Urotad StatM
Environmental Protection
Sold Wasta and
Emergency flesoonse
EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9345.1-08
TITLE: Regional Quality Control Guidance for NPL
Candidate Sites
APPROVAL DATE: ^ceriber 26, 1991
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 1991
ORIGINATING OFFICE: 0ERR
13 FINAL
D DRAFT
LEVEL OF DRAFT
D A — Signed by AA or DAA
PI 8 — Signed by Office Director
CU C — Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
Stale* environmental ^rotecuon Agency
Wasmngton.OC2Q4«0
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
9345.1-08
2. Originator ifrfgrrnation
» Q< Contact Ptnon
Betti Van Epps
Codt
OS-245
;Qfflc«
OERR
260-0760
Regional Quality Control Guidance for NPL Candidate Sites
14. Summary at Directive (include Onef statement ol ourDosai
Provides recornmended procedures for a Regional Quality Control program for the evaluatior
of Hazard Ranking System packages. This guidance standardizes Regional QC review and
improves HRS package quality. This document serves in the preparation or review of HRS
packages and should complement other guidance for conducting PAs and Sis, and applying
the HRS. to assist Regions in the site listins orocess.
13. Keywords
HRS, NPL Sites
Does rhu D"ecuve Supersede Previous C
Yes What directive (numoer. uae)
What directive (number. Met
Pratt uevet
A - Signed Oy AA'OAA
3 - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
n
0 - in Owetoornent
8.
Document
to
b«
distributed
to
States
by Headquarters? 1
Yes
X
NO
Thu
System Format Standards.
9 3ignatur*oiLea« OKice
10 Name »o4 Title of Approing OHioa
Date
Date
EPA Farm »31S-l7 (fVw. 3-47) Previous editions are oosaiete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC 2 6 1991
O-
MEMORANDUM
SO^iC »\A5T = AND EVEPGENCv RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9345.1-08
Regional Quality Control Guidance /for NPL Candidate
nse
SUBJECT:
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Direcr
Office of Emergency and Remedial
TO: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI
Director, Toxic and Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions II, VI and X
PURPOSE: The purpose of this directive is to transmit "Regional
Quality Control Guidance for NPL Candidate Sites" for use by
regional EPA, State, and contractor personnel who prepare
documentation records for hazardous waste sites proposed for
placement on the National Priorities List.
BACKGROUNDS EPA has developed a structured process to determine
what, if any, cleanup actions are appropriate for the Federal
government under the national Super fund program for sites
included in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability System (CERCLIS) , the Agency's
national inventory of potential hazardous waste sites. This
process has two distinct phases — site assessment, which may
lead to placement of sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) ,
and the "remedial" planning phase which identifies the degree of
problems at sites on the NPL and alternatives for correcting
them. This guidance relates to the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
package preparation in the first phase — site assessment.
•ocr
*a Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC 2 6 1991
C= = 'CE Of
souo WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9345.1-08
Regional Quality Control Guidance ft.or NPL Candidate
Sites
nse
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM: Henry L. Longest II,
Office of Emergency and Remedial
TO: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI
Director, Toxic and Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions II, VI and X
PURPOSE: The purpose of this directive is to transmit "Regional
Quality Control Guidance for NPL Candidate Sites" for use by
regional EPA, State, and contractor personnel who prepare
documentation records for hazardous waste sites proposed for
placement on the National Priorities List.
BACKGROUND: EPA has developed a structured process to determine
what, if any, cleanup actions are appropriate for the Federal
government under the national Superfund program for sites
included in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability System (CERCLIS), the Agency's
national inventory of potential hazardous waste sites. This
process has two distinct phases — site assessment, which may
lead to placement of sites on the National Priorities List (NPL),
and the "remedial" planning phase which identifies the degree of
problems at sites on the NPL and alternatives for correcting
them. This guidance relates to the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
package preparation in the first phase — site assessment.
6C7
Pr-r'sc
Paper
-------
EPA relies on the HRS to assess the relative threat
associated with the release or potential release of hazardous
substances from a waste site. The HRS score is the primary
criterion EPA uses to determine whether a site should be placed
on the NPL. Sites scoring 28.5 or above are eligible for
listing. If a site scores 28.5 or above, an HRS package
documenting that score is prepared and submitted to Headquarters
by the Regions.
The package serves as the rationale for listing a site, and
is meant to be open to public scrutiny. It therefore must be
technically and legally defensible, as well as comprehensible to
the lay person. For this reason, packages undergo extensive
quality control review to ensure that the data are presented
accurately and clearly, as well as referenced correctly.
This guidance provides procedural guidelines to promote
national consistency in the quality of HRS packages. It reflects
the input of Regional Site Assessment Section Chiefs and staff.
This guidance is one aspect of a major TQM project to make the
site assessment process more efficient and consistent. It
complements the recently released Preliminary Assessment
Guidance.
OBJECTIVE: All package preparers and reviewers in Superfund site
assessment and listing efforts should follow the recommendations
contained in this manual. The proper use of the quality control
guidance should expedite the package preparation process and
produce national consistency.
IMPLEMENTATION: Superfund site assessment personnel should
immediately begin incorporating the QC guidance into ongoing
package preparation. EPA will assist the Regions, States, and
contractors in implementing this new guidance by supporting the
ongoing evaluation of this guidance to refine procedural
guidelines in the future.
If you need further information on QC Guidance, contact the
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, Robert Myers at (202) 260-
3412, or June Wiaz at (202) 260-5745.
Attachments
cc: Director, Office of Solid Waste
Director, Hazardous site Control Division
Director, Hazardous site Evaluation Division
Director, Emergency Response Division
Director, Office of Enforcement
-------
Publication 9345.1-08
December 1991
REGIONAL QUALITY CONTROL GUIDANCE
FOR NPL CANDIDATE SITES
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
NOTICE
The procedures set forth in this document are intended as guidance to employees
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), States, and other
government agencies. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided
in this directive, or to act at variance with it, based on analysis of specific site
circumstances. EPA also reserves the right to modify this guidance 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 bv EPA.
-------
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Eligibility Criteria 3
1.2 Development of HRS Packages 3
1.3 Regional Review of MRS Packages 4
1.4 Regional Request for Headquarters Quality Assurance 7
1.5 Prioritizing Sites 7
1.6 Headquarters Procedures 8
2.0 USING THE QC CHECKLIST 9
2.1 Evaluate Site's Eligibility 9
2.1.1 Petroleum Exclusion 9
2.1.2 RCRA Status 10
2.1.3 Aggregation Issues 12
2.1.4 Ground Water Plumes - Likely Sources Identified 13
2.1.5 Other Issues 13
2.2 Check Factor Values for Accuracy by Using HRS Tables 14
2.3 Check Math for Completeness and Accuracy 15
2.4 Evaluate Documentation 15
2.4.1 Verify That All Data or Statements of Fact Are
Accurately Described and Referenced 15
2.4.2 Determine That Full Copies of All Non-Publicly Available
Documents Are Included 16
2.4.3 Ensure That All Pertinent Maps Are Included for Each
Pathway Scored 17
2.4.4 List of Reference Materials 18
2.4.5 Check References and Bibliography 18
2.4.6 Remove References Not Cited 19
2.4.7 Additional Considerations 19
2.5 Include Site Summary/NPL Characterization Form 19
2.6 Proofread 20
2.7 Assemble the Complete HRS Package 20
3.0 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONDUCTING QC 21
3.1 Technical Considerations 21
-------
CONTENTS, continued
3.1.1 Check the Entire Package to Ensure that There Are No
Conflicting or Ambiguous References 21
3.1.2 Examine and Calculate Various Scoring Scenarios 22
3.1.3 Check the MRS Package for Logical Progression of
Analysis 22
3.1.4 Avoid Incomplete Data and Unexplained Methodologies . . 23
3.1.5 Remember: The General Public Must Be Able to
Understand the Documentation Record 23
3.2 Procedural Considerations 24
3.2.1 Provide Feedback to the MRS Package Preparer 24
3.2.2 Institute a Peer Review Process 24
4.0 INFORMATION RELEASE POLICY 25
APPENDIX A: SCOPE OF THE CERCLA PETROLEUM EXCLUSION UNDER
SECTIONS 101(14) and 104(a)(2) A-1
APPENDIX B: AGGREGATION POLICY FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE B-1
APPENDIX C: ISSUE SUBMITTAL FORM C-1
APPENDIX D: MAP SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE HRS DOCUMENTATION
RECORD D-1
GENERAL GUIDELINES D-3
PATHWAY-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS D-4
Source Characterization D-4
Waste Quantity D-4
Ground Water Pathway D-5
Surface Water Pathway D-5
Soil Exposure Pathway D-6
Air Pathway D-6
APPENDIX E: GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF NPL SITE
SUMMARIES E-1
APPENDIX F: GUIDELINES FOR NAMING OF NPL SITES . F-1
APPENDIX G: NPL CHARACTERISTICS DATA COLLECTION FORM G-1
APPENDIX H: INFORMATION RELEASE POLICY H-l
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This guidance manual provides recommended procedures for a Regional Quality Control (QC)1 program
for the evaluation of Hazard Ranking System (HRS) packages. HRS packages (including documentation records
and references) are developed for sites evaluated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (S ARA),
to support listing of sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). This guidance is to standardize Regional QC review
and improve HRS package quality. The document is intended primarily for use by EPA Regional Offices.
However, it also will serve anyone preparing or reviewing HRS packages, including EPA Headquarters, EPA
contractors, and State agencies. The QC Manual also should complement other guidances (for conducting PA's and
Si's, and applying the HRS) to assist Regions in the site listing process.
EPA has developed a structured process to determine what, if any, cleanup actions are appropriate for the
Federal government under the national Superfund program for sites included in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), EPA's national inventory of potential
hazardous waste' sites. The process is in two distinct phases: the first phase, site assessment, may lead to proposal
of sites for the NPL and consists of four activities — discovery, preliminary assessment, site inspection, and. if
warranted, proposal to the NPL. The second or "remedial" planning phase involves detailed evaluation of a site
to identify ttee:precise magnitude and extent of problems at the site and alternatives for correcting them. This
guidance document relates to the HRS package preparation in the first phase - site assessment.
The HRS is the scoring system EPA uses to assess the relative threat associated with the release or potential
release of hazardous substances from a waste site. The HRS score is the primary criterion EPA uses to determine
whether a site should be placed on the NPL; sites scoring 28.5 or above are eligible for listing. The NPL identifies
sites that warrant further investigation to determine if they pose risks to public health or the environment.
Figure 1 summarizes the NPL rulemaking process. States, EPA Regional Offices, and EPA Headquarters
evaluate all sites placed in CERCLIS to determine their eligibility for the NPL. If the site score is 28.5 or above,
an HRS package documenting that score may be prepared and submitted to Headquarters by the Regions. EPA
Regional Offices conduct a quality control review of HRS packages prior to Headquarters submittal for all candidate
sites.
Once a package is received by EPA Headquarters, the overall responsibility for development of the NPL
is assigned to the Site Assessment Branch (SAB) of the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (HSED). SAB conducts
quality assurance (QA) audits to ensure accuracy and consistency in HRS application among the EPA and State
offices participating in scoring sites.
EPA follows informal rulemaking procedures to propose to the NPL the sites that meet listing catena.
The Agency publishes the proposal in the Federal Register and solicits public comment on the proposal. Based on
these comments and further review by EPA, the Agency determines final HRS scores and places those sites that
still qualify on the NPL.
'The Site Assessment Branch (SAB) has defined QC as the series of checks performed at the Region, including
evaluating a site package for site eligibility, completeness, appropriate documentation, mathematical accuracy, and
typographical correctness. This is distinguishable from Quality Assurance (QA) which is the series of technical
checks performed on site package after submission to Headquarters. QA for this purpose includes checking for
consistency with precedent and HRS policy, confirming conclusions based upon data presented, and identifying
technical HRS issues requiring further guidance.
1
-------
Figure 1
The NPL Process
o Discovery and CERCLIS Entry
o Preliminary Assessment
o Site Inspection/Expanded Site Inspection
o Formal Preparation of HRS
Package and Score Documentation
o Regional Priority Decision
and Quality Control Review
o Headquarters Review
o Proposed NPL Rulemaking
o Comment Period
o Preparation of Response to Comments Document
FINAL NPL RULEMAKING
-------
1.1 Eligibility Criteria
Certain types of sites are excluded from the NPL either by statute or policy. These eligibility issues are
discussed in Section 2.1 of this manual.
The State, Regional, and Headquarters responsibilities during the determination of NPL eligibility are:
Summary of Responsibilities for Determining Eligibility
NPL Eligibility
Criteria and Policies
State/EPA
Contractor
Review NPL eligibility
criteria and policies for
applicability to candidate
sites. Question data
integrity when necessary.
Provide necessary
documentation.
Region
Review NPL eligibility
criteria and policies for
applicability to
candidate sites.
Question data integrity
when accessary.
Provide necessary
documentation.
Headquarters
Develop NPL
eligibility policies,
provide guidance
on them, and
ensure policies are
interpreted
correctly.
1.2 Development of MRS Packages
The Regions have the primary responsibility for screening sites that have been entered into CERCLIS,
conducting technical assessments of the sites, computing MRS scores, and submitting NPL candidate sites to EPA
Headquarters. The Regions may develop HRS packages for such sites or assign an EPA contractor to prepare the
packages. States often play a major role in the process as well, identifying potential sites, investigating them, and
developing and submitting HRS packages to the regional offices. The Regions should ensure these packages are
developed and submitted on a continuous basis for sites that score 28.50 or above on the HRS.
Summary of Responsibilities for Package Development
Package
Development
State/EPA
Contractor
Prepare and submit
HRS packages,
including draft site
summaries, to the
Regions on a
continuous basis.
Region
Determine if site
warrants package
preparation; assist
States and contractors as
required (to develop
packages, prepare site
summaries, etc.).
Ensure continuous rather
than batch submittal.
Headquarters
Issue NPL/HRS
guidance to the Regions
(e.g. on HRS questions.
documentation record
format, scoring
strategies, etc.).
I
I
-------
1.3 Regional Review of HRS Packages
The Regions must conduct QC review of HRS packages developed by the States and EPA contractors
before submitting them to SAB. The Regions have the sole responsibility to submit HRS packages to Headquarters.
Headquarters will not accept any HRS package that has not completed Regional QC or that is not accompanied by
a signed QC checklist (Figure 2). This includes any HRS package that has been sent directly to Headquarters by
the State, an EPA contractor, or a Federal facility contractor without undergoing Regional QC review. Those
packages will be returned to the sender.
An HRS package includes (in order):
Narrative (site) summary
Signed QC checklist
QA Signature page (completed by EPA Headquarters)
HRS score sheets (hard copy and disk; should be on PREScore)
HRS documentation records, including bibliography of references (hard copy and disk •• on PREScore)
NPL characterization data (hard copy and disk - on PREScore) [See Appendix G.]
Complete copies of referenced reports or documents
Other information as appropriate (e.g. RCRA documentation, aggregation rationale).
Complete HRS packages and well-documented data are essential to proper HRS scoring and to reliable
Regional QC checks. Regions should return incomplete HRS packages to the State or EPA contractor for revisions.
Analysis of past listing proposals shows a high incidence of incorrect referencing and illegible photocopies
(especially of maps) when packages have been submitted to headquarters. Limiting such errors will streamline QA
review considerably, allowing more time and resources to be devoted to placing sites on the NPL.
-------
Figure 2
MRS Package QC Checklist
1. Review the site's eligibility for tiie NPL. Please consider each of the following special circumstances in your
review and provide necessary documentation as appropriate.
Petroleum Exclusion status
RCRA Status - adequate documentation required
Aggregation issues
Ground water plumes - likely sources identified
Other issues
2. Check accuracy of math calculations for any factors not included in Prescore.
3. Evaluate documentation as follows:
a. Verify that all the statements of fact or data have a reference with page numbers (primary sources
should be used where available).
b. Determine that full copies of all non-publicly available references are included and legible. Please
note that the HRS preamble and rule are publicly available and therefore do not need to be included.
c. Verify that the actual reference number appears on the reference itself.
d. Ensure that all maps for each pathway are included and legible (all targets, samples, and sources
should be identified on maps, and maps must be reproducible in black and white).
e. Check that the list of references includes: title, author, date, affiliation, and page numbers (or toul
of pages if entire reference is included).
f. Remove references not cited.
4. Include narrative summary and NPL characterization data.
5. Proofread for spelling and typographical errors.
6. Ensure that this checklist is attached to 3 full copies of the HRS package and 2 copies of references (along with
the-diskette containing the scoresheet and documentation).
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the attached is a complete and accurate HRS package.
(EPA Regional Reviewer Signature) (Date)
I certify that Region requests be evaluated for placement on the NPL.
(Site Name)
(EPA Regional Superfund Branch Chief Signature) 'Dati)
(Typed name of Regional Superfur-d Branch Chief)
-------
Summary of Responsibilities for Review of MRS Packages
The State, Regional, and Headquarters responsibilities during the Regional QC review of State and EPA
contractor MRS package submissions are:
State/EPA
Contractor
Region
Headquarters
Regional QC
Work with Regions to
resolve issues that arise
during QC; correct
errors and provide
additional documentation
as requested by Regions.
Perform QC of all MRS
packages developed by
States and EPA
contractors.
Provide HRS guidance
and training to the
Regions and States as
required; provide QC
manual and short sheets
if necessary on listing
policy issues.
Narrative
Summaries
Where appropriate,
provide additional
information, as
requested by die
Regions.
Review site summaries
and site names and
ensure consistency with
Headquarters guidance.
Provide general
guidance on site
summaries and site
names, and specific
assistance to the
Regions as required.
Package
Submission
Submit to SAB three
copies (plus disk) of the
QC-approved HRS
documentation record,
and two copies of all
references along with the
signed QC checklist and
other required materials.
Develop plan to ensure
priontization and
package submittal on a
continuous basis.
Identify sites and
timetable for submittal.
Reject HRS packages
not formally submitted
by a Region, or not
meeting QC
requirements.
Regions conduct QC on a continuous basis as HRS packages are received from States and EPA contractors.
The purpose of the Regional QC is to:
• Confirm the eligibility of a site for the NPL.
• Verify that the package is complete, information is accurate and readable, and every statement of fact
is supported by documentation in the package.
• Check arithmetic not contained in PREScore.
• Ensure that scores for individual HRS factors are appropriate, given the information contained in the
package.
-------
• Identify assumptions made in the scoring and ensure they are adequately explained.
• Resolve and correct any errors or discrepancies.
• Review the site summary and NPL Characteristics Data Collection Form to ensure that they are
adequate.
Regions must perform a strict QC to ensure that the documentation requirements are met, EPA's
requirements have become more focused as a result of litigation and responding to public comments during previous
NPL rules. If QC indicates that the HRS score is not accurate or that the documentation is incomplete, the State
or EPA contractor must work with the Region to resolve any problems before the package is submitted to SAB for
QA.
The Regional program office may want to coordinate review with the Office of Regional Counsel to prevent
release of confidential information.
1.4 Regional Request for Headquarters Quality Assurance
Formal Headquarters QA of a candidate site will be initiated only when SAB receives the following
documents:
• Completed QC checklist signed by the Regional NPL coordinator or other appropriate Regional
reviewer, certifying the HRS package has undergone QC
• Regional Superfund Branch Chiefs (or above) request for QA
• QC-approved HRS package (three copies plus disk and two copies of references), as specified in Section
1.3.
The use of the QC checklist is explained in Section 2.0 of this guidance. Regions should submit NPL (QC-
approved) candidate packages for Headquarters QA as they are completed, rather than in groups. This ensures that
packages are processed efficiently, Headquarters and Regional NPL workloads are evenly distributed throughout
the year, and QA resources are allocated on an equitable basis. This is essential as rules will be sent to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) on a fixed schedule, with two NPL proposed rules and two final rules each year
at three-month intervals, regardless of the number of sites included in each rule.
1.5 Prioritizing Sites
The Regions have the sole responsibility for prioritizing sites for submission to Headquarters for QA review
to ensure that Superfund addresses the worst sites first. Headquarters review will be based on each Region's
priorities. The Region's prioritization of packages at Headquarters undergoing QA review may change as new sites
are discovered and evaluated. The Region must inform Headquarters of changes in priorities.
Responsibility for ranking sites for both initial screening and formal NPL submittal to Headquarters falls
to the EPA regional offices. In addition to the HRS evaluation, the Regions may use other criteria to establish the
order in which packages are prepared. Priorities may shift somewhat from strictly numerical rankings depending
on qualitative factors, such as the type of remedial activity which may be needed; the quality of the data; whether
there are observed releases at the site; and the degree of community or congressional concern about the site.
-------
1.6 Headquarters Procedures
Headquarters does a completeness check for all required items once it receives three copies of the HRS
package. If the package is not complete, it is returned to the Region, Assuming the package is complete, two
copies are sent to the contractor and the other kept at Headquarters for concurrent review. Subsequent package
revisions and additional references added as a result of technical issues raised during QA review should be sent
directly to the contractor and not to Headquarters. Ail policy concerns should be directed to Headquarters. If,
based on technical or other factors, a submitted site is withdrawn from QA review, all information is returned to
the Region and the site is removed from the list of NPL candidate sites. Any change in status should be reflected
in CERCLIS.
The contractor typically will prepare a QA letter, addressing all technical issues, within three weeks of
receiving the HRS documentation record for a one-pathway site. The QA reviewer may take one more week for
each additional pathway that is scored. Regions and their States or contractors will then respond to the letter and
provide necessary information. Once issues are resolved and Headquarters determines that a site should be proposed
to the NPL, a cover sheet is prepared and signed by both the Headquarters SAB Regional Coordinator and the SAB
Branch Chief.
Headquarters compiles a proposed rule from all the QA-approved packages available just prior to rhe time
of the scheduled OMB submittals (February 28 and August 30). Proposals will not be delayed in order to complete
the QA review of a specific site. Such a site will be evaluated for the next proposal.
The preamble and proposed rule provide background on the NPL, identify the specific sites being
proposed, and list those having policy considerations (such as sites being listed even though subject to RCRA
corrective action). Federal facilities are specifically identified. Concurrence is needed through the Assistant
Administrator for OSWER and by OGC before the preamble and rule can be formally submitted to OMB. The
concurrence process generally takes up to two weeks. Following concurrence but before actual submittal to OMB,
the EPA Headquarters Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement will inform the headquarters office of the affected
federal agency, and the EPA Region will notify the designated point-of-contact at the facility itself. Federal facilities
receive this treatment because they are seen as 'sister* agencies to EPA, unlike non-Federal PRPs.
After OMB review, any additional changes resulting from that review are made and concurrence through
the Assistant Administrator is again required. Once the preamble and proposed rule are signed, the Regional NPL
coordinators are notified, and background information and narrative summaries are provided to them. In addition,
SAB coordinates with the Headquarters press office, the Congressional Affairs office (to notify interested members
of Congress), the Superfund community relations office, and the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement, The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which must perform a health assessment on each proposed sue
within a year, is also notified. A press release is issued approximately four days after signature, and publication
in the Federal Register occurs one or two days after the press release. The publication date marks the formal
beginning of the 60 day comment pehod. Following publication, the Regional Information Management
Coordinators are notified to make necessary changes to CERCLIS.
During the OMB and concurrence process, when the list of sites in the rule is agreed to, Headquarters
makes two copies of each signed package included in a rule; the original will go into the Headquarters docket, one
copy will be sent to the Regional docket, and one copy will be sent to the Regional NPL coordinator. The Regional
coordinators will receive their copies after OMB clears the proposed rule so that there will be sufficient time to
make copies before the rule is published in the Federal Register. The Regional docket copy will be sent out
following signature of the rule by EPA's Assistant Administrator. All dockets must be set up at the time the rule
is published in the Federal Register. The Regional dockets must provide all references; the Headquarters docket
contains only the HRS documentation record and no references.
8
-------
2.0 USING THE QC CHECKLIST
The QC checklist (Figure 2) is intended to aid the regional reviewer in determining whether an HRS
package meets basic QC requirements. The following pages discuss the QC checklist, in order.
2.1 Evaluate Site's Eligibility
An important factor to determine before submitting an HRS package to SAB for formal review is whether
the site is appropriate for the NPL, based on statutory or listing policy considerations. For example, CERCLA
restricts EPA's authority to respond to certain categories of releases by excluding some substances, such as
petroleum, from the response program. Also, as a matter of policy, EPA has chosen not to list sites, such as certain
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities, where other authorities exist that can address the
contamination. In determining whether the site should be listed on the NPL, consider the following factors:
• Petroleum exclusion status
• RCRA status
• Aggregation issues
• Ground water plumes — likely sources identified
• Other factors (less common issues such as Nuclear Regulatory Commission deferrals and certain
statutory exclusions).
2.1.1 Petroleum Exclusion2
The CERCLA petroleum exclusion was discussed in a memorandum dated July 31, 1987, from Francis
S. Blake, General Counsel, to ]. Winston Porter, then Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (This memorandum is included as Appendix A). The exclusion, contained in CERCLA
Sections 101(14) and (33), excludes from the definition of "hazardous substance* petroleum, including crude oil and
any fractions thereof (if the fraction is not a specifically listed or designated hazardous substance), natural gas,
natural gas liquids, liquified natural gas, and synthetic gas usable for fuel (but not fractions thereof).
There ia no definition of petroleum in CERCLA, Crude petroleum includes a number of hazardous
substances that would otherwise be CERCLA hazardous substances, such as benzene, toluene, xylenes, and
ethylbenzene. In their pure forma, they remain hazardous substances and can be scored. When they are a part of
petroleum or petroleum products, they cannot be used in scoring.
The OGC guidance presents several major points:
1) The petroleum exclusion also covers any hazardous substances which are normally mixed with or
added to crude oil or crude oil fractions during the refining process (e.g., lead in leaded
gasoline).A refined product, such as gasoline, remains within the exclusion even if the refining
process increases the concentration of hazardous constituents above natural levels. However, if
EPA currently is reviewing recent legislation to determine if that legislation has any impact on the
petroleum exclusion. If the review indicates changes are necessary, the Agency will provide & short sheet to
substitute for this guidance.
S
-------
the concentration of hazardous constituents is increased after a product leaves the refinery, the
exclusion may not apply. Therefore, if in a release, levels of hazardous constituents are found
at concentrations greater than would be typical of crude oil or refined petroleum fractions, the
release may be eligible for listing. However, this is very difficult to show, given the variability
of concentrations of these constituents in petroleum products.
2) Releases of petroleum contaminated with hazardous substances (i.e., mixed with hazardous
substances outside the refining process) prior to disposal can be listed if the petroleum and
hazardous substances cannot be separated. An example is used oil which has been contaminated
with metals or PCB's during use. This is true even when the metal comes from a source such as
leaded gasoline that was itself within the petroleum exclusion.
3) If two distinct plumes commingle, one of petroleum and one of a hazardous substance which can
be listed, the release can be listed but only the non-petroleum plume can be used in the MRS
scoring (for waste quantity, observed release, etc.).
4} Any fraction of petroleum or crude oil that is specifically listed or designated as a hazardous
substance under RCRA or other Federal laws enumerated in CERCLA Section 101(14) does not
fall within the petroleum exclusion. Examples would be the RCRA K048-K052 wastes, such as
leaded tank bottoms, slop oil emulsion wastes and API separator sludge.
5) Unadulterated waste oil is not a CERCLA hazardous substance. However, if waste oil is mixed
with a hazardous constituent outside the standard refining process, and they are so commingled
that they cannot be separated, the entire mixture can be used in HRS scoring.
Please note that although petroleum itself cannot be used for determining toxicity, waste quantity, or an
observed release, if it is mixed with non-excluded products containing the same hazardous substances as are inherent
in petroleum, these hazardous substances may be used for scoring. Also, a petroleum release can be used to show
aquifer interconnection.
For more details on the petroleum and natural gas exclusions, please contact the Site Assessment Branch.
2.1.2 RCRA Status
The NPL/RCRA policy provides mat generally sites should not be placed on the NPL if they can be
addressed under RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities. According to the NPL/RCRA policies published
June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21057), June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23978), and October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000), facilities that
are subject to RCRA Subtitle C may be listed on the NPL when corrective action ia unlikely to succeed or occur
promptly, as in the following situations:
• Inability to Finance — The facility is owned by persons who are unable to pay (as evidenced by their
invocation of the bankruptcy laws and documented by a bankruptcy petition).
oss of A.ytftnpT^tion to Operate — Facilities that have lost authorization to operate or
for which there are indications that the owner/operator has been unwilling to undertake corrective action.
10
-------
• Unwillingness/Case-by-Case Determination — Facilities that have a clear history of unwillingness as
determined on a case-by-case basis.3
• Converteti - Facilities that at one time were treating or storing RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste but
have since converted to generator-only status (i.e., facilities that now store hazardous waste for 90 days
or less), or any other hazardous waste activity for which interim status is not required. (Include
documentation that the withdrawal of Part A applications for these facilities has been acknowledged by
the State or EPA.)
• Non- or Late Filers — Facilities that were treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste on or after
November 19, 1980 but did not submit a Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity by the date
prescribed in Section 3010(a) (usually August 18, 1980), did not file Pan A of a permit application by
the date prescribed in 40 CFR 270.10 (usually November 19, 1980) and have little or no history of
RCRA compliance. (If facility is a late filer, include documentation that permit was late.)
• Pre-HSWA Permittees - Received a RCRA subtitle C operating permit before November 8, 1984
(before passage of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984), and the owner/operator will
not voluntarily modify the permit to incorporate corrective action requirements. Include a copy of the
permit for documentation.
Sites in the converter or late or non-filer categories may be addressed under RCRA and not CERCLA if
they agree to implement corrective action under a RCRA consent order (October 4, 1989, 54 FR 41005).
Sites subject to Subtitle C corrective action and not in any of these categories may be considered for the
NPL if EPA determines on a site-specific basis that the contamination is more appropriately addressed under
CERCLA, as was done with the Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. plant in Mountain View, California (February 11
1991, 56 FR 5602).
In addition, sites not subject to Subtitle C corrective action authority are listed on the NPL if they are
otherwise eligible. Following are examples of sites that fall into this category:
• Facilities that ceased treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste prior to November 19, 1980 (the
effective date of Phase I of the Subtitle C regulations).
• Sites at which only materials exempted from the statutory or regulatory definition of solid waste or
hazardous waste are managed.
• RCRA hazardous waste handlers to which RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities do not apply,
such as hazardous waste generators, transporters, or protective filers not required to have Interim Starus
or a final RCRA permit
Regions and Regional contractors should contact the Site Assessment Branch for more details or refer to the
following Federal Register notices discussing the policy:
51 FR 21054 (June 10, 1986)
53 FR 23978 (June 24, 1988)
53 FR 30002 (August 9, 1988)
54 FR 10520 (March 13, 1989)
54 FR 41000 (October 4, 1989)
'Note: For both categories of "unwillingness," owners or operators of facilities may be judged unwilling i f ibey
fail to comply adequately with an administrative order, judicial action, or consent decree, or a RCRA permit
condition requiring response or corrective action. (See 53 FR 30006, August 9, 1988 for a more detailed discussion
of types of non-compliance that constitute unwillingness.)
11
-------
2.1.3 Aggregation Issues
For NPL purposes, the Agency has decided that in most cases sites should be scored individually because
HRS scores more accurately reflect the relative priority given to the site if the site is scored alone. However, in
some cases the nature of the operation that created the release4 or the nature of the probable appropriate response
may indicate that two or more noncontiguous releases should be treated as one site for KPL purposes. Deciding
how or if to aggregate these releases has been a recurring issue under the original HRS, and will continue to be of
concern under the revised HRS. The ultimate decision must be made on a site-specific basis.
CERCLA Section 104{d)(4) states where "two or more noncontiguous facilities are reasonably related on
the basis of geography, or on the basis of the threat, or potential threat to the public health or welfare or the
environment, [EPA] may in [its] discretion, treat these related facilities as one for purposes of [response
authorities].*
The following factors may be used among others in determining if two or more sites should be aggregated.
(The aggregation policy is stated in 49 FR 37076, included as Appendix B.)
• Are the releases part of the same operation or unit? If so, the substances deposited and the means of
disposal are likely to be similar, which may imply that a single strategy for cleanup is appropriate. In
addition, potentially responsible parties would generally be the same for the releases, indicating that
enforcement or cost recovery efforts could be very similar and might be consolidated.
• Is contamination from the releases threatening the same media (for example, the same part of the ground
water or surface water body)?
• How far apart are the noncontiguous releases and are the target populations essentially the same or
substantially overlapping?
Mot all of these factors must be met in order to aggregate releases, but all factors should be evaluated.
Where the evaluation of factors indicates that two noncontiguous releases should be addressed as a single site, the
releases will be listed as a single site for NPL purposes.
A recent court decision on the Sangamo Weston site affirms the Agency's application of the aggregation
policy. The Sangamo Weston plant manufactured electrical equipment, and Sangamo disposed of wastes on the
property and released effluents into unnamed tributaries of Town Creek that originated on the property. Town
Creek in turn flows into Twelve Mile Creek, which flows into Lake Hartwell, In addition, Sangamo disposed of
wastes at various landfills in the are*. The Agency calculated an HRS score for the Sangamo plant that exceeded
28.S, then aggregated the plant and five private landfills located along Twelve Mile Creek or its tributaries into a
single site. However, EPA specifically excluded several municipal landfills from the aggregated site because they
would have involved many other parties and types of waste.
In this case, the plaintiff contended that EPA's own policy required the agency to find each of the factor;
listed in the aggregation policy (49 FR 37076). However, the court upheld EPA's use of the aggregation policy,
saying that the policy <***"«• only a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered, and that all factors do not have
to be present in each case.
'Note that the NPL interchangeably refers to 'releases,' 'facilities,' and 'sites* (56 FR 35841).
12
-------
Federal facilities are often listed on an aggregated basis. Such facilities are often very large and encompass
multiple potential sources of contamination arising out of a variety of different activities. When the Agency lists
a variety of unrelated sources at a federal facility as one site, it is in effect utilizing the aggregation policy. The
most important factor that makes aggregation appropriate in such cases is generally the presence of a single
responsible party which will serve as lead agency for any response and with whom EPA would have to enter into
an Inter-Agency Agreement.
Additional guidance questions should be addressed to SAB. Should further guidance be necessary, SAB
will consider a more detailed short sheet.
2.1.4 Ground Water Plumes • Likely Sources Identified
Although it may not be possible to conclusively identify sources, the equivalent of an expanded site
inspection should be performed to demonstrate CERCLA can address the site and provide the remedial program with
information to make source identification easier. This information also will enhance the accuracy of sconng data.
Where several sources are known, the HRS documentation record generally should be prepared based on those
sources, not based on a general plume of unknown source. For more information on ground water plumes, see the
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Guidance Manual (in preparation), OSWER Dir. 9345.1-07.
2.1.5 Other Issues
There are several other listing policy and statutory exclusions that package preparers and Regional
reviewers need to be aware of prior to making NPL decisions. If the following type of situation exists, you should
check with SAB to ensure further evaluation is appropriate:
• Radioactive materials - CERCLA section 101(22) excludes a limited category of radioactive materials
from the statutory definition of "release," making them ineligible for CERCLA response or the NPL.
These are (1) releases of source, by-product, or special nuclear material from a nuclear incident if these
releases are subject to financial protection requirements under Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act,
and (2) any release of source, by-product, or special nuclear material from any processing sue
specifically designated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. Such releases
are unlikely to be present at many CERCLA sites. In addition, as a policy matter, EPA has chosen not
to list releases of source, by-product, or special nuclear material from any facility with a current license
issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Regions should check if a site appears likely to
have NRC involvement. Note that this exclusion under CERCLA is much narrower than the general
exclusion of radionuclides from the definition of solid waste under RCRA.
• Under CERCLA section 104(a)(3), EPA's authority to respond to the following releases is htm Jed to
emergencies: 1) of a naturally occurring substance in its unaltered form, or altered solely through
naturally occurring processes, from a location where it is naturally found, 2) from products which are
part of the structure of, and result in exposure within, residential buildings or business or community
structures, or 3) into public or private drinking water supplies due to deterioration of the system through
ordinary use.
• CERCLA precludes EPA from recovering response costs for federally permitted releases iSs^;:on
107(j)). These releases, however, are eligible for the NPL.
13
-------
• CERCLA precludes EPA from recovering response costs for contamination resulting from the proper
application of a pesticide product registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (Section 107(i)). This does not by itself preclude NPL listing. EPA currently is examining whether
such releases should be included on the NPL, as is the case with spills, leaks, and improper disposal.
or addressed in other ways.
(Note that no supplementary information is necessary for municipal landfill sites.)
The vehicle for resolving these and any other site issues is the Issue Submittal Form (Appendix C). The
Region, State, or field contractor may fill out the form — which asks for a description and status of the site, as well
as the specific issue to be resolved. The NPL Coordinator then submits the form to a Review Team if he or she
deems it appropriate. After the Review Team deliberation, the resolution is drafted, circulated for comment among
its members, and revised accordingly. The SAB Review Team Coordinator then provides the Region with the
results.
2.2 Check Factor Values for Accuracy by Using HRS Tables
Each value assigned in the HRS documentation package is a value derived from one of the tables in the
HRS. Ensure that the tables used are clearly identified and that the correct values are assigned from the tables.
If a value has been assumed as allowed by the HRS (e.g. minimum value for hazardous waste quantity or the default
value for toxicity), state this information and reference the HRS.
EXAMPLE:
Hazardous Waste Quantity Value = 569.25
Therefore, Table 2-6 (Ref. n, cite final HRS) assigns a
Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value of 100.
TO CHECK:
Compare the assigned value of 100 to the value found in Table
2-6.
TABLE 2-6
HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY
FACTOR VALUES
Hazardous Waste
Quantity Value
0
1 to 100
Greater than 100 to 10,000
Greater than 10.000 to 1.000,000
Greater than 1,000.000
Assigned Value
0
l
100
10,000
1.000.000
14
-------
2.3 Check Math for Completeness and Accuracy
For any calculations separate from PREScore (such as those used to determine constituent quantity), the
regional QC reviewer should confirm that these calculations are present and complete and that the math used In these
calculations is correct.
EXAMPLE:
Population within 1/4 mile of the Site:
Six homes are on private wells within a 1/4 mile radius of the site.
(Ref. a, p. x) Census data indicate there are 3.0 persons per
household in this area. (Ref. b, p. y) In addition, one municipal
well within 1/4 mile of the site services 100 connections. (Ref. c,
p. z)
INCOMPLETE:
Total population = 318
COMPLETE:
6 homes X 3.0 persons/home =18
100 connections X 3.0 persons/home = 300
Total population = 318
2.4 Evaluate Documentation
2.4.1 Verify That All Data or Statements of Fact Are Accurately Described
and Referenced
Every statement of fact in the HRS documentation record that is beyond general knowledge should be
supported with a reference number and page number next to each statement (not at the end of the paragraph or at
the bottom of the page).
Example:
Approximately 2 tons per week of chromium sludge from
the All-Rite Chemical Company were deposited into the
landfill for a period of 6 years. (Ref. a, pp. b-d)
Finding a particular sample in a large collection of data may take considerable effort. Thus, sample data
should be identified by location and collection date and specific sample numbers should be cited m the
documentation record. Numbering all pages in large (unpaginated) data sets also should be done for easier access
to the data and to save valuable review time.
15
-------
When referencing target measurements, describe where the measurement began (e.g. at a sampling
location); where the measurement ended (e.g. Well #4 at a referenced location); and how the measurement was
made (e.g. from a topographic map included in the references). This description should enable the public to
repeat each step of the measurement and verify the supporting information in the references, if desired.
In addition, ensure that primary sources are used as references, if at all possible. Primary references are
the original materials in which the information was given. Examples of primary sources are:
• Geological publications
• Field observations/measurements
• Analytical results
• Waste manifests.
Examples of references which can be used but are not considered primary references are:
• Allegations of buried drums
• Estimates of the depths of landfills or lagoons
• Summaries of analytical results without actual laboratory data
• SI reports.
Although these references are acceptable, primary sources are preferred where available. (Note particularly chat
commenters are increasingly questioning laboratory procedures so that documentation by the laboratory that it
followed proper analysis procedures is advisable.)
Examine carefully the use of PA and SI reports for references. Other than actual field observations or
measurements and the sample results themselves, these reports may contain a large amount of second-hand
information. Ensure that the actual documents referenced within the PA and SI reports are used as the primary
references within the HRS reference package.
2.4.2 Determine That Full Copies of All Non-Publicly Available Documents
Are Included6
Ensure that legible copies of all documents in the reference package that are not routinely available to the
public are present in their entirety (not merely excerpted). Below are examples of publicly available documents and
those not considered to be publicly available.
ROUTINELY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
• HRS Preamble and Rule
• Geological Publications Reports
• Chemical Handbooks
NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
• PA/SI Reports
• Consultant Reports
• Phone Logs
5A related issue is the "releasability" of documents prepared in the site assessment process. Documents that
are not protected under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) have been declared "releasable.* Documents
deemed 'deliberative* need not be released by the Agency. See Section 4.0 for more information on what types
of documents should or can be made available to the public. Direct questions about FOIA requests to the Office
of Regional Counsel or the Headquarters Site Assessment Branch.
16
-------
When referencing publicly available documents, the reference should include the title page and table of
contents from the document, and the full chapter or section that is cited and not merely the page or paragraph.
Geological publications often present conflicting information or contain imprint caveats. The summary or
conclusion of the report should always be used to support a judgment call such as discontinuities or interconnections.
This is less important if the reference is being used for strictly factual information, such as a log.
AJ1 of the references and their pagination must be legible. Readability of map photocopies is an especially
common problem.
2.4.3 Ensure That All Pertinent Maps Are Included for Each Pathway
Scored
All maps that are referenced in the HRS documentation record must be included in the reference package.
There may be many different types of maps throughout the reference package. All of them should be as complete
as possible (e.g. showing which aquifer(s) underlies the target distances). A map may be located within a report
in the references or it may be the actual reference. In either case the following information should be included
somewhere within the reference package:
• Maps showing the target distances (e.g.)
— A 4-mile radius map
- A 15-mile surface water pathway map.
• Maps showing population calculations, with dwellings being counted if possible, and the target distance
in which they appear clearly identified. It should be clear how the population values for each of the
target distance rings were determined.
• Maps showing pertinent sample locations, with respect to the sources, if possible.
• Maps showing municipal well and surface water intake locations and the distance rings in which they
appear.
• A site sketch showing all sources, surrounding structures and topographic features which might affect
the likelihood and direction of migration pathway from the source.
• Maps showing pertinent distance factors (e.g. distance to nearest home well, distance to nearest surface
water body, etc.).
• Geologic maps.
Because the mips in the references will be copied, they should not be color coded. Symbols and keys on
the maps should be clearly understood in black and white. Take care to ensure that the maps contain the maximum
amount of necessary information, without causing confusion. In addition, the package prepare* should consider
including 8'A* x It* map reductions in the beginning of the documentation record to make QA review easier.
Appendix D includes guidance on the specifications of maps used for HRS purposes. Although regional
resources may preclude providing all the information recommended, adhering to the guidelines in Appendix D will
greatly reduce QA review time, as well as the number of iterations among the Region, its contractor and the
Headquarters review team.
17
-------
2.4.4 List of Raferenca Materials
The reference list, which appears at the beginning of the HRS documentation record, identifies materials
supporting EPA's position in proposing or finalizing a site to the NPL. The reference list should represent the
sources of information used to document the entries on the HRS documentation record. The HRS package must
include copies of appropriate portions of all references cited in the documentation record.
References should be numbered sequentially as they appear in the HRS documentation record. Exceptions
include the following:
• List the HRS itself as reference 1. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System, 40
CFR Pan 300, Appendix A, 55 FR 51583 December 14, 1990)
• List the Supertund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) as Reference 2. This matrix is the database for
properties and benchmarks of hazardous substances. Because EPA periodically updates it, include its
date. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991 Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). May
10.)
Include legible copies of the relevant portions of references plus title pages in the documentation record.
Widely-available documents such as those listed above need not be included. The basic elements of a reference
include:
• Full name(s) of authors).
• Publication date, including year, month and day, if available.
• Titles of articles, journals, chapters, and books.
• Other items such as volume and page number; conference sponsor, location and date; book publisher
and principal city; report number, and contractor who prepared the report; etc.
2.4.5 Check References and Bibliography
Although there are various styles for the list of references, each entry should consist of the same basic
information. The following are some common bibliographic forms.
I. Reports/Books - Author. Affiliation. Title. Volume Number, Date, Pages
Ex. Brown, William. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Hometown, Pennsylvania. Volume
3, 1986. 20 pages.
2. Topo. Maps • Author, Name of Quadrangle, Series, Title. Date, including photorevisions. (Describe any
additional information added to the map and source).
Ex. U. S. Geological Survey, East Greenville, Pennsylvania Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series. Topographic Map.
1957, photorevised 1969 and 1973. (Four-mile radius added by NUS FIT 3).
3. Memos, phone logs, meetings - From/With Name, Title, Affiliation, with/to Name, Title, Affiliation. Type
of correspondence/correspondence. Date. Number of pages.
18
-------
Ex. Little, Janet, Operations Supervisor, Towanda Water and Sewer Authority to Jane Doe, Site Investigation
Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Telecon. January 15, 1989. 1 page.
Ex. Little, Jaast, Operations Supervisor, Towanda Water and Sewer Authority to Jane Doe, Site Investigation
Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Meow. Well Logs. November 1988. January 15,
1989. 2 pages.
4. Site Inspection Reports - Author. Title. TDD Number (if applicable). Date. Number of pages.
Ex. NUS Corporation, FIT 3. Site Inspection of Moonav Landfill. TDD No. F3-8804-14. November 7,
1988. 150 pages.
Compare the information (i.e., date, author, title, company, etc.) in the bibliographic entry to that on the
reference to verify accuracy. Verify page numbers (or total number of pages, if entire reference is included).
Ensure all information is legible. If a reference is undated, do not use the date of sampling or the site visit; rather,
indicate that it is undated. Ensure that the reference number appears on the reference itself, not just on the divider
in front of the reference, in case there are many references and the divider and reference it relates to become
separated. Also, when citing several references at once, use a semi-colon to separate individual references and a
comma to set off the reference number from the page number (e.g. Reference 6, p. 4; 34, pp. 4, 8, 9-12; and
40, p. 4).
2.4.6 Remove References Not Cited
HRS packages can go through several revisions from the time they are sent to SAB for the initial review
until a final decision is made. Often, the QA review will result in adding or deleting references. Work with the
EPA Headquarters QA reviewer to ensure that each reference Listed in the bibliography is actually cited in the HRS
package. Likewise, the citations in the package should correspond to the reference itself.
2.4.7 Additional Considerations
• All telephone logs and memos to the file that are included as references should be legible, signed and
dated.
• Do not use draft references, if possible. However, a draft document may be used if it is known that
there have been no changes in policy since it was issued.
• Do not use confidential material as references. If an HRS value (e.g. waste quantity) is documented
in a reference that contains confidential information, it may be possible to summarize the HRS
information desired, eliminate any confidential information, and present the summary as a new
refereaoa. If possible, the person who provided the original information should provide the summarized
inforafiaa. If this approach is not possible, contact the Regional attorneys and if necessary, SAB to
resotv* the i**ue.
• Do not use a dot matrix printer to produce the final documentation record. Photocopies of dot matrix
originals are difficult to read.
2.5 Include Site Summary/NPL Characterization Form
Site summaries are important components in HRS packages. They are widely distributed to familiarize
Congress, the press, and the general public with the sites that are proposed for the NPL. Include site summaries
19
-------
with the MRS packages when they are first seat to EPA Headquarters for review. Guidelines for preparing site
summaries are included as Appendix E. No packages will be reviewed until an acceptable site summary is
provided.
The Regions also need to carefully select site names before they are proposed for the NPL. Headquarters
generally does not change names between proposal and Realization because of the public confusion that results from
such action. Guidelines for naming NPL sites are included as Appendix F.
A completed NPL Characteristics Data Collection Form (Appendix G) also must be included in the HRS
submit tal.
2.6 Proofread
Read through the entire documentation package to screen for spelling and typographical errors. Although
this process may seem unnecessarily tedious, the result will be a better quality package and will save EPA
Headquarters considerable review time. In addition, a small typographical error can result in major difficulties (e.g.
ppm instead of ppb identified for sample results). Summary tables should be proofed to ensure that they agree with
the original data sheets.
2.7 Assemble the Complete HRS Package
Once the final QC review is complete, the reviewer will sign and date the QC checklist. Additionally, the
Branch Chief (or above) will siga to formally request QA of the package. Completion of the check list and
signatures is mandatory before Headquarters QA will begin.
The Region will send three hard copies of the documentation record and two copies of the references to
EPA Headquarters. One set of references and two of the documentation record will go to the EPA contractor for
review (after a Headquarters QC check) and another copy will be kept at EPA Headquarters. Be sure to include
the diskettes for PREScore and the documentation record as well.
20
-------
3.0 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONDUCTING QC
The checklist discussed in the preceding section is mandatory and requires a signature. However, there
are other considentions, generally optional, that are strongly recommended as they will provide a framework that
promotes consistency and efficiency. Regions should feel free to adopt additional criteria or procedures or modify
the recommendation* outlined below, considering the time and resources available.
3.1 Technical Considerations
By following the four recommendations outlined below, the regional QC reviewer can improve the technical
adequacy of an HRS package.
3.1.1 Check the Entire Package to Ensure that There Are No Conflicting or
Ambiguous References
A commenter could cite conflicting references as an example of how inconsistent the information is that
EPA used to score the site and raise questions as to why one reference is right and the other is wrong. Examples
of conflicting references:
• One reference says that ground water in the aquifer of concern is found at 135 feet below ground surface
(bgs) while another says 147 feet bgs. If both references an crucial to the package and need to be cited
for different pieces of information, then the HRS documentation record should explain why one number
is more appropriate than the other (more recent, site specific vs. general, etc.)- If both references are
not required, use only one. This example is applicable to situations involving specific data that could
be obtained through some sort of field work or study.
• A reference might state that a former employee alleged illegal hazardous waste disposal at a site,
whereas the site owner specifically refutes the allegation in his or her statement required under CERCLA
Section 104
-------
As a general rule, use conflicting or ambiguous references only if they are absolutely accessary. If they
are used, then the HRS documentation record should explain the validity and appropriateness of using those
particular reference!. If this is not done initially, it will be required as part of the QA review.
3.1.2 Examine and Calculate Various Scoring Scenarios
Before submitting a site to headquarters, consider different scoring scenarios for the site, from an extremely
low score to a high-score interpretation of the site-specific facts and the HRS rule. Clearly explain any assumptions
used in the scoring process. This will identify the weak portions of the scoring package and provide regional
management the information necessary to make a decision whether to propose the site or gather more data.
If a site scores over the NPL cut-off even after all the questionable items have been removed, then the
package will obviously be easier to support in the response to comment phase of the listing process. A regional
QC reviewer may decide that a good case can be made for a high-score interpretation, and seek to convince the
Headquarters QA team that the high score is supportable. In this case, the regional QC reviewer should identify
scoring interpretations to the QA team as soon as QA begins.
Ultimately, the QC reviewer must decide prior to QA which scoring scenario will be used and what work
is required to support the score. Regions may choose to use the conservative approach that still yields scores above
the cut-off if resources are minimal to conduct QA and response to comments. The liberal approach should only
be used if the risks associated with the approach are identified, accepted by the region, and are legally supportable.
A regional QC reviewer should check with SAB or Headquarters legal staff to determine the viability of the scoring
approach prior to expending a high level of effort to prepare the package.
3.1.3 Check the HRS Package for Logical Progression of Analysis
Since the HRS package is the basis for the EPA decision to prepare a site for the NPL and is the legal
document that EPA might have to defend in court, it must be constructed in such a way as to build upon the
Information being presented. Repetition of key facts throughout the documentation record is one way to develop
a logical progression,
A brief examination of the HRS rule and documentation record will highlight the progression of the
information used to develop a score. First, the source(s) is identified and characterized. Next, an observed release
or potential to release associated with the sources) is documented. Then waste characteristics for the source(s) are
calculated. Finally, targets within the pathway specific distance limits as measured from the source(s) are
geographically located and characterized for level of exposure. By adding on to the information presented in each
previous section, the facts are strung together to present a more complete analysis of how the site is scored using
the HRS. A general example of how this might be done is as follows:
Source: The source is a pit located in the middle of the facility (Ref. map) where hazardous
substances such as toluene, carbon tetrachloride, and PCB were deposited from 1965-1980 (Ref.
process description and historical operational period). When sampled on 2/9/90, soil samples
(Sample #'s) from boreholes in the pit had significantly elevated concentrations of PCB when
compared to a background borehole sample (Sample tf) taken at the same time (Ref. analytical
results with specific reference to the actual sample used).
22
-------
Observed Release: Carbon tetnchloride and PCB were detected in ground water samples taken
on 2710/90 at significantly elevated levels when compared to background samples taken the same
day (Ref. analytical resultsXSee Table I, which should show sample numbers for both the field
and lab at wall as sample quantitation method. Page number with references are essential here.).
These an (he same hazardous substances that were disposed in the pit (Ref. process and history).
PCB also was detected in borehole samples taken from the pit (Ref. analytical results).
Waste Characteristics: Toluene and carbon tetnchloride (Ref. process and history) and PCB
(ref. analytical results) are the hazardous substances associated with the pit and have
toxicity/mobility/persistence/etc, values of xx, yy, and zz (Ref. HRS rule and chemical database).
The volume of the pit has been calculated at 1,000 cubic yards based on aerial photos and
historical records (Ref. photos and records and perhaps a calculation sheet detailing any
assumptions made).
Targets: X number of people are within die following distance rings from the pit (Ref. topo map
and population data) which had significantly elevated levels of PCB (ref. analytical results). Y
number of people are exposed to Level I concentrations of PCB (Ref. analytical results, population
data, toxicity, benchmark, and map).
As the example shows, repeating the facts in each new section lays the groundwork for adding the new
piece of information. While this might appear cumbersome, it actually clarifies and strengthens the HRS analysts
and documentation record.
3.1.4 Avoid Incomplete Data and Unexplained Methodologies
Some common examples of data shortfalls are: the number of residential vs. commercial customers; where
water in the system blends with water from other sources; the relative contribution of surface and ground water
supplies; depth to well screening, pumping rates, water for other-than-drinking purposes; and standing well pumping
schedules.
Unexplained methodologies involve instances where, for example, a table shows target results for three
different distance rings, but the only reference, a map, depicts only one ring. Another example: the methodology
for converting census tract (or zip code) information (usually presented for annular geometric areas) into target
population data (presented for annular rings) is not elaborated upon.
3.1.5 Remember: The General Public Must Be Able to Understand the
Documentation Record
Along with maintaining a logical progression of the HRS analysis, the regional QC reviewer should
remember that dw HRS package is a public document that the general public needs to understand in order to
formulate an opinion on me EPA listing proposal. Thus, the documentation record must be comprehensible to the
lay person who may not have a technical background and is imfrmili^f with the terminology that is commonly used
within the Superfund program. Spell out all acronyms, avoid technical jargon and use easy-to-understand term* that
convey the general idea behind the technical subject. Be consistent. For example, avoid switching between unit
measurements such as ppb and ug/L, when presenting analytical data. In addition, when presenting more than one
piece of information, such as an observed release, use consistent tables that are easy to read.
23
-------
3.2 Procedural Considerations
The two procedures that are described below can have important impacts on regional resource allocation
and have significant effects on how quickly QC occurs. Every effort should be made to adopt the procedures or
a regional variation.
3.2.1 Provide Feedback to the HRS Package Preparer
Some regional QC reviewers will be familiar with a site by reviewing the PA/SI preliminary HRS score
and already will have provided critical direction and comment on the rough score. Usually this is done informally,
such as by telephone. In other Regions, the QC reviewer will not have had the opportunity to become acquainted
with the site. Regardless of which of the above situations actually occurs in each Region, it is extremely important
that a formal feedback loop be instituted between package preparer and QC reviewer.
One easy-to-use approach is the HRS QC Checklist described in Section 2. The QC reviewer could check
each item for adequacy and prepare written comments on any deficient items, thus alerting the package preparer
to those items that need follow-up work and resubmission. This process would be reiterated until all items are
properly corrected and/or revised according to the QC reviewer's specifications. This approach will only cover the
minimum components of the HRS package and may not highlight all of the problems with a package.
Another approach would be to use a combination of the QC Checklist and PREScore to provide a more
thorough analysis of each HRS factor. The QC reviewer could provide, after reviewing the hardcopy or the
PREScore file, specific comments on every HRS factor that requires revision or clarification. The documentation
record would then be transmitted back to the package preparer and the reiterative process continued until all of the
requested changes and revisions are incorporated. Where changes are not extensive and the reviewer is sufficiently
familiar with the package, a memo or phone call may suffice.
3.2.2 Institute a Peer Review Process
To help prioritize sites for NPL submittal and QA review as well as ensure technical quality, the Regions
may opt to use some form of peer review process. A peer review group could rank sites prior to full HRS package
preparation in addition to reviewing the package after the QC reviewer.
Membership in the peer review group is at the discretion of Regional management. In addition to site
assessment staff, it could include program management, Superfund remedial project managers, Superfund On-Scene-
Coordinators, technical staff (e.g. a hydrogeologist, toxicologist, chemist, etc.), and possibly representatives of non-
Superfund EPA programs such as Air, Water, and Toxic Substances where appropriate. In addition, some Regions
may choose to involve State personnel.
The peer review group may want to consider whether the package is 'bullet-proof. * The peer review group
should critique the package and question the technical accuracy of the score and interpretations. The QC reviewer
should be able to defend the package successfully as if it had gone through the public comment process.
Following peer group review, the HRS package can be transmitted to Headquarters. A peer review group
ts an important step in the QC process to provide a check point for sites that are being considered for the NPL.
The above discussion has highlighted for the QC reviewer additional steps beyond the QC Checklist that
can be adopted regionally to improve the selection and content of an HRS package. These suggestions can be
tailored to regional specifications, and additional procedures can be adopted. The extra effort that a Region
expends during the QC process is almost always returned in the form of quicker QA and response to public
comments.
24
-------
4.0 INFORMATION RELEASE POLICY
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has prepared guidance outlining the Agency's policy regarding the
releasability of HRS information (see Appendix H). This OGC memorandum addresses the extent to which
materials prepared in the site assessment process may be withheld as "deliberative* in response to FOLA requests.
The OGC guidance is •"""gpriyH in general terms as follows:
• Materials underlying a 'no further remedial action planned* (NFRAP) decision are releasable.
• Draft HRS scoring sheets may be withheld.
• For sites that are under consideration for the NPL, but not yet proposed, the HRS scoring sheets,
documentation record, and factual material need not be disclosed.
• HRS scores for RCRA deferral sites may be withheld.
The OGC guidance addresses our legal obligations, while pointing out that the Agency has the flexibility
to release documents which we may legally withhold. However, it is Agency policy not to release these documents
unless we are required to do so.
This guidance should answer many of the FOLA-related questions that the Regions have. Note that the
advice given here is general in nature, and in specific cases it is advisable to consult a Regional or OGC FOLA
attorney.
25
-------
26
-------
APPENDIX A: SCOPE OF THE CERCLA
PETROLEUM EXCLUSION UNDER
SECTIONS 101(14) and 104(a)(2)
A-1
-------
A-2
-------
A'i
f I UNITED STATES £N V ; ?ONMENTA|_ PROTECTION AGENCY
^ .V AS- ' NGTQN O C
JUL311987 .....'::.=;,':....
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Scope of the CERCLA Petroleum Exclusion Under
Sections 101(14) and 104(a)(2)
FROM: rrancis S. B1 a k e yv *? ./%Os^-<_
General Counsel (LE-130)
TO: J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (WH-562A)
One critical and recurring issue arising in the context of
Superfund response activities has been the scope of the petroleum
exclusion under CERCLA.' Specifically, you have asked whether used
oil which is contaminated by hazardous substances is considered
"petroleum" under CERCLA and thus excluded from CERCLA response
authority and liability unless specifically listed under RC3A o^
some other statute. For the reasons discussed below, we believe
that the contaminants present in used oil or any other petroleum
substance are not within the petroleum exclusion. "Contaminants",
as discussed below, are substances not normally found in refined
petroleum fractions or present at levels which exceed those
normally found in such fractions. If these contaminants are
CERCLA hazardous substances, they are subject to CERCLA response
authority and liability.
Background
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 as amended (CERCLA), governmental
response authority, release notification requirements, and
liability art largely tied to a release of a "hazardous sub-
stance." Section 104 authorizes government response to releases
or threatened releases of hazardous substances, or "pollutants or
contaminants." Similarly, liability for response costs and damages
under Section 107 attaches to persons who generate, transport or
A-3
-------
dispose of hazardous substances at a site from which there
is a release or threatened release of such substances] Under
Section 103, a rel'ease of a reoortable quantity of a hazardous
substance triggers notification to tne National Response
Center.
The te«-
-------
Although the tern "Hazardous substance" is defined by statjn
there is no CERCLA definition o* "petroleum" and very little d*".-?'-
legislative history explaining tie purpose or intended scooe o*
this exclusion. None of tne four early Super'und bills originai'y
excluded responses to oil, a 11 n o u g .n the apparent precursor to
Section 101(14), found in S. 1480, excluded "petroleum" without
explanation • n all versions except that introduced. The 'eg's'a-
tive ieoates on the f^al compromise indicate only that Congress
intended to enact later, separate superfund-tyoe legislation to
cover 'oil spills." See generally 126 Cong. Rec. H11793-11302
(December 3, 1980).
Since the enactment of CE3CIA, the Agency has provided so~e
interpretations of the nature and scope of the petroleum exci-s-c-v
In providing guidance in 1981 on the notification required under
Section 1.03 for non-RCRA hazardous waste sites the Agency statea
t n a t petroleum wastes, including waste oil, which are not speci-
fically listed under RCRA are excluded from the definition of
"hazardous substance" under 101(14). 46 Fed. Reg. 22145
(April 15, 1981). y
In 1982 and in 1983, the General Counsel issued two opinions
on the CERCLA petroleum exclusion. In the first opinion, the
General Counsel distinguished under the petroleum exclusion
between hazardous substances which are inherent in petroleum,
such as benzene, and hazardous substances which are added to or
mixed with petroleum products. The General Counsel concluded
that the petroleum exclusion includes those hazardous substances
which are inherent in petroleum but not those added to or ^ i x e d
with petroleum products. Thus, the exclusion of diesel oil as
"petroleum" includes its hazardous substance constituents, suc.n
as benzene and toulene, but PCS's mixed with oil would not be
excluded. Moreover, if the petroleum product and an added
hazardous substance are so commingled that, as a practical natter,
they cannot be separated, then the entire oil spill is subject to
CERCLA response authority.
•.-.«•
In the second opinion, the General Counsel concluded that
the petroleum exclusion as applied to crude oil "fractions"
includes blended gasoline as well as raw gasoline, even though
refined OP blended gasoline contains higher levels of hazardous
2/ In the notice the Agency used the term "waste oil"
~~ without stating whether 1t was intended to Include all
waste oil or only unadulterated waste oil. The Agency has
subsequently interpreted the reference to "waste oil" in this
notice to include only unadulterated waste oil. 50 Fed. Reg_.
13460 (April 4, 1985).
A-5
-------
substances. The increased level of hazardous substances results
from the blending of raw gasoline with other petroleum fractions
to increase Us octane levels. Because virtually all gasoline
which leaves the refinery is blended gasoline, the petroleum
exclusion would include virtually none of this fracfon if the
increased concentration of hazardous substances due only to'its
processing nade it subject to CE3CLA.
Finally, the Agency has interpreted the petroleum exclusion
in two recent Federal R_eg_ister notices. In the April 4, 1935
final rule adjusting reaortable quantities under Section 102,
the Agency provided its general interpretation of the exclusion:
EPA interprets the petroleum exclusion to
apply to materials such as crude oil, petro-
leum feedstocks, and refined petroleum
products, even if a specifically listed or
designated hazardous substance is present
in such products. However, EPA does not
consider materials such as waste oil to which
listed CERCLA substances have been added to
be within the petroleum exclusion. Similarly,
pesticides are not within the petroleum
exclusion, even though the active ingred'ients
of the pesticide may be contained in a petro-
leum distillate: when an RQ of a listed
pesticide is released, the release must be
reported.
50 Fed. Reg. 13460 (April 4, 1985).
In March 10, 1986, the Agency published a notice of data
availability and request for comments on the proposed used oil
listing under RCRA. 51 Fed. Reg. 8206. In that notice, the
Agency responded to comitienters who had argued that the RCRA
listing would discourage used oil recycling because it would
subject generators, transporters, processors, and users to
Superfund liability. The Agency stated that used oil which
contains hazardous substances at levels which exceed those
normally found 1n petroleum are currently subject to CERCLA.
51 Fed. Reg. 8206 (March 10, 1986). Although the fact that
the used oil Is contaminated does not remove it from the pro-
tection of tht petroleum exclusion, the contaminants in the
used oil are subject to CERCLA response authority if they are
hazardous substances. Accordingly, most used oil, even without
a specific listing, would not be fully within the petroleum
exclusion, irrespective of the listing.
A-6
-------
Discussion
Because there is no definition of "petroleum" in CERCLA
or any legislative history which clearly expresses the intended
sco:e of this exclusion, there are several possiole interore-
tatiois which could be given to this provision. However, we
oeMeve tnat our current interpretation, under which "petroleum"
inc'.,;:es ^azarco'js substances normally found in refined oetro'ejm
fract'ons out does not include either hazardous substances f o u * c
at levels which exceed those normally found in such fractions
or substances not normally found in such fractions, is nost
consistent with the statute and the relevant legislative h i s t o r •/.
Under this interpretation, the source of the contamination,
whether intentional addition of hazardous substances to the
petroleum or addition of hazardous substances by use of the
petroleum, is not relevant to the applicability of the petroleum
exclusion. The remainder of this memorandum explains in greater
detail this interpretation and its legal basis, and responds to
arguments raised in opposition to this interpretation.
The following is our interpretation of "petroleum" under
CE3CLA 101(14) and I04(a)(2), which we believe to be consistent
with Congressional intent and the position which the Agency has
t a < e n on the scope of the petroleum exclusion thus far. First,
we interpret this provision to exclude from CERCLA response z~i
liability crude oil and fractions of crude oil, including : •> •?
hazardous substances, such as benzene, which are indigenous •-•
those petroleum substances. Because these hazardous subst3-:?s
are found naturally in all crude oil and its fractions, t.iey -•. st
be included in the term "petroleum," for that provision to "a/-;
any meaning.
Secondly, "petroleum" under CERCLA also includes hazardous
substances which are normally mixed with or added to crude v'
or crude oil fractions during the refining process. This irc:^:e
hazardous substances the levels of which are Increased durin-
refining. These substances are also part of "petroleum" si*:*
their addition 1s part of the normal oil separation and process--
operations at a refinery 1n order to produce the product co~-~:- '<
understood to be "petroleum."
Finally, hazardous substances which are added to petr;:e, -
or which Increase in concentration solely as a result of co"-
taminatlon of the petroleum during use are not part of the
"petroleum" and thus are not excluded from CERCLA under tne
A-7
-------
exclusion, 3^/ In such cases, E?^ may '•espond to releases o* *"e
added hazardous substance, but not the oil itsalf/
We believe that an interpretation of "petroleum'1 to include
only indigenous, refinery-added Hazardous substances is the
interpretation of this provision which is most consistent with
Congressional intent. The language of the provision, its
explanation in the legislative history, and the Congressional
debates on the final Superfund bill clearly indicate that Congress
had no intention of shielding from Superfund response and HaD1'':
hazardous substances merely because they are added, intentiona:' /
or by use, to petroleum products.
The language of the petroleum exclusion describes "petrols.-'
principally in terms of crude oil and crude oil fractions. Thi 3
language is virtually identical to the language used in an earlier
Superfund bill to define "oil." 4_/ There is no indication in trie
statute or legislative history th~at the term "petroleum" was to
be given any meaning other than its ordinary, everyday meaning.
See Halat v. Riddel 1 , 383 U.S. 569, 571 (1966) (words of a statute
Should be interpreted where possible in their ordinary, everyday
sense). Petroleum is defined in a standard dictionary as
3/ The mixing of two or more excluded petroleum substances,
~~ such as blending of fuels, would not be considered con-
tamination by use, and the mixture would thus also be an
excluded substance.
4/ See H.R. 85, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. §10l(s) (as passsed by
~~ the House, September 1980) (""Oil" means petroleum,
including crude oil or any fraction or residue therefrom").
H.R. 85 was designed principally to provide compensation and
assess liability for oU tanker spills in navigable waters.
As discussed below, the omission of thi-s "oil spill" coverage
under the petroleum exclusion was believed to be the most
significant omission In terms of response to environmental
releases under the final Superfund bill.
Although the bill containing the precursor to Section
101(14), S. 1480, does not have a definition of "petroleum",
its accompanying report did explain the term "petroleum oil"
in the context of the taxing provisions:
The term "petroleum oil" as used 1n subsection 5 means
petroleum, including crude petroleum and any of its
fractions or residues other than carbon black.
S, Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 70 (1980).
A-8
-------
an oily flammable bituminous liquid that
may vary from almost colorless to blade,
occurs in many places in the u p o e r strata
of the earth, is a comolex .-aixture of
hydrocarbons with small amounts of other
substances, and is prepared for use as
gasoline, naphtha, or other products by
various refining processes.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 880 (1985). "-js, an
interpretation of tne pnrase 'petroleum, including crude o; 1 or
any fraction thereof" to include only crude oil, c r u: e oil
fractions, and refined petroleum fractions is consistent -vitn
the plain language of the statute. _5/
The only legislative history which specifically discusses
this provision states that
petroleum, including crude oil and indud:ng
fractions of crude oil which are not otherwise
specifically listed or designated as hazardous
substances under subparagrapns (A) through (F)
of the definition, is excluded from the defini-
tion of a hazardous substance. The reported
bill does not cover spills or other releases
strict1y of ofTi
S. Rep. No. 95-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 29-30 (1930) (emphasis
added). Thus, the petroleum exclusion is explained as an
exclusion from CtRCLA for spills or releases only of oil.
The legislative history clearly contemplates tnat the petroleum
5/ This distinction uaffcder the exclusion in Title I of
CERCIA between pe.t^oleum as the-substance that leaves
the refinery and -the hazardous substances which are added to
it prior to, during or after use was also made by Congress in
Title II, the revenue provisions or CERCLA. In Title II,
Congress made a distinction between "chemicals", petrochemical
feedstocks and Inorganic substances, taxed in Subchapter B of
Chapter 38 of Internal Revenue Code, and "petroleum", crude
oil and petroleum products, taxed in Subchapter A. Section
2L1 of CERCLA. The Hst of taxed chemicals includes many of
the contaminant hazardous substances typically found in used
oil: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead oxide, and mercury.
The term "petroleum products" was explained 1n the legislative
history as including- essentially crude oil and its refined
fractions. H. Rep. No. 96-172, Part III, 96th Cong., 2d
Sess. 5 (1980) (to accompany H.R. 85).
A-9
-------
exclusion will not apply to "nxt-jras of petroie,jm and other
toxic materials since these wo-jld not be releases "strictly
of oil".
The Congressional debates on the Hnal compromise Super'j^
legislation provides further clarification of Congressional
intent concern T r-j . the scope of tne petroleum exc'jsion, both in
terns of «nat tnis provision deleted from the bill and what it
did no:. First, t"e major concern expressed with respect to the
final compromse bill was the omission of its oil spill juris-
diction due to the petroleum exclusion. See e.g. 125 Cong. Rec.
H11737 (Rep. Florio) (daily ed. December 77" I "9lTO); id. at Hii/90
(Sep. Sroyhi.'l); J_d. at H11792 (Rep. Madigan); j_d. at H11793
(Reo. Studds): _H. at H11795 (Rep. Biaggi); j_d. at H11795 (Rep.
Snyder). This omission was of concern because it was believed
to leave coastal ar-as and fisheries vunerable to tanker spills
of crude and r e *" i n e •: oil, such as the wreck of the Arqq Merchant,
and offshore oi1 wel? accidents. 125 Cong. Rec. HI1793 (Rep.
Studds) (daily ed. December 3, 1980). See also 126 Cong. Rec.
$10578 (proposed anendment to S1480 by Sen. Magnuson) (daily ed.
August 1, 1980); id. at $108*5 (proposed amendment to S1430 by
Sen. Gravel) (daTTy ed. August 5, 1980). The omitted coverage
of oil spills was believed to include approximately 500 spills
per year, 126 Cong. Rec. H11796 (Rep. Snyder) (daily ed.
December 3, 1980), far less than the number of contaminated oi!
releases each year.
However, it was clear that the omission of oil- coverage was
intended to include spills of oil only, and there was no intent
to exclude from the bill mixtures of oil and hazardous substances
The remarks of Rep. Mlkulski are typical of the general under-
standing of the effect of the petroleum exclusion in the final
b i 11 :
The Senate bill Is substantially similar to the House
weasure, with the exception that there is no oil title.
I realize that it Is disappointing to see no oil-
related provision 1n the bill, but we must also realize
that this 1s our only chance to get hazardous waste dump
site cleanup legislation enacted. . . .
Moreover, there is already a mechanism in place that
is designed to deal with spills in navigable waterways.
There 1s not, however, any provision currently in our law
that addresses the potentially ruinous situation of
abandoned toxic dump sites.
I, therefore, believe that it is imperative that we
pass the Senate bill as a very important beginning in our
attempt to defuse the ticking environmental time bomb of
abandoned toxic waste sites.
Id. at H11796.
A-10
-------
In addition, several speakers specifically identified s j
mixtures as releases not only covered by the legislation out
releases to * n i c.~ • i e bill was addressed.
Mr. E d g a •• ...
I" iy State, hazardous substances problems nave bee
1' s: .0 v 5 " a 1 at an alarm.ng rate in recent years. In the
s • j -MI e r of 1979, an oil slic:< appeared on the Susouehan^a
q-ver near Pittston, 03. When EPA officials responded
under section 311 of the Clean Water Act, they learned
that the slick contained a variety of highly poisonous
chemicals in addition to the oil.
Officials estimate that more than 300,000 gallons
of acids, cyanide compounds, industrial solvents, waste
oil and other chemicals remain at this site where they
could be washed to the surface anywhere in a 10-square -
mile surface.
j_d_. at H11798. See al so 126 Cong. Rec. $14963 (daily ed.
Novemoer 24, 1980) (Sen. Randolph) (contaminated oil slick).
Other petroleum products containing hazardous substance
additives intended to be addressed by the legislation include
PC3's in transformer fluid, _j_d. at $14963 (Sen. Randolpn) and
S14967 (Sen. Stafford), dioxin in motor fuel used as a dust
suppressant, j_d. at $14974 (Sen. Mitchell), PCB's in waste
°''» yd • (Sen. Mitchell) 6/ and contaminated waste oil, ig.
at S14990 (Sen. Cohen). Accordingly, Congress understood
the petroleum exclusion to remove from CERCLA jurisdiction
spills only of oil, not releases of hazardous substances
mixed with the oil.
There are two principal arguments which have been raises
in opposition to this interpretation. First, the argument
has been made that this interpretation narrows the petroleum
exclusion to the extent that it has became virtually meaning-
less. As we have noted in previous opinions on this issue,
an interpretation which emasculates a provision of a statute
is strongly disfavored. Marsano v. Lai rd, 412 F.2d 65, 70
(2d Cir. 1969). However, this interpretation leaves a
significant number of petroleum spills outside the reach of
CERCLA. Spills or releases of gasoline remain excluded fron
CERCLA under the petroleum exclusion. As indicated by the
legislative history for the 1984 underground storage tank
6/ The illegal disposal of PCS's in North Carolina describe]
by Senator Mitchell was a result of the spraying of 131,:
gallons of =CB-contaminated waste oil along a roadway. See
126 Cong. Rec. H9448 (daily ed. September 23, 1980).
A-11
-------
legislation, leakage of gasoline from underground tanks
appears to be th-e greatest source of groune* - -.er contamination
in the United States. 130 Cong. Rec. $20: 2028 (daily ed.
February 29, 1984) (Sen. Durenberger). In addition, spills
of crude or refined petroleum are not subject to Suoerfund,
as was frequently noted prior to its passage. See genera 11y
125 Cong. Rec. HI 1786-Hl1802 (daily ed. December"?, 1936).
Moreover, under this interpretation not all releases of used
oil will be subject to CERCLA since used oil does not neces-
sarily contain non-indigenous hazardous substances or hazardou
substances in elevated levels. 7/ Although used oil is
generally "contaminated" by definition, see e.g.. RC3A Section
1005 (36), the impurities added by use may not be CERCLA
hazardous substances.
A second argument which has been made opposing this
interpretation is that Congress intended to include in the
term "petroleum" all hazardous substances added through
normal use of the petroleum substance. However, even if it
were possible to determine in a response situation whether a
hazardous substance was added 1 ntenti o-nal ly or only through
normal use or to determine what additions are "intentional",
the legislative history is contrary to such a distinction.
As noted above, the Senate Report explaining this provision
states that it excludes releases or spills strictly of oil.
This explanation expresses Congressional intent that releases
of mixtures of oil and toxic chemicals, 1.e. releases whicn
are not strictly of oil, would be subject to CERCLA response
authority"! Releases of contaminated oil even if contaminated
due to "normal use" are not releases strictly of oil.
Furthermore, the Congressional debates prior to passage
clearly indicate an Intent that contaminated oil would be
subject to Superfund as several such releases were discussed
as the focus of the legislation. Congress was concerned
with the environmental and health effect of abandoned toxic
waste sites, not whether the presence of such hazards was
intentional or due to normal practices. In fact, one of the
petroleun-hazardous substance mixtures most often mentioned
during tht debates was that of PCB contaminated oil, which
is a typ« of contamination arguably resulting from the "normal
use" of the oil in transformers. Accordingly, an interpretat•
of the petroleum exclusion which includes as "petroleum"
hazardous substances added during use of the petroleum would
not be consistent with Congressional intent.
1J Data submitted to "EPA by the Utility Solid Waste
Activities Group e£ al. in Appendix C of their comments
on the RCRA Used Oil listing, February 11, 1986.
A-12
-------
Finally, although the Suoer'und Amendments and Reautnonzat
Act of 1986 (SARA) contains several provisions related to oil
and oil releases, it did not amend the petroleum exclusion under
CERCLA. Moreover, the new provisions concerning oil and oil
releases and their legislative history do not indicate a
Congressional intent inconsistent with this opinion.
The only discussion of "petroleum" in the Conference
Report for SARA is in the context of defining the scooe of t*e
new petroleum response fund for leaking underground storage
tanks under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recove-y
Act (RCRA). Subtitle I defines "petroleum" in a manner nearly
identical to CERCLA. The Conference Reoort specifies tnat
used oil would be subject to the response fund notwitnstand "i-
its contamination with hazardous substances. H. Rep. No. 99-952
99th Cong., 2d Sess. 228 (1986). The Conference Report is
not inconsistent with the Agency's position on "petroleum"
under CERCLA since it merely specifies that the leaking under-
ground storage tank (UST) response fund is applicable to tanss
containing certain mixtures of oil and hazardous substances,
as well as to tanks containing uncontaminated petroleum. In
fact, the Report further states that the LIST response fund
must cover releases of used oil from tanks since "releases
from tanks containing used oil would not ri se to the pri ori ty
necessary...for CERCLA response", id. (emphasis added } , not
because such releases would be entirely excluded from CE3CH
jurisdiction. See also 132 Cong. Rec. S14928 (daily ed. Qcto:**
3, 1986) (Senator Chaffee) (Nothing in Section 114, pertaining
to liability for releases of recycled oil, "shall affect or
impair the authority of the President to take a response ac:?o"
pursuant to Section 104 or 106 of CERCLA with respect to any
release...of used oil or recycled oil"); 132 Cong. Rec. H9611
(daily ed. October 8, 1986) (Rep. Schneider) ("...the oil
companies are rightfully assessed a significant share of the
Superfund tax...Wiste oils laced with contaminants have been
identified at at least 153 Superfund sites in 32 States.").
A-13
-------
A-14
-------
APPENDIX B: AGGREGATION POLICY
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
B-1
-------
B-2
-------
37078 Fede™! Register / Vol. 49. No. 185 / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rulei and Regulations
Sittt Which An Difficult to Addrn*
Oat commenter Mid that "unbounded
or unmanageable sitea. luch at well
fields" should not be included on the
NPL In response. EPA believes that
unless a remedial investigation and
feasibility study has been completed at
a site. H i* not potsible to specify
whether a site presents a manageable
problem. Furthermore, at many of thoee
site* where commonly applied remedial
« :tiona are tnfeasible. some reeponae
•ctionj abort of watte removal or aovoa
control*. a.s>. providing alternative
water supplies, may be appropriate.
EPA believes that the technologies for
retponae actiooa have been developing
rapidly; a response which wu mfesstble
in the put aay become feasible in the
near future. Finally, with the case
specifically mentioned. wellflelds.-the
Agency has generally found the need for
CERCLA reapooM particularly acute
sine* this generally involve*
contamination of public water supplies.
Hence. EPA haa not attempted to
exclude sites which are especially
difficult to addreaa through current
reaponae technologies.
Noncontiguous Facilities
Section 104(d)(4) of CERCLA
authorizes the Federal government to
treat two or more noncontiguous
facilities as one for purposes of
response, if such facilities are
reasonably related on the basis of
geography or their potential threat to
public health, welfare, or the
environment. As previously stated (44
FR 65056. September 8,1983). for
purposes of the NPL EPA baa decided
that in most cases such sites should be
scored and listed Individually because
the HRS scores more accurately reflect
the conditions at the sites if each i*
scored individually. In other cases.
however, the nature of the operation
that created the sitea and poasibly. the
nature of the appropriate response may
indicate that two geographically
separate properties should be treated as
one site for purposes of listing. EPA haa
done to for some sitea previously listed
separately on the NPL
Factor* relevant to euch a
determination may include whether the
two pr more ares* were operated a*
parts-of a single unit. Another factor Is
whether contamination from the two or
more site* is threatening the same part
of an aquifer or aurface water body.
Finally, EPA will also consider the
distance between the noncontiguous
lite* and whether die target population
(i.*.. within 3 miles) ia eaaentiaily the
same or Mbitantially overlapping for
the lite*.
One commenter. Governor Bond of
Missouri, submitted the 33 known dioxin
sites In that State at a single site on the
NPL Using characteristics from various
sitea. he assigned a single MRS score to
the 33 cites. Governor Bond maintained
that the dioxin was produced by a single
waste generator and that the site* had a
common method of disposal. According
to the Governor, by treating the sites
Individually EPA has complicated
negotiations for health studies.
development of cost recovery suits, and
the State's accounting procedure*.
EPA carefully considered the
Governor'* propoaaJ and. taking into
account the factor* discussed above,
decided that hi* reasons did not warrant
consolidating the 33 cites into a tingle
•Ite. The site* an dispersed over a wide
area of the Stats and affect different
target populations. The 33 sites
generally comprised different disposal
operations rather than parts of the same
facility. Many of the 33 cite* would not
individually soore high enough to be on
the NPL and, thua. the overall score for
the 33 sites would be misleading. EPA
ha* also concluded that Uattng the 33
•ite* a* a eingle site on the NPL i* not a
prerequisite for developing a
consolidated response strategy for the
Missouri dioxin sites. Many of these
•itea may qualify for Fund-financed
removal action*. The Agency i*
currently evaluating ways of
coordinating possible response
strategies at these sites to alleviate the
problems which Governor Bond haa
identified.
Another commenter expressed the
view mat sny grouping of ooncontiguoua
cites would be inappropriate. EPA
disagrees. la com* instance* the
property boundaries or other factors
commonly used to define a site may not
be very iiaeful or reasonable for
determining if a problem involve* one
•ite or several One example i* the
Minkar/Stout/Romsina Creek site in
Missouri where dioxin contaminated
•oil* were used as fill in several yards in
s residential neighborhood. Even though
the contaminated area* are not
contiguous and the properties Involved
have several different owners, the
Agency determined that the cite we*
really a single operation, that the same
target populations might be affected.
and that there ia no logic to support
treating the various areas aa separate
citec. Given the many factors Involved
in making such determinations and the
differing Importance that each factor
may take on in various situationa. the
Agency must weigh each situation
individually to determine if
noncontiguous disposal areas ire s
single site or *everil.
Where EPA determines, based on the
above considerations, that two or more
noncontiguous locations are most
logically considered as a single »i!e.
they will appear a* a single site on the
NPL While the listing suggests
prospective response actions. It does not
prescribe them: EPA may decide that
response efforts should be distinct and
separate for the two locations. Also.
EPA may decide to respond to several
site* listed separately on the NPL with a
single response if it appears coit-
effective to do so.
Scoring of Air Rfteates
A comment was received concerning
how past air rel*a**s are scored.
Language in the preamble to the final
NCP caused a commanter on the Eayou
Sorrel! Louisiana site to question
whether pact air release* may properly
be included in a aits'* HRS score. This
issue Is diacusssd in detail in the
"Support Document for the revised
National Priorities List—IBM" for the
Bsyou Sorrel! aits. However, the main
points of this issue are presented in the
following discussion.
EPA believe* that pact air releases are
Included in e cite'* HRS score. The HRS
stipulates that e cite is to be scored for
an air release if data "ahow levels of a
contaminants at or in the vicinity of the
facility that significantly exceed
backgroundJevela. regardless of the
frequency of the occurrence (47 FR
31236). According to the HRS as
established in the NCP revision*.
therefore, the single evidence of an air
release such a* that which occurred st
Bayou SorreiL raquirec that the site be
•cored aa having an observed release to
air. This approach to (coring has been
clarified by EPA'* stated policy that
sit** are to be scored on the basis of
conditions existing before any remedial
measures were performed. This policy
waa clearly stated at the time of
promulgation of the NCP revision* (47
FR 31188), and EPA consider* It to be
firmly estsbUahed a* part of the HRS. In
addition, the Agency his attempted to
clarify further the reasons for tiui policy
ia subsequent statements (4« FR 40W4-
51-
Several consideration* nnderiie die
policy. Actions by States to conduct or
enforce cleaimp might be ditccurtged if
partial cleanup of a cite could reduce the
score such that the site would not b«
eligible for the NPL
Another concern ia that r»»pornbie
parties might be encouraged -o :o-c jet
minimal. Incomplete cleanup §c-.?-j «t
sitea that might reduce ihe KPS ic :re
B-3
-------
8-4
-------
APPENDIX C: ISSUE SUBMITTAL FORM
C-1
-------
C-2
-------
APPENDIX C
ISSUE SUBMITTAL FORM
Site Information
Name:
Region:
Location:
EPA ID*:
Status:
Dates
Issue Submitted to HQ: _
Review Team Discussed:
Resolution communicated
to Region:
Contact Information (including phone numbers)
Issue Submitted by:
SAB Headquarters Regional Coordinator:
MITRE Regional QA:
Regional Contact:
Issue:
C-3
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ISSUE SUBMITTAL FORM
AND PROCEDURE FOR RESOLUTION DISTRIBUTION
1. Complete all blanks in the "Site Information" box. In the "status" blank, give
some indication of where the site is in the package preparation process (e.g.,
being prepared for Update #, in Regional package preparation, in QA review).
Indicate on the Status line any deadlines for the site that will not be met until
the issue is resolved.
2. Complete only the first blank in the "Dates" box.
3. Complete all known information in the "Contacts" box. Phone numbers are
important because the Review Team may contact the listed individuals for more
explanation of the issues.
4. Carefully complete the "issue" box. Because Review Team members are not
likely to be familiar with the site, give enough information about the site so that
the issue is clear. It may be helpful to include a site map, or other supporting
information. If there are one or more possible solutions that you are aware of,
it would be helpful to discuss the implications of each option.
5. If the issue is identified by the Regions, the States, or the field contractor,
submit the issue to the NPL Coordinator in the Region. The NPL Coordinator
will in turn submit the issue to the SAB Regional Coordinator. He or she will
review the issue, request any needed clarification, determine that it is
appropriate for Review Team consideration, and forward it to the SAB Review
Team Coordinator. Members of the QA team should submit issues directly to
the appropriate SAB Regional Coordinator.
6. After the Review Team discussion, the resolution will be drafted, circulated for
comment among members, and revised accordingly. As soon as the revised
resolution is available, it will be provided to the Region by the SAB Regional
Coordinator. In certain time critical situations, a verbal resolution may be
communicated.
7. On a periodic basis, accumulated issues and resolutions will be distributed to
all Regions. The issues will be assigned a code using the same alphabetical
system as for the Update 11 notebook {e.g., SW-T indicates surface water -
target). However, the numeric code indicating the Region of origin will be
dropped, and from now on issues will be numbered consecutively.
If you have any questions about this process, or about the status of a particular issue,
please contact the appropriate SAB Regional Coordinator.
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D: MAP SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MRS
DOCUMENTATION RECORD
D-1
-------
D-2
-------
APPENDIX D
MAP SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD
GENERAL GUIDELINES
Clarity: The purpose of each map should be specified. Any data contained upon the map should be
referenced (e.g., areas of karst noted on a topo map should be referenced to a primary source of the
information). The site should be clearly marked on all maps (for large scale maps, it may be clearer to
mark the one- or four-mile radius to identify the site), and enough landmarks or key features identified on
site sketches to relate the sketch back to the topo map. The reference number should be displayed on the
map because often the maps are pulled out of the reference packages to be used. Also note on the maps
if any other references were used to compile the information found on the map.
Legibility: Original maps are preferred. (This is especially true of topo maps, which are inexpensive,
easy to obtain, and a source of a great deal of information). However, good copies are acceptable if
information has been keyed so that color copying is not required to decipher the data. Maps that are
difficult to obtain or copy (such as certain geologic maps or water distribution maps, for example) can be
sent as originals — the QA reviewers can copy them and return the original. If the Region itself wishes
to copy large maps, use a map copier, rather than reducing the copy or piecing together several smaller
sheets of paper.
Scale: Maps and diagrams should indicate a scale and a north arrow; if not drawn to scale, that should
be stated. The scale should be appropriate to the data depicted. For example, the use of a topo map is
probably inadequate to determine area of contaminated soil for all but the largest of areas. Ensure that
when copying larger maps, a) the scale is included with the copy, and b) reductions or enlargements are
accounted for.
Base Maps: Although information for various pathways or data points within a pathway can be
consolidated onto a single map, the use of several maps is preferred to prevent 'overloading" any one map.
However, when tune and resources permit, it is useful to plot well locations, concentration data and
geologic formations on a single base map.
Specific maps which can be incorporated into particular areas of the documentation record are indicated
below:
Topographic Maps. Usually the most useful maps included in the HRS documentation record are USGS
topographic maps, particularly the 7.5-minute quadrangle map. These maps provide many helpful details on the
area surrounding the site, and provide an accurate picture of spatial relationships. Among the types of data which
can be portrayed on these maps are:
Sources
Target distance limits(s)
Wells, including nearest well
Surface water intakes, including nearest intake
Fisheries and wetlands
Distance to surface water, including probable point of entry and migration pathway
Watershed boundaries
Location of background and hit samples
Population within one mile for soil exposure pathway.
Note that for reasons of scale, location of soil samples cannot be put on the topo map(s).
0-3
-------
Geologic mans. A variety of specialized maps are often available to aid in evaluating
of the site. Their use, particularly when trying to define an area of karst or when evaluating aquifer
interconnection, is invaluable. Types of maps which might prove useful include:
• Hydrologic unit maps. These identify surface water management areas, and could aid in determining
watershed.
• Geologic Quadrangle maps. Keyed to the 7.5-minute series of topo maps, these can be used to generate
geologic cross-sections to better characterize the area around the site. A complete set of these maps is
currently not available.
• Hydrologic Atlas sheets. These provide information on hydrologic investigations of specific areas. The
accompanying explanatory text is also a valuable aid in evaluating the site.
Other maps. Seven! other sources for maps are available. Municipal water districts, for example,
frequently have water distribution maps. The Corps of Engineers or the local development or flood insurance
agency has flood control maps. Maps of wetland or other sensitive environments can be obtained from local
conservation agencies of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PATHWAY-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS
Within pathways, maps have different uses and may require different treatment. The following describes
the types of information required within each pathway and how to display it.
Source Characterization
Always include the following two maps in this section of the MRS record:
• A Site Location map, which can be a copy of a small portion of either the topo or other general use
map, to show the general location of the site with respect to county boundaries, nearby towns or
communities, and the setting in general.
• A Site Sketch or Map of sufficient scale to show the more detailed setting, including the following: the
location of the sources with their name and number clearly marked; any nearby structures -- for
example, buildings (identify what they are), roads, railroads, fences and other barriers; paved areas;
nearby surface water bodies; and ditches. (USGS topo maps are often too small in scale to show some
of the features which affect migration of contamination via drainage in the immediate vicinity of the
site.) In some cases, it may be appropriate to show the location of monitoring wells and/or other
sampling locations which might be key. to identifying the nature of the source. Contractor final field
investigation reports often include these types of sketches and maps and require minor, if any,
modification for use in the HRS record. Aerial photographs can also provide valuable information on
the layout of the site.
Waste Quantity
• For any area measurements (and some volume waste quantity calculations), include a scale map. sketch
or aerial photo that shows the appropriate linear measurements of each area evaluated.
D-4
-------
Ground Water Pathway
• A bedrock map is often crucial for describing the aquifers) evaluated, especially for sites where the
geology is complex. Show the four-mile radius (which will pinpoint the site). It is useful to indicate
graphically the boundaries between karst and non-karst. If appropriate, show location of nearest well
and public supply wells, so that the location of its surficial bedrock area is clearly documented. The
USGS and similar publications from which bedrock maps are taken often have a cross-section as well.
This diagram can be extremely useful in gaining an understanding of the aquifer systems at a site.
When time and sufficient reliable data permit, develop cross-sections from site-specific data, such as
well logs. Include multiple cross-sections, if possible. They should intersect each other at right angles
to show the greatest amount of detail. Show both topography and geology of the area.
• Either a scale map or sketch should show the exact location and depth of all Level I and Level n wells,
as well as the name of the aquifer being tapped.
• A clear, legible topo map should show the location of the site, the target distance rings (appropriately
drawn; not just circles around the midpoint of the site), the nearest well, Level I and n wells,
distribution boundaries of municipal supply systems, boundaries of karst vs. non-karst, etc.
• Whenever possible, include the latitude/longitude marks and the key for the scale.
Surface Water Pathway
• A topo or similarly appropriate map is required to show the migration pathway throughout the target
distance limit. Indicate the following features: the location of each source evaluated for this pathway;
drainage patterns and probable point of entry for each source; all affected surface water bodies; any
structures or barriers that would inhibit overland flow (for example, railroad embankments); and
location of drinking water or resource use intakes. Wetlands are best shown on separate wetlands maps.
For smaller sites with several sources, it may be difficult to include all of this information without
producing 'map congestion.* In such cases, information should be included in an additional map. The
reader should be able to use the map to follow the written description in the MRS record of each
segment in the target distance limit, as the pathway changes from one surface water body to another,
and from fresh to salt water (or vice versa).
• For any observed release to surface water, include a scale sketch or map showing exact locations of all
samples discussed in the HRS record for this factor. Location of drinking water intakes or resource use
(e.g., irrigation) can be shown.
* Topos or other maps as appropriate should show what areas are evaluated for fish production in the food
chain threat. Indicate the linear distance and/or area within an arc that is included in the evaluation.
(Unless Level I or n targets are identified, topos showing the full 15 target distance limit are
unnecessary.)
• For the environmental threat, a map should clearly indicate the linear distance of wetland frontage and
the precise location of sensitive environments, unless security reasons preclude this.
D-5
-------
Soil Exposure Pathway
• If not already provided as described above under 'Waste Quantity," include a map clearly showing all
areas of observed contamination, with all sample locations noted. For targets, show where targets are
located within 200 feet of these areas. Indicate where there are targets (resident population) living on
property with observed contamination. Show location of any terrestrial sensitive environments
evaluated. Show one-mile radius, and indicate where nearby individual and population targets are
located.
Air Pathway
• Clearly indicate sources and locations of sampling points if an observed release has been scored.
Meteorological data, such as prevailing wind direction should be indicated on the map. If possible, the
map or diagram should include any areas which might be considered alternate sources of the release,
so that their potential impact can be evaluated.
• Draw distance rings on the map at the required intervals, based on distances from source boundaries or
sample locations, as appropriate.
D-6
-------
APPENDIX E: GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION
OF NPL SITE SUMMARIES
E-1
-------
E-2
-------
APPENDIX E
GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING NPL SITE SUMMARIES
A site summary describes the site, the conditions that justify placing it on the NPL, any enforcement or
cleanup actions, and any other relevant information that might be of interest to the general public. The MRS
documentation record provides the basis for proposing or finalizing a site for the NPL. The summary should reflect
-- but is not restricted to - the contents of the record.
The summaries are available to the public after they are formally released when the proposed and final NPL
rules of which they are a part are published in the Federal Register. The summaries reflect EPA's preliminary
judgments on site sizes and extent of contamination. The narrative summaries have no legal significance, but their
wide distribution requires that they be carefully prepared. For each site:
• Consult attached draft guidelines in naming site.
• Provide the following:
CERCLIS ID number (one only)
- Site location - street address (or other specific information), municipality/city, county, and State.
• Provide as much of the following information as possible, citing source and date, especially where
noted:
- Important demographic and geographic information (nearby population, local land use, surface
water, sensitive ecosystems, etc.).
- Size of site or release (best estimate based on available information).
Nature of business or operation (landfill, recycling, manufacturing, etc.). Is site permitted? By
whom? For what?
Wastes present (composition, physical state, amounts, etc.), and nature of disposal (buned, on
surface, etc.). Include source and date of information.
Any relationship to policy issues — Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). for
example.
All routes/threats scored.
- Media affected on-site and off-site, if scored on observed release. Include source and date of
analytical data.
Route characteristics, if scored on potential to release. Media threatened on-site and off-site.
History of ownership — private, public, operating, not operating, bankrupt, etc. Name potentially
responsible parties, if a matter of public record. Name businesses, but generally not individuals.
Cleanup actions or scheduled actions.
Enforcement actions taken against responsible parties.
E-3
-------
• In writing the summary:
— To avoid legal problems, do not make unfounded allegations.
Avoid jargon ("aquifer of concern") and use technical terms sparingly. Consider your audience
— the general public.
Use active voice as much as possible and identify the actor. For example, say "EPA erected a
fence" instead of "A fence was erected."
• Limit the site summary to one to two double-spaced typewritten pages.
• Consult recent summaries.
E-4
-------
APPENDIX F: GUIDELINES FOR
NAMING OF NPL SITES
F-1
-------
F-2
-------
APPENDIX F
GUIDELINES FOR NAMING OF NPL SITES
It is very important that Regions carefully select site names before they are proposed for the NPL. As a
general policy, names will not be changed between proposal and Finalization because of the public confusion that
results from such an action.
The following guidelines are intended to help in assigtiing site names that are fair to interested parties and
that are descriptive, informative, and consistent in style:
• Select the name that most clearly informs the public as to what appears to be the primary
source(s) of the problems at the site on the basis of the information available at the time. In most
cases, this should be the principal operator (Jones Disposal Service, for example), if definitely kno\m.
If the site is widely known by another name (Smith Junkyard), the public interest may be served best
by assigning the name "Jones Disposal Service/Smith Junkyard." Avoid using business or land owners
that were not directly and substantially involved in creating the problems at the site.
If the principal operator cannot be definitely identified or there are more than three potentially
responsible parties, consider assigning a geographic name: "Highway 72 Disposal Area," for example.
Geographical names should not be used as a way of protecting responsible parties. They can also offend
local sensitivities.
• For large companies, specify the plant or facility - for example, "Perfect Chemicals Co. (Bay City
Plant)." If die company has more than one plant in a city, use something more specific such as a street
or area — for example, "Perfect Chemicals Co. (Industrial Way Plant)."
• Use complete company names, including Co., Corp., and Inc. This helps distinguish between
roadside or midnight dumps and established operations.
• Use descriptive terms. Instead of "site,* use some term (for example, landfill, dump, pit, plant,
industrial park, residential area) that suggests the nature of the site.
• Avoid starting a name in such a way that it is hard to find in an alphabetical listing. For example.
Bedford Village Wells is preferable to Village of Bedford Wells.
• If assigning an individual's name, generally start with the family name. For example, 'Johnson
Lagoons" is preferable to "William Johnson's Lagoons."
• Consult the NFL staff for guidance.
• Make certain that the narrative summary explains the significance of the name.
F-3
-------
F-4
-------
DRAFT
APPENDIX G: NPL CHARACTERISTICS
DATA COLLECTION FORM
G-1
-------
G-2
-------
NPL Characteristics Data Collection Form
'agt 1 o* 5
Instructions:
The NPL Characteristics Data Collection Form is designed to standardize hazardous
waste site information for input into the NPL Characterization database. The primary
sources of information for this form are Regional site file materials (e.g. PA, SI), along
with the site MRS package. However, if no hard data are available for a question,
estimates based on professional judgment and other sources of information are
acceptable. As you complete the form, please keep the following in mind:
1. Complete the form in dark pencil.
2. Use the most accurate level of information available (e.g., SI level
information over PA).
3. If the designated response fields for a question are not adequate to
accurately describe the site, use the "other" response with a brief
explanation. Do not include this information solely in the "comments"
section.
Record Information:
1. Site Reviewer:
2. Date:
3. Site Name (as entered in CERCLIS):
4. Site Location (city/county, state):
5. Sitt CERCLIS Number:
6. Site Coordinates (check unknown only if no information is available)
B Multiple
NTtalifuoT ~" W. CongifuoT [jUnknown
7. Congressional District:
G-3
-------
NPL Characteristics Data Colfection Form
S«te Name:
CERCUS Number
Page2 of 5
Site Description
1. Setting (relative to local area's population density/distribution; check !):
Q Urban: central city arias D Rural: outtde of suburban areas
Q Suburban: bordering urban O Unknown
areas
2. Current Owner (or operator if no distinction is made; check 1):
Q Private-industrial/Commercial Q State
Q Private-individual (residential) Q federal
Q Municipal Q Indian und*
Q County
Multiple OwntrVOifftr«ntCjttgo'-«5
Unknown
Othtr(fillin):
3. Currant Srta SUtus (chack 1):
Q Artva: la^al or illegal wast* treatment, storage or disposal activities currently occur onsrte.
Q inactive: no waste treatment, storage or disposal activities currently occur onsite.
Q Site with unknown Source (ground water contamination plume, sediment contamination).
4. vearsof Operation (fill in or check unknown):
Q Wast* activity a one-time event dptllV.
Q Active site: (beginning year) ______
Q inactive uta: (beginning year) ____________
Q Unknown (only if no historical information u available)
to (date of site evaluation).
, to (ending year)
5. How initially identified (check 1):
Q Citizen Complaint (including PA petition)
Q State/local Program
O CEROA Notification
Q RCXA Notification
Q Other Federal Program
Q incidental
Q unknown
Q Other (fill in):
G-4
-------
DRAFT
Site Name:
CESOJS Number:
Ptge 3 of 5
Site Description (cont.)
6. E nttty Responsible for Waste Generation (not the entity that generated the anginal product ; check, ail that appry, check unknown
only if 02 information is available).
G Manufacturing (if checked, mgst check a subrtem)
Q Lumbar and Wood Products
0 inorganic Chemicals
Q Plastic and Rubber Products
Q Paints. Varnishes
Q industnal Organic Chemicals
Q Agricultural Chemicals (pesticides, fertilizer!)
Q Miscellaneous Chemical Products
(such as adhesives, explosives, ink)
Q Primary Metal industries
G Metal Coating, Engraving and Allied Services
Q Metal Forging and Stamping
Q Fabricated Structural Metal Products
Q Electronic Equipment
Q Other Manufacturing
Q Recyclers
Q Retail Activities
Q Mining (if checked, must check a subrtem)
G Metals
D Coal
Q Oil and Gas
Q Non-metallic Minerals
Q Landfill (waste generator unknown)
Q Municipal
Q industnal
Q Both
Q Federal Facility
Q Military
Q Department of Energy
Q Other
n Unknown
Q Other (fill in):
7. Site Activities/Waste Deposition (check all that apply; check unknown only
Q Surface impoundment (primarily liquid) D
Q Waste Piles (primarily solid, covered or uncovered) G
Q Municipal Landfill
Q Industrial Landfill G
Q Drum/Container Storage (intentional storage G
m specified areas)
Q illegal Dumping {unpernirtted dumping by site G
owner/operator m unde*»gnated disposal area)
G unauthorized Dumping by a Third Party G
G Tanks- Above Ground (check if tank type unknown) G
if no. information is available):
Tanks - Below Ground
Discharge to Sewer/Surface Water (intentional permitted
or illegal discharge; not secondary runoff)
Recycling
Airborne Release/Incineration (including incinerators.
boilers, fire and bum pits, any fire incidents)
Spill (accidental, one time event only, not leaking
drums or tanks)
Unknown
Other (fill in):
Waste Dticription
Wastes Deposited or Detected Onsrte (check all that apply):
G Organic Chemicals
G inorganicOieJTitcali
3 Solvents
G Liborattx>(Wospr»J Wastes
G Acids/Bases
G Paints/Pigments
G Explosives
G Pesticides/Herbicides
G Metals
G Fly and Bottom Ash
G Mining Wastes
G Smelting Wastes
G Radioactive Waste
G Oily Wastes
Q POTW Sludge
G Municipal Wastes
G Construction/Demolition Wastes
G Ltad
G Asbestos
G PCBs
G Creosote
G PCP
G Oioiins
G Other (fill m):
G-5
-------
orm
Sita Name:
CERCUS Number:
Page 4 of 5
Rgsoons< Actions
Response/Removal Actions (check ail that appry):
Q Emergency Watt* Removal Has Occurred
Q Drinking Water Well H« Men dosed
Q Alternative Wat** Supply Has Seen Provided
Q ATSDft Hearth Advisory Has Seen issued
Q Residents Haw g«tn Ratocattd
Q Sitt Access Has B««n Rfstnctvd
Q Othtf Removal Action Has Occumd
G Oth«r£m«fg«ncy Action Has Oceurrvd
RCRA tnf ormation
10. For all active fadltties. RCRA Sita Status (check all that apply):
G Subtitle 0
G Municipal Landfill
G industrial Undfill
G OthertfiK in):
G
Q Subtitle C
G Treetment. Storage, and Disposal Facility
G 90 Day Accumulator
G Small Quantity Generator
G Very Small Quantity Generator
Q Converter
Demographic Information
11. Workers Present Onttte (check 1):
G Yes G No G Unknown
12. Distance to Nearest Non-Worker individual (check 1):
G Onsite Q >1/4-1/2 Mile Q > 1 Mile
G > 10 Net-1/4 Mile G >t/J.1Milt G Unknown
13. Residential Population Within 1 Mile (check yes and fill in number, or check no or unknown):
G Yes Q No Q Unknown
.14. Residential Population Within 4 Miles (check yes and fill in number, or check no or unknown):
Q Yes Q No Q unknown
Water Us* Information
1S. Local Drinking Wats* Supply Source (check all that apply):
G Ground Wae* (within 4 mile distance limit) G Surface Water (within 15 mile distance limit)
G No WabyWUhdiawaH Within Target Distance Limits Q Other (fill in):
16. Total Population Served by Local Drinking Water Supply Sourced) (fill in or check unknown or not applicable):
or G Unknown Q Not Applicable
17. Drinking Water Supply System Type for Local Drinking Water Supply Source(s) (check all that apply}:
G Municipal (services over 25 people) G Private
G Unknown G Not Applicable
G-6
-------
NPL CharacterFstfcs Data Cotfectfon Form
DRAFT
Site Name: __
CERCUS Number:
S
Water Us< Information (cont)
18. Surface Water Adjacent t(VOr*mmg Sit* (check ill ttut *pp*y and indicate if the water body is contaminated):
Q Stream _-,___i_iiii__^ Q Ocein ___»________
Q Wetland Q fond
Q River _____^__ O No"*
Q Say ____^__^_ D Unknown
Lake n Other (fill m>:
Comments:
G-7
-------
G-8
-------
APPENDIX H: INFORMATION RELEASE POLICY
H-1
-------
H-2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT At PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 204«0
OCT I 7 1991
auiJICTt
riGMi
oaemcouNsn.
Treatment under FOIA of Documents Generated in site
Assessment Process
George B. Wye
Attorney
Solid Waste and Eaergency Response Division (LZ-132S)
TOt
Alan Margolia
Attorney
Grants, Contracts and General Lav Division (LZ-132G)
Janet Grubbs
Sita Assassaant Branch
Offica of Solid Wasta and Emergency Raaponsa (OS-230)
At tha Hay 1991 Sita Assassaant Saction Chiefs' meeting, and
on a number of occasions aora recently, questions hava coaa up
regarding tha extant to which materials prepared in the site
Assessaent process (particularly preliminary HRS scoring sheets)
may be withheld as "deliberative" in response to FOIA requests.1
This meaorandua responds to those questions; it should be noted
that the advice given here is general in nature, and in specific
cases it is advisable to consult a regional or OGC FOIA attorney.
Moreover, this advice is not intended to bind the Agency in
connection with final agency determinations on FOIA appeals.
First to be protected under FOIA as deliberative, documents
must be (1) predecisional (i.e., prior to the adoption of an
agency policy or decision), and (2) deliberative (i.e., asking
recomaendations or expressing opinions on legal or policy
matters.) Draft BU scores would generally fall within this
category. A draft that is adapted as final agency policy is no
longer protected (hovever, such scores are aade public in the
docket at the time a site is proposed for the KVL anyvay) .
1 Documents that are not protected under FOIA are
commonly referred to as "releasable. " it should not be inferred
that the Agency aust always exercise its right to withhold
documents; exercise of a FOIA axeaption is a Batter of Agency
discretion. The Agency aay choose to release deliberative or
other privileged documents; it siaply need not do so. In
general, however, the Agency's practice has been not to release
draft HRS scoring sheets, for policy reasons.
H-3
-------
Factual material in the agency'a poeaeeaion i» not deliberative
and muat generally be released.
one question raiaed at the Section Chiafa' meeting had to do
with releasing information aftar a site ia aaaigned "no further
action" atatus ("HFRAPsd"), based on ita MRS aeora. A KFRAP
determination ia naithar pradaciaional nor deliberative and say
not therefore be vithhald purauant to tha deliberative procaaa
prong of FOIA exemption 5. Therefore, matariala undarlying tha
NFRA? daciaion ara not vithholdabla undar tha dalibarativa
procaaa privilaga or other FOIA exemptions (e.g., tha final score
and supporting acoring ahaata), and ara eonaidarad releaaable.2
Draft acoring ahaata would, however, not ba releaaabla.
A ralatad quaation had to do with tha atatua of preliminary
HRS acoring ahaata — that ia, ahaata other than tha onaa that
formed tha baaia for a final daciaion (either to liat or to
NFRAP). Oftan, preliminary HRS acoraa ara calculated which are
•uperaeded aa tha analyaia ia refined or new data ia obtained.
To tha extant theae ara retained, they remain deliberative mnd
need not be dlaeloaad. Thia ia true even aftar a final acora haa
been determined. Thia ia to enaura that ataff feel free
preparing tentative scoree beaed on a partial analysis, without
having to fear that the preliminary acoraa will be uaed against
tha Agency later.
A third POZA-relatad queation recently came froa one of the
regiona. Since* tha anaver may be of more general inter eat, ve
thought we would include it here. Tha region had received a
requeat for all documenta contained in tha RRS acoring package
for a aite that ia being conaidered for propoaal to the MPL, but
haa not yet been propoaed. The HRS acoring aheeta, including the
documentation record, ara clearly deliberative at this atage, and
need not be diacloaed. In addition, factual material in the
package (i.e., factual referencee) need not be releaaed. while
factual material in tha Agency'a filea ia normally releaaabla,
releaaing materials ia raaponae to a requeat for "the HRS
package" neceaaarily identifies particular factual material aa
being contained in a draft HRS package and thus ahads light on
the nature of the Agency'a analyaia. Therefore, the contenta of
2 Otter grounds for denying releaae include FOZA
exemptions (b)(7)(A), which covers enforcement-sensitive
documents and (b)(5), which, in addition to the deliberative
proceaa privilege!, also incorporates the attorney-client
privilege and the attorney work product privilege (i.e.,
aateriala prepared in, or in anticipation of, litigation). These
exemptions (aaide from the deliberative process application of
(b)(5)) would not appear to be generally applicable to site
aaaeaament materials, although they might be applicable in
particular cases.
H-4
-------
the pacJcage nood not bo disclosed. (Of course, if the site is
later prop01 id, the scoring pacJcage and supporting materials
would become) releasable, but they would then be made public in
the docket anyway.)
The relationship between EPA and statss raises significant
FOIA questions as well., communications from statss that are
deliberative in nature (i.e., communicating advice or opinions
regarding the potential listing of a site) appear to be
protected. Although there is only limited case law on this
point, at least one court has held that material from state
agencies sent to a federal agency for the purpose of giving the
federal agency advice on a matter under consideration is
generally privileged.
Agency staff should bear in mind that during a rulemaJcing
(i.e., after a site has boon proposed in the Federal Register and
before it goes final), communications from statss, especially
communications outside the normal course of implementing a
cooperative agreement, may present a more complex issue.
Communications in rulemaJcing will bo discussed in a separate
memorandum.
Agency st*ff should also keep in mind that documents
originating af~ EPA and sent to states are subject tc state FOIA-
•quivala-rf, x^vo. such laws may vary in the degree of
confidentiaXity allowed. Regions may have to discuss with the
state agencies they deal with what the rules are in those statts
before sending material that they may not want to have disclosed.
Finally, a question came up recently about whether KRS
scores for sites that have been deferred to RCRA may be withheld.
If the score is in fact a preliminary draft (which is generally
the status of any HI* score for a site that has not been either
proposed for listing or NFRAPed based on the score), it need not
bo released. This is not affected by the fact that the site is
no longer being considered for listing, if the reason it is no
longer being considered is deferral to RCXA rather than its KRS
score. la abort, RRi scoresheets for sites that have been
deferred to RCXA remain deliberative and need not bo released.
I hope that this helps to answer the questions you raised.
If you have any further questions, please do not heeitate to
contact us.
H-5
-------
Annotation to Regional Quality Control Guidance
In an effort to ease package submission by the Regions and
reduce resource requirements to do so, EPA Headquarters will
require only one full set of references and an additional copy of
the SI Report (if it is used as a reference). Consequently, the
first sentence, final paragraph p. 20 of the attached Guidance
should read:
The Region will send three hard copies of the documentation
record, one copy of the references, and an additional copy of the
SI Report if included as a reference to EPA Headquarters. The
references and two copies of the documentation record will go to
the EPA contractor for review (after a Headquarters QC check) and
the final copy of the documentation record and the SI Report will
be kept at EPA Headquarters. Be sure to include the diskettes
for PREScore and the documentation record as well.
------- |