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.

-------