oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Respoi
ington DC 20460
Publication 9345.1-14
January 1993
Video on Superfund Site
Assessment Screening:
A National Priority
-------
Publication 9345.1-14
January 1993
Supplemental Guide to
Video on Superfund Site
Assessment Screening:
A National Priority
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
NOTICE
The procedures set forth in this document are intended as guidance to employees
and contractors of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), States, and
other government agencies. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance
provided in this document, or to act at variance wfth it, based on analysis of specific
site circumstances. EPA also reserves the right to mod y this document at any time
without public notice.
These guidelines do not constitute EPA rulemaking and cannot be relied upon to
create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States.
Mention of company or product names in this document should not be considered as
an endorsement by EPA.
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introduction 1
Chapter II: Reference Information 3
A. Overview of Site Assessment Screening Process 3
A.1. Components of the Superfund Site Assessment Screening Process 4
A.2. Preliminary Assessment 5
A.3. Site Inspection 7
A.4. HRS Scoring 8
A.5. National Prior ies List 9
A.6. The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) 9
B. Roberts Solvent Reclamation S e — An Applied Example 11
B.1. Preliminary Assessment at Roberts Solvent Reclamation 11
B.2. Site Inspection at Roberts Solvent Reclamation Site 13
B.3. HRS Scoring for Roberts Solvent Reclamation 14
B.4. Summary and Wrap Up 14
Appendices
A. Data Sheets (including parts of scoresheets to illustrate the scoring at Roberts Solvent
Reclamation site) A-i
1. PA Scoring A-3
2. PREscore A-19
3. HAS Scoring A-23
B. Reference Documents B-i
1. Superfund Documents B-i
2. Laws and Regulations B-3
3. Supplementary and Background Materials B-3
-------
Table of Contents
C. List of Contacts . C-i
1. Information on S e Assessment Screening Video C-i
2. EPA Regional NPL CoordinatorsIS e Assessment Managers C-i
3. Superfund Document Center C-i
4. National Technical Information Service C-2
5. EPA Public Information Center C-2
6. Government Pnnting Office C-2
D. Other Tools D-l
1. Computer Tools D-i
2. Hotline Nuriters D-i
3. Sfte Assessment Information Directory D-i
4. EPA Organization Chart D-2
E. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms E-i
Attachments: Training Curnculum and Ordering Information for Video and Materials
-------
Chapter I:
Introduction
EPA’s Superfund program uses a systematic site
assessment screening process to determine which
hazardous waste s es should be considered a national
priority. The site assessment screening process is an
objective, methodical process that follows established
procedures and uses a un orm set of decision-making
cr eria.
This video is intended for state, EPA, or contractor
personnel who perform s e assessment screening for
Superfund. The level of detail of the video is directed
at staff who are new to the Superfund program. The
video gives an overview of the Superfund s e
assessment screening process and provides those
performing the tasks an overall understanding of their
work. It does not provide specific instruction on the
details of any tasks (e.g., collecting samples, scoring a
sue).
The video also may be informative for state staff and
EPA regional and headquarters staff who oversee or
are peripherally involved with site assessment work.
The importance of the individual investigator and a
thorough investigation are key lessons in the video
and this guide. Other components of the video and
this guide will help you understand:
• Objectives of the Superfund site assessment
screening process;
• Resources available to help you do your job;
• Steps which lead to a thorough s e
assessment; and
• How your job f s into the Superfund program.
The site assessment screening process and how fits
into the Superfund program are introduced in general
terms in the first part of the video. The focus is on the
current s e assessment screening process, which
includes the Preliminary Assessment (PA), S e
Inspection (SI), and Hazard Ranking System (HAS)
scoring. In April 1992, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, presented the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), a new approach
for streamlining and accelerating the Superfund
program. The overall goal of SACM is to accelerate
cleanups and increase efficiency in the Superfund
process within the framework of the existing statutory
and regulatory structure. This must be accomplished
while ensuring that cleanups continue to be protective
and allow for appropriate public involvement. SACM is
discussed in this guide.
The second part of the video presents a hypothetical
s e — Roberts Solvent Reclamation — as an example
to which the site assessment screening process is
applied. You will go through the process with the
investigator, as he illustrates what resources are
available, how to obtain data, and how the process is
dependent on each step. You will hear about the
importance of this work from your colleagues in the
Superfund s e assessment program, as well as
concerned c izens.
Chapter II of this guide contains a ‘road map’ of the
video with additional information on some of the topics
presented. Appendix A contains scoresheets which
provide additional scoring details of Roberts Solvent
Reclamation site. Appendix B lists reference
documents; Appendix C provides a list of contacts;
and Appendix D includes a list of other site
assessment tools. You can refer to these sections of
the guide during or after viewing the video for more
information or clarification.
Now, start the video.
Page 1
-------
Chapter I: Introduction
Page 2
-------
This chapter of the guide provides a ‘road map’ of
the video, reviewing the information presented. It
also provides background information on topics that
were briefly discussed in the video.
Section A presents an overview of the site
assessment screening process, first introducing all
components of site assessment screening. The
three components that are the focus of the video —
the Preliminary Assessment (PA), the Site Inspection
(SI), and Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring —
are briefly described. The rulemaking process for
proposing a site for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) and a Superfund model (SACM)
proposed in April 1992 are also introduced.
Section B covers more details of the process using
the hypothetical site presented in the video, Roberts
Solvent Reclamation.
Chapter II:
Reference Information
A. Overview of Site
Assessment Screening
Process
The site assessment screening process determines
which hazardous waste sites should be considered a
national priority. It is an objective, systematic
process that follows established criteria. Site
assessment screening also serves as an early
warning system to identify sites needing immediate
attention.
The people who perform site assessment screening
and their work together as a team are two key
elements in the success of the process. These
elements are emphasized throughout the video and
this guide.
Site assessment is a screening process, a ‘sifter’
used to ensure that the limited Federal resources are
directed toward the worst sites (i.e., sites that pose
the greatest threat to human hea h and the
.
/ ,r
environment).
I
/
—4
I
:,t (11
,_\/_\f.
Page 3
-------
Chapter II: Reference Information
Al. Components of the Superfund
Site Assessment Screening
Process
Each component of the Supertund site assessment
screening process is described briefly, and additional
information is provided on the three components that
are of pnmary interest to the site investigator, the
PA, the SI, and HAS scoring.
Site Discovery The Superfund site assessment
screening process begins when sites are
•discovered and reported to EPA by state and local
agencies, industnes, citizens, and anonymous
complaints.
CERCLIS Listing Once discovered, every site is
entered into the comprehensive inventory, CEACLIS,
which stands for the CEACLA Information System.
CERCLA, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, is the
legislation that created the Superfund program.
When a site is entered into CERCLIS, CERCLA
requires that the site assessment screening process
begins within one year.
Preliminary Assessment The first evaluation of a
site is termed Preliminary Assessment. A PA is a
limited-scope investigation to collect readily available
information and conduct a site reconnaissance, or
visit. The PA distinguishes sites that pose little or no
potential threat to human health and the environment
from sites that warrant further investigation. More
details of the PA are described in Section A.2.
Site Inspection The second, more detailed
evaluation of a site, the Site Inspection, follows if the
PA resufts suggest that the site potentially poses
sufficient threat to human heafth and the
environment. This investigation includes collecting
samples of waste and potentially contaminated
environmental media. The SI is described in more
detail in Section A.3.
Status of CERCLIS Site Assessment Inventory Through 09/30/92 - All Regions
Federal and Non-Federal Sites
* SI SEA Sites
#SI Defated Sites
#ES SEA Sites
Tots]
NPL Decisions Needed:
SI Completed Sites
ES Completed Sites
Total
* Sites on Final NPL
# Sites Proposed to NPL
* Sites Removed from Proposed NPL
* Sites Deleted from Final NPL
1,209
13,988
1,662
15.650
34,370 of 36,392 (94.4%) Total Sites hi the Site
&*rce: CERCUS (10,23192) Assessment Inventoy Have Been Assessed
* Includes NPL information in CERCLIS as of 10 23f92 133005-1
33
74
42
1,358
* PA SEA Sites
* PA Defened Sites
Total
6,611 S lNeeded PANeeded
2,970 Sites 2,022 Sites
Page 4
-------
Chapter I I: Reference Information
HRS Scoring The Hazard Ranking System is a
scoring system that provides a uniform, national
method to evaluate all sites. The HRS also defines
the data needs of the PA and SI. HRS scoring is
based on data gathered during the PA and SI. HRS
scoring is described in Section A.4.
NPL Listing Sites that pose the greatest threat to
human health and the environment are considered
the highest priority sites and are proposed for the
National Priorities List. Sites on the NPL are eligible
for Federally financed cleanup. However, cleanup
costs at most sites are paid by the parties
responsible for the contamination at the site. The
rulemaking process to include a site on the NPL is
described in Section A.5.
Emergency Response Actions Some sites require
early action (i.e., emergency response) to reduce
risk. Emergency response actions include spill
responses, removal of unstable waste, and provision
of aUernate water supplies. An important part of site
assessment is identifying sites that may require such
actions. These sites will receive immediate attention
from the Emergency Response Team in your region.
The focus of this video and guide is on sites that
require long-term response, or remedial action.
Site Evaluation Accomplished An important
decision at the PA and SI is whether or not the site
appears to pose a sufficient threat to human heaTh
or the environment to warrant further action under
CERCLA. Sites that do appear to warrant further
action under CERCLA are referred to the next step
in the process. At sites that do not appear to
warrant further action, EPA informs states and other
regulatory authorities that the Site Evaluation is
Accomplished (SEA) and no further action will be
taken under CERCLA. SEA designation does not
indicate that the site poses no threat. Further site
evaluations and remedial actions may be required
under applicable Federal and state environmental
statutes (e.g., the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the National Environmental Policy Act,
the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water
Act). The term previously used for SEA was No
Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP).
A.2. Preliminary Assessment
The PA is a short investigation during which readily
available information is collected. This information is
used to develop hypotheses or questions regarding
the nature of the threat posed by the site. If a state
has investigated a site, the PA may begin with a
great deal of information. However, sometimes very
little information is available about the site when
beginning a PA (e.g., nothing more than the reported
address of the site may be known). Analytical data
on hazardous substance releases and people or
environments exposed to actual contamination are
usually not available at the PA.
The PA, which takes an average of 120 hours to
complete, includes a comprehensive inventory of all
people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by the site. During the PA the investigative
team also determines how much waste is present at
the site. The investigator applies professional
judgment to form hypotheses regarding whether
hazardous substances have been released and
whether people or environments have been exposed
to these substances.
As reflected in the structure of the
HRS, there are three basic
questions to be addressed during
the silo assessment process:
• Have hazardous substances
been deposited at the site? If
so, what and how much?
• Have hazardous substances
migrated from the site? If not,
are they likely to?
• Who and what are likely to be
affected?
Page 5
-------
Chapter II: Reference Information
Almost all PAs require an on- or off-sife
reconnaissance (or ‘recon’). Three objectives of the
recon are to:
• Observe sife conditions;
• Collect addifional information to confirm file data
on the sife (such as population and
environmental data) and to document the PA
evaluation; and
• Evaluate the need for removal or emergency
action.
Typical reconnaissance activities include:
• Conducting a perimeter survey;
• Preparing a site sketch;
• Evaluating source types, sizes, and
containment;
• Assessing waste disposal practices;
• Estimating waste quantify;
• Assessing areas of stained soil and potentially
affected vegetation;
• Determining drainage paths;
• Identifying residences, wells, schools, day care
facilities, resources, and sensitive environments
on and around the site;
• Assessing nearby land uses;
• Interviewing local authorities; and
• Identifying emergency response condit ions.
Once if has been determined that there were
hazardous substances somewhere on site, the
investigators should determine what they were and
how much was deposited. The investigators must
also decide whether a release is suspected and
whether any people or environments are suspected
of being exposed to hazardous substances. The PA
scoresheets include criteria lists that guide the
investigators in using professional judgment to
answer these questions.
Using the information collected during the PA, a PA
score is calculated. The score is used to determine
if the site should continue to the SI or if site
evaluation is accomplished under CERCLA, in which
case the site is referred to the state for possible
further action. Historically, about 60 percent of the
sites investigated have continued from the PA to the
SI; in other words, approximately 40 percent are
designated as SEA after the PA.
Enforcement efforts during the PA begin with
identifying potentially responsible parties (PRPs),
those individuals or companies that may be
responsible for the contamination at the site. Site
owners and waste generators or transporters are
PRPs that the Superfund program will investigate to
recover cleanup costs.
When visiting a site or speaking
with local residents, it is important
to consider community relations
protocols. Community
representatives should be
contacted in advance of the site
visit. Superfund community
retations coordinators can help
identify appropriate representatives.
Only designated team members
should participate in discussions
with local residents, remaining as
factual as possible and avoiding
expressing opinions or raising
expectations for future action.
Team members should refer
questions to the Regional Site
Assessment Manager. For
guidance on community relations
during site assessment, see
Community Relations in Superfund:
A Handbook and two fact sheets
(see Appendix B).
Page 6
-------
napier ii: eierence iniormation
You may feel anxious about your abil y to conduct
sife assessment screening or to find information
necessary for a good PA, especially if you are new
on the job. There are many excellent resources
available to you to help you w h your search. These
are listed in the appendices of this guide and
detailed in Appendix B of the PA guidance.
A.3. Site Inspection
The SI is a limifed, purposely biased investigation of
contaminants at and near the sife. The purpose of
the SI is to identify the specific hazardous
substances at the site, determine whether these
substances have migrated into the environment, and
determine whether contamination has reached
people or sensifive environments. A crifical part of
the SI is testing the hypotheses developed at the PA
regarding suspected releases and suspected
contamination.
The SI generally involves a greater level of effort and
considerably more planning than the PA. Analytical
(sampling) data required for HRS scoring are ob-
tained during the SI. The SI also is more tailored to
sife cond ions than the PA; types of releases and
types of threats that must be investigated differ
widely among sites and may require different
sampling strategies.
To gather information for HRS scoring and test the
hypotheses formed at the PA, SI data collection
activifies include collecting a lim ed number of
samples of soil, water, air, and the waste at the site.
Because sampling is limited, it is important that each
sample be carefully planned and purposeful — the
s e investigators must use the limited number of
samples wisely, i.e., Nsample smart.”
The SI data collection activ ies also include
investigation of records, land use, and geology.
Information is gathered on certain features of the site
(e.g., aquifers, fisheries, and previous uses of the
sue) that eif her was not available at the PA or could
not be obtained within the scope of the PA.
I
Page 7
-------
Chapter II: Reference Information
Just as the SI relies on the PA information, the PA
and SI results may be the basis for later
characterization and risk assessment if the s e goes
on to become an NPL site. The analytical data
collected during the SI and the other data collected
during the PA and SI form the basis of the HRS
score. Once the data collection is complete, HAS
scoring is performed.
A.4. HRS Scoring
The HAS is a regulation and a scoring system
originally adopted in 1982 to evaluate the relative
priority of hazardous substance release s es. The
scoring system allows EPA to determine whether a
s e should be placed on the NPL. The scoring
system is a comprehensive tool to provide objective,
un orm criteria for evaluating sites.
CERCLA section 105(c)(1) states’ ... to the
maximum extent feasible, that the Hazard Ranking
System accurately assess the relative degree of risk
to human health and the environment posed by sites
and facilities subject to review.’
The HRS was revised in 1990 in response to the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA). The revised HRS retains the same
basic structure as the original, while incorporating
SARA requirements, as well as improvements
identified by EPA and the public. The revisions
made the HRS more comprehensive and more
accurate.
The HRS evaluates a s e by examining three ‘factor
categories,’ which are Likelihood of Release (LA),
Waste Characteristics (WC), and Targets (T).
(Targets are defined as physical human or
environmental resources that are threatened, or
potentially threatened, by a release, or potential
release, of hazardous substances from the s e.) A
value is calculated for each factor category based on
many individual variables, called ‘factors.’ Some
factors are assigned values from charts listed in the
HAS (see Appendix B). For example, based on
observations and documentation of the physical
characteristics of a source, a containment factor
value is assigned from HAS Table 3-2, which is used
in the calculation of Likelihood of Release. The
factor categories are evaluated for each of four
environmental media or pathways — ground water,
surface water, soil exposure, and air.
For each pathway, a score ( 5 with x representing
the pathway) is calculated using the equation:
LR x WC x T / 82,500. The constant (82,500) is
used to calibrate each pathway score, so that
maximum values for likelihood of release and waste
characteristics, multiplied by a value of 150 for
targets, result in the maximum pathway score of 100.
Pathway score:
s=L W T
82,500
The four pathway scores are then combined into one
equation which generates the sife score.
Site score:
For the ground water, air, and soil
pathways, potentially contaminated
targets are evaluated according to
distance categories, which are
concentric around sources. The
values assigned to targets are
multiplied by a weighting factor,
which declines as distance
increases to reflect expected lower
concentrations. Potentially
contaminated targets for the
surface water pathway calculation
are similarly evaluated according to
dilution categories related to the
flow and depth characteristics of
the surface water body. This is
referred to as distance- and
dilution-weighting of targets.
Page 8
-------
Chapter II: Reference Information
The site score equation uses a root mean square
algorfthm to emphasize higher scoring pathways. A
sife will score high even ft only one of the four
pathways scores high.
Any site scoring 28.5 or greater is eligible for
inclusion on the NPL. For the original HRS, EPA
chose a cutoff of 28.5 because ft yielded an initial
NPL of at least 400 sites, as suggested by CERCLA;
28.5 does not represent a threshold of unacceptable
risk. For the revised HRS, EPA decided not to
change the cutoff score because analysis did not
point to a single number as the appropriate cutoff.
EPA believes that the range of scores between 25
and 30 represents a true breakpoint in the
distribution of sfte scores and that the sites scoring
above the range of 25 to 30 are clearly the types of
sifes that should be captured with a screening tool.
Therefore, if a score is close to 28.5, the
investigators must be certain to carefully document
the score.
EPA has developed computer software entitled
PREscore to assist site assessment investigators by
automating HAS site scoring. PREscore performs
HRS calculations from raw data entered by the
scorer, using HRS-related hazardous substance
information. PREscore allows site investigators to
easily test different scoring scenarios and can be
used to generate HAS documentation and other
decisional records. A preliminary HAS score
calculated during the SI may be modified as data is
gathered and refined during the HAS package
preparation.
The HRS is a thread through the entire site
assessment screening process — the data collection
obiectives of the PA and the SI are determined by
the HAS data input requirements. Information from
each step is carried to the next. It is important to
document all data and scoring decisions accurately
and completely. At many sites, different teams of
site investigators conduct the different steps of the
assessment; that is one team may perform the PA
and another the SI. At sites that go on to be
proposed for the NPL, PA and SI data must be
legally defensible.
A.5. National Priorities List
An HAS package is prepared for every site that is
proposed for the NPL. It contains the legal and
technical information compiled during the site
assessment screening process and is used to
propose sites for the NPL. Historically, only about 8
percent of the sites listed in CERCLIS have been
placed on the NPL. When a site goes on the NPL,
EPA investigates further to determine a long-term
cleanup strategy for the site.
To include a site on the NPL, EPA follows a
rulemaking process.
• EPA proposes sites for the NPL by publishing a
list of sites in the Federal Register. This is
referred to as a proposed rule.
• HAS packages for proposed sites contain data
from the PA, SI, and HAS scoring and are
available for viewing during a period of public
comment, which is generally 8 to 10 weeks.
• The public (including PRPs) can submit
comments on any site in the proposed rule; the
HAS score presented in the NPL proposed
rulemaking may be modified in response to
public comments.
• After considering all comments, EPA adds sites
to the NPL if they meet program requirements
and any applicable listing policies. EPA
publishes the list of sites as a final rule in the
Federal Register.
A.6. The Superlund Accelerated
Cleanup Model
In April 1992, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response proposed SACM, a new
approach for streamlining and accelerating the
Superfund program. The model seeks to accomplish
four objectives:
Page 9
-------
Chapter I I: Reference Information
• Establish a continuous process for the
assessment of sife-specific conditions and the
need for action;
• Create cross-program Regional
Decision/Management Teams responsible for
initiating appropriate actions as information is
developed about a sife;
• Achieve prompt risk reduction through early
actions; and
• Ensure the appropriate cleanup of long-term
environmental problems.
The process integrates tradifional site assessment
functions to support both removal and remedial
assessments. This ensures that data collected in
one phase of sfte assessment supports other
assessment, enforcement, and response activities.
After the inifial screening and risk assessment, the
Regional Decision team can initiate an early
response action to eliminate or reduce human health
or environmental threats where quick response is
necessary. These actions can include cleanup
activities generally taking no more than three or, at
the most, five years. For additional information and
guidance on the SACM initiative, please refer to the
five short sheets, dated December 1992. These
cover key program management issues, early action
and long-term action, enforcement, assessing sites,
and Regional Decision Teams.
The Regional Decision Team will also determine if
and when long-term remediation (e.g., ground water
restoration) is appropriate. Sites will then be placed
on the Long-Term Remediation List and be cleaned
up over many years. It will be clear to the public
that sites placed on this list would require many
years, if not decades, to clean up, but would pose
no immediate threat to existing populations.
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)
Public Notification of Early Action Start
Public Notification
J Early Action
] Completed
Early
Action
To Reduce Risk
(cS Yeers)
A l
s Il
Issue Order/
Negotiate
Delete
Entoicement Activities
Stat&Public Participation/Community Relations
12d035-1
Page 10
-------
Chapter II: Reference Information
B. Roberts Solvent
Reclamation Site —
An Applied Example
A hypothetical s e was created for this video in order
to walk through the process and provide details
about where information is obtained and, generally,
how scores are calculated. Elements of the s e
scoring procedures are outlined in data sheets
contained in Appendix A.
B.1. Preliminary Assessment at
Roberts Solvent Reclamation
PA activities include collecting information, a site
reconnaissance, scoring, and reporting.
Data Collection
Most of the PA investigation is usuaUy spent
co ecting readily available data. When the Roberts
Solvent Reclamation site was referred to Superfund,
all the investigator had was a file containing a
location and a brief description of drums at the sue.
The first thing the investigator did was to locate the
site on a topographic map. The map indicated that
a creek near the site flowed into a wetland and a
major river.
The investigator received permission from EPA to
visit the sfte and planned a s e recon. While in the
office, he gathered more information using the S e
Assessment Information Directory (SAID — see
Appendix D). The investigator contacted the local
water authority and the tax assessor.
From the local water author y, he found that there is
a drinking water intake on the river below the
confluence of the creek. He found out that the tax
assessor would provide plat maps which could
define the property boundaries of Roberts
Reclamation. The tax office also had information on
the duration of operations at the site.
PA s e assessors should consuU the PA Guidance
(see Appendix B) when structuring their data search.
They should refer to the checklist of PA information
needs that must be addressed during the PA
process.
Page 11
-------
Topographic Map for Roberts Solvent Reclamation
The thin contour lines on the topographic map mark altitude. These are
helpful for determining watershed boundaries, direction of surface water
flow, and gradient for hypothesizing ground water flow. Other useful
information gleaned from the map includes location of wetlands, parks,
other sensitive environments, residences, industrial buildings, schools,
and other buildings.
-------
Chapter II: Reference Information
Site Reconnaissance
During the site recon, the investigative team viewed
the s e from the periphery. They noted drums,
stained soil, a drainage ditch, fisheries, and homes
nearby. While in the area, the investigators visited
the tax assessor and obtained the property
boundaries and names of owners of the nearby
homes. A visa to the water authority confirmed the
intake on the river as the sole source of drinking
water for Springfield, a town of 5,000. The
investigators also found out that Westwood gets s
water from two municipal wells northwest of the site.
The investigators also called one of the neighbors,
who had been a foreman at Roberts Solvent
Reclamation. Based on information the foreman had
on the production of the company, the investigators
could better estimate the number and contents of the
drums. The foreman confirmed that private wells are
the neighborhood’s source of drinking water.
Scoring and Reporting
At this she, there was a moderate amount of waste
present, a strong likelihood that it is being released,
and a strong likelihood that the creek and wetland
are contaminated — therefore, the site received a PA
score of 53.49 and moved on to the Site Inspection.
The scoring procedure for the PA is derived from the
HRS scoring algorithms, which are explained in
greater detail in Section B.3. The PA scoring for this
s e is outlined in Appendix A.
Hypotheses were formed at the PA regarding the
nature of the threat posed by the site. At Roberts
Solvent Reclamation, the investigators hypothesized
that hazardous substances were present. They
hypothesized that the drinking water intake on the
river was not contaminated because of its distance
down river from the site, but that the creek and the
fish in the wetland were contaminated. They did not
suspect a release to ground water, so no
contamination of nearby drinking water wells was
suspected.
Accurate data collection and thorough reporting are
important at the PA because a different person will
most likely investigate the site in the next site
assessment steps and will rely on the information
gathered at the PA.
B.2. Site Inspection at Roberts
Solvent Reclamation Site
Sampling at Roberts Solvent Reclamation included
testing hypotheses made during the PA and
determining background levels of contaminants in
soils, sediments, and ground water. The
investigative team sampled the two sources of waste
at the s e (the drum area and the stained soil) in
order to identify hazardous substances present at
the site. They sampled nearby environments (the
wetland and Little Creek) to determine whether they
were contaminated. The investigators also collected
samples at the nearby municipal and private wells,
and the town of Springfield’s drinking water intake, in
order to ensure that drinking water supplies were not
contaminated.
WTh sampling results, the investigators documented
the presence of PCBs, chlorinated solvents, and
VOCs, and delineated an area of surficial soil
contamination. PCB contamination was documented
in the wetland and Little Creek and therefore, can
be assumed that the fishery is also contaminated.
The absence of contamination in drinking water
supplies was also documented.
At the SI, data collection activities often include
resource intensive investigations that could not be
performed within the scope of the PA. Record
searches at Roberts Solvent Reclamation refined the
estimate of drums and indicated the presence of
PCB waste.
It is important to note that the investigators followed
EPA standard health and safety procedures, which
vary according to the threats at a site. At Roberts
Solvent Reclamation, health and safety procedures
included wearing respirators and protective clothing
during sampling, and working wTh a buddy.
After collecting the SI data, the investigator scored
the site using the HRS scoring procedures.
Page 13
-------
Chapter II: Reference Information
B.3. HRS Scoring for Roberts
Solvent Reclamation
For details on scoring Roberts Solvent Reclamation,
refer to Appendix A.
In scoring the ground water pathway for Roberts
Solvent Reclamation, the likelihood of release
received a value of 240 because the aquiter used for
drinking water was moderately deep and the ground
beneath the site was not very permeable to water.
Because of the moderate volume of waste present
and the moderate toxicity of chlorinated solvents,
waste characteristics in the ground water pathway
received a value of 10. Because the nearby private
wells and the municipal wells serving Westwood
were found not to be contaminated, the targets value
of 194 reflects the dilution that contaminated ground
water would experience as it moved toward the
wells. Putting these numbers in the pathway
equation, the ground water pathway received a
score of 5.64.
Ground water pathway score:
SGW 5.64 I
82,500
Because sediments in the wetland were
contaminated with PCBs, which pose a threat to
both the human food chain and environmental
targets, the surface water pathway received a
m imum pathway score of 100. At Roberts Solvent
Reclamation, the soil exposure and air pathways
pose very little threat and received low pathway
scores. The soil exposure pathway score of zero and
the air pathway score of 0.71 reflect no on-site
population and a small nearby population. To
summarize, the ground water pathway scored 5.64,
the surface water pathway scored 100, the soil
exposure pathway scored zero, and the air pathway
scored 0.71.
Roberts Solvent Reclamation Site Score:
Roberts Solvent Reclamation scored 50.08, which
means that it is eligible for the NPL. If this were a
real site, an HAS package containing all technical
documentation would be prepared to support the
proposal of including this site on the NPL.
B.4. Summary and Wrap Up
Three important points:
• Your involvement in each step is important in
achieving the overall goals of the Superfund
program — to direct limited Federal funds to the
sites that pose the greatest threat to human
heahh and the environment.
• Only a small percentage of sites make it to the
NPL, but all assessments are important. Site
assessment screening is a contest to get a
site on the NPL; a SEA determination is just as
important as listing a site.
• You will need to rely on your professional
judgment, and this will be easier as you gain
more experience. Until then, rely on your
colleagues, available guidance, and other
resources.
There are many resources available to you including
people, documents, and computer programs. Refer
to the appendices in this guide for a list of these
resources.
Remember, you get lost, rely on your site
assessment teammates.
Page 14
-------
Chapter II: Reference Information
Page 15
1
I
I
-------
Chapter II: Reference Information
Page 16
-------
Appendix A:
Scoresheets for
Roberts Reclamation Site
1. PA Scoring
a. General Information
b. Source Evaluation
c. Ground Water Pathway
d. Surface Water Pathway
e. Soil Exposure Pathway
f. Air Pathway
g. Site Score
2. PREscore
a. The PREscore Program
b. Summary of the Site Score
c. Ground Water Pathway — Likelihood of Release
d. Ground Water Pathway — Waste Characteristics and Targets
e. Add ional Scoring Information
3. HRS Scoring
a. Sources and Waste Characteristics
b. Ground Water Pathway
C. Surface Water Pathway
d. Soil Exposure Pathway
e. Air Pathway
f. Site Score
g. Contaminant Characteristics
Some of the data used in these scoresheets were derived from information about Roberts Solvent
Reclamation that was given in the video. Other data were developed by the scorers to reflect cond ions as they
might have been at the hypothetical sfte.
Page A-i
-------
Appendix A: Scoresheets
Page #2
-------
Appendix A.1:
PA Scoring for Roberts
Solvent Reclamation Site
a. General Information
(1) Site Description and Operational History: Roberts Solvent Reclamation site is in a rural
setting on Route 12 in Washington County, about three miles south of Westwood. The area of the site is
approximately 12 acres. There have been reports of dozens of rusty drums onsite, some partially buried, rusting,
and not maintained. The site is uphill from Little Creek, which flows into the Red River. There is a wetland
nearby, and three miles downstream from the confluence of Little Creek and Red River there is a drinking water
intake. The Roberts Solvent Reclamation owns the property and paid taxes from 1962 through 1985. The
assumption is that the site remained active through 1985, and is now currently abandoned and inactive.
(2) Probable Substances of Concern: The drums at the site have not been maintained and have not
been stored on concrete pads. There is a large area of stained soil under and adjacent to the drums. A drainage
ditch leads to a wetland on the edge of Little Creek. The former foreman at the site confirmed the drums were the
only containers of hazardous waste on the site and that used industrial solvents were contained in the drums.
Substances usually documented at solvent reclamation sites include chlorinated solvents and other volatile organic
compounds.
Page A-3
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
(3) Site Sketch
b. Source Evaluation
Two sources were identified. Source 1 is a partially buried collection
visible at the surface. Source 2 is an area of stained soil around the
toward the wetland. All sources are uncontained and therefore have
for all pathways.
of drums, several hundred ot which are
drums and extending down a drainage d ch
a containment factor value greater than zero
Source #1: The foreman at the company. who was interviewed during the PA, estimated the number of drums to
be between 5,000 and 10,000. The drums are partially buned and visible at the surface. Source waste quant y
calculation is based on 10,000 drums.
Volume: 10,000 drums ÷ 10 = 1,000 (PA Table 1)
Source #2: Based on measurements taken from plat maps at the tax assessors office, the area containing the
drums and the stained soil is approximately 200 feet by 400 feet. The area of contaminated soil = 80,000 ft 2 . The
area of the ditch is approximately 50 feet by 20 feet, or 1,000 ft 2 .
• Area:
81,000 f1 2 ÷ 34,000 = 2.38 (PA Table 1)
WQ = 1,000 + 2.38 = 1002.38
WQ of 1002.38 = WC of 32 (PA Table ib)
WC factor value = 32 (all pathways )
65
F .- 20C’
oI
LITTLE REEd(
Page A-4
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
SOURCE EVALUATION
Source Source Name: R u MS Source Waste Quantity (WQ) Calculations:
No.:
Source Description: o a a 000
? TI i LY 8uR’ED
CoL EcTlow c DRo
SEV R L HUNDr ED
VISJ LG AT O .F6C
Source ,— I Source Name: Source Waste Quantity (WQ) Calculations:
No.: . Co 1-. -ML Teb OlL
Source Descnption: 200 x ‘- I c c P+ >OO C n 2
Oc T - 1 REA 5O 1- x2oc
L F4 O lMJ1 T UMS I t’J i cco
DtTc LEPIJING. DC N °
ôoo c
T M r-i ANb T -i
rCH
Source ( Source Name : Source Waste Quantity (WO) Calculations:
No.:
Source Description:
+ WQ 2
132
- 2.3’ - OO2.3 ’
CF4ECK Pi 16
Page A-5
-------
Appendix_A.1: PA_Scoring
c. Ground Water Pathway
(1) Ground Water Use Within 4 miles of the Site: Based on data from the US Geologic Survey,
only one aqu er (non-karst) underlies the s e. All private and municipal wells within the target distance limit (TDL)
are screened in this aqu er. The screening depth of the nearest well is at 60 feet. There is no liner or essentially
impervious base under any source. The depth to aqu er is 40 feet. There are five drinking water wells within the
TDL. The nearest is a pnvate well located 800 feet from the nearest source. Three private wells serving a total 14
people are located between 800 and 1,000 feel from the nearest source. Two municipal wells serving Westwood
(population 4,500) are ‘ocated 2,800 and 4,850 feet from the nearest source. The municipal supply is a rotational,
not a blended, system and is used for watering commercial livestock. The municipal wells are not located within a
wellhead protection area. _____ _________ ______________ _________
Well
Private or
Municipal
Distance
Population
Served
1
Private
800 feet
14
2
Private
925 feet
3
Private
1,000 feet
4
Municipal
2,800 feet
4500
5
Municipal
4,850 feet
(2) Calculations for Drinking Water Populations Served by Ground Water:
Distance
Category
Number
of People
Distance-weighted
Population Value
Oto l/4mile
14
2
> 1/2 to 1 mile
4,500
167
TOTAL 1
---
169
values are zero for all other distance categories
Nearest Well factor value = 20 (PA Table 2a)
Distance-weighted population values: (PA Table 2a)
PA Table 2a: Non-Karst Aquifers
Nearest Wel —
20
Score— 1 ’- ?
Distance
froai .
u tis.
N.w.st
b, ,
k*oa,.
Al 1 iluf l
Pop ,tkn S.,v.o ’by Pats VmM, Distance Cst.go
Va*m
I
to
II
.
an
31
70 .
101
300
W
1.000
l00I
w
3,000
300 1
1o.ooO
10.001
an ooo
30 001
ioo ooo
. .fsr
.
ioO,oo
Oto % nil.
>%to%nil.
>Y *01 m l.
>1 to 2 m l ..
>2to3n i l..
>3*o4JT i l .a
/d7
1 X3
)
18
9
5
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
( ,)
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
2
1
1
1
16
10
5
3
2
1
52
32
17
9
7
4
163
101
52
29
21
13
521
323
(jj )
94
68
42
1,633
1,012
522
294
212
131
5,214
3,233
1,668
939
678
417
16,325
10,121
5.224
2,938
2.122
1.306
2
0
ItT
Page A-6
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
(3) Likelihood of Release: Although sources are poorly contained and waste quantity is moderately
large, a release to ground water is not suspected for the reasons outhned in the Ground Water Pathway Criteria
List.
GROUNDWATER PATHWAY CRITERIA LIST
SUSPECTED RELEASE The precipitation levels are not heavy.
YNU .
• • The site is not located in an area of karst terrain.
8/ k
‘ 0 0 Are sources poorly contained?
O 0 1 Is the source a type likely to contribute to The ground beneath the site is not very
ground water contamination (e.g., wet permeable to water.
lagoon)?
10 0 Is waste quantity particularly large? The aquifer used for drinking water is moderately
/ deep.
o 0 Is precipitation heavy?
The wells are upgradient from the site so
o o t Is the infiltrabon rate high?
/ contamination would be very unlikely.
o t ’ Is the site located in en ares of karst terrain?
• Contamination of the nearby private wells also is
o 0 Is the subsurface highly permeable or
conductive? not suspecte
o 1 0 Is drinking water drawn from a shallow
aquifer?
o o iI’ Are suspected contaminants highly mobile in
ground water?
o 0 Does analytical or circumstantial evidence
suggest ground water contamination?
O 0 Other criteria?____________________________
o 61 SUSPECTED RELEASE?
Likelihood of release is assigned a value of 500 because depth to aquifer is less than 70 feet.
No suspected release = 500
Likelihood of Release = 500
(4) Targets: No release is suspected, therefore all drinking water wells are considered secondary targets.
Secondary Target Population = 169 (PA Table 2a)
Nearest Well factor value 20 (PA Table 2a)
Wellhead Protection Area = 0
Resources factor value = 5
Targets = 194 (169 + 20 + 0 + 5)
Page A-7
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
(5) Ground Water Pathway Score = (500 x 194 x 32) + 82,500 = 37.62
GROUND WATER PATHWAY SCORESHEET
UKEUHOOD OF RELEASE _______
1. SUSPECTED RELEASE: If you suspect a release to ground water see page 7).
assign a score of 550. Use only column A for this pathway.
2. NO SUSPECTED RELEASE: If you do not suspect a release to ground water. and
the site is in karat terrain or the depth to aquifer is 70 feet or less, assign a score
of 500; otherwise, assign a score of 340. Use only column B for this pathway.
LR —
TARGETS _______
3. PRIMARY TARGET POPULATION: Determine the number of people served by
drinking water wells that you suspect have been exposed to a hazardous
substance from the site (see Ground Water Pathway Criter*a List, page 7).
______ people x 10 —
4. SECONDARY TARGET POPULATION: Determine the number of people served by
drinking water wells that you do NOT suspect have been exposed to a hazardous
substance from the site, and assign the total population score from PA Table 2.
Are any wells part of a blended system? Yes No
If yes, attach a page to show apportionment calculations. ___________
5. NEAREST WELL: If you have identified a primary target population for ground
water, assign a score of 50; otherwise, assign the Nearest Well score from
PA Table 2. Ii no drinking water wells exist within 4 miles. assign a score of zero. _________
6. WELU’IEAD PROTECTiON AREA (WHPA): If any sowce lies within or above a WHPA,
or if you have identified any primary target well within a WHPA, assign a score of 20;
assign 5 if neither condition holds but a WHPA is present within 4 miles; otherwise ________
assign zero.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
8. A. If you have identified any primary target for ground water, assign the waste
characteristics score calculated on page 4, or a score of 32, whichever is
GREATER; do not evaluate part B of this factor. _________
B. If you have NOT identified any primary target for ground water, assign the
waste characteristics score calculated on page 4.
GROUND WATER PATHWAY SCORE: LR x I x WC
82,500
Pathw.y CAw. *i
Do you suspect a release (see Ground Water Pathway Criteria List, page 7)?
Yes
No
Is the Site located in karat terrain?
Yes
No
Depth to aquifer:
Distance to the nearest drinking water well:
ft
7. RESOURCES
WC —
1(09
0
t S.S.L3.2. —
a
i $ _o
i..ø
i, - ‘N
- I a
32
A
I Ral.aa.
32
(ss Nct to $ ma u%o .f tool
3i( 0 2
Page A-8
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
d. Surface Water Pathway
The probable point of entry (PPE) of contaminants to the creek is on the southern side of the site, in a wetland
adjacent to Little Creek. Little Creek flows eastward for 0.5 miles until it joins the Red River. The Red River flows
south to the edge of the TDL (14.5 miles from the confluence of Little Creek) with no signthcant tributary.
(1) Surface Water Hazardous Substance Migration Path:
I
SPite
/
— ed River
I L.1tt19 Creek
PPE
Drinking Wa7ier
Intake
Town of
Springfield
1
- Page A-9
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
(2) Likelihood of Release: Surface water is nearby (the wetland and creek are just below the site),
sources are poorly contained (the drums are on the ground and rusting), and a runoff route is well defined (the
drainage ditch from the site clearly leads to the wetland). There is a moderately large amount of waste, and due
to the stained soil and a clear drainage path to the water, there is a strong likelihood that the waste is being
released into Little Creek. Based on professional judgment, Little Creek and the fish in the wetland could be
contaminated. Therefore, likelihood of release is assigned maximum value (for suspected release).
likelihood of Release = 550
SIJRFACE WATER PATHWAY
Pathway C*waer.*ów
IDo you suspect a release (see Surface Water Pathway Critena List. page 11)?
IDistance to surface water:
IFlood frequency:
lWhat is the downstream distance to the nearest drinking water intake? miles
Nearest fishery? -/ miles Nearest sensitive environment?
Yes / No
A
B
UKEUH000 OF RELEASE
1. SUSPECTED REIIASE If you suspect a release to surface water (see page Ill.
assign a score of 550. Use only column A for this pathway.
2. NO SUSPECTED RELEASE: If you do not suspect a release to surface
water, use the table below to uslgn a score based on distance to surface
water and flood frequency. Use only column B for this pathway.
Distance to surface water 2.500 feet
500
Distance to surface water > 2.500 feet. and
Site in annual or 10-year floodplain
100
Site in 100-year floodplain
400
Site in 500-year floodplain
300
Site outside 500-year floodplain
700
LR —
(3) Drinking Water Threat Targets: There is one drinking water intake within the TDL (three miles
downstream from the confluence of Little Creek and Red River). The municipal intake serving Springfield is
located on the Red River. The municipal supply is not blended and is used for irrigating commercial crops.
Although a release to the watershed is suspected, no contamination is suspected at the Springfield intake because
the intake is not especially close to the site and the Red River is rather large, so any contaminants released from
the site will be diluted by the time they get that far downstream. The drinking water intake is considered a
secondary target.
Intake Name
Water Body Type
Flow
People Served
Flow-weighted
Population Value
Red River (municipal)
large stream to
river
1857 cfs
5500
1
Nearest Intake factor value = 0 (PA Table 3)
Flow-weighted population values: (PA Table 3)
Secondary Target Population = 1 (PA Table 3)
Resources factor value = 5
Drinking Water Threat Targets = 6 (1 + 5 + 0)
S imp.ctN IN.
R .aa. I
5 5
a
,
Page A-b
-------
Appendix Al: PA Scoring
PA TA&E 3: VALUES FOR SECONDARY SURFACE WATER TARGET POPULATIONS
Sivlac. Watw
Body Flow
Is.. PA Taôlo 4)
Popida( n
N.a.sf
make
choose
Mi.st )
-c.rv.db
lntaks I4q , Ri — C.f.pi y
-
Popidatlon
ViA ,.
i
w
it
te
Too
rot
t.
30 ,
te
i oo.
r .oo,
te
&000
zoo,
te
10.000
,e oo:
te
so .000
iooot
i.
100.000
,oo.oot
t.
300,000
x.,10, &.iw,
a.
‘.oo ooc ,.ooo.oor
lOloWOcfs
> lOOtoL 00 0ct a
>1.000 to 10,000 c i .
>10 , 0 0 0c i.o r
Gt..t Likes
3ivá Is taiang Zone
1)
19
O
55O0
(3
C)
20
2
I
(9
0
tO
2
1
0
0
0
1
5
1
0
0
0
3
16
2
1
0
0
S
52
5
1
0
0
26
153
16
2
1
0
Si
521
52
5
(9
0
261
1,633
163
16
2
1
816
5.214
521
52
5
1
2,607
16.325
1,633
163
16
2
8.162
52,136
5,214
521
52
5
26068
163.246
16,325
1.633
163
16
81.663
0
19
(3
1
0
(3
Nesrest Intake —
0
Score— I
DRINKING WATER THREAT TARGETS
3. Record the water body type, flow (if applicablel, and number of people served
v each drinking water intake within the target distance limit. If there is no
drinking water intake within the target distance limit, factorS 4. 5. and 6
each receive zero Scores.
j hw. .,. W.r. 5.4’ T 1.i . Mew , S. .d
- cVc / g6 cts 6 6O
( Mc) sic ..,PA L- EU )
[
4. PRIMARY TARGET POPULATION: If you suspect any dnnking water intake listed
above has been exposed to a hazardous substance from The site tsee Stilace Water
Pathway Criteria List, page 11), list the intake name(s) and calculate the factor
score based on the total population served.
_people a 10
5. SECONDARY TARGET POPtILA1 ’ION: Determine the number of people served by
drinking water intakes that you do NOT suspect have been exposed to a hazardous
substance from the site, and assign the total population score from PA Table 3.
Are any intakes part of a blended system? Yes — No
If yes, attach a page to show apportionment calculations.
6. NEAREST INTAKE: If you have idenvfied a primary target population for the
drinking water threat (factor 4), assign a score of 50; otherwise, assign the
Nearest Intake score from PA Table 3. If no drinking water intake exists within
the target distance limit, assign a score of zero.
7, RESOURCES
t—— ,-.— —
i a n , .. , ,. • a
nazi, — a
0
/
Page A-il
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
(4) Human Food Chain Threat Targets: There are two fisheries within the TDL: Little Creek from
the probable point of entry (PPE) to the confluence with the Red River, and the Red River from the confluence with
Little Creek to the edge of the TDL. Since the wetland is considered part of the Little Creek fishery and the
wetland is already suspected of being contaminated, the Little Creek fishery is considered a primary target.
However, because the flow in the Red River is so much greater than that of Little Creek, the amount of hazardous
substances flowing down Little Creek is not likely to contaminate the Red River fishery. The Red River fishery thus
is considered a secondary target.
Fishery Name
Water Body Type
Flow
Uttle Creek
small to moderate stream
10-100 cfs
Red River
large stream to flyer
1857 cfs
Primary Fishery factor value = 300
Secondary Fishery factor value = 0
Human Food Chain Threat Targets = 300
HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT TARGETS
8. Record the water body type and flow (if applicable) for each fishery within
the target distance limit. If there is no fishery within the target
distance limit. assign a Targets score of Oat the bottom of the page.
.q.h.v M ,.
t, rt ( 1 e -
W. ..#, T p.
7 iu — Z
w
içD-ii Ø s
itc-’
5
5
g’ , g,tfe’rz
9. PRIMARY FISH IES: If you susoect any fishery listed above has been exposed
to a hazardous substance from the site (see Surface Water Criteria List, page 11).
assign a score of 300 and do not evaluate Factor 10. List the primary fisheries:
L.JrTLE C L ______________
10. SECONDARY FISHERIES
A. Ii you suspect a release to stat ace water and have identified a secondary fishery
but no primary fishery, assign a score of 210.
B. If you do not suspect a release, assign a Secondary Fisheries score from the table
below using the lowest flow at any fishery within the target distance limit.
L. t R.w
Sa .y S
100 Cf s. coastal
tidal waters, oceans,
or Great Lakes
12
Page A-12
-------
Appendix Al: PA Scoring
(5) Environmental Threat Targets: The wetland adjacent to Little Creek is considered to be a
sensitive environment. It is the only sensitive environment within the TDL. Since the wetland is contiguous to
Little Creek, the flow rate is the same. The PPE is located in the wetland where a suspected release occurred, so
this area is considered a primary sensitive environment.
Primary sensitive environments factor value 300
Secondary sensitive environments factor value = 0
Environmental Threat Targets = 300
11. Record the water body type and flow (if applicable) for each surface water
sensitive environment within the target distance limit (see PA Tables 4
and 5). I I there is no sensitive environment within the target distance
limit, asstgn a Targets score of 0 at the bottom of the page.
,Ww w W N.m.
W.t .4 T .
R.w
J-,rTLg iTh’j H
.
c i i
c i a
$
12. PRIMARY SENSITiVE ENViRONMENTS: It you suspect any sensitive environ-
ment listed above has been exposed to a hazardous substance from the site (see
Surface Water Criteria List, page 11), assign a score of 300 and do not evaluate
factor 13. List the primary sensitive environments:
?p,&i r# c r - i-irri eee
13. SECONDARY SEN S VE ENVIRONMENTS: If sensitive environments are
present, but none is a primary sensitive environment, evaluate Secondary
Sensitive Environments based on flow.
A. For secondary sensitive environments on surface water bodies with flows 01
100 cfs or less, assign scores as follows, and do not evaluate part B of
this factor:
Row
O .n W.ight
(PA TabI. 4)
En .iu..mW T ,p. and Vdu.
(PA T.W.a SandS)
Tot. ’
Cf s
x
—
cf:
x
ct
K
w
cf
x
c Is
x
B. If all secondary sensitive environments are located on surface water bodies
with flows >100 cf s, assign a score 0110.
T-
3
ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT TARGETS
B
I, .
Page A-13
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
(6) Surface Water Pathway Threat Scores
Threat
Likelihood of
Release Score
Targets Score
Waste
Charactenstics
Score
Threat Score
(LRxTxWC) ÷ 82,500
Dnnking Water
550
6
32
1.28
Human Food Chain
550
300
32
64
Envirenmental
550
300
32
60 (capped)
(7) Surface Water Pathway Score (1.28 + 64 + 60) = 100 (capped)
e. Soil Exposure Pathway
(1) Likelihood of Exposure: Surficial contamination is suspected at the site. The drums are not
maintained and not stored on concrete pads. There is a large area of stained soil under and adjacent to the
drums. There is no cover present at the site. There is no qualitative or analytical data that would rule out
suspected contamination. Therefore, contamination is suspected.
Likelihood of Exposure = 550
(2) Resident Population Threat Targets: There are no residents, schools, or daycare facilities within
200 feet of the area of suspected contamination. There is no residence, school, or daycare facility located on any
adjacent land nor is there a migration route that could spread hazardous substances near residences, schools, or
daycare facilities. There are no workers on the facility property. There are no terrestrial sensitive environments on
the area of suspected contamination.
Resident Population factor value = 0
Resident Individual factor value = 0
Worker factor value = 0
Terrestrial sensitive environments factor value = 0
Resources factor value = 5
Resident Population Threat Tarciets = 5
(3) Resident Population Threat Score: (550 x 5 x 32) ÷ 82,500 1.07
(4) Nearby Population Threat Score: 1 (because there are < 10,000 people within 1 mile)
(5) Soil Exposure Pathway Score = (1.07 + 1) = 2.07
Page A-14
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCORESHEET
P.thw.y Ck.,acte*tlc,
Do any people live on or within 200 ft of areas of suspected contamination? Yes — No j
Do any people attend school or daycare on or within 200 ft of areas
of suspected contamination? Yes — No
Is the facility active? Yes No — If yes, estimate the number of workers: _______
NEARBY POPULATION ThREAT SCORE:
SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCORE:
Resident Population Threat + Nearby Population Threat
UKEUHOOD OF EXPOSURE
1. SUSPECTED CONTAMINATION: Surficial contamination can generally be assumed,
and a score of 550 assigned. Assign zero only if the absence of surficial
contamination can be coaiidenily demonstrated. I.E —
,
1 C5 ’ f
—‘
RESIDENT POPULATION ThREAT TARGETS
2. RESIDENT POPULATION: Determine the number of people occupying residences
or attending school or daycare on or within 200 feet of areas of suspected
contamination (see Soil Exposure Pathway Criteria List, page 18).
people x 10
I —.
3. RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL: If you have identified a resident population (factor 2),
assign a score of 50; otherwise, assign a score of 0.
I ’I. ‘00.
4. WORKERS: Use the following table to assign a score based on the total number of
workers at the facility and nearby facilities with suspected contamination:
Manh .1 b% i*w, Seed’s
0 0
lto l OO 5
l Oltol ,000 10
>1.000 15
5. TERRESTRIAL SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS: Use PA Table 7 to assign a value
for each terrestrial sensitive environment on an area of suspected
contamination:
Ta,reet,j 1 Sisith s am*olWn* ’ s Typ. V.Ai.j
5 L
6. RESOURCES
5
T-
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
1—
7. Assign the waste characteristics score calculated on page 4. WC —
3 2.
RESIDENT POPULATION ThREAT SCORE: I.E X I X WC
82,500.
I.414 • .
i 0’1
14, 2. I I
I
r —..
2. L
Page A-15
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
f. Air Pathway
(1) Likelihood of Release: Poorly maintained drums are present on the site which contain solvents that
could be released to the air. Although there are no odors and no release of hazardous substances to the air has
been directly observed, circumstantial evidence such as surf icial contamination suggests a suspected release to
the air pathway.
Suspected Release = 550
Likelihood of Release = 550
(2) Targets: All targets are not suspected to be contaminated and thus are considered secondary targets.
The nearest individual is a resident located 800 feet from the nearest source. The entire population of Westwood
(4,500) is between 5,400 and 9,900 feet from the nearest source. The wetland, located just offs e, is
approximately 1.1 acres in size. No resources are located within 1/2 mile of the site.
Distance
Category
Number
of People
Distance-weighted
Population Value
>Otol/4mile
1
1
>1 to 2 miles
4500
3
TOTAL ’
---
4
1 values are zero for all other distance categories
Nearest individual = 20 (PA Table 8)
Distance-weighted population values: (PA Tdble 8)
Secondary target population factor value = 4
Secondary sens ive environments factor value = 0.6
Resources factor value = 0
TarQets = 24.6 (4 + 20 + 0 + 0.6)
PA TABLE 8: VALUES FOR SECONDARY AIR TARGET POPULATIONS
Nsrest I d -
Scors - /
N..w
Distanc. Cat. y
•1 301 7.001 zoos stoat
jo .oo,
,.t$ .,
Ii
31
at a .:
(chaos.
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
Papid.*n
fr .
OnUS.
,i ’a
0
20
i.
1
a
2
IN
5
31
16
1.No
52
3000
163
?o.oo
521
a .oo•
1.633
, a ..po.
6.214
atrn. ta.oa.• ,....a.o
16.325 52.136 163.246
Va,1u
>0 to % n I.
>%to%mi.
>Y tol ,UIs
I
)
)
2
1
1J)
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
4
1
1
13
3
1
41
9
3
130
2$
9
408
69
26
1.303
2*2
83
4.081
$62
261
13.034
2.615
*34
40.611
0.915
2.612
1
0
>1to2n sg
:::::
:
0
:
0
:
0
:
0
:
1
1
®
:
8
:
27
63
::
266
$33
:::
.3 ’
Page A-16
-------
Appendix Al: PA Scoring
AIR PATHWAY SCORESHEET
Pathvy
Do you Suspect S release (see Air Pat
riway Criteria List, page 21)1
Yes No —
Distance t the nearest individual:
A B
L KELIHOO0 OF RELEASE
1 - SUSPECTED RELEASE: If you suspect a release to air (see page 21. assign a
score of 550. Use only column A for this pathway.
2. NO SUSPECTED RELEASE: If you do not suspect a release to air, assign a
score of 500. Use only column B for this pathway
TARGETS
3. PRIMARY TARGET POPULATION: Determine the number of people subject
to exposure from a suspected release of hazardous substances to the air.
x
LR-
f I
10
4.
SECONDARY TARGET POPiJI.ATION: Determine the number of people not
suspected to be exposed to a release to air, and assign the total population
score using PA Table 8.
5.
NEAREST INDIVIDUAL: If you have identified any Primary Target Population
for the air pathway, assign a score of SO; otherwise, assign the Nearest
Individual score from PA Table 8.
5.
PRIMARY SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS: Sum the sensitive environment values
(PA Table 5) and wetland acreage values (PA Table 91 for envirorvnents sublect
to exposure from a suspected release to the air.
Sw
S e. £,nPw _ w T) V# ...
7.
SECONDARY SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS: Use PA Table 10 to determine
the score I or secondary sensitive environments.
8.
RESOURCES
T—
WA
STE CHARACTERISTICS
9. A. If you have iderrtthed any Primary Target for the air pathway, assign the waste
characteristics score calculated on page 4, or a score of 32, whichever is
GREATER; do not evaluate part B of this factor.
I, a..a
B. If you have NOT identified any Primary Target for the air pathway, assign the
maCye characteristicS score calculated on page 4.
AIR PATHWAY SCORE: LR a I a WC
82.500
3Z
(3) Air Pathway Score (550 x 24.6 x 32) ÷ 82,500 5.28
g. Site Score:
Ground Water Pathway 37.62
Surface Water Pathway = 100
Soil Exposure Pathway = 2.07
Air Pathway 5.28
Site Score
(37 62)2+(100)2+(2 .07)2+ (5.28)2=53.50
• .- —-— . ‘ , I
s e w 1 . . L -‘ I _____
Page A-i 7
-------
Appendix A.1: PA Scoring
Page A-18
-------
Appendix A.2:
PREscore for Roberts
Solvent Reclamation Site
a. The PREscore Program
The PREscore computer program was developed by EPA to assist HRS scoring by generating a preliminary
ranking evaluation score and associated documentation. From raw data, PREscore calculates HAS factor values,
factor category values, pathway scores, and s e scores. The PREscore software reduces time involved in
developing site scores and minimizes potential math errors in scoring. The PREprint component of PREscore
generates HAS scoresheets, an HAS documentation record, and EPA’s NPL Characteristics Data Collection Form.
This section of the guide shows a few sample screens from the PREscore program illustrating the (hypothetical)
ground water pathway scoring using data developed for the Roberts Solvent Reclamation site. It is not intended to
be used as a tutorial, but rather to present an example ol how the program can help faciI ate scoring. For more
details on using this software, refer to the PREscore Users Manual and Tutorial (see Appendix D) or call your EPA
Regional computer contact.
b. Summary of the Site Score
The first screen that the scorer encounters after two introductory screens is the summary screen; Exhib 1 displays
this screen for the Roberts Reclamation site. The summary screen is a matrix of cells containing factor category
values w hin pathways, such as ground water likelihood of release or drinking water threat targets. To enter data,
the scorer accesses a category and pathway through this summary screen by moving to the appropriate cell in the
matrix and presses ‘Enter’.
EXHIBIT 1: Summary Screen
Roberts Solvent Reclamation site score 50.08
PREscore Version 1.1
Pathway
Likelihood
of Release
Waste
Characteristics
Targets
Pathway
Score
Ground Water
240
10
l.94E+02
5.64
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Environmental
Surface Water
550
550
Overl
32
320
320
and Flow, F7 to
5 . SOE+OO
4.50E+Ol
2 . 5 0E r.DLL .
Toggle
1.17
96.06
53 . 33
100 00
Resident
Nearby
Soil Exposure
0 0 0.OOE+00 0.00
c 0.00
0.00
450 10 l.26E+01 0.71
Air
Page A-19
-------
Appendix A.2: PREscore
c. Ground Water Pathway — Likelihood of Release
When a cell is selected from the matrix, PREscore displays data entry screens for the factor selected, allows the
scorer to enter information, and then calculates the factor score. The screen shown in Exhibit 2 contains
information on factors to evaluate likelihood of release to ground water.
EXHIBIT 2: Ground Water Likelihood of Release Screen
Roberts Solvent Reclamation
Ground Water -> Likelihood of Release
-> aquifer-l
Factor Category and Factors
II Max
Value
[ Observed Release
II 550
0
a. Containment
10
10
Net Precipitation (inches)
b. Precipitation Factor
10
22.0
6
c. Depth to Aquifer
d. Travel Time
5
35
3
15
Potential to Release a * ( b + c +
d )
500
240
In PREscore, the scorer enters information for the values in the highlighted cells on this screen. For some cells,
data are entered directly on the screen. For example at the Roberts Reclamation sife, the scorer moved the
cursor to net precipifation and entered the inches of precip ation for the sfte (22 inches) directly into that cell.
PREscore interpreted that number and assigned a value of 6 for the precipifation factor.
Other data, for example, depth to aquifer, are entered by selecting the cell on this screen and accessing a
secondary data entry screen. Exhib 3 shows the data entry screen for depth to aquifer for the Roberts
Reclamation sfte.
EXHIBIT 3: Ground Water Likelihood of Release, Depth to Aquifer Screen
Roberts Solvent Reclamation
Ground Water -> Potential to Release -> Depth to Aquifer/Hydr. Conduct.
Factors Value
Depth of Contamination (feet)
20.00
Depth to Aquifer from Surface (feet)
60.00
Are All Layers Karst?
NO
Total Thickness of Layer(s) With Lowest Conductivity (ft)
10. 00
Hydraulic Conductivity of Layer(s) (cm/sec)
IE—06
Page A-20
-------
Appendix A.2: PREscore
The scorer entered information on the depth of contamination, depth to aquifer, presence of karst, thickness of the
conductive layer, and hydraulic conductivity. PREscore interpreted these data and assigned a depth to aquifer
factor value of 3, which was carried forward to the appropriate cell in the ground water likelihood of release data
entry screen (Exhibit 2).
At the likelihood of release data entry screen, the scorer entered data for the other factors to be evaluated —
observed release and containment. Travel time was calculated by PREscore based on the information entered in
the depth to aquifer data entry screen. With these data, PREscore calculated a value of 240 for ground water
likelihood of release. This value is displayed on the ground water likelihood of release data entry screen and then
carried to the summary screen.
d. Ground Water Pathway — Waste Characteristics and Targets
For the Roberts Reclamation site, the scorer entered data on waste characteristics and targets for the ground
water pathway in a similar manner, accessing a series of data entry screens. Exhibfts 4 and 5 contain data on
factors to evaluate waste characteristics and targets, respectively, at the Roberts Reclamation site.
EXHIBIT 4: Waste Characteristics Data Entry Screen
Roberts Solvent Reclamation
Waste Characteristics -> Sources
Source Name
Migration
Pathways
Vol/Area
Value
Wastestream
Value
FIWQ
Value
1 drums
GW —SW-SE--A
6 .SOE÷ 02
6.SOE÷02
.5OE+O2
2 stained soil
OW-SW-SE-A
235E÷OO
O.OOE÷OO
2 35E+OO
Each factor in the waste characteristics data entry was evaluated by entering data in a series of data entry
screens. When evaluating waste volume/area and wastestream, the scorer identified substances in each source in
a master list of contaminants that contains values for toxicity, mobility, health and ecological benchmarks, and
other substance-specific HRS factors. Based on the identified substances, PREscore determined contaminant
characteristics values, and combined these with hazardous waste quantity values, to yield a waste characteristics
value for each pathway.
Page A-21
-------
Appendix A.2: PREscore
EXHIBIT 5: Targets Data Entry Screen
Roberts Solvent Reclamation
Ground Water -> Targets ->
Factor Category and Factors Max
[ Value
Distance to Nearest Well (miles)
50
20 / 0. 150
Population Potential Contamination
Population Level I Concentrations
Population Le el II Concentrations
Population
**
l.’69E+02
0 OOE+00
0 OOE÷00
• 69E402
Resources
5
5.OOE÷00
Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA)
20
0.OOE+00
Ground Water Targets Total (this aquifer only) **
l.94E÷02
Ground Water Targets Total (md. overlying aquifers) **
l.94E+02
As w h the sample screens for likelihood of release and waste characteristics, the data entry screen for targets
accesses reference tables for values contained in the HAS tables for entry of populations, resources, and wellhead
protection areas (WHPA). The scorer selected each cell in the data entry screen and, in the case of population
data, accessed a secondary data entry screen for entering population by distance category, as shown in Exhib 6.
EXHIBIT 6: Ground Water Pathway Population Data Entry Screen
Roberts Solvent Reclamation
Ground Water -> Targets -> Population -> aquifer-l 1
Potential Population by Distance
(Exclude wells listed below)
Population
Data
Type
Population
Incls.Pot.Wells
Score
0 to 1/4 mile
Greater than 114 to 1/2 mile
Greater than 1/2 to 1 mile
Greater than 1 to 2 miles
Greater than 2 to 3 miles
Greater than 3 to 4 miles
14.0
0.0
4500.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
0.0
4500.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
l.70E+00
0.OOE+00
l.67E+02
0. OOE+00
0.OOE+00
0.OOE+00
For data entry of resources and WHPA data entry, the scorer selected a response from a table of acceptable
responses. PAEscore assigned the corresponding value. Distance to nearest well was entered directly on the
data entry screen.
e. Additional Scoring Information
After data entry was completed for all pathways at the Roberts Reclamation sue, a pathway score of 5.64 was
calculated by PREscore and displayed on the summary screen. Then the scorer accessed the factor categories
for the other three pathways. When data for factor categories for all pathways had been entered, PREscore
calculated and displayed the final site score of 50.08 on the summary screen, as shown in Exhib 1.
Page A-22
-------
Appendix A.3:
HRS Scoring for Roberts
Solvent Reclamation Site
a. Sources and Waste Characteristics
Source Descriptions: Two sources were identified in the PA and SI. Source 1 is a partially buried collection of
drums, several hundred of which are visible at the surface. Source 2 is an area of stained soil around the drums
and extending down a drainage ditch toward the wetland. Both sources are uncontained and have a containment
factor value greater than zero for all pathways.
(1) Hazardous Waste Quantity (HWQ) Calculations:
Source 1: Former foreman at company interviewed during PA estimated number of drums to be between 5,000
and 10,000. Waste manifests obtained during SI documented approximately 6,500 drums. HWQ calculation
based on 6,500 drums.
• Wastestream: 6,500 drums x 2,000 lbs/4 drums 3,250,000 lbs (Table 2-5 of HAS rule)
3,250,000 lbs ÷ 5,000 = 650 (Table 2-5 of HRS rule)
• Volume: 6,500 drums x 50 gallons/drum = 325,000 gallons (Table 2-5 of HRS rule)
325,000 gallons ÷ 500 = 650 (Table 2-5 of HAS rule)
Source 2: Area of contaminated soil delineated by samples = 80,000 ft 2
Area of contaminated soil in drainage ditch 1,000 ft 2
• Area: 81,000 ft2 ÷ 34,000 = 2.37 (Table 2-5 of HAS rule)
WQ 650 + 2.37 = 652.37
WQ of 652.37 HWQ of 100 (Table 2-6 of HRS rule)
HWQ factor value 100 (all pathways )
(2) Source Hazardous Substance Summary: All hazardous substances are associated wifh all sources; all
sources have a containment factor greater than zero for all pathways. See Section f for more details on the
contaminant characteristics
Hazardous Substance
Toxicity
GW
Toxicity!
Mobility
SW-DWT
Toxicity!
Persistence
SW-HFCT
Toxicityf
Persistence!
Bioaccumulation
SW-ET
Ecotoxicity/
Persistence!
Bioaccumulation
Air
Toxicity!
Mobility
PCBs
10,000
0.00002
10,000
500,000,000
500,000,000
2
Benzene
100
100
40
200,000
2,000,000
100
Tetrachioroethane (PCE)
100
0.1
40
2,000
2,000
100
Thchloroethylene (TOE)
10
1
4
200
200
10
Page A-23
-------
Appendix A.3: HAS Scoring
b. Ground Water Pathway
(1) Likelihood of Release: Only one aquiter (non-karst) underlies the site. All private and municipal wells
within the target distance limit (TDL) are screened in this aquiter. The screening depth of the nearest well is at 60
feet, 40 feet below the deepest source. There is no liner or essentially impervious base under any source. The
lowest conductivity layer beneath the site is a bess deposit 10 feet thick. No contamination was found above
background in any well sampled. Therefore, no observed release is established, and potential to release is
evaluated.
Containment = 10 (Table 3-2 of HAS rule)
Net Precipitation = 6 (Figure 3-2 of HRS rule)
Depth to Aquiter = 3 (Table 3-5 of HAS rule)
Travel Time = 15 (Table 3-7 of HAS rule)
Potential to Release = 10 x (6 + 3 + 15) = 240
Likelihood of Release = 240
(2) Waste Characteristics: No observed release is established, therefore mobility is based solely on
contaminant characteristics. All substances were deposited as liquids.
Toxicity/Mobility = 100 (Benzene, see a.(2) above)
Hazardous Waste Quantity = 100 (see a.(1) above)
Waste Characteristics Product = 100 x 100 = 10,000
Waste Characteristics = 10 (Table 2-7 of HAS Rule)
(3) Targets: No observed release is established, therefore all targets are considered subject to potential
contamination. The nearest well is a private well located 800 feet from the nearest source. There are five drinking
water wells within the TDL. Three private wells serving 14 people are located between 800 and 1,000 feet from
the nearest source. Two municipal wells serving Westwood (population 4,500) are located 2,800 and 4,850 feet
from the nearest source. The municipal supply is not blended, but is used I or watering commercial livestock. The
municipal wells are not located within a wellhead protection area.
Nearest Well factor value = 20 (Table 3-11 of HAS rule)
Distance-weighted population values: (Table 3-12 of HAS rule)
Distance Category
Number of People
Distance-weighted Population Value
0 to 1/4 mile
14
17
> 1/2 to 1 mile
4,500
1,669
TOTAL! ’
---
1,686
!values are zero for all other distance categories
Population/potential contamination factor value = 1,686 ÷ 10 = 168.6 (rounds to 169)
Resources factor value = 5
Wellhead Protection Area factor value = 0
Targets = 194 (20 + 169 + 5 + 0)
(4) Ground Water Pathway Score (240 x 10 x 194) ÷ 82,500 5.64
Page A-24
-------
______ Appendix A.3: HAS Scoring
c. Surface Water Pathway
Hazardous Substance Migration Path
The probable point of entry (PPE) is on the southern side of the site, in a wetland adjacent to Little Creek. Little
Creek flows eastward for 0.5 miles until it joins the Red River. The Red River flows south to the TDL (14.5 miles
from the confluence of Little Creek) with no significant tributary.
Drinking Water Threat
(1) Likelihood of Release: An observed release to surface water is established based on elevated levels
of PCBs in sediment samples from the wetland adjacent to Little Creek. Therefore, likelihood of release is
assigned maximum value (for observed release).
Likelihood of Release = 550
(2) Waste Characteristics: Toxicity/persistence is based on contaminant characteristics.
Toxicity/Persistence 10,000 (PCBs, see a.(2) above)
Hazardous Waste Quantity 100 (see a.(1) above)
Waste Characteristics Product = 10,000 x 100 = 1,000,000
Waste Characteristics = 32 (Table 2-7 of HAS Rule)
(3) Targets: There is one drinking water intake within the TDL. The municipal intake serving Springfield
(population 5,500) is located on the Red River. The municipal supply is not blended, but is used for irrigating
commercial crops. Although an observed release to the watershed is established, no contamination was found
above background in sediment samples taken at the Springfield intake. Therefore, all drinking water targets are
considered subject to potential contamination. The average annual flow for the Red River at Springfield is 1,857
cfs.
Dilution weight for Springfield intake = 0.001 (Table 4-13 of HRS rule)
Nearest Intake factor value = (20 x 0.001) 0.02; rounds to 0 (Section 4.1.2.3.1 of HAS rule)
Distance-weighted population values: (Table 4-14 of HRS rule)
Dilution
Catego!y
Number of
People
Dilution-weighted
Population Value
0.001
5,500
5
TOTAL
---
5
‘values are zero for all other dilution categories, Table 4-13 of HRS rule
Population/potential contamination factor value = 5 ÷ 10 = 0.5
Resources factor value = 5
Drinkin Water Threat Tarç ets = 5.5 (0 + 0.5 + 5)
(4) Drinking Water Threat Score = (550 x 32 x 5.5) ÷ 82,500 1.17
Page A-25
-------
Appendix A.3: HRS Scoring
Human Food Chain Threat
(1) Likelihood of Release: Likelihood of release is assigned the same value as in the Drinking Water
Threat.
Likelihood of Release = 550
(2) Waste Characteristics: Toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation is based on contaminant characteristics.
Toxicity/Pers istencelBioaccumutation = 500,000,000 (PCBs, see a.(2) above)
Hazardous Waste Quantity 100 (see a.(1) above)
Waste Characteristics Product 500,000,000 x 100 = 50,000,000,000
Waste Characteristics = 320 (Table 2-7 of HRS Rule)
(3) Targets: There are two fisheries within the TDL: Little Creek from the probable point of entry (PPE) to the
confluence with the Red River, and the Red River from the confluence with Little Creek to the TDL. Sediment
samples in the wetland adjacent to Little Creek established an observed release for PCBs. Because PCBs have a
bioaccumulation factor value of 500 or greater, a portion of the fishery in Little Creek is subject to actual
contamination (Level II). The remainder of the Little Creek fishery, and the Red River fishery, are considered
subject to potential contamination. The average annual flow for Little Creek is estimated to be between 10 and
100 cfs. No human food chain production data are available for either fishery, so the default value for fishery
productivity is assigned (Section 4.1.3.3.2.3 of HRS rule).
Nearest Fishery factor value 45 (Level II concentrations; Section 4.1.3.3.2.3 of HAS rule)
Level Il population value = 0.03 (Table 4-18 of HAS rule)
Dilution-weighted population values: (Table 4-18 of HAS rule)
Fishery
Dilution Category
Human Food Chain
Population Value
Di(ution .-weighted
Population Value
Little Creek
0.1
O.O3 ’
0.003
Red River
0.001
O.O3
0.00003
TOTAL
---
---
0.00303
!minimum value assigned to fishery in absence of production data
Potential contamination factor value = 0.00303 ÷ 10 = 0.0003
Human Food Chain Threat Targets = 45.0303 (45 + 0.03 + 0.0003)
(4) Human Food Chain Threat Score = (550 x 320 x 45.0303) + 82,500 = 96.06
Page A-26
-------
Appendix A.3: HRS Scoring
Environmental Threat
(1) Likelihood of Release: Likelihood of release is assigned the same value as in the Drinking Water
Threat.
Likelihood of Release = 550
(2) Waste Characteristics: Ecotoxicity/persistenceThioaccumulation is based on contaminant
characteristics.
Ecotoxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation = 500,000,000 (PCBs, see a.(2) above)
Hazardous Waste Quantity 100 (see a.(1) above)
Waste Characteristics Product = 500,000,000 x 100 = 50,000,000,000
Waste Characteristics = 320 (Table 2-7 of HAS Rule)
(3) Targets: The wetland adjacent to Little Creek meets the HRS definitional criteria for a sensitive
environment within the TDL. Sediment samples in the wetland established an observed release for PCBs at the
PPE and a point approximately 800 feet from the PPE. The entire length of the wetland between these two points
(approximately 825 feet of linear frontage) is subject to actual contamination (Level II). The remainder of the
wetland (approximately 225 feet of linear frontage) is considered subject to potential contamination.
Wetlands rating values:
Portion of wetland subject to Level II concentrations = 25 (Table 4-24 of HAS Rule)
Portion of wetland subject to potential contamination is less than 0.1 mile, therefore a value of 0 is
assigned (Table 4-24 of HRS Rule)
Level II concentrations factor value = 25
Potential contamination factor value = 0
Environmental Threat Targets = 25 (25 + 0)
(4) Environmental Threat Score = (550 x 320 x 25) 82,500 = 53.33
Surface Water Pathway Score = (1.17 + 96.06 + 53.33) = 100 (capped)
Page A-27
-------
Appendix A.3: HAS Scoring
d. Soil Exposure Pathway
Resident Population Threat
There are no residents or workers on sources. Therefore, the resident population threat receives a score of zero.
Nearby Population Threat
Two areas of actual contamination are established based on samples around the drum area and the drainage
ditch. Therefore, the Nearby Population Threat is evaluated.
(1) Likelihood of Exposure: Likelihood of exposure is evaluated based on attractiveness/accessibility
and area of contamination. Although there is a fence on the western side of the site (along the road), the rest of
the site is unfenced and easily accessible. However, there is no documented recreational use of the site (e.g., no
one appears to walk through or stand on the site when fishing in the wetland or Little Creek, there are no bike
trails on the site).
Atlractiveness/Accessibihty = 10 (Accessible, no public recreation use; Table 5-6 of HAS rule)
Area of Contamination = 80,550 ft 2 = 20 (Table 5-7 of HAS rule)
Likelihood of Exposure = 5 (Table 5-8 of HAS rule)
(2) Waste Charactenstics: Waste characteristics is evaluated based on toxicity and hazardous waste
quantity.
Toxicity = 10,000 (PCB5, see a.(2) above)
Hazardous Waste Quantity = 100 (see a.(1) above)
Waste Charactenstics Product = 10,000 x 100 = 1,000,000
Waste Characteristics 32 (Table 2-7 of HAS Rule)
(3) Targets: The only targets within the TDL are the residents living in the three houses across the street
from the site. All residents of Westwood (population 4,500) live more than 1 mile travel distance from the site.
Nearby individual factor value = 1 (Table 5-9 of HRS rule)
Distance-weighted population values: (Table 5-10 of HRS rule)
Distance
Category
Number of
People
Distance-weighted
Population Value
>Oto l/4mile
14
0.4
TOTAL
---
0.4
. 1 vaIues are zero for all other distance categones
Population within 1 mile factor value = 0.4 ÷ 10 = 0.04
Nearby Threat Targets = 1.04 (1 + 0.04)
(4) Nearby Threat Score (5 x 32 x 1.04) + 82,500 = 0.002 (rounds to 0)
Page A-28
-------
Appendix A.3: HRS Scoring
e. Air Pathway
(1) Likelihood of Release: No air sampling was conducted, and no observed release by direct
observation was established. Therefore, potential to release is evaluated.
Gas Potential to Release:
Source 1 (drums):
Gas Containment Factor Value = 10 (Table 6-3 of HAS rule)
Source Type Factor Value = 28 (Table 6-4 of HAS rule)
Gas Migration Potential 17 (average of benzene, PCE, TCE; Table 6-7 of HRS Rule)
Gas Potential to Release = 10 x (28 + 17) = 450
Source 2 (contaminated soil around drums):
Gas Containment Factor Value = 10 (Table 6-3 of HRS rule)
Source Type Factor Value = 19 (Table 6-4 of HAS rule)
Gas Migration Potential = 17 (average of benzene, PCE, ICE; Table 6-7 of HAS Rule)
Gas Potential to Release = 10 x (19 + 17) = 360
Gas Potential to Release = 450 (Source 1)
Particulate Potential to Release:
Source 1 (drums):
Particulate Containment Factor Value = 10 (Table 6-9 of HRS rule)
Source Type Factor Value = 14 (Table 6-4 of HRS rule)
Particulate Migration Potential = 6 (Figure 6-2 of HRS Rule)
Particulate Potential to Release = 10 x (14 ÷ 6) = 200
Source 2 (contaminated soil around drums):
Particulate Containment Factor Value 10 (Table 6-9 of HAS rule)
Source Type Factor Value = 22 (Table 6-4 of HRS rule)
Particulate Migration Potential = 6 (Figure 6-2 of HRS Rule)
Particulate Potential to Release = 10 x (22 + 6) = 280
Particulate Potential to Release = 280 (Source 2)
Likelihood of Release = 450
Page A-29
-------
Appendix A.3: HAS Scoring
(2) Waste Characteristics: No observed release is established, therefore mobility is based solely on
contaminant characteristics.
Toxicity/Mobility = 100 (benzene, PCE; see a.(2) above)
Hazardous Waste Quantity = 100 (see a.(1) above)
Waste Characteristics Product = 100 x 100 = 10,000
Waste Characteristics = 10 (Table 2-7 of HAS Rule)
(3) Targets: No observed release is established, therefore all targets are considered subject to potential
contamination. The nearest individual is a resident located 800 feet from the nearest source. The entire
population of Westwood (4,500) is between 5,400 and 9,900 feet from the nearest source. The wetland, located
just offsite, is approximately 1.1 acres in size. No HRS resources are located within 1/2 mile of the site.
Nearest Individual factor value = 7 (Table 6-16 of HAS rule)
Distance-weighted population values: (Table 6-17 of HAS rule)
Distance
Category
Number of
People
Distance-weighted
Population Value
Oto l/4mile
14
4
1 to 2 miles
4,500
27
TOTAL (
---
31
‘vaJues are zero for all other distance categories
Potential contamination factor value = 31 ÷ 10 = 3.1
Resources factor value = 0
Sensitive Environments factor value = 2.5 (25 ÷ 10)
Targets = 12.6 (7 + 3.1 + 0 + 2.5)
(4) Air Pathway Score (450 x 10 x 12.6) ÷ 82,500 = 0.71
f. Site Score:
Ground Water Pathway = 5.64
Surface Water Pathway = 100
Soil Exposure Pathway = 0
Air Pathway = 0.71
Site Score = ________________________
( 5 . 64) 2 (100) 2 (Q) 2. , (0 . 71)2 08
4
Page A-30
-------
Appendix A .3: HAS Scoring
g. Contaminant Characteristics
Ground Water Pathway
Hazardous Substance
Toxicity
Mobility
(Liquid)
Toxicity/
Mobility
PCBs
10000
0.0001
1
Benzene
100
1
100
TetrachlonDethane (PCE)
100
0.01
1
Trichlonethylene (TCE)
10
0.01
0.1
Surface Water Pathway
Hazardous Substance
Drinking Water Threat
Human Food Chain Threat
Toxicity
Persistence
(River)
Toxicity!
Persistence
Bioaccumulation
(Freshwater)
Toxicity/
Persistencef
Bioaccumulation
PCBs
10,000
1.0
10,000
50,000
500,000,000
Benzene
100
0.4
40
5,000
200,000
Tetrachloroethane (PCE)
100
0.4
40
50
2,000
Trrchloroethylene (ICE)
10
0.4
4
50
200
Hazardous Substance
Environmental Threat
Ecotoxicity
Bioaccumufation
(Freshwater)
Ecotoxicity/Persistence
Bioaccumulation
PCBs
10,000
50,000
500,000,000
Benzene
10,000
500
200,000
Tetrachtoroethane (PCE)
100
50
2,000
Tnchloroethylene (ICE)
10
50
200
Air Pathway
Hazardous Substance
Toxicity
Mobility
-_Gas
Particulate
Air Gas
Migration
Toxicity!
Mobility
PCBs
10,000
0.0002
No
Yes
0
2
Benzene
100
1.0
Yes
No
17
100
Tetrachloroethane (PCE)
100
1.0
Yes
No
17
100
Tnchloroethylene (TCE)
10
1.0
Yes
No
17
10
Page A-31
-------
Appendix A.3: HAS Scoring
Page A-32
-------
Appendix B:
Reference Documents
Required reading
Superfund Documents
Ordering information: US EPA Headquarters and Regional staff should order documents through the
Superfund Document Center (SDC) using control numbers. All others should order documents through
the National Technical Information Services (NTIS) using the NTIS order numbers. Addresses and phone
numbers for these centers are listed in Appendix C.
a. Guidance Documents
• Guidance for Performing Preliminaty Assessments Under CERCLA, September 1991
(EPN54O/G-91/013, Control No. 9345.0-O1A, NTIS Order No. PB92-963303). This document
provides instructions for conducting a PA and reporting results. It discusses the information
required to evaluate a site, how to obtain it, and how to use it in scoring a site. This document
also provides guidelines and instructions on PA evaluation, scoring, and the use of standard PA
criteria lists and scoresheets. Its goal is to assist PA investigators in conducting high-quality
assessments that result in correct site screening or further action recommendations on a
nationally consistent basis.
• Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCL.A, Interim Final, September 1992
(EPN54OIR-921021, Control No. 9345.1-05, NTIS Order No. PB 92-963375). This document
presents EPA’s Site Inspection strategy. The strategy discusses procedural guidelines to
investigate potential Superfund sites for evaluation pursuant to the HRS. It covers SI approaches
and planning, sampling strategies, evaluation, and reporting requirements.
• Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Guidance Manual, Interim Final, November 1992 (EPAJ54OIR-
921026, Control No. 9345.1-07, NTIS Order No. PB 92-963377). This document provides general
and technical guidance for individuals involved in determining HRS scores and preparing HRS
scoring packages. It clarifies terms and concepts in the HRS rule, provides strategies and
specific guidance for scoring selected HRS factors, and can assist in the collection and
organization of relevant data and information.
• Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook, Section 4.1, January 1992 (Control No.
9230.0-03, NTIS Order No. PB 92-963341).
• Management of Investigation Derived Wastes During Site Inspections, May 1991 (Control
No. 9345.3-02, NTIS Order No. PB91-921331).
Page B-i
-------
Appendix B: Reference Information
Guidance on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) under
CERCLA and the NCP, July 7, 1992 (Control No. 9203.1-03).
b. Fact Sheets and Bulletins
• The Revised Hazard Ranking System: An Improved Too! for Screening Superfund Sites,
November 1990 (Control No. 9320.7-01 FS, NTIS Order No. PB91 -921307).
• The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Os and As, November 1990 (Control No. 9320.7-O2FS,
NTIS Order No. PB91 -921305).
• The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Background In formation, November 1990 (Control
No. 9320.7-O3FS, NTIS Order No. PB91 -921303).
• Closing the NPL Book Under the Original HRS, November 1990 (Control No. 9320.7-O4FS,
NTIS Order No. PB91 -921302).
• The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Evaluating Sites After Waste Removals, October
1991 (Control No. 9345.1 -O3FS).
• Community Involvement During Site Assessment, 1993 (Control No. 9345.4-O2FS, NTIS
Order No. to be determined, expected April 1993).
• Superfund Site Assessment — the Road to Cleanup (A Community Relations Fact Sheet),
1993, (Control No. 9345.4-O3FS, NTIS Order No. to be determined, expected April 1993).
• Data Useabiity for Site Assessment, work in progress — not published yet (Control No. 9345.1-
06, NTIS Order No. To be determined).
• The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM!), April 7, 1992 (Control No. 9203.1-01,
NTIS Order No. PB92-963263).
• Five SACM short sheets: Interim Guidance on Key SACM Program Management Issues,
Early Action and Long Term Action Under SACM, Enforcement Under SACM, Assessing
Sites Under SACM and Regional Decision Teams, December 1992 (Control No. 9203.1-051,
NTIS Order Nos. PB93-963262 — PB93-963266).
• Regional Pilots and Applications of the SACM, June 1992 (Control No. 9202.1 -O3FS, NTIS
Order No. PB92-963273).
• Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Bulletin: Presumptive Remedies for Municipal Landfill
Sites, Volume 1, Number 1, May 1992 (Control No. 9203.1-021, NTIS Order No. PB92-963367).
• Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Bulletin: Presumptive Remedies for Wood Treatment
Facilities, Volume 1, Number 2, May 1992 (Control No. 9203.1-021, NTIS Order No. PB92-
963361).
Page B-2
-------
Appendix B: Reference Documents
• Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Bulletin: Presumptive Remedies, Volume 1, Number 3,
August 1992 (Control No. 9203.1-021, NTIS Order No. PB92-963371).
• Superfund Removal Procedures Manual Bulletin, July 1991 (Control No. 9360.3-ill).
2. Laws and Regulations
• Hazard Ranking System (Federal Register, December 14, 1990 or 40 CFR 300, Appendix A,
Stock #869-01 7-00148-1). Ordering information: Federal Register publications are available from
the Superfund Document Center and copies of the Code of Federal Regulations can be
purchased from the Government Printing Office; addresses and phone numbers are listed in
Appendix C.
• National Contingency Plan (Federal Register, March 8, 1990, or 40 CFR 300, Stock #869-017-
00148-1). Ordering information: Federal Register publications are available from the Supetfund
Document Center and copies of the Code of Federal Regulations can be purchased from the
Government Printing Office; addresses and phone number are listed in Appendix C.
• CERCLA (Public Law 96-510) and SARA (Public Law 99-499).
Ordering information: Copies of public laws can be purchased from the Government Printing
Office’s Statutes at Large publication; address and phone number is listed in Appendix C.
Some selected citations of CERCLA, as amended by SARA:
§101 Contains definitions of terms.
§104(e) Specifies procedures for gathering information and obtaining sife access.
§105(a) Requires establishing the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and crfteria for setting
priorities for sife selection; EPA developed the HRS to establish these criferia (the HRS
is Appendix A to the NCP).
§105(d) Specifies that EPA must conduct a preliminary assessment of the hazards associated
with releases or threatened releases.
§120 Covers the application of the Act to Federal facilffies and establishes the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.
3. Supplementary and Background Materials
• Supplementary Materials: National Priorities List, Background In formation: National
Priorities List, and Descriptions of Sites Proposed or Finalized on the National Priorities
List (Control No. Series 9320.7). Ordering information: Contact the US EPA Public Information
Center, listed in Appendix C.
Ordering information for the remaining documents: US EPA Headquarters and Regional staff
should order documents through the Superfund Document Center (SDC) using control numbers.
All others should order documents through the National Technical Information Services (NTIS)
Page B-3
-------
Appendix B: Reference Information
using the NTIS order numbers. Addresses and phone numbers for these centers are listed in
Appendix C.
• National Priorities List Sites, Volume for each State and a national overview volume:
Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, September 1990 (Control No. 9200.5-700
series, NTIS Order No. PB91 -921209 series).
• Superfund CERCLIS Characterization Project, Volume for each State and national results,
November 1991 (Control No. 9345.1-10-0 series, NTIS Order No. PB92-963315 series).
• Superfund NPL Characterization Project, Volume for each State and national results,
November 1991 (Control No. 9345.1-09-0 series, NTIS Order No. P892-963304 series).
Page B-4
-------
Appendix C:
List of Contacts
Information on Site Assessment Screening Video
For information on the Superfund Site Assessment Video or to obtain materials that accompany the video,
contact:
US EPA Site Assessment Branch
Mail Code: OS-5204G
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 603-8845
2. EPA Regional NPL Coordinators/Site Assessment Managers
DOD FTS
Region 1 Nancy Smith (617) 573-9697 573-9697
Region 2 Ben Conetta (212) 264-6696 264-6696
Region 3 Margret Jennis (215) 597-8229 597-8229
Region 4 Deborah Vaughn-Wright (404) 347-5065 347-5065
Region 5 Bill Messenger (312) 353-1057 353-1057
Region 6 Bail Canellas (214) 655-6740 655-6740
Region 7 Susan Lackey (913) 551-7062 551-7062
Region 8 Greg Oberley (303) 294-7598 294-7598
Region 9 Lisa Nelson (415) 744-2347 744-2347
Region 10 David Bennett (206) 553-2103 553-2103
3. Supertund Document Center (to order a document using the EPA control number or
copies of the Federal Registet)
401 M Street, S.W. OS-245
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 260-9760
4. National Technical Information Service (to order a document using the NTIS
order number)
US Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600 or (800) 336-4700
-------
Appendix C: List of Contacts
5. EPA Public information Center (to order supplemental materials)
401 M Street, S.W., PM-21 lB
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-2080
6. Government Printing Office (to order public laws or copies of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Superintendent of Documents
US Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20402-9325
(202)783-3238
Page C-2
-------
Appendix D:
Other Tools
Computer Tools
• PA-Score Software: User’s Manual and Tutorial: Version 1.0, September 1991 (Control No.
9345.1-11, NTIS Order No. PB92-500032).
• PREscore Software and User’s Manual: Version 1.1, July 1992 (Control No. 9345.1-04, NTIS
Order No. To be Determined).
Ordering information: US EPA Headquarters and Regional staff should order documents through
the Superfund Document Center (SDC) using control numbers. All others should order
documents through the National Technical Information Services (NTIS) using the NTIS order
numbers. Addresses and phone numbers for these centers are listed in Appendix C.
2. Hotline Numbers
• RCRNSuperfundfUST Hotline: (800) 424-9346
(703) 412-9810 (Northern Virginia)
(800) 553-7672 (TDD)
• National Response Center: (800) 424-8802 (serviced 24 hours a day)
The National Response Center is operated by the US Coast Guard and receives and evaluates
reports of oil and hazardous substance releases into the environment. The Center notifies the
appropriate agencies.
3. Site Assessment In formation Directory (SAID) Regions I-X
(hard copy and disk distributed to Regions), October 1991. This comprehensive directory gives the
appropriate organizations to contact to obtain s e information on a variety of issues. Organizations
include federal, regional, state, and local government offices and business contacts, such as private labs,
associations, and investigators. The electronic version can focus organizational searches by specific topic
areas (e.g., population, air quality, location, land use, agriculture, soil, and a number of other areas).
Ordering information: Contact the NPL Coordinator in your Region, as listed in Appendix C.
Page D-1
-------
Appendix D: Other Tools
4. EPA Organizational Chart
Enviroomental
Board
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
cy —
istradve
Cooperati ve
J i 4iA
Enviraivrien
Management
Rights
and
Utilization
Office
EOCUI IV e
Swetariat
Pollution
Prevention
Board
Policy
Associate Administrator
for
Regional Operations &
State/Local Relations
- n I i
Deputy Administrator
Associate Administrator for
Communications, Education
& Public Affairs
I _______
Assis Admmistra
for Adrr*üstrallcn and
Resources Management
Associate Administrator
for
Congressional &
1.eg lstative Affairs
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement
1 - ___
General Counsl
I
M Administrator
for
International A
Assis Administrator
for Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
General
I
I
Assistant Administrator
for Researd and
De
Assistant dminlstrator
for Jr and Radiation
I
Assistant AdmInistrator for
Pv Pe ddes
and Toxic Substances
Assistant Administrator
for
Water
Region I Region II Region Ill
Boston New York J PhiIade hia
1 _____ _____
Region IV Region V Region VI
Atlanta Chicago Dallas
Region VII Region VIII
Kansas City Denver
Region IX Region X
San Francisco Seattle
Page 0-2
-------
Appendix E:
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
Related to Superfund Site Assessment
AA (Assistant Administrator): Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER).
ANPRM (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking): An announcement appearing in the Federal Register that
notifies the public of EPA’s intent to publish a specific proposed rule.
AOC (Area of Contamination): A continuous (significant) extent of contamination at a Superfund site.
ARARs (Apphcable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements): Those cleanup standards, standards of control,
and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or
State law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or
other circumstance at a CERCLA site, or that address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well-suited to the particular site.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry): An Agency within the Department of Heallh and
Human Services that conducts health assessments at Superfund sites.
Background Level: Non-site-related levels of chemicals in the environment. Background levels of chemicals can
be either naturally occurrin (i.e., ambient concentrations of chemicals that have not been influenced by humans)
or anthropo enic (i.e., concentrations of chemicals that are present due to human-made, non-site sources, such as
other industries).
CDC (Centers for Disease Control): An operating hea h agency within the Public Health Service of the U.S.
Department of HeaRh and Human Services that develops and implements programs to deal with environmental
heaRh problems, including responding to environmental, chemical, and radiation emergencies.
CEPP (Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program): As part of EPA’s Air Toxics Strategy, provides guidance,
training, and technical assistance to States and local communities to help them in preparing for and responding to
chemical accidents.
CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act): A Federal law passed in
1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. The Acts created a special
tax that goes into a Trust Fund, commonly known as Superfund, to investigate and clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the program, EPA can either pay for site cleanup when parties
responsible for the contamination cannot be located or are unwilling or unable to perform the work; or take legal
action to force parties responsible for site contamination to clean up the site or pay back the Federal government
for the cost of the cleanup.
CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System): EPA’s
comprehensive data base and management system that inventories and tracks releases addressed or needing to
be addressed by the Superfund program.
Page E-1
-------
Appendix E: Glossary
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations): All Federal regulations in force are published annually in codified form in the
Code of Federal Regulations.
CLP (Contract Lab Program): Laboratories under contract to EPA that analyze soil, water, and waste samples
taken from areas at or near Superfund sites.
CWA (Clean Water Act): A statute under which EPA promulgates Water Quality Criteria and administers the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, as well as regulates discharges to or
dredging of wetlands.
ERCS (Emergency Response Cleanup Services): Contracts that provide the technical assistance and cleanup
service that EPA needs to implement an effective removal program.
ERNS (Emergency Response Notification System): A central data base that provides EPA with a more
comprehensive perspective on release notifications nationwide.
ERT (Environmental Response Team): EPA hazardous waste experts who provide 24-hour technical assistance to
EPA Regional offices and States during all types of emergencies involving releases at hazardous waste sites and
spills of hazardous substances.
ESAT (Environmental Services Assistance Teams): Provide laboratory, analytical, and review services to all areas
of the Superfund program.
Factor Categories: Three categories used to assess risk from HRS pathways: (1) Likelihood of Release (LR); (2)
Waste Characteristics (WC); and (3) Targets (1).
FIT (Field Investigation Team): Provides support for site assessment activities.
FR (Federal Register): Each Federal working day, publishes current Presidential proclamations and Executive
Orders, Federal agency regulations having general applicability and legal effect, proposed agency rules, and
documents that are required by statute to be published.
FS (Feasibility Study): A study to develop and evaluate options for remedial action. The feasibility study
emphasizes data analysis and is generally performed concurrently and in an interactive fashion with the remedial
investigation.
FY (Fiscal Year): For the U.S. government, begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. For example, FY88
begins on October 1, 1987 and ends on September 30, 1988.
Hazardous Substance: Section 101 (14) of CERCLA, as amended, defines ‘hazardous substance’ chiefly by
reference to other environmental statutes, such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, Clean Air Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act. The term does not include petroleum, crude oil or any
fraction thereof, natural gas, natural gas liquids, or synthetic gas usable for fuel.
HRS (Hazard Ranking System): A scoring system used to evaluate potential relative risks to public heallh and the
environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. EPA and States use the HRS to
calculate a site score, from 0 to 100, based on the actual or potential release of hazardous substances from a site
to affect people or the environment through air, surface water, or ground water. This score is the primary factor
used to determine it a hazardous waste site is eligible to be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Page E-2
-------
Appendix E: Glossary
1DW (investigation Derived Wastes): Wastes generated during the process of collecting samples during CERCLA
investigations which must be handled according to all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
LR (Likelihood of Release): Factor category used to assess the likelihood that a hazardous substance will be
released to the environment.
LTRA (Long Term Response Actions): Actions such as ground water pump and treat operations that require
extensive timeframes to achieve remedial cleanup objectives.
MCLs (Maximum Contaminant Levels): Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the maximum permissible level of a
contaminant in water which is delivered to any user of a public water system.
MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goals): Non-enforceable goals established under the Safe Drinking Water
Act for drinking water that consider only health-based factors.
NCP (National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan): The Federal regulation (40 CFR 300)
that guides the Superfund program. The NCP established the Hazard Ranking System as the principal mechanism
for placing sites on the National Prior ies List.
NFRAP (No Further Remedial Action Planned): No response planned under the remedial authority of Superfund,
not that no response is planned. This designation has been replaced by SEA — Site Evaluation Accomplished.
NPL (National Prior ies List): EPA’s list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites
ident ied for possible long term remedial response using Federal dollars. The list is based primarily on the score a
site receives on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a year.
NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking): A document published in the Federal Register that sets forth proposed
regulatory language, provides notice of issues to be commented on, and presents other supplementary and
background information about the rulemaking.
NRC (National Response Center): The center operated by the U.S. Coast Guard that receives and evaluates
reports of oil and hazardous substance releases into the environment and notifies the appropriate agency(s). The
NRC can be contacted 24-hours a day, toll-free at (800) 424-8802.
NRT (National Response Team): Representatives of 12 Federal agencies that coordinate Federal responses to
nationally significant pollution incidents and provide advice and technical assistance to the responding agency(s).
NSF (National Strike Force): Consists of the Strike Teams established by the U.S. Coast Guard on the Pacific and
Gulf Coasts. These teams can provide a variety of response support services including communications, technical
advice and assistance, specialized equipment, training, and contingency planning.
O&M (Operation and Maintenance): Activities conducted at a site after a response action occurs, to ensure that
the cleanup or containment system is functioning properly.
Observed Release: The evaluation of a release of a hazardous substance to the environment based on analytical
data of the migration pathway or direct observation of the release into the migration pathway media.
OHMTADS (Oil and Hazardous Material Technical Assistance Data System): An automated informational
repository data base containing 126 fields of information on physical, chemical, biological, toxicological, and
-------
Appendix E: Glossary
commercial data on approximately 1400 oil and hazardous materials that are potentially harmful to human heaith
and weftare and/or the environment.
OSC (On-Scene Coordinator): The Federal official who coordinates and directs Superfund removal actions.
PA (Preliminary Assessment): The process of collecting and reviewing available information about a known or
suspected hazardous waste site or release. EPA or States use this information to determine it the site requires
further study. It further study is needed, a Site Inspection (SI) is undertaken.
Pathway (also Exposure Pathway): The environmental medium through which a hazardous substances may
threaten humans and the environment. Risks are transmitted to targets via exposure pathways. These pathways
include ground water, surface water, soil, and air.
Pathway Score: s - 1 J4I , Computes a score for each pathway using information on the Likelihood of
Release (LR), Waste Characteristics (WC), and Targets (T). 82,500 is based on a score of 150 for T, with LR and
WC receiving a maximum pathway score of 100.
PIAT (Public Information Assist Team): A U.S. Coast Guard organization available through the NRC to assist On-
Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and Regional offices in meeting demands for public information and participation.
Primary Target: At the Preliminary Assessment, those targets suspected of being exposed to hazardous
substances.
PREscore: A computer program that automates site scoring with the HRS.
PRP (Potentially Responsible Party): Any individual or company (such as an owner, operator, transporter, or
generator) potentially responsible for, or contributing to, the contamination problems at a Superfund site.
Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPs, through administrative and legal actions, to clean up sites contaminated
by hazardous substances.
QA/QC (Quality Assurance/Quality Control): A system of procedures, checks, audits, and corrective actions used
to ensure that field work and laboratory analysis during the investigation and cleanup of Superfund sites meet
established standards.
RA (Remedial Action): The actual construction or implementation phase that follows the remedial design of the
selected cleanup aflernative at a site on the National Priorities List (NPL).
RAC (Response Action Contractor): Any person who agrees, by contract, to provide a removal or remedial action
at a facility listed on the NPL, or to provide evaluation, planning, engineering, surveying and mapping, design,
construction, equipment, or any ancillary services related to a removal or remedial action.
RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976): A Federal law that established a regulatory system to
track hazardous wastes from the time of generation to disposal. The law requires safe and secure procedures to
be used in treating, transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Page E-4
-------
Appendix E: Glossary
RD (Remedial Design): An engineering phase that follows the Record of Decision (ROD) when technical drawings
and specifications are developed for the subsequent remedial action (RA) at a site on the National Priorities List
(NFL).
Remedial Response: A long term action that stops or substantially reduces a release or threatened release of
hazardous substances that is serious, but does not pose an immediate threat to public health and/or the
environment.
Removal Action: An immediate action taken over the short term to address a release or threatened release of
hazardous substances.
Response Action: A CERCLA-authorized action at a Superfund s e involving e her a short term removal action
or a long term remedial response.
RI (Remedial Investigation): A process to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented at a
Superfund s e. The remedial investigation emphasizes data collection and s e characterization, and is generally
performed concurrently and in an interactive fashion w h the feasibil y study (FS).
Risk Assessment: An evaluation performed as part of the remedial investigation to assess baseline conditions at
a Superfund site and determine the risk posed to public heaTh and/or the environment.
ROD (Record of Decision): A public document that explains which cleanup alternative(s) will be used at National
Prior ies List (NFL) sites where Federal funds pay for the cleanup.
RP (Responsible Party): A party that admits to or that EPA or the Department of Justice prove was responsible for
contamination at a Superfund site.
RPM (Remedial Project Manager): The official designated by the lead agency to coordinate, monftor, or direct
remedial or other response activities.
RQs (Reportable Quantities): Established under CERCLA section 102 as triggers for notification to the Federal
government when hazardous substances are released. The release of a hazardous substance that equals or
exceeds s RQ must be reported immediately to the National Response Center (NRC).
RRC (Regional Response Center): Provides facilities and personnel for communications, information storage, and
other requirements for coordinating response.
RRT (Regional Response Team): Representatives of Federal, State, and local agencies who may assist in
coordination of activ ies at the request of the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) or Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
before and during response actions.
SACM (Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model): The model for streamlining and accelerating the Superfund
program, proposed in April 1992. It combines the emergency response (removal) and remedial components of the
program and all site assessment will take place in one program. After a one-step site screening and risk
assessment, a Regional Decision Team will institute short term activities that address all threats to the health and
safety of the existing population. These short term activities will be published in the Federal Register (for public
information purposes only, not as a rulemaking) on an Early Action List. The Regional Decision Team will also
determine if and when long term remediation (e.g., ground water restoration) is appropriate. Sites would then be
placed on the Long Term Remediation List and be cleaned up over many years.
PageE-5
-------
Appendix E: Glossary
SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act): Moditications to CERCLA enacted on October 17,
1986.
SEA (Site Evaluation Accomplished): No further response under the authority of Superfund is necessary.
Secondary Target: At the Preliminary Assessment, those targets not suspected of being exposed to hazardous
substances.
Sensitive Environment: A terrestrial or aquatic resource, fragile natural setting, or other area with unique or
highly-valued environmental or cultural features.
SERA (Superfund Emergency Response Actions): A two-volume compilation of Fund-financed removal
descriptions. Each description provides basic facts about the site, the nature of the problem, and mitigative actions
taken.
SI (Site Inspection): A technical phase of site assessment that follows a Preliminary Assessment (PA), designed to
collect more extensive information on a hazardous waste site. The information is used to score the site with the
Hazard Ranking System (HAS) to determine whether further response action under CERCLA is needed.
Site Score ( Sw) 2 (S ) (S 5 ) 2 (SA) 2 Using this root mean square equation, a score is computed
for a site using the data of the pathway scores — ground water pathway (SGW), surface water pathway (Ssw), soil
exposure pathway (Se), and air pathway (SA).
SMOA (Superfund Memorandum of Agreement): A written document executed by an EPA Regional Administrator
and the head of a State agency establishing the nature and extent of EPA and State interaction during the
pre-remedial, remedial, and enforcement response process.
Source: Any area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those
soils that have become contaminated through migration of a hazardous substance. Air, water, or sediments that
are contaminated are not considered sources, except in certain special cases applicable only to ground water and
surface water sediments.
SOW (Statement of Work): A document that specities the scope of work and procedures that will be used to
undertake a discrete step of a Superfund investigation or action.
Superfund: The common name used for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CEACLA), also referred to as the Trust Fund.
T (Targets): Physical human or environmental resources that are threatened (or potentially threatened) by a
release (or potential release) of hazardous substances from a site; HAS targets include human populations using
ground or surface water for drinking water; populations residing, working, or attending school within four miles of
the site; fisheries; land and water used for commercial agricufture, food preparation, or other resource uses; and
sensitive environments.
TAGs (Technical Assistance Grants): Designed to provide funds to communities for the purpose of hiring advisors
to interpret technical information related to cleanup of Superfund sites listed on the NPL.
Page E-6
-------
Appendix E: Glossary
TAT (Technical Assistance Team): Provides initial site response support, determinations of the size and nature of
the site, and support for OSCs during actual cleanup.
TDL (Target Distance Limit): Maximum distance over which targets for the site are evaluated. The target distance
limit varies by HAS pathway.
TES (Technical Enforcement Services): Contracts that provide EPA Headquarters or Regions with assistance
during enforcement-related activities, such as PRP searches or oversight of PRP-conducted investigations or
actions.
Threats: Three components of the surlace water pathway: (1) drinking water threat (DWT); (2) human food chain
threat (HFCT); and (3) environmental threat (ET).
Tier: The HRS has four methods for evaluating hazardous waste quantity: (1) hazardous constituent; (2)
hazardous wastestream quantity; (3) volume; and (4) area.
TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act): Provides authorities to control the manufacture and sale of certain
chemical substances, including polychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
TSDF (Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility): A facility regulated under RCRA that manages RCRA
hazardous wastes in one of the ways mentioned.
USCG (U.S. Coast Guard): An agency in the U.S. Department of Transportation that is the predesignated On-
Scene Coordinator (OSC) in the Coastal Zone and has the authority under CERCLA to respond to any release or
threatened release of hazardous substances involving the Coastal Zone, Great Lakes waters, ports, and harbors.
The USCG shares with EPA responsibility for the emergency response activities under the NCP.
WC (Waste Characteristics): Factor category used to assess the properties of hazardous substances and how
much is available to migrate.
Page E-7
-------
Site Assessment Branch
Training Curriculum for 1993
HRS Training Course
Session 2:
Session 3:
Session 4:
Session 5:
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Edison, NJ
Cincinnati, OH
Denver, CO
Open to
Regions: 5-10
Regions: 1-4
Regions: 5-10
Regions: 1-10
PA&SI Training Course
Session 1: March 16-18
Session 2: April 6-8
Session 3: May 4-6
Session 4: May 25-27
Session 5: August 10-12
Cincinnati, NJ
Edison, NJ
Edison, NJ
Cincinnati, OH
Denver, CO
Regions: 5-10
Regions: 1-4
Regions: 1-4
Regions: 5-10
Regions: 1-10
HRS Documentation Record Workshop
Federal Facilities Training Course
Session 3: March 9-11
Washington, DC
San Francisco, CA
Cincinnati, OH
Seattle, WA
Regions: 1-4
Regions: 8-10
Regions: 5-7
Date
March 2-5
April 20-23
May 18-21
July 13-16
Session 1:
Session 2:
Session 3:
June
July
August 9-13
Sessions 1-4 will be half the size of Session 5 because of the training facilities.
-------
Ordering Information
Site Assessment Screening: A National Priority was produced by the Environmental Media Center under
a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response.
Copies of the video and guide have been distributed to all U.S. EPA Regional site assessment programs,
U.S. EPA Regional libraries, State site assessment programs, and other federal agencies.
To order additional copies of the video:
Call toll free (800) 522-0362 or (301) 229-1944 or send $80.00 (prepaid) to:
Environmental Media Center
P.O. Box 30212
Bethesda, MD 20814
To order additional copies of this guide (control or publication number 9345.1-14):
Call the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) toll free (800) 553-6847 or
(703) 487-4600.
------- |