should
be reflected in site scores.  However, the Regions are ultimately
responsible for determining the scores and for reporting them.
Send scores, including total score and all five pathway scores,
in writing to:

          Steve Caldwell
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          401 M Street, SW  (WH-548E)
          Washington, DC   20460

The deadline for submitting these final scores is May 24, 1983.

                    OSWER Directive 9320.1-03

Clearly note where changes have been made since the NPL was
proposed in order to ensure that all changes are correctly
recorded.  A copy of the computerized listing used to develop the
proposal for your Region is enclosed so you can check your final
scores against it and note changes.  You may simply correct the
printout and return it as your submission.  You must follow all
instructions on submission of final scores carefully so that the
correct scores are used to assemble the list.

     The question arises as to how the Regions should incorporate
new information developed by EPA or State investigations since
the NPL proposal at sites not addressed by public comments.  The
Preamble to the proposed NPL states:

     Scores used to support promulgation of the NPL will
     be based on the best information available at the
     time, including public comments and State and EPA
     investigatory data.

Thus, if the Regions have information that would lead to a change
in score, it should be reflected in the reported scores.  In such
cases, the Regions should request the QA staff to review the
scoring and incorporate the rationale for score changes in the QA
staff reports to OERR.  Those QA staff reports will form the
basis for the NPL Support Document which explains the rationale
for the response to comments and changes between the proposed NPL
and the promulgated rule.

Revised HRS Worksheets and Documentation Records

     Where the Region reports a final score different from the
scores used to develop the proposed NPL, revised HRS worksheets
and Documentation Record forms must be submitted to support those
changes.   You should send 3 copies of each to Steve Caldwell at
the address given on page 2.  Revised worksheets and documentation
records are due by May 23, 1983.  Instructions on including these
forms in the Regional docket will be provided in a later memo.

Status Reports - Classification of Actions

     For promulgation of the NPL, the Agency will update the
status reports for all 419 sites included on the proposed NPL.
Just as we did for the NPL proposal, each site will be classified
according to the following categories: Voluntary or Negotiated
Response; Federal and State Enforcement; Federal or State Response;
and Actions to be Determined.  You may indicate the status on
your reports of final scores.  The definition for each category
is given below.

                    OSWER  Directive  9320.1-03
Voluntary or Negotiated Response

     Release are included in this category if response actions
are currently being taken by potentially responsible parties or
private parties.  This category includes response actions that
are sanctioned under consent agreements, consent orders, or
consent decrees to which the Federal Government is a party.
Voluntary or negotiated cleanup may include actions taken pursuant
to agreements reached after enforcement action had commenced.
Currently, this category does not include sites undergoing response
actions if the actions are not governed by such an arrangement
with the Federal Government.

     This category does not include actions mandated under Federal
and State regulatory programs to update operational pollution
control systems or waste disposal operations (e.g., upgrading
surface impoundments operated pursuant to an NPDES permit).  This
category of response may include remedial investigations,
feasibility studies, and other preliminary work, as well as actual

Federal and State Response

     The Federal and State response category includes sites where
EPA or State agencies have commenced or completed removal or
remedial actions under CERCLA.  If the State is primarily
responsible for managing the response action, the site is included
in this category when EPA has obligated funds for response.  If
EPA is managing the response action, the release is included when
the State has signed a contract to meet its responsibilities and
EPA has obligated funds for response.  For removal actions,
response has begun when EPA has obligated funds.

Federal or State Enforcement

     This category includes sites where the United States Government
or the State has filed a civil or criminal complaint or issued
an administrative order.  It also includes sites where a Federal
or State court has mandated some form of non-consensual remedial
action following a judicial proceeding.

Actions to be Determined

     The category of actions to be determined includes all sites
not otherwise listed.

     Be sure to note that a site may be assigned more than one
category and you should list all appropriate categories except
that "Action to be Determined" is exclusive of all other

                    OSWER Directive 9320.1-03

Narrative Summaries

     The Regions should review and revise the narrative summaries
accompanying the proposed NPL.  OERR continues to use these for
management and Congressional briefings and press packages.  Thus,
the narrative summaries must reflect the most recent and accurate
information.  Instructions and examples for revising the summaries
are enclosed.  Summaries are due by May 31, 1983.  OERR will review
and edit them and return them for Regional review prior to release
to the public.  However, summaries received after the May 23 dead-
line will probably not be returned to the Regions after editing.

Inspection Forms

     In a number of instances, the Regions did not submit the
site inspection forms (EPA Form 2070-13), as required prior to
the NPL proposal.  These forms are the cornerstone for a
standardized NPL data base that OERR is developing.  That data
base then will'be used to develop mandated reports to Congress,
respond to Congressional inquiries (e.g., "which sites contain
PCB's"), develop regulations, and generally understand the nature
and scope of the problems CERCLA was designed to address.
Such a data base will greatly reduce the frequency of ad hoc
requests to Regions for basic information.  Thus, it is essential
that the Regions submit the missing inspection forms.  An attach-
ment lists the information in the forms that is critical for the
NPL data base and indicates where the critical information was
missing from the site inspection forms previously submitted.
Your cooperation in helping to establish this technical data
base will be appreciated.


     The primary purpose for the NPL docket is to document the
Agency's rationale for the rulemaking and make that information
available to the public.  In addition, the docket presents other
information to the public such as comments by interested persons
and summary descriptions of conditions at the sites.  If EPA
gains new information about a site or changes a decision (e.g.,
revises a score), new documents such as HRS worksheets and
Documentation Record forms must be inserted into the docket to
show our rationale.  Two basic rules for updating the docket are
given below:

     1.   The Headquarters docket and Regional docket for a site
          must be "identical.  If you add anything to a docket
          file, you must send a copy to the Headquarters docket.

                    OSWER  Directive  9320.1-03

     2.   Do not remove any documents from the docket, even if
          they contain errors.  You may insert explanatory memos
          or notes to correct such errors.

     Since the Agency must open public dockets for the NPL updates,
maintenance of the dockets will be a continuing responsibility.
You will receive further instructions and, as necessary, training
in maintaining the docket.


     To articulate the procedures for this rulemaking and to
provide guidance for EPA's periodic updates of the NPL, it is
important to review our policy regarding public contacts during
rulemaking.  Statutory and case law on the rulemaking process
requires, once a rulemaking proposal has been issued, that the
Agency consider any additional information in a fair and open
manner.  The formal process for doing this is the comment period
noticed in the proposal.  Once this comment period has ended, as
is the case with the proposed NPL, the Agency should try to
limit its contacts with the public regarding the substantive
issues of the rulemaking.  Such contacts may take place, however,
as long as they are consistent with the principles of openness
and fairness.  This requires that any Agency employee who discusses
the substance of the proposed NPL with a member of the public
prepare and place in the docket a written memorandum describing
the conversation.  Such memoranda should contain sufficient
detail to reflect all substantive issues, facts, or data, although
a verbatim transcript is not required.  Where the contact is
simply an informational description of EPA's schedule or procedures,
or where EPA relates information that already is contained in
the current docket, the contact need not be recorded.  If you
have any questions regarding the principles and procedures outlined
above, you should contact Todd Gulick of the Office of General
Counsel, FTS 382-7709.

                    OSWER  Directive  9320.1-03
                    NPL Promulgation Schedule
April 29    QA recommendations to Regions completed.
May 24
Regions report final scores.
May 31
Regions submit revised HRS worksheets, documentation
records, and narrative summaries
June 1
Draft final NPL:  preamble and list (HQ responsibility)
June 6
After HQ edit, narrative summaries returned to Regions
for review.
June 13     Regions submit final narrative summaries to HQ.
June 27     NPL rulemaking announced.