&EPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
           Office of
           Sohd Waste and
           Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9320.3-01
TITLE: Guidance for Updating the National Priorities List

APPROVAL DATE: May 12, 1983
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 1983
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OERR/HSCD
£! FINAL
D DRAFT
 STATUS:

REFERENCE (other documents):
 OS WER     OS WER      OS WER
fE   DIRECTIVE    DIRECTIVE   D

-------
03/19/87 United State Environmental Protection Agency
-' Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA OSWER Directive Initiation Request
2. Originator Intormation
Name of Contact Person KM) Code Office
PARRISH OERR/HSCD
1. Directive Number
9320.3-01

Telephone Number
382-5632
3. Title
GUIDANCE FOR UPDATING THE NPL
4. Summary of Directive (Include brief statement of purpose)
Provides guidance for the first and future updates "
of the NPL. (5/83, 7 pp)
Supplements 9320.1-02 and 9320.1-03. Supplemented
by 9320.3-02 and 9320.3-03.
5. Keywords
SUPERFUND, CERCLA, NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST, NPL,
PROCEDURE
NPL UPDATING
6a. Does this Directive Supercede Previous Directives)?] [ yes | X] NO What directive (number, title)
b. Does it Supplement Previous Directives^)? [ 	 ] yes 1 X NO What directive (number, title)

7. Draft Level
' A • Signed by AA/DAA B • Signed by Office Director C • For Review & Cc

This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
8. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator C
9. Name and Title of Approving Official t
W. HEDEMAN


xnment In Development


)ate
)ate
05/12/83
OSWER    OSWER     OSWER
    DIRECTIVE    DIRECTIVE

-------
*'«•
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                           WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                            J I B83
                               ----
                                                           OFF.CEOF
                                                  SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                               OSWER Directive 9320.3-1
    MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Guidance for Updating the National Priorities

FROM:


TO:
              William N.  Hedeman,  Directo
              Office  of  Emergency  and Remed!

              Superfund  Coordinators, Regions I-X
    INTRODUCTION

         The  National  Priorities  List (NPL)  was proposed in the
    Federal Register on  December  30,  1982.   The information used to
    support HRS scores in the proposed NPL  was collected and analyzed
    during the spring  and early summer of 1982.  Since this time,
    Regions and States have  continued to identify,  investigate, and
    score new hazardous  waste sites.   In some cases,  additional
    information has  been received pertaining to the sites on the
    proposed  NPL.

         Given the  number of new  sites identified over the past
    months, it is  appropriate to  develop the first update of the NPL
    and  publish it  in  the Federal Register  in the coming months.
    We  intend to publish the first update several weeks after the
    final NPL.

         In general, the procedures established in the June 28, 1982,
    guidance  memorandum  (attached) concerning the establishment of
    the  NPL apply  to the update.   The procedures described herein
    simply augment  the June  28 procedures and apply to the first
    update and to  all  future updates.

         Two  policies  contained in the June 28, 1982, guidance
    memorandum are  noted.  First, the policy of submitting releases
    of  hazardous substances  or pollutants or contaminants from mining
    facilities for  inclusion on the list remains in effect.  However,
    EPA  will  respond to  releases  from listed mining facilities in
    the  same  manner  as it would for any other site on the list.
    Thus, fund-financed  remedial  actions will be considered at mining
    facilities unless  responsible, parties are willing and able, in
    a timely  manner, to  respond to releases from these facilities.

-------
                               -2-

     Second, we are examining the issue of whether  federal
 facilities should be  included on the NPL.  If a decision  is made
 to  include federal facilities on this or subsequent updates of
 the list, additional  guidance will be transmitted to you.


 UPDATE STRATEGY

     Presentation of  Update

     Each update in the Federal Register will present the "current"
 NPL and the "proposed" additions and deletions.
                'Current1
                  NPL
                  LIST
"Proposed"

I ADDITIONS
                                       !DELETIONS
The "current" and "proposed" lists will include EPA Regions,
State, City/County, site name, and the response status.  We
intend to continue listing the sites according to score in groups
of 50.

     Additions

     New sites scored using the Hazard Ranking System  (HRS) may
be submitted to be included in the update.  The exact  content of
the update package is specified in a later section.  At this
time, we intend to continue the cutoff score of 28.5.  However,
Regions are encouraged to submit sites scoring 25 and  above in
case score changes during the quality control (QC) and quality
assurance (QA) programs elevate the final score to 28.5 or higher.

     It is important to remember that sites with elevated "Direct
Contact" or "Fire and Explosion" scores are potential  threats to
the public health, welfare, or sensitive environmental areas.  In
such cases, it is appropriate to request the appropriate Emergency
Response contacts in each Region to determine the potential for
initiation of a removal action.

     Deletions

     States and/or Regions may request that a site be  deleted
from the current list.  A site may be deleted from the list when
one of the following conditions have been met:

     EPA in consultation with the State has determined that
     responsible parties have completed cleanup so that no
     Fund-financed response actions will be required;

     All appropriate Fund-financed cleanup action under CERCLA
     has been, completed.wand EPA.has.determined that no further
     cleanup by risponsible parties is appropriate.

-------
                               -3-

     EPA,  in considering the nature and severity of  the problem,
     the potential costs of cleanup, and available funds has
     determined that no remedial actions should be undertaken at
     the site.

The Regional Office should determine whether any of  the three
conditions have been satisfied.  State concurrence on a deletion
decision is not required but coordination is necessary.  A
memorandum from the Regional Administrator to the Director of
the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) must describe
the conditions that have led to the deletion decision.  The memo
must be accompanied by all supporting documents relevant to the
conditions warranting deletion and may be accompanied by a letter
from the State.  This information will be included in the Regional
and Headquarters docket.  We may continue to refine  and augment
the process and you will be informed of any changes  as they
occur.

     The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response will make the final decision  on deletions
based on the information contained in the Regional memorandum
and the comments received during the 60 day comment  period.

     Comment Period

     Following publication of the first update, the  Agency will
receive comments for 60 days on the "current" list and the
"proposed" additions and deletions.  This means that the public
will have a second and final opportunity to comment  on the 419
sites (418 plus Times Beach) currently proposed.  However, for
future updates, only the "proposed" additions and deletions will
be open for comment.  Sites on the "current" NPL list will not
be eligible for comment on future updates, unless the comments
satisfy the criteria for deletion from the list.  We do not
intend to use resources on minor score changes that  only result
in rearrangements within the list.

     EPA will accept, at any time, any information regarding the
hazard at a particular site.  However, once the comment period on
that site has concluded, such information will be used only to
determine the appropriate action at the site and will not affect
the listing, unless the information indicates that the site should
be deleted.

     Comments will be handled in the same manner as  the proposed
NPL comments.  These procedures are described in the memorandum
concerning the final rulemaking for the NPL (attached).  OERR
will sort the comments according to type and Region.  All relevant
comments will be delivered to the appropriate Regions.  Regions
will not be required to evaluate site-specific technical comments.
A Headquarters QA team will evaluate such comments through a
review of Regional, and where necessary, State files.  The QA

-------
                               -4-
team will make a score recommendation to the Regions.  The Regions
will have the responsibility for reporting final scores and OERR
will draft the response to comments.

     Previous updates will become final at the time of the next
update.  Only relevant comments received during the 60 day comment
period will be discussed in the preamble of the next update.
Consideration of relevant comments will determine whether sites
"proposed" in the previous update are either added or deleted
from the "current" NPL list presented in the next update.
                                                   *•

     Schedule for Updates

     The CERCLA requires a periodic update of the NPL, at least
annually.  Previous guidance has suggested a goal of quarterly
updates.  The workload requirements of information submissions,
docket preparation, Federal Register development, and response
to technical comments during the NPL proposal has been tremendous.
Based on the experience of the proposed NPL, we intend now to
conduct two updates per year.

     The two updates will be frequent enough to get new sites
listed and work initiated.  The date of the second update will
remain flexible so as to accomodate future conditions as they
develop.  The States will receive adequate notice of the updates
and the submission deadlines.  This approach does not preclude
special updates for special situations such as the Times Beach,
Missouri site.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

     States

     States have the primary responsibility of nominating and
scoring new sites using the MRS.  Candidates should be identified
on the basis of the apparent seriousness of the threat or harm to
public health, welfare, or sensitive environmental areas.  All
types of releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants, and all types of facilities may be considered,
except those specifically excluded under CERCLA.

     In some cases, new information may have been obtained on
sites previously scored.  These changes along with the appropriate
supporting documents may be submitted to the EPA Regional Office.
New information may indicate that a "current" NPL site should be
deleted.  States must provide a written justification and supporting
documentation for any site proposed for deletion.

     Finally, the States will prepare and submit a complete update
package to the Regional Office.

-------
                               -5-
     Reqional Offices

     The EPA Regional Offices will notify the States of the update
procedures and schedule as described herein.  The Regions are
responsible for providing technical assistance to the States to
ensure a consistent and accurate application of the HRS.  All
sites submitted by States must undergo a QC check.  As discussed
above, site selection is the responsibility of the States.
However, the Regional Offices have the responsibility of adding
sites to the list where appropriate.  For such sites, the Regions
must conduct additional investigations and HRS scoring.

     Prior to the submission of the update package to Headquarters,
the information contained in the HRS work sheets, documentation
records, and the narrative summaries must be coordinated with
the Office of Regional/Enforcement Counsel.  This procedure will
ensure that information that is confidential to the agency is
not released.  Additional guidance on the dockets is described
in a later section.  The EPA form 2070-13, the response status
and the enforcement status sheets will not be in the docket.
Therefore, these three items can contain enforcement confidential
information.

     Headquarters

     Headquarters will receive the update package from the
Regions and conduct a comprehensive QA check of the submissions.
Sites that fail the QA check will be returned to the Regions for
correction.  If the problem can be quickly reconciled, the site
may still qualify for the current update.  Otherwise, the site
must wait until the next update.

     Headquarters will publish the NPL update in the Federal
Register and manage the 60 day comment period.  As mentioned,
the comment process will be handled in the same manner as the
comments received for the proposed NPL.
CONTENTS OF UPDATE PACKAGES

     The HRS worksheets, documentation records and narrative
summaries of the update packages submitted to Headquarters from
the Regions are identical in format to the material contained in
the existing docket for the proposed NPL.  It is essential that
the documentation records contain a clear explanation of the
sources of information.  (This was not done consistently in
sufficient detail for the proposed NPL.)  Please ensure that each
information item is supported by a document or other identified
source according to a specific title, date, person, or event as
appropriate.  These citations should be referenced in the body
of the documentation records or included as a bibliography.  The
EPA form 2070-13 is a mandatory part of the update package.
Sites without this form will be returned to the Regions.  Also,

-------
                               -6-
 it  is  important  that  the narrative summaries be consistent from
 Region  to Region.  Therefore, examples of a narrative summaries
 and  instructions are  attached.

     For sites that have not previously been submitted the
 following information  is required:

     (1)  HRS worksheets (7 pages)
     (2)  Documentation Records (13 pages)
     (3)  EPA Form 2070-13 (approximately 20 pages)'-
     (4)  Narrative Summary (1 page)
     (5)  Response Status (1 page)
     (6)  Enforcement  Status (1 page)


     Dockets

     For the first update, we will maintain the dockets that
currently exist in each of the Regions and Headquarters.  These
dockets, used to support the proposed NPL, will be supplemented
with new information contained in the update packages.  Of the
 information submitted  in the update packages, only items 1, 2
and 4 (see above) or memoranda for deletion will be placed in
the public docket.  These items will be placed in the docket
after the updates appear in the Federal Register.

     The experience gained in the preparation of the dockets for
the proposed NPL has caused a change in the procedures for the
updates.  The update packages received from the Regions will be
added to the Headquarters docket.  This procedure will ensure
that the Headquarters  and Regional dockets contain the same
information on each site.  We do not intend to reproduce the
Headquarters docket and send to the Region as was done for the
proposed NPL.  Therefore, it is imperative that the update packages
received from the Regions are complete, accurate, and legally
defensible.   This will require Regional Counsel and Enforcement
Counsel approval of the update package prior to submission to
Headquarters.

     Essentally there  are two guidelines for updating the docket.
First,  the Headquarters and Regional dockets must be identical.
Therefore, if a document is added in the Region, a copy must be
sent to Headquarters.  Secondly, documents may not be substituted
or removed from the docket, even if they contain errors.
Explanatory memoranda  or notes to correct such errors should be
inserted in the docket and a copy must be sent to Headquarters.
Further instructions for maintaining the Regional docket will be
forwarded to the Regions.

-------
                               -7-
SCHEDULE

     The schedule for the first update will require a tremendous
amount of cooperation between the States, Regions and Headquarters.
The schedule is compressed considerably in comparison with the
proposed NPL timetable.  Therefore, it is necessary to establish
firm deadlines for State submissions to the Regions, and Regions'
submissions to Headquarters.  The schedule outline below will
meet the goal.
                                                  *-
     States

     States will have approximately 2 weeks to prepare update
     packages of candidates identified since the proposed NPL.

     Update package is due in the Regional Office by May 23, 1983.

     Regions

     Regions have.3 weeks to:  conduct QC program on States
     submissions; add sites and suporting documents that were
     not included in States' submissions; prepare any deletion
     memoranda; and establish Regional docket with Office of
     Regional/Enforcement Counsel coordination.

     Regions submit complete update package to Headquarters by
     June 13, 1983.

     Headquarters

     Headquarters has 3 weeks to conduct QA program and establish
     Headquarters docket.

     Headquarters will conduct briefings for Directors of OERR,
     OSWER, and the Administrator and coordinate press release
     and press conference on July 15, 1983.

     Updated list is published in Federal Register on July 25,
     1983.

Your cooperation on this project is greatly appreciated.  If you
have any questions concerning the update procedures please contact
Scott Parrish (FTS-382-2464) or Hal Snyder (FTS-382-3999).

Attachments

-------