y
      g       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
               Repository
       USEPAWestBtdg
 1 301 Constitution Avenue N.W.                               OFF1CE OF
                                               SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
    Washington, DC 20004

                        OCT 2 8 1992

                                         OSWER Directive  9203.1-06

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Guidance  on Setting Priorities for JJPL/Candidate Sites

FROM:     Henry  L.  Longest II,  Director
          Office of Emergency and Remedial

TO:       Director,  Waste Management Division
            Regions I,  IV,  V,  VII
          Director,  Emergency and Remedial Response Division
            Region  II
          Director,  Hazardous Waste Management Division
            Regions III,  VI,  VIII,  IX
          Director,  Hazardous Waste Division
            Region  X
          Director,  Environmental Services Division
            Regions I,  VI,  VII


PURPOSE

     The purpose of this  directive is to transmit interim final
guidance or, "Setting^ Priorities for NPL Candidate 3ites" for use
in Superfund  site assessment.

BACKGROUND

     Many of  the regions  have substantial backlogs of sites for
which site inspections  (Sis)  have been completed.   Each of these
sites needs additional  staff work to support a decision to list
the site on the  NPL or  to refer the site to the State or other
authorities for  appropriate action.

OBJECTIVE

     All participants in  the Superfund program should set
priorities for National Priorities List '(NPL)  candidate sites in
a consistent  manner.   Proper use of the guidance will help to
achieve this  goal.   The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
Regional Decision Team  (SACM RDT)  can help set priorities and
ensure technical quality.
                                                          Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                               -2-
IMPLEMENTATION

     Superfund site assessment personnel should immediately begin
incorporating this priority-setting guidance into ongoing
operations.

     If you need further information on priority setting, contact
the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, Barbara Vandermer at FTS
703-603-8812 or David Ouderkirk at FTS 703-603-8721.

Attachment

-------
     The project's long-term objective is for each Region to
possess the expertise they need to implement the manual at their
municipal landfill sites.  This goal will be achieved partially
through the participation of those RPMs who have agreed to work
with the team at their sites.  Upon completion of the scoping
meeting, these RPMs will possess a working knowledge of the
manual, and will be able to provide the necessary expertise to
implement the manual at future sites in their Regions.  To date,
RPMs from Regions 1, 4, 5, and 9 have agreed to fulfill this
role.

     I would like to take this opportunity to invite Regions 2,
3, 6, 7, 8, and 10 to participate in the project, and ask that
you identify one or two interested RPMs to attend and observe one
of the two-day site visits.  While a significant number of
municipal landfill RI/FS starts may not occur in these Regions,
it is important for these Regions to know and understand the
streamlining methods identified in the manual.  In addition,
those individuals who participate will be in a position to assist
in streamlining any future municipal landfill RI/FS's, should
they occur.  Regional travel is being funded by the Superfund
Revitalization Team.

     Potential products to be developed by the project team
include an analysis of time and money saved as a result of
streamlining the RI/FS for the candidate sites, and a fact-sheet
on lessons learned to assist RPMs in scoping upcoming municipal
landfill RI/FS's.

     Finally, attached for your information is a bulletin
developed to report Superfund's progress under the presumptive
remedies initiative.  This bulletin briefly explains the
rationale for using presumptive remedies, and describes the
municipal landfill pilot project.

Contact

     Please provide the information requested to Andrea
McLaughlin, Hazardous Site Control Division, FTS 678-8365 or 703-
308-8365 by May 4, 1992.

-------
Addressees:    Waste Management Division Director
                 Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX
               Emergency and Remedial Response Division Director
                    Region II
               Hazardous Waste Management Division Director
                    Regions III, VI
               Hazardous Waste Division Director, Region X

cc:  Rich Guimond
     Tim Fields
     Bruce Diamond
     Ed Hathaway, Region 1
     Brian Ullensvang, Region 9
     Mary Beth Novy, Region 5
     Terry Tanner, Region 4
     Karla Johnson, Region 5
     Tony Best, Region 4

Attachment

-------
            SETTING  PRIORITIES FOR NPL  CANDIDATE  SITES

PURPOSE

     This guidance document identifies factors that will help EPA
regions decide the order in which they should consider sites with
completed site inspections (Sis) for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B)  of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).  Stressing risk-based decisionmaking, this
guidance should be used as a tool to increase the consistency of
the process for setting priorities,  conserve program resources,
and advance Super-fund's worst-sites-first policy.  Regions should
use the factors in this directive to determine which sites
receive the most expedited consideration for early action or NPL
listing, not to remove sites from further consideration
altogether.

     This directive is intended to be used on sites with newly
completed sis and older sites for which no decision on priority
has been made.  The guidance does not recommend that regions
reconsider earlier priority determinations on sites in their
backlogs, although they may choose to do so.

     The procedures set forth in this document are intended as
guidance to employees of EPA, States, and other government
agencies.  EPA officials may decide whether or not to follow the
guidance based on analysis of specific site circumstances.  EPA
may modif^ this guidance at any time without public notice.  This
guidance does not constitute EPA rulemaking and cannot be relied
on to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation
with the United States.

BACKGROUND

     Many c/r the regions have substantial backlogs of sites for
which Sis have been completed.  Each of these sites needs
additional staff work to support a decision to list the site on
the NPL or to refer the site to the State, CERCLA early-action
authorities, or other authorities as appropriate.

GUIDELINES FOR SETTING PRIORITIES

     Each region should use the following two-step process to
establish the relative priority of sites.  The process is
designed to make site priority evaluations quick and simple;
decisions should require no more information than is routinely
included in site inspection reports.  To avoid duplicative
efforts, site priority decisions should not be reassessed unless
significant new information becomes available.

-------
Step 1:  Consider General Factors

     For each site assigned a projected Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) score at or above 28.5, regions should consider the general
factors discussed below.  However, these factors do not
constitute an exhaustive list; regions have the flexibility to
consider additional factors they deem appropriate.

     Hazard Ranking System Score.  The projected HRS score may
provide one measure of a site's risk.  In evaluating sites under
the HRS, regions should ordinarily project the score based on
evaluating each site's most significant pathways.  Once a
projected HRS score (developed from the SI worksheet or PREscore)
at or above 28.5 is determined, regions should consider whether
there are risks not reflected in the projected score.

     Environmental Factors.  Although most of the following
factors will have been considered when determining the projected
HRS score, they should also be evaluated qualitatively for both
scored and unscored pathways to the extent that appropriate data
are available in the SI report.  Regional staff should evaluate
any unscored pathways subjectively by using their best
professional judgement.

          Has an observed release been documented?  Has
          Level 1 (exposure to humans or sensitive
          environments above a health-based or ecological
          benchmark) or 2 (exposure below benchmarks)
          contamination been documented?  Has the site
          caused the closure of a drinking water supply?

          How far is the target population from the site sources?
          Is the population potentially or actually exposed under
          current land use conditions (both onsite and offsite)?
          What is the likelihood that exposure has occurred?

          Has the Agency for Tc^ic Substances and P^sease
          Registry  (ATSDR) issued a health advisory.'  Is it
          planning to?

          What are the risks associated with contaminants found
          in air, soil, ground water, and surface water?  Are the
          hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at
          the site highly toxic?  Are large quantities of these
          substances present?

          What is the effect of any removal/remedial work at
          the site?  Are conditions deteriorating?  Is
          contamination spreading?  What effect will the
          delay of any remedial action have at the site?

-------
          Are hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
          at the site mobile?  If so, how mobile?  Are any
          containment features in place to mitigate risks?  If
          so, how effective are they?  Are these substances
          likely to be released in the future?

          Are any nearby senr^'tive environments or endangered
          species threatened?  How fragile 01 how important is
          the sensitive environment?  How far is it from the site
          sources?  Are major impacts likely?

     CERCLA Removal Actions.  Are EPA removal actions complete,
underway, or scheduled?  Will proposed or ongoing EPA removal
actions significantly reduce risks?

     Other Regulatory Involvement.  Is the site being addressed
by some other authority?

          Is there active State or non-CERCLA Federal response
          action complete, ongoing/ or scheduled at the site?
          Will all pathways' of concern be evaluated?  Are
          resources adequate to address the site?

          Is the site subject to regulation pursuant to Subtitle
          C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)?
          If the RCRA deferral policy is applicable,  the site
          should not receive further consideration for placement
          on the NPL.  If RCRA deferral is not appropriate,  any
          complete, ongoing, or scheduled response action taken
          under RCRA should be considered in priority setting.

          Are other regulatory agencies, such as local and county
          health departments,  undertaking response action at the
          site?  Can they provide adequate oversight?  Is such
          action likely to continue?

     PRP Response Actions.  Has the potentially responsible party
(PRP)  completed, scheduled, or undertaken response action at the
site?   Is such action likely to continue?

     Degree of Public Concern.  Has the State recommended this
site for the NPL pursuant to CERCLA 105(a)(8)(B)?  Is there
community interest in the site?  Are community groups aware of
plans for characterization/remediation, and do they approve?  Is
there congressional interest?

step 21  Designate Priorities

     After evaluating the general factors listed above,  each
region should divide its candidate NPL sites into high or low
priority.  Particular factors should be considered in making this
determination:

-------
     High priority generally should be given to any site:

          where people are currently exposed to hazardous
          substances, pollutants, or contaminants;

          where actual contamination has been documented,
          especially at or above a health-based benchmark;

          where a large potenuxally affected target population is
          nearby;

          where contamination to a sensitive environment or
          fishery has been documented;

          where the State has recommended the site be listed on
          the NPL pursuant to CERCLA 105(a)(8)(B); or

          where the ATSDR has issued a health advisory or is
          planning to.

However, in considering the totality of circumstances consistent
with the worst-sites-first policy, regions may determine that a
particular site may not merit high priority.  Such a situation
might occur when significant response actions are being
undertaken at a site by the State, other governmental authority,
or a PRP.

     Low priority generally should be given to all sites not
exhibiting any of the above factors.  Once again, however, after
viewing the totality of factors present, regions may conclude
that a given site having none of these factors should nonetheless
be assigned high priority.

     Within each category, priorities should be set consistent
with EPA's worst-sites-first policy.  This guidance does not
present specific factors for determining which of several sites
should be au^ressed first within each category.   Guidance ,r.ay be
provided in the future if appropriate.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

     To help set priorities as well as to ensure technical
quality, the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)  Regional
Decision Team (RDT) may opt to use some form of peer review
process.  Peer reviews can be an important step in ensuring
technical accuracy and promoting consistency.  In addition to
site assessment staff, the peer review group could include
program management staff, remedial project managers, onscene
coordinators, technical staff (e.g., chemist, hydrogeologist,
toxicologist), and possibly representatives of non-Superfund EPA

-------
programs such as air, water, and toxic substances.  Regions may
tailor these suggestions to their own needs or choose not to
implement peer review.

DOCUMENTATION

     Regions should informally document the factors which
determined each site's priority.  This record should not be made
public.  The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exempts from
mandatory release preliminary documents reflecting the Agency's
deliberative processes [5 USC 552(b)(5)].

-------