United States

Environmental Protection Agency 

# EPA 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 September 2012

O ce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response



# Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule – US Oil Recovery

# Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule US Oil Recovery
September 2012

Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document S eptember 201 2

ii 

### Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................................................................................................................ . iv

Introduction

.............................................................................................................................................. v

Background of the NPL

.......................................................................................................................... v

Develo pment of the NPL

....................................................................................................................... vi

Hazard Ranking System

........................................................................................................................ vi

Other Mechanisms for Listing

.............................................................................................................. vii

Organization of this Document

............................................................................................................ viii

Glossary

.............................................................................................................................................. viii

1.0 List of Commenters and Correspondence

...................................................................................... 1

2.0 Site Description

................................................................................................................................ . 2

3.0 Summary of Comments

................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Support for Listing

...................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 No vember 2011 Request to Extend Comment Period/Defer Listing

........................................... 9

3.3 June/July 2012 Request to Defer Listing

................................................................................... 10

3.3.1 County/State Stance on Deferral

.................................................................................................... 11

3.3.2 Delay Cleanup

.............................................................................................................................. 12

3.3.3 No n- Superfund Approach to Remediation

..................................................................................... 13

3.4 Late Comments and Correspondence

........................................................................................ 15

3.5 Consideration of Removal Action

............................................................................................. 16

3.6 Economic Impacts/Stigma of NPL Listing

................................................................................ 17

3.7 Score Other Pathways

............................................................................................................... 18

3.8 Non

- Scoring HRS Documentation Record Clarifications

. .. ...................................................... 18

3.9 Likelihood of Release

............................................................................................................... 19

3.9.1 Significant Increase

....................................................................................................................... 20

3.9.2 Likelihood of Release

– Attribution

............................................................................................... 22

3.10 Source Descriptions

.................................................................................................................. 30

3.10.1 Source 1 Eligible Hazardous Substances

....................................................................................... 30

3.10.2 Source Containment

...................................................................................................................... 31

3.10.3 Source Waste Quantity

.................................................................................................................. 35

3.11 Consideration of Revisions in Mercury River Persistence Value

.............................................. 37US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

iii 4. Conclusion

....................................................................................................................................... 39

Attachment 1: July 13, 2012 Correspondence from John C. Meyer

, Region 6 Risk and Site Assessment

Section Chief , Superfund Division, EPA

Attachment 2: July 25, 2012 Correspondence from Jennifer L. Wheeler, Harris County Pollution Control Services Department Compliance Manager

Attachment 3: Excerpt of 1997 GAO report, Superfund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites

Attachment 4: August 21, 2012 Correspondence from Pamela Phillips, Acting Director, Superfund Division, EPAUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

iv 

## Executive Summary

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States

. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated

on Se ptember 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that the EPA update the list at least annually.

This document provides responses to pu blic comments received on the US Oil Recovery site, proposed on September 16, 2011 (76 FR 57702). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in Se ptember

2012.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document S eptember 201 2

v 

## I ntroduction

This document explains the rationale for adding the US Oil Recovery site in Pasadena, Texas, to the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and also provides the responses to public comments received o n this site. The EPA proposed this site on September 16, 2011 (76 FR 57702). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2012

.


### Background of the NPL

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) , 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq . in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste

sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Public Law No. 99

- 499, stat., 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 ( 46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NC P, further revised by the EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth guidelines and procedures needed to respond under

CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances , pollutants, or contamina nts. On March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), the EPA further revised the NCP in response to SARA.

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases througho ut the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, take into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal

action.

Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are take n in response to emergency conditions or

on a short

- term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long

- term in nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA

Section 101 ). Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA, were included in the HRS. The EPA promulgated the HRS as Appendix A of the NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On Dece mber 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in response to SARA, and established the effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provide d by the HRS be used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the NPL.

An origi nal NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an

HRS score of 28.5 0 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least

400 sites, as suggested by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently

on May 10, 2012 (77 FR 27368 ). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to

add sites to the NPL. The most recent proposal was on March 15, 2012 (77 FR 515344 ).US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

vi 

### Development of the NPL

The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96

- 848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).

The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, ident ifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it doe s not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to any person. Subsequent government actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.

The NPL, there fore, is primarily an info rmational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation

to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to

determine what CERCLA

- financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites the EPA believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to t he extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA

- financed remedial action.

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs the EPA to list priority sites among the k nown releases or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs

the EPA to consider certain enumerated and other ap propriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, the EPA has the discre tion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, the EPA has chosen not to place certain types of sites on t he NPL even though

CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider placing them on the NPL.



### Hazard Ranking System

The HR S is the principle mechanism the EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations

-- the preliminary assessment and site inspection

-- to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to

human health or the environment

. HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which the EPA funds remedial response actions, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not

sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate r esponse for a particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, the EPA relies on further, more detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.

The HRS uses a structured value analy sis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical values to factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into three categories. Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:

• likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment;US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

• characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and

• people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.

Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:

• Ground Water Migration (S gw )

- drinking water

• Surface Water Migration (S

sw ) The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood migr ation and ground water to surface water.

- drinking water

- human food chain

- sensitive environments

• Soil Exposure (S

s )

- resident population

- nearby population

- sensitive environments

• Air Migration (S

a )

- population

- sensitive environments

After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using the following root

- mean

- square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which ranges from 0 to 100 :

If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low

. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even

if o nly one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some extremely dangerous sites pose thr eats through only one pathway. For e xample, buried leaking drums of hazardous substances can contaminate drinking water wells, but

-- if the drums are buried deep enough and the substances not very volatile

-- not surface water or air.



### Other Mechanisms for Listing

There are two mechanisms o ther than the HRS by which s ites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to designate one site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements:

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;

• EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and

vii 

### 4 S + S + S + S = S 2

a 2

s 2

sw 2

gwUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

viii • EPA anticipates it will be more cost

- effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency removal authority to respond to th e site.



### Organization of this Document

The following section contains the EPA responses to site

- specific public comments received on the proposal of the US Oil Recovery site on September 16, 2011 (76 FR 57702)

. The site discussion begins with a list of commenters, followed by a site description, a summary of comments, and Agency responses to each comment. A concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the

site.



### Glossary

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used thr oughout the text:

Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

AST Aboveground storage tank

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq ., also known as Superfund

CFR Code of F ederal R egulations

CLP Contract L aboratory P rogram

CRQL Contract

- required quantitation limit

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , also USEPA

ERM Environmental Resources Management

FR Federal Register

GAO Government Accountability Office

GIS Geographical information systems

HCPHES Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services

HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP

HRS score Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to

100

μg/ L Micrograms pe r liter

mg/L Milligram per liter

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R.

Part 300

NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP

OR Observed release

PA/SI Preliminary assessment/site investigation

PCS Pollution Control Services

PPE Probable point of entryUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

ix RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RI Remedial investigation

RI/FS Remedial investigation/feasibility s tudy

SA Superfund A lternative

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SI Site inspection

START Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team

SQL Sample quantitation limit

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TDL Target distance limit

TRO Temporary restraining order

TI Temporary injunction

USOR US Oil Recovery

SVOC Semi

- volatile o r ganic c ompound

WWTP Wastewater treatment plantUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document S eptember 201 2

1 

## 1. 0 L ist of Commenters and Correspondence

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0003 Correspondence, dated June 24, 2011, from Governor Rick Perry, Texas.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0005 Comment , dated November 2, 2011, submitted by MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, PC on behalf of U.S. Oil Recovery PRP Group.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0006 Correspondence, dated November 8, 2011, from Douglas Ammon, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, USEPA, to Mary J. Koks, US Oi l Recovery PRP Group, Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, PC.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 000 7 Comment, dated November 14, 2011, submitted by Bob Allen, Director, Harris County Pollution Control Services Department (PCS).

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 000 8 Comment , dated Nove mber 15, 2012

, submitted by MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, PC on behalf of U.S. Oil Recovery PRP Group.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 000 9 Comment, dated August 1, 2012

, submitted by Rock Owens

, Managing Attorney

, Environmental & Infrastructure Practice Group , on beh alf of the Office of Harris County Attorney and County Attorney Vince Ryan

.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0010 Comment, dated August 1, 2012

, submitted by Bob Allen, Director, Harris County Pollution Control Services Department,

Texas

.

Comment attachment, correspondence, dated July 24, 2012, from Pamela Phillips, Acting Director, Superfund Division, EPA, to Courtney Constance Westfall, Strasburger & Price, LLP.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0011 Comment , dated July 23, 2012, submitted by MUNSC H HARDT KOPF & HARR, PC on behalf of U.S. Oil Recovery PRP Group.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0012 Comment , dated August 16, 2012, submitted by Strasburger Attorneys at Law on behalf of Constance Courtney Westfall, Co

Chair, U.S. Oil Recovery Site, PRP Group

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0013 Comment, dated August, 27, 2012, submitted by Eva S. Engelhart, Ross, Banks, May, Cron & Cavin , P.C.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

2 

## 2. 0 Site Description

The US Oil Recovery (USOR ) site (the Site) is composed of sources and releases to surface water from the Site. The facility is located in a mixed industrial/residential area north of the City of Pasadena, Texas and is depicted

on Figure 1 in this support document . The USOR site includes two properties located on three land parcels that are all connected by underground pipes. One property, identified as USOR

, shown in Figure 2 of this support

document

, consists of a centralized waste treatment plant that receives and treats oily waste, sludge, and organic

chemical

- bearing wastes . T he other property

, identified as MCC Recycling , shown in Figure 3 of this support

document

, consists of two contiguous parcels bisected by the Vince Bayou (shown in Figure 1), and contains an

industrial was tewater treatment plant (WWTP).

T he USOR site includes sources on both the USOR and MCC Recycling properties and the location of releases from the sources into Vince Bayou. The Site includes the following eight sources : drums (containing flammable and corrosive wastes) (Source 1) ; bioreactors (Source 2); truck bays used as sumps (Source 3) ; surface impoundments (Source 4) ; poly totes (containing flammable and corrosive wastes) (Source 5) ; aboveground
storage tanks (ASTs) (Source 6) ; containment pond (Source 7) ; and roll

- off boxes (Source 8)

. These sources contain hazardous substances that have been or potentially could be released into Vince Bayou, which flows in a northerly direction from the S ite

. The waste quantities for S ources 1 and 5 were determined by the hazardous wastestream quantity and the remaining sources ( Sou rces 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8) were determined based on the

volume of hazardous substances in each source.

The USOR facility ( see Figure 2 ) processed non

- hazardous landfill leachate, contaminated stormwater

, wastewater generated from industrial and non

- industrial interceptor traps, Class I and Class II industrial waste (subject under the wastewater treatment unit exemptions), characteristically hazardous waste, used oil and oily sludges, and municipal solid waste. The USOR property contains a warehouse that is a container storage area

. A tank farm is located at the north end of the warehouse. The tank farm contains approximately 24 ASTs. A large concrete walled structure that is called the “aeration basin”, also known as the “bioreactors

, ” is located west of the

tank fa rm. A containment pond is located west of the warehouse and south of the aeration basin. The property also

contains 225 roll

- off boxes located throughout the property. The property is currently surrounded by a six

- foot

chain link fence.

The MCC property (Figure 3) consists of two contiguous parcels termed the east and west plants

. The west plant contains the headworks, a trickling filter, a primary clarifier, an aeration basin, and lift stations for transferring wastewater from the west plant to the east plant

. The east plant has a small gravity thickener near the pump room. The pump room is connecte d to the aerobic digester tank. The belt filter press building is b etween the aerobic digester ta nk and the chlorine contact tank

. Further toward the back of the property, there is an oxygen

- activated sludge tank. The remains of a sand filter are next to the aerobic digester tank and oxygen

- activated sludge tank. Two final clarifiers (Clarifier #1 and Clarifier #2) are behind the oxygen

- activated sludge tank

. The topography of the facility is generally flat

, although there is a slight slope across most of the facility toward Vince Bayou (overland flow paths are shown in Figures 2 and 3 ). C ontamination, as a result of releases of hazardous substances via overland flow migration and direct deposition into surface water, has been documented in both surface water and sediment within Vince Bayou. The direct deposition of hazardous substances int o surface water has been documented at both properties. A direct observation of a cracked concrete pipe discharging directly into the Vince Bayou was documented at the MCC property, and on a different occasion

, discharge from

the old chlorine contact tank being released directly into the Vince Bayou. Additionally, direct observations of discharges from the containment pond, secondary containments, roll

- off boxes, and surface impoundments on the USOR property have been documented. The release of contaminants from the sources at the S ite threatens a nearby human food chain fishery

, which has been documented in the Vince Bayou beneath the North Richey Street bridge

, and threatens sensitive environments (wetlands) located along the Vince Bayou ( see Figure 1)

.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

3 Figure 1

– Shows the property boundaries, observed release sample locations, and the location of the scored human food chain fishery and

sensitive environments.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

4 Figure 2
- Shows the USOR property and the associated sources and overland flow paths for each source
that is located on the property.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

5 Figur e 3 - Shows the MCC property and overland flow paths for each containment that is located on the
property.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

6 After proposal the U.S. Oil Recovery PRP Group requested an extension of the comment period so that the PRP group could evaluate addressing the Site under a Superfund Alternative approach; although the EPA denied the request to extend the comment period, a delay in promulgation was granted. However, the decision has been made to move forward with promulgation because sufficient progress has not been made at the Site and expectations have not been met to satisfy further delay in promulgating the Site. Actions that have occurred at the Site since proposal include pumping down the volume and monitoring freeboard in uncontained sources.



## 3. 0 Summary of Comme nts

Bob Allen, Director of the Harris County Pollution Control Services Department, and the Office of Harris County Attorney and County Attorney Vince Ryan submitted comments in support of placing the US Oil Recovery site

on the NPL.

The U.S. Oil Recovery PRP Group (hereafter referred to as the Group) submitted a comment on November 2,

2011

, requesting an extension of the comment period allowed for submittal of comments on the proposed listing of the Site on the NPL; the Group asked that the comment period be extended from November 15, 2011

, to January 13, 2012. The Group commented that an extension would allow time to discuss the possibility of addressing the Site under the Superfund A lternative (SA) approach, which could save resou rces and would allow for newly identified parties to participate in alternatives to NPL listing . The Group also stated that NPL listing was not needed, noting that t he EPA had already performed characterization /containment activities, and that t he Group ha d implemented removal/stabilization/monitoring actions to address the Site contamination after the HRS

evaluation was done.

Following a November 8, 2011

, EPA decision to deny the request to extend the comment period while delay ing listing of the Site, the Group submitted comments dated November 15, 2011

, requesting that NPL listing of the

Site be deferred. The Group submitted an additional comment dated July 23, 2012, also requesting deferral of NPL listing ; the Group asked that the EPA consider the July 2 3, 2012

, comments even though they were submitted outside the normal comment period, as they reflected new information that had become available since the close of the comment period.

These comment documents submitted by the Group detailed various assertions supporting the request to defer listing the Site on the NPL, including:

• Discussions between the Group and the State and the County were ongoing.

• Listing the Site on the NPL would delay cleanup and redevelopment of the Site. The Group pointed to prior and planned actions carried out to address the Site, and noted that potential buyers for the properties may aid in cleanup, claiming that these activities may be hindered by the act of NPL listing.

• The Site could be addressed more effectively and with fewer resources via its current cooperation with the County, State, and the EPA and associated currently planned actions instead of NPL listing.

The Group asserted that, given the actions performed at the Site since proposal to the NPL, the EPA should either defer listing or rescore the Site based on these actions and the resulting changes to the Site.

In both sets of comments submitted, the Group also challenged the establishment of an observed release by chemical analysis. It challenged both the establishment of background levels used to establish a significant

increase and the attribution of the increase i n hazardous substance concentrations to a release from the S ite . The Group noted that Vince Bayou is located in an industrial area and claimed that the background was established using a single background sample ; the Group questioned whether this was sufficient to reflect the backgroundUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

7 conditions of the Vince Bayou, to characterize the contributions of other sources, and isolate the contributio n of

substances from the Site.

The Group commented on the conditions of sources at the Site, contending that the Site is no longer abandoned and stabilization activities are actively being undertaken at the facility, which have included removal actions fo r site sources. The Group asserted that the current conditions of the site sources have changed since proposal; specifically, that work is underway to remove the bioreactor. The Group contended that several containment/maintenance features had been improve d for s ite sources. The Group further commented that several site sources have been pumped down, and that the associated source waste quantity values used in the HRS documentation record at proposal are now inaccurate. Finally, t he Group commented that the analytical results from Source 1 do not indicate elevated levels of mercury or manganese in the source , the constituents considered

in the HRS.

In its November 15, 2011

, comment, the Group concluded that :

[g] iven the significant economic and other cons equences of an NPL listing to the community and others, any such listing of this Site should be based upon a comprehensive, accurate and proper assessment of the Site's potential for release. Once such a comprehensive assessment has been conducted, the Sit e should be re

- proposed for listing to allow adequate opportunity for public comment on the assessment and its underlying data. For these reasons, the Group requests EPA

not to list the Site on the NPL.

Similarly, in its July 23, 2011

, comment, the Group concluded that either listing of the Site on the NPL should be deferred, or:

As an alternative to deferral, EPA should take into account the significant changes in conditions at the Site and rescore the Site. Given the significant economic consequences a nd stigma to the Site, the community and others attached to an NPL listing, EPA should take the time to base a listing decision on the current conditions at the Site, and on an accurate, updated assessment of the Site's potential for re lease. By taking this approach, EPA gives up noth in g, but the Site's chances of being timely redeveloped and returned to productive use are greatly increased.

The Group also sent a correspondence to Pam ela Phillips, Acting Director, Superfund Division, EPA Region 6

, on Augus t 16, 2012 ( docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0012 ), updating the status of the Group’s ongoing effort, stating its commitment to perform a remedial investigation ( RI ) if all responsible parties are included, and asking the EPA to consider further initiatives.

The Harris County Pollution Control Services ( PCS ) Department commented that the existing evidence is

sufficient to warrant an HRS air pathway evaluation for the Site, noting air sample detections of benzene, toluene, xylene, and 1,2

- dichoroethane, as well as nuisance odor violations and complaints.

The Harris County PCS also requested several modifications be made to the information presented in the HRS documentation record at promulgation to reflect regulatory activities leading up to listing the Site on the NPL

.



### 3.1 Support for Listing

Both the State of Texas and the Harris County PC S Department support t he listing of thi s site. I n a June 24, 2011

, letter from Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas (docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0003), to the EPA, the Governor expressed the State’s position prior to the Site’s proposal for NPL listing:US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

8 Texas supports the decision that the US Oil Recovery site be considered as a candidate site for the federal National Priorities List (NPL) for cleanup.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality believes that this site is eligible for the proposed NPL listing based on agency evaluation of the site under the federal Hazard Ranking System.

Bob Allen, Director, Harris County PCS Department submitted comments expressing Harris County PCS support
for placing the Site on the NPL. The reasons for this support included comments on lack o f USOR compliance and threats posed by the Site:

• “On numerous occasions investigations and inspections resulted in documented instances of non

compliance related to the unauthorized discharges of industrial wastewater, both onsite and into the Vince Bayo u, and the mismanagement of industrial solid waste including hazardous waste and the creation of

off

- site nuisance odors resulting in the violation of State Law.”

• Numerous enforcement actions carried out by the Harris County Attorney’s office to address p ublic health/environmental threats associated with the facility. These include “four Temporary Restraining Orders, two signed Temporary Injunctions and an Agreed Final Judgment and Injunction currently awaiting submittal to a Harris County District Court.”

• Two separate state administrative enforcement orders against USOR obtained by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

.

• Environmental threats posed by the Site in storm events due to the proximity of hazardous substance containers to surface waters, and the “potential to impact surface waters with a larger exposure pathway to surrounding waterways including Galveston Bay.”

• Public health threats posed by the Site due to its location within a populated urban area.

August 1, 2012

, correspondence from Bob Allen, Director of the Harris County Pollution Control Services Department , to the EPA, reconfirmed PCS ’s support for listing the Site on the NPL 1

.

I n correspondence to the EPA 2 in August 2012, the Office of Harris County Attorney and County Attorney Vince Ryan stated that they “strongly support” NPL listing of the Site, adding that :

[a]ny possibility that the listing could not take place is disconcerting as the proposals from the PRPs [potentially responsible parties] do not address some of our most significant concerns and we feel the NPL status of the site will insure that these issues are not bypassed.

Also, as described in section 3. 3.1, County/State Stance on Deferral , of this support document, after the proposal of the Site to the NPL, on July 13, 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ ) confirmed its support for l isting.

Response : The US Oil Recovery site has been added to the NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA. The US Oil Recovery site will be further investigated during the RI/FS phase of the Superfund process to determine what response, if any, is appropriate. Actual funding may not necessarily be undertaken in the precise order of HRS scores, however, and upon more detailed investigation may not be necessary at all in some cases. The EPA determines the need for using Superfund monies for remedial activities

on a site

- by

- site basis, taking into account the NPL ranking, State priorities, further site investigation, other response alternatives, and other factors as appropriate.

1 See docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0653-0010.

2 See docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0653-0009.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

9 

### 3.2 November 2011 Request to Extend Comment Period/Defer Listing

Comment : The Group submitted a letter on November 2, 2011

, requesting an extension of the comment period allowed for submittal of comments on the proposed listing of the Site on the NPL; the Group requested that the comment period be ex tended from November 15, 2011

, to January 13, 2012.

The Group asserted that an extension would allow time for the Group to discuss the possibility of addressing the Site under the Superfund Alternative approach. The Group commented that the SA approach can “potentially save the time and resources associated with listing a site on the NPL.” The Group stated that if an SA approach agreement is achieved, then there is no need to list the Site on the NPL 3

. However, the Group asserted that if the

EPA lists th e S ite on the NPL, benefits of the SA approach would be lost.

The Group contended that there is “no urgent need” to list the Site on the NPL. The Group asserted the following

reasons for this:

• The EPA has already performed “extensive characterization and containment activities to address

immediate environmental concerns” at the Site.

• Following the HRS scoring of the Site, “actions have been taken by the Group to secure the site.”

• Although the HRS documentation record noted that the Site was abandoned an d lack s monitoring/containment features, the Group has since “entered into a settlement agreement with EPA to conduct containment, removal and stabilization activities” at the Site. Thus the Site is now not abandoned and, in accordance with the agreement, “maintenance of containment and/or pumping activities will be

initiated as needed.”

• The Group noted recent actions performed to contain excess water during rain events, and repairs to gutters and drains, and stated that i t is “evaluating other measures to reduce rainwater exposure to the truck bays” at the Site.

• The Group stated that i t would monitor and act to “maintain the current stabilized condition of the site pursuant to the agreement” with the EPA.

The Group asserted that “[g]ranting this extensi on request will not delay the ongoing containment, removal and stabilization activities of the Group or jeopardize human health or the environment.”

The Group also argued that an extension o f the comment period would give time for newly identified partie s to “join the Group and participate in pursuing alternatives to NPL listing” (including a SA approach). The Group asserted that as many as 200 parties may be involved with the Site, and allowing them the chance to participate “increases the likelihood of a successful alternative approach to NPL listing.”

The Group maintained that listing the Site on the NPL “forecloses possible use of the SA approach with no accompanying environmental benefit.”

Response : On November 8, 2011

, by letter to the Group (docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0006 ), the request to extend the comment period was denied by Doug Ammon, of the EPA Site Assessment and Remedy

Decisions Branch , but the decision on whether to promulgate the Site was delayed beyon d March 2012

.

3 Referring to the EPA Superfund Alternative Approach website at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/saa.html#startedUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

10 The letter stated that :

After review, we [the EPA] do not believe that extending the comment period is the most appropriate mechanism to address the concerns you have presented, and your request for an extension is denied. It is EPA’s polic y to extend the comment period only on a site

- specific basis to address any procedural errors, such as incomplete or missing references in the public docket. This approach is consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. There were no procedural

errors identified in this case.

However, we understand you r interest in convening additional discussions regarding the possible paths forward to secure a cleanup at the site. To that end, I can commit to you that the EPA will not proceed with a final listing decision in the next NPL rulemaking, tentatively scheduled for March 2012. The close of the comment period for the proposed listing need not impede your discussions with EPA regarding an alternative approach to address the site, nor will it affect the

time needed for additional parties to participate in the pursuit of alternatives.



### 3.3 June/ July 2012 Request to Defer Listing

Comment : During a face

- to

- face meeting with Pamela Phillips, Acting Director, Superfund Division, EPA Region 6 on June 28, 2012, and in writing on July 23, 2012, t he Group requested the “continued deferral of final action on the proposed listing” of the Site on the NPL beyond September 2012

, and reiterated and supplemented the

rational e for the deferral it had submitted on November 15, 2011.

The Group asserted that the Site is different from other proposed/listed NPL sites, as “USOR was established, operated, and abandoned in a relatively short period (2002

- 2010) of the recent past while under the direct oversight of current regulatory programs.” The Group noted the lack of compliance of the previous operator of the USOR facility with the County and State actions, but stated that “[t]he circumstances have changed, and the changes warrant a different approach to the Site.” The Group stat ed that “[w]hile the operator continues to ignore the directives of the local state and federal agencies, his former customers have formed the Group and have voluntarily taken the lead in responding to the conditions on the Site.”

The Group claimed that “[i]n light of the current status of the Site and measures taken and planned by the Group, there is no compelling need to list the Site at this time.”

Response : The request for further delay or deferral in listing this site has been denied. In a July 24, 2012 letter 4 to the Group from Pamela Phillips, Acting Director

, Superfund Division, EPA Region 6, the rationale for this

decision was given:

My staff and I have considered the points and issues the PRP Group raised during our June 28, 2012 meeting and in its July 13, 2012, letter. However, the decision has been made to move forward with the final listing of the Site on the National Priorities List (“NPL”). The reason for this decision is that expectations had not been met that would satisfy further delay in and deferral of listing the Site on the NPL. Much work needs to be done to protect the public health, welfare

and the environment from the risk of further releases and off

- site migration of hazardous

substances at and from the Sit e. The schedule and future work proposed during our meeting and

4 The EPA July 24, 2012, letter is included as an attachment to the comment dated August 1, 2012

, submitted by Bob Allen, Director, Harris County Pollution Control Services Department, Texas (docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0653-0010 ). T his letter was in response to a July 13, 2012

, letter from the Group to the EPA following a June 28, 2012

, meeting, which included an updated schedule for activities planned by the Group

.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

11 in your July 13, 2012, letter fails to account for this, and the EPA's statutory mandate to protect the public requires it to move forward with listing and address the contamination at the Sit e.

Nevertheless, the EPA appreciates the efforts the PRP Group has made thus far in identifying additional potentially responsible parties and in entering into the August 25, 2011 Administrative Order on Consent to perform site

- stabilization work at the Site. The EPA looks forward in its continued efforts to work with you and other potentially responsible parties in this regard and in future work that will need to be performed, such as the remedial investigation and feasibility study.

The past actions and future actions planned by the Group have been found insufficient

. In particular

, a need remains for a full remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and potentially long

- term remedial activity (and not solely removal actions) for the Site, and these elements are not currently addressed by the Group’s planned actions. To ensure these actions are undertaken, this S ite has been placed on the NPL to protect the public and

environment from the risk of future Site releases.

Specific reasons that the Group gave for its request to defer NPL listing of the Site are addressed in the following

subsections:

• 3.3.1 County/State Stance on Deferral

• 3.3.2 Delay Cleanup

• 3.3.3 Non

- Superfund Approach to Remediation

3.3.1 County/State Stance on Deferral

Comme nt : The Group stated that it was working with the State and the County and that discussions were ongoing. It specifically stated that it had met with Harris County and the TCEQ to “discuss the progress in securing the Site and to request the County’s and State ’s support for deferring the final listing of the Site on the NPL. The County has agreed to consider this request. The Group’s discussions with TCEQ are on

- going.”

Response : The County and the State continue to support listing the Site on the NPL

.

In a June 24, 2011

, letter from Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas (docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0003 ), to the EPA, the Governor expressed the State’s position prior to the Site’s proposal for NPL listing:

Texas supports the decision that the US Oil Recovery site be considered as a candidate site for the federal National Priorities List (NPL) for cleanup.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality believes that this site is eligible for the proposed NPL listing based on agency evaluation of th e site under the federal Hazard Ranking System.

Since proposal of the Site to the NPL, TCEQ has confirmed its support for listing at proposal on July 13, 2012 (see Attachment 1

, July 13, 2012

, Correspondence from John C. Meyer, Region 6 Risk and Site Asse ssment Section Chief, Superfund Division, EPA, of this support document).US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

12 In August 1, 2012

, and July 25, 2012

, correspondence from Bob Allen, Director of the Harris County Pollution Control Services Department , and Jennifer L. Wheeler, Compliance Manage r for the Harris County Pollution Control Services Department , to the EPA, that agency’s support for listing the Site on the NPL was conveyed 5

.

Also, in correspondence to the EPA 6 in August 2012 , the Office of Harris County Attorney and County Attorney

Vi nce Ryan stated that they “strongly support” NPL listing of the Site, adding that :

[a]ny possibility that the listing could not take place is disconcerting as the proposals from the PRPs [potentially responsible parties] do not address some of our most significant concerns and we feel the NPL status of the site will insure that these issues are not bypassed.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.3.2 Delay Cleanup

Comment : The Group commented that listing the Site will delay cleanup and redevelopment of the Site.

The Group stated that it has been “working diligently with EPA to address conditions at the Site.” The Group pointed out that it had entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA to conduct containment, removal, and stabilization activities at the Site. The Group emphasized that it had made a financial commitment for continued Site control, “including many ac tions beyond those required by the AOC and taken in advance of the time required by the AOC.”

The Group described the industrial nature of the property and stated that “[g]iven its location and nature of the improvements on the Site, the potential for fu ture productive use for industrial purposes should be considered.” The Group explained that it has been contacted by two possible buyers interested in redevelopment, and that one of these buyers may assist in Site removal activities. The Group asserted tha t listing the Site on the NPL would likely “ thwart ongoing discussions regarding the cleanup and future use of the Site,” it would “likely for e close any chance of a timely sale and redevelopment of the Site,” and instead suggested that “these opportunities to affect both the cleanup and the reuse of the Site should be explored.”

The Group stated that “[o]nce a site is listed on the NPL, the formal cleanup, closure and potential redevelopment process can take years to complete.” The Group argued that EPA s hould consider the reuse of the property and “whether the elaborate and formal process associated with listed sites is necessary once the removal actions have been completed.” The Group stated that “listing the site would deter the efficient cleanup and re development of

the Site.”

Response : The Group’s concern that listing would delay cleanup or hinder agreements between the Group and the EPA, agreements among potentially responsible parties, or plans for redevelopment of the property

, is unfounded.

Place ment of the Site on the NPL does not necessar ily lead to delay of planned response actions or associated negotiations. All site investigation work, as well as any remediation undertaken by the Group performed to date and that which is currently proceeding will be considered in other steps of the Superfund remediation process, such as when performing a Superfund risk assessment for the S ite. Then, based on the findings of the risk assessment, a determination of what further remedial actions, if any, are necessary will be made.

The EPA makes decisions during all stages of the Superfund Site response procedure. Potential responsible parties (PRPs) may affect remedy selection, as can any other member of the public, through the public comment

5 See Attachment 2, July 25, 2012

, Correspondence from Jennifer L. Wheeler, Harris County Pollution Control Services Department Compliance Manager , of this support document; and docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0653-0010.

6 See docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND -2011-0653-0009.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

13 process

. PRPs may undertake the RI/FS and/or remedial design/remedial action stages under EPA supervision and pursuant to appropriate agreements with governmental authorities (under enforcement authorities of CERCLA or those of other statutes). The listing process does not encumber or preclude PRPs from entering into these

agreements or from making or implementing plans for redevelopment of the property

. The Agency has entered into many such agreements between proposal and promulgation, and such an alternative is available to the

commenter.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.3.3 Non

- Superfund Approach to Remediation

Comment : The Group made several comments emphasizing its cooperation with the Coun ty, State, and the EPA, noting progress made at the Site, and that the Site can be addressed via currently planned actions instead of through NPL listing.

The Group asserted that it has been working with the EPA

, making significant progress at the S ite, and stated that :

[t]he Group has taken strong action to: (1) ensure the long

- term security and stability of the Site under the control of a Receiver specifically tasked with cleaning up the Site; (2) ensure that off

site releases of materials do not occu r from the Site; (3) develop a sufficiently large Group from the ranks of the former USOR customers to address long

- term assessment and removal of materials on the surface of the Site; (4) obtain approval of work plans to address site security and

stabiliz ation, and the removal of the bioreactor; (5) begin the work necessary to remove the bioreactor; and (6) prepare for the removal of materials in the containment pond, rolloff boxes,

and other units at the Site.

The Group emphasized several of its accompl ishments and proposed future actions:

• Identification of additional PRPs and their addition to the Group.

• Maintaining the court

- directed receivership by securing the Site and preventing further releases.

• Avoiding releases from secondary containment areas and truck bays by pumping down (removing approximately 260,000 gallons from October 2011 to May 2012), and by limiting rainfall infiltration through gutter, roof drain, and berm maintenance/construction.

• Performing inspections at the Site.

• An EPA

- approved work plan in place for conducting bi

- weekly site visits and as

- needed sampling/pump

down.

• An EPA

- approved work plan in place addressing removal of the bioreactor (Source 2). Liquid sampling/characteriza tion/removal from the bioreactor had been completed at the time of the comments, and solids removal was planned.

• Removal/disposal of Site pond water is being evaluated.

• Site containers have been inventoried.

• Containment/cleanup of an isolated spill identified in an inspection has been carried out.

• Planning for roll

- off container removal is in progress.

• Preliminary planning of other cleanup is in progress.

• A contractor to secure laboratory samples/containers has been employed.

• A security fence is being repaired, daily security visits are performed at the Site, and a security camera system is being installed.

• A Site mowing/maintenance program is operating.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

14 The Group contended that deferral of listing the Site on the NPL would encourage these efforts and “provide the

b est opportunity for the prompt cleanup and reuse of the facility” and save the EPA resources. The Group added that “the Group is performing work that must be completed before an assessment can be conducted to determine the extent of any subsurface impact associated with site operations by USOR or prior owners/operators.” The Group asked for deferral at least until the contemplated removal actions can be completed.

In arguing that the EPA should defer listing to avoid alleged delays associated with the Superfund process, the Group stated that the :

EPA has deferred final decisions on listing at other sites in Region 6 in keeping with Headquarters’ policy that listing a site on the NPL is the “choice of last resort.” T he Group’s request f or deferral is consistent with this policy. [citing a 1997 GAO report, Superfund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites, referring to EPA comments on the draft report on page 41]

Response : After consideration of the prior and planned actions by the Group , listing the Site on the NPL is warranted at this time. Listing need not affect ongoing planning and implementation of cleanup measures by the Group or prevent the undertaking of remedial investigations, feasibility studies , and actual remediation in a process other than the traditional Superfund process. The Agency has entered into multiple cleanups under

consent decrees for sites on the NPL.

The removal/cleanup actions performed to date have been considered in making the decision to list the Site on the NPL; the specific e ffects of those actions that have been carried out before and after the Site was proposed to the

NPL are addressed in section 3. 10 , Source Description, of this support document. As explained above in sect ion 3.3, June/ July 2012 Request to Defer Listing, of this support document, t he past actions and future actions planned by the Group have been found insufficient by the EPA; therefore the Site is placed on the NPL to protect the public and environment from the risk of future releases from the Site

.

Regarding planned future actions, these are not taken into account in the HRS scoring of a site, as the HRS site

score is based on current conditions. Part III Section Q of the Preamble to the HRS, Consideratio n of Removal Actions (Current Versus Initial Conditions , 55 FR 51568, December 14,1990 ) , explains th at the “EPA will

evaluate a site based on current conditions provided that response actions actually have removed waste from the site...” As proposed future actions have not removed waste fro m the site , they are not considered in an HRS

evaluation

.

Furthermore, as explained in Section 3.3. 2 , Delay Cleanup, of this support document, PRPs may undertake the RI/FS and/or remedial design/remedial action stages under EPA supervision and pursuant to appropriate agreements with governmental authorities , and the NPL listing process does not encumber or preclude PRPs from entering into these agreements. And, a ll site investigation work, as well as any remediation und ertaken by the Group performed to date and that which is currently proceeding will be considered in other steps of the Superfund remediation process.

Regarding the commenter’s assertion that “the Group is performing work that must be completed before an assessment can be conducted to determine the extent of any subsurface impact associated with site operations by USOR or prior owners/operators, ” this is inaccurate

— there is no reason that actions to contain site sources must be performed before investigating the scope of contamination that has been released

. For example, progress on

both tasks may take place simultaneously, and may be desirable to ensure that prior releases do not continue to spread.

Finally, in response to the comment that Superfund be used only as a “last resort,” EPA places eligible sites on the NPL pursuant to the Agency’s authorities under CERCLA and its associated regulations. As set out in the HRSUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

15 documentation record at proposal and in these responses to comments, the Site in this case is eligible for listing and placing it on the NPL is consistent with EPA’s authorities. Regarding the commenter’s reference to the EPA comments on the 1997 GAO report, Superfund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of Hazardous

Waste Sites

, these were comments on a draft report and not an official statement of law or policy. The comments

referred to were made within the context of an EPA representative’s explanation that the site assessment process is not “merely a hopper for sites bound for the National Priorities List

, ” and the comments go on to stat e that the “EPA currently views the NPL as a choice of last resort when other cleanup options are not practicable or

available

. 7 [emphasis added] ” T he decision to list the Site is consistent with this; that is, after allowing a delay of listing

, the dangers posed by the Site are still not being addressed by activities currently carried out and planned by the Group, and therefore NPL listing of the Site is warranted to protect the public and enviro nment. (See section 3.3, June/ July 2012 Request to Defer Listing

, of this support document.)

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3.4 Late Comments and Correspondence

Comment : On July 23, 2012, the Group submitted a comment document (docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0011 ) as a supplement to its November 15, 2011

, letter to EPA. The Group submitted these comments to “advise the agency of new information which has become available since the close of the comment period and recent developments that justify the continued deferral of final action on the proposed listing.” The Group noted that the EPA will not make a final decision on whether to list the Site on the NPL until September 201 2, and therefore “the agency’s timely consideration of these supplemental comments and the Group’s request for continued deferral of the listing will not prejudice EPA or slow ongoing response actions being undertaken at the

Site.” The Group s ent a corresp ondence to Pam Phillips, Acting Director, Superfund Division, EPA Region 6

, on August 16, 2012

, updating the status of the Group’s ongoing effort , demonstrating its commitment to perform an RI if all responsible parties are included, and asking the EPA to consider further initiatives.

Additional late comments were received on August 27, 2012

, from Ms. Eva Engelhart (Receiver over the property of the U.S. Oil Recovery, L.P., MCC Recycling, L.L.P., and U.S. Oil Recovery, LLP) that requested the listing be

d eferred due to the progress of the removal actions at the Site, and the perce i ved stigma of placing the Site on the

NPL.

Response : Consistent with CERCLA, the Agency has in place an orderly procedure for identifying sites where releases of substances addressed under CERCLA have occurred or may occur, placing such sites on the NPL, evaluating the nature and extent of the threats at such sites, responding to those threats, and deleting sites from the

NPL. This process encourages and relies on the participati on of the public, including potentially responsible parties. The opportunity for public comment occurs during the 60

- day period that typically follows a site's proposal (which closed November 15, 2011 for the US Oil Recovery site). EPA does not formally ex tend this period. As stated in 53 FR 23990, June 24, 1988, while the Agency endeavors to consider late comments, it is not required to do so, and as a matter of policy does not allow late comments to delay a listing decision. However, as noted in the proposal, EPA responds to late comments to the extent practicable (53 FR 23990, June 24, 1988). In this specific case, the Agency has in fact consider ed all late comments because of the written courtesy not to proceed with listing in March 2012 so that the Group could pursue an alternative approach to address the S ite. The Agency has also reviewed the correspondence dated August 16 , 2012, from the Group b ut identified no reason to revise the decision to list the Site, as explained in the correspondence from Pam ela Phillips , Acting

Director

, Superfund Division

, EPA Region 6

, to the Group dated August 21, 2012 ( see Attachment 4

, August 21,

2012

, Corresponden ce from Pamela Phillips, Acting Director, Superfund Division, EPA , of this support

document ). Additionally, the late comments dated August 27, 2012, from Ms. Engelhart, have been addressed in

7 See pages 41

- 42 of Attachment 3, Excerpt of 1997 GAO report, Superfund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites , of this support document.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

16 sections 3.3.2, Delay Cleanup, 3.5, Consideration of Removal Act ions

, and 3.6, Economic Impacts/Stigma of NPL Listing

, of this support document.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3.5 Consideration of Removal Action

Comment : The Group asserted that, given the actions performed at the Site since proposal to the NPL, the EPA should either defer listing, or rescore the Site based on these actions and the resulting changes to the Site.

In its November 15, 2011

, letter (docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0008 ), the Group argued that the EPA should defer NPL listing because “conditions at the Site have markedly changed since the time the Site was scored for listing.” The Group noted that the Site is no longer abandoned, and that a settlement agreement had been reached with EPA to perform containment, removal, and stabilization actions. The Group noted that

• Maintenance of containment and/or pumping will be performed as needed.

• Collection/containment/disposal of excess rainwater has been carried out.

• Drain and gutter repair has been implemented to avoid future rain water exposure to the truck bays.

• Consistent with an agreement with the EPA, the Group will monitor and act to maintain stabilization at

the Site.

In its July 23, 2012

, letter (docket ID EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0653

- 0011 ), the Group asserted that “The Group's actions continue to reduce the risk of a release from the Site and to impact how the Site would score today if it were rescored based on the changed conditions.”

Respo n se : The response actions taken to date by the Group have been co n sidered in deciding to list this Site , but the risks posed to the public and the environment by the past, and potentiall y future release s at the S ite were not
addressed. These actions neither remove d all the hazardous substances from the sources that were evaluated, nor

d id they eliminate the risk posed by the release of those hazardous substances to the surface water pathway prior

to the actions.

The Agency generally considers removal actio ns during the scoring process when it “ has documentation that clearly demonstrates there is no remaining release or potential for a release that could cause adverse environmental or human health impacts. ” 8 This approach is reasonable as it insures that the risk posed by released hazardous substances not abated by the removal action can be properly evaluated by the EPA. As described below, the Group has not claimed that releases to the surface water pathway have been addressed. Comments regarding actions to contain, maintain, or remove source materials also do not claim that any specific source has been completely removed; and, as further discussed in section 3. 10 , Source Description, of this support document and its subsections, none of the sources identifie d in the HRS documentation record at proposal have been completely contained according to the HRS. Therefore

, risk to the public and environment still exist s based on previous releases and the potential for future releases from the sources at the Site

. Accordingly, based on the fac tspecific circumstances in this rulemaking, EPA believes that, consistent with its policy quoted above, it is not appropriate to consider the Group’s actions in the scoring of the US Oil Recovery site

.

Section 3. 10 , Source D escription s , of this supp ort document and its subsections discuss the effects of the actions performed at the Site since proposal to the NPL on HRS scoring; none of these effects change the S ite score as calculated in the HRS documentation record at propos al.

8 This position is consistent with OSWER Directive #9345.1

- 25, April 4, 1997, titled “Revision to OSWER NPL Policy ‘The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Evaluating Sites After Waste Removals’ Publication No. 9345.1

- 03FS, October 1991.”US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

17 Regarding the commenter’s request to re

- propose the Site based on an HRS documentation record updated to reflect recent actions, there is no reason to re

- propose since it has been shown in this and other sections of this support document that the HRS evaluation at proposal would not be significantly changed by the removal/response actions to date.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3.6 Economic Impacts/Stigma of NPL Listing

Comment : The Group submitted several comments asserting that listing the Site on the NPL will cause adverse economic impacts, and specifically claimed that listing may delay the productive reuse of the property.

The Group noted the industrial nature of t he property and stated that “the potential for future productive use for industrial purposes should be considered.” The Group explained that it has been contacted by two possible buyers interested in redevelopment, and that listing the Site on the NPL woul d likely “ thwart ongoing discussions regarding the cleanup and future use of the Site,” and would “likely foreclose any chance of a timely sale and redevelopment of the Site,” and instead suggested that “these opportunities to affect both the cleanup and t he reuse of the Site should be explored.”

The Group further stated that “[o]nce a site is listed on the NPL, the formal cleanup, closure and potential redevelopment process can take years to complete.” The Group argued that EPA should consider the reuse of the property and that listing the S ite would delay such productive redevelopment of the Site. The Group stated that :

[g]iven the significant economic consequences and stigma to the Site, the community and others attached to an NPL listing, EPA should take the time to base a listing decision on the current conditions at the Site, and on an accurate, updated assessment of the Site's potential for release. By taking this approach, EPA gives up nothing, but the Site's chances of being timely redeveloped and returned to productive use are greatly increased.

Response : The negative economic impacts and stigma hypothesized by the commenters are not factors considered when placing a site on the NPL and were specifically not identified as factors to consider by Congress as stated in

CER CLA section 105a(8)(A).

Contrary to the Group’s assertions, stigma should not be blamed on the NPL process; rather, listing may result in positive economic impacts when the site contamination has been addressed. While NPL listing certainly provides additional public information on the site contamination, it also provides opportunity for residents, business owners and potential investors to gain detailed knowledge and express their concerns and ideas for final solutions

in t he public forums offered during other phases of the Superfund process. Costs may be imposed on the PRPs

based on remedial actions needed to address a site. However, that does not mitigate against placing eligible sites on the NPL, and is not a factor specified by CERCLA to be considered in the decision to list a site on the NPL [see CERCLA § 105(a)(8)(A)].

Both costs and benefits can be associated with listing a site on the NPL. Among the benefits associated with NPL listing are increased health and environmental protection as a result of increased public awareness of potential hazards. Listing sites as national priority targets also may give States increased support for funding responses at particular sites. As a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human exposure to high

- risk chemicals and higher quality surface water, ground water, soil and air. Therefore, it is possible that any perceived or actual negative fluctuations in property values or development opportunities that may re sult from contamination may be countered by positive changes when a CERCLA investigation and any necessary cleanup are completed

.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

18 This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3.7 Score Ot her Pathway s

Comment : The Harris County PCS commented that “in addition to evaluating the surface water pathway, PCS contends that there is considerable existing evidence to warrant an air pathway evaluation.” The Harris County

PCS offered to provide evide nce of releases to air, noting that:

• December 2007 TCEQ off

- site air sampling found benzene, toluene, and xylene in concentrations exceeding TCEQ effects screening levels.

• October 2009 City of Houston Bureau of Air Quality Control off

- site air sampling fo und benzene and 1,2

- dichloroethane in concentrations exceeding TCEQ effects screening levels.

• There have been 20 nuisance odor complaints filed and 9 nuisance odor violations issued since 2005.

The Group asserted that “focusing on the single pathway of surface runoff is inappropriate. Before proceeding with listing, EPA should undertake a much more thorough evaluation to accurately characterize conditions at the

Site.”

Response : While the threat to human health via air migration of releases from the S it e might be posed by the Site, the evaluation of the surface water threat was sufficient to qualify the Site for the NPL. That the air migration pathway was not evaluated does not mean

, however, that it will not be evaluated during further evaluation of the

S ite. Similarly, regarding the Group’s general statement that focusing on one pathway for the purpose of NPL listing is insufficient, this is incorrect . O ther pathways will be investigated as appropriate following listing.

The HRS does not require scoring pathways if scoring those pathways does not change the listing decision. For some sites, data for scoring a pathway are unavailable, and obtaining these data would be time

- consuming or costly. In other cases, data for scoring some pathways are available, but will only have a minimal effect on the site score. In still other cases, data on other pathways could substantially add to a site score, but would not affect the listing decision. The HRS is a screening model that uses limited resources to determine whether a site should be placed on the NPL for possible Superfund response. As a matter of policy, the EPA does not delay listing a site to incorporate new data or score new pathways if the listing decision is not affected.

The EPA would like to investigate each possible site completely and thoroughly prior to evaluating sites for proposal on the NPL, but it must reconcile the need for certainty before action with the need for inexpensive, expeditious procedures to identify p otentially hazardous sites. For this reason, the EPA generally will not score additional pathways upon receiving new data as long as the site still meets the HRS cutoff score. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process, the RI, characterizes conditions and hazards at the site more comprehensively. However, any additional data the Agency gathers to characterize site conditions could provide useful information during the RI.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3.8 Non

- Scoring HRS Documentation Record Clarifications

Comment : The Harris County PCS commented that there were “instances of omissions or corrections that should be addressed to appropriately reflect PCS’ regulatory activities leading up to” listing the Site on the NPL. The Harris County PCS stated the following:US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

19 • Page 10, last paragraph. Prior to March 14, 2009, HCPHES conducted the following investigations at US Oil Recovery, L.P., please insert:

a. “HCPHES investigated a complaint and found that the USOR facility was operating without TCEQ air authorization in violation of 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.1 1 0 (a), a

Violation Notice was issued on 3 -2- 05 and copied to the TCEQ Region 12 office.”

b. “HCPHE S documented a contaminated discharge of industrial wastewater from the USOR facility on 12

- 21

- 05. The subsequent Violation Notice was sent to the Harris County District Attorney's Office for criminal charges. The TCEQ was notified of this

event.”

c. “HCPHES submitted comments on 2

- 23

- 07 requesting that the TCEQ deny the US Oil Recovery, LP Type V GG municipal solid waste facility permits application. The permit

was later denied.”

d. “HCPHES investigated USOR on 8

- 17

- 07 and cited 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 335.1 (1) and Tex. Water Code § 26.121 for contaminated runoff from the site. A Violation Notice

was issued on 8

- 29

- 07.”

• Page 11, first paragraph, first sentence should read “HCPHES and TCEQ investigators

discovered. . . .”

• Page 11, first paragraph, last sentence should be replaced with: “The civil court action was forwarded to the Harris County Attorney's Office by HCPHES and four Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) were sought by Harris County and awarded by the court. The TCEQ was a necessary and indispensa ble party to the lawsuits. The Temporary injunction (TI) was filed on 6 -8- 09, Contempt of the TI was filed on 10

- 12

- 09 with a contempt trial on

10

- 12

- 09 which was halted because the defendant filed for bankruptcy overnight and refused to show up for the he aring. A second TI was granted by the Harris County Court. . . .”

• Page 11, third paragraph, first sentence should include “After being notified by HCPHES, the

U.S. Coast Guard. . . .”

• Page 13, second paragraph, second sentence should read, “Also during t his time, HCPHES investigators and an investigator with the TCEQ . . .”

• Page 13, second paragraph, after the first sentence added: “A large discharge to Vince Bayou

occurred on 1

- 11

- 10 from the USOR site and was investigated by HCPHES. A Violation

Notice was issued for Tex. Water Code § 26.121 and 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 335.4 for wastewater discharging offsite.”

The commenter also noted that the Harris County Public Health Environmental Services Department’s pollution control regulatory functions are now in a different department called PCS.

Response : The County’s clarifications to the HRS documentation record at proposal are part of the docket for the Site and more accurately reflect the situation at the S ite. However, as these clarifications do not impact the HRS score or decision to list the Site on the NPL, the HRS documentation record has not been revised to reflect them.

These clarifications will be considered in future actions

.



### 3.9 Likelihood of Release

Comment : The Group challenged the establishment of an observed release by chemical analysis. It challenged both the establishment of background levels used to establish a significant increase and the attribution of the

increase i n hazardous substance concentrations to a release from the S ite

.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

20 Response : The observed releases by chemical analysis were established consistent with the HRS. The background levels are representative of the hazardous substance levels if not for the release from the S ite

, and the significa nt increase in the hazardous substance levels is at least in part due to the release f r om the S ite.

3.9.1 Significant Increase

Comment : The Group commented that the background was established using a single background sample and questioned if it was sufficient to reflect the background conditions of the Vince Bayou. The Group asserted that:

The single background sample collected by EPA is inadequate to characterize the contributions of other sources and isolate the contribution of substances, if any, from the Site.

Response : Sufficient samples were collected, when combined with other information, to establish a background level to establish a significant increase in hazardous substance concentrations. In its comments regarding the number of backgrou nd samples, the Group appears to have confused the purpose of a background sample in establishing an observed release by chemical analysis, assuming the purpose of the background samples is to show the increase in contaminant levels is not due to other sources (i.e., establish attribution). One purpose of establishing a background level is to establish a significant increase in contaminant concentrations between the background levels and that in release samples. Background samples can also be used to establ ish attribution, a separate step in the process.

HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release

, contains the directions used to establish an observed release :

Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the site has

rel eased a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. Base this demonstration on

either:

• Direct observation:

....

• Chemical analysis:

- Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3).

- Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background

concentrations

– for example, compare surface water samples to surface

wa ter background concentrations.

- For benthic samples, limit comparisons to essentially sessile organisms.

- Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to establish the observed release, except: when the site itself consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source, no separate attribution is required. If an observed release can be established for a watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 550 to that watershed, enter this value in Table 4

- 1, and proceed to section 4.1.2.1.3.

HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of r elease , states, in part:

Establish an observed release either by direct observation of the release of a hazardous substance into the media being evaluated (for example, surface water) or by chemical analysis of samples appropriate to the pathway being evaluated (see sections 3, 4, and 6). The minimum standard to establish an observed release by chemical analysis is analytical evidence of a hazardous substance in the media significantly above the backgro und level. Further, some portion of theUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

21 release must be attributable to the site. Use the criteria in Table 2– 3 as the standard for determining analytical significance.

HRS Table 2

- 3 states that, if a sample measurement is greater than or equal to the SQL, an observed release is

established:

• If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit.

• If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement is 3 times or more above the background

concentration.

Pages 74 to 79 of the HRS documentation record at proposal contain the rational e for establishing a background level and a significant increase in hazardous substance concentrations in surface water at the Site. Pages 74

- 83 of the HRS documentation record establish an observed release in several samples

— that these sample concentrations

me et arithmetic significant increase criteria was not challenged by the commenter.

Pages 75

- 79 of the HRS documentation record at proposal discuss the background samples used in establishing an observed release by chemical analysis for the Site. Page 75 sta te s:

Background surface water and sediment samples were collected from the locations described below to investigate whether a release from the site could be established (Ref. 44, p. 4).

• Vince Bayou

- A background surface water and sediment sample was collected from Vince Bayou (BG

- 02) immediately upgradient of the property at 200 N. Richey Street (Attachment A, Figure A

- 5; Ref. 28, p. 70). The background surface water and sediment sample collected from Vince Bayou will be compared to site

- related surface water and samples collected from Vince Bayou.

• Little Vince Bayou

– A background surface water and sediment sample was collected within Little Vince Bayou (BG

- 01) immediately upgradient of its confluence with Vince Bayou ((Attachment A, Figure A

- 5; Ref. 28, p. 72). The background surface water and sediment sample collected from Little Vince Bayou will be compared to site

- related surface water and sediment samples collected from Vince Bayou downstream of the Little Vince Bayou and Vince Bayou confluence.

The role of these two background samples (two of them

— not one as the commenter asserted) is to represent

contaminant concentrations in the area of the Site were the effects of the s ite releases not present. These background samples do this by capturing any contamination from off

- site sources that may impact the area of the Site, and therefore serve in identifying a significant increase in hazardous substances in the observed release,

consistent with the HRS.

T he background samples used in the HRS evaluati on reflect the industrialized nature of the area. As shown on Figure A

- 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal (see also Figure 1 of this support document), these background samples are located just upstream of the Site

— one background sample location in Vince Bayou and one background sample location in Little Vince Bayou. Therefore, the hazardous substance levels in these samples reflect the contribution of any upstream releases. As stated in the HRS documentation record, this area of the Bayou is not in a tidal carry area, so in normal conditions downgradient sources would not be contributing significantly to hazardous substances levels.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

22 A lso, as shown in the tables on pages 76

- 80 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, these background samples do contain detectable levels of many metals and semi

- volatile organic compounds (SVOCs)

, which could be coming from any upstream or downstream sources

. Therefore

, the background levels do reflect the influence of

off

- site sources

, but the significant incr ease required to establish an observed release by chemical analysis is

above these levels.

See section 3. 9.2, Likelihood of Release

– Attribution , of this support document addressing this comment as it

affects attribution.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.9.2 Likelihood of Release – Attribution

Comment : The Group claimed that evidence contained in the HRS documentation record “is insufficient to

establish attribution of the substances in the Bayou to sources at the Site.”

The Group asserted that the Vince Bayou flows through “one of the most heavily industrialized areas on the Gulf Coast,” and that there are many potential sources currently and historically upstream of the Site. The Group contended that “[w]ith regard to the Site’s scoring, EPA did not follow the Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) rule or guidance” (referring to the draft HRS Guidance Manual, Interim Final, November 1992 [HRS Guidance Manual]). The Group stated t hat :

[t]he HRS Guidance makes clear that in a heavily

- industrialized area with numerous potential sources of contamination, a pattern of distribution that points to the source in question as the origin of the purported contamination, or equivalent proof, is required to establish “attribution.”

The Group referred to page 59 of the HRS Guidance Manual and quoted the following text:

• The data required to attribute a portion of the significant increase in the concentration of the hazardous substance to the site generally depend on whether or not the site being evaluated is located in an area where other sources may have contributed to the significant increase.

• When other sources are present in the vicinity of the site being evaluated and may have contribute d to the significant increase (e.g., in highly industrialized areas), it generally is necessary to obtain sufficient samples between the site being evaluated and other known potential sources (or between the site and adjacent sites) in order to demonstrate an increase in concentration attributable to the site. Additional information may be required if other sites are known to release substances intermittently, such that "pulses" of hazardous substances are

created in environmental media. . . .

The Group ar gued that the “EPA failed to conduct the proper testing necessary to establish attribution.” The Group further claimed that “the single background sample collected by EPA is inadequate to characterize the contributions of other sources and isolate the contribution of substances, if any

, from the Site.”

Response : The significant increase of hazardous substances to the surface water migration pathway was appropriately attributed to the S ite at least in part, as required by the HRS. That some hazardous substances at the observed release locations theoretically may have come from other sites does not negate this finding. Furthermore, although the HRS Guidance Manual imposes no mandatory requirements on the EPA, attribution ofUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

23 the observed release to the Site in the HRS documentation record at proposal was consistent with the suggestions provided in the HRS Guidance Manual. These topics are explained in the following subsections:

• HRS Requirements for Attributing a Release to a Site

• HRS Documentation Record Esta blishment of Attribution

• Evidence of Hazardous Substance Migration from the Site and Association with Observed Release

• Conclusion

HRS Requirements for Attributing a Release to a Site

T he HRS does not contain specific instruction regarding the methodology for establishing attribution for an observed release by chemical analysis

. On the subject of attribution for all HRS pathways, however, HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release , states in relevant part:

Establish an observed release either by direct observation of the release of a hazardous substance into the media being evaluated (for example, surface water) or by chemical analysis of samples appropriate to the pathway being evaluated (see sections 3, 4, and 6). The minimum standard to establish an observed release by chemical analysis is analytical evidence of a hazardous substance in the media significantly above the background level. Further, some portion of the release must

be attributable to the site . Use the criteria in table 2

– 3 as the standard for d etermining analytical significance. [emphasis added]

HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release , contains specific instructions for identifying an observed release to surface water. It directs the scorer to establish an observed release to surface water by demonstrating that the site has released a hazardous substance to surface water, based on either direct observation or chemical analysis. Regarding attribution, this section states in part :

Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to establish the observed

release. . . . [emphasis added]

However, it is appropriate and consistent with the HRS requirements at this site to establish attribution by first documenting that haz ardous substances are present at the Site by showing that the contaminants are associated with a site source, and second, by documenting that at least some of the increase in hazardous substance levels

came from the Site.

HRS Documentation Record Establis hment of Attribution

The HRS documentation record at proposal provided sufficient evidence of the migration of hazardous substances

from the S ite sources to the surface water. Page 84 of the HRS documentation record at proposal state s:

Sources containing hazardous substances and releases of hazardous substances from these sources have been documented at this site, as discussed in Section 2.2 Source Characterization of this HRS documentation record and Section 4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release of the HRS. Samples collected from overland drainage routes document hazardous substance migration from site sources to the surface water pathway (Ref. 29, p. 14). The following soil samples are included to support migration of site

- related contamination along the overland flow segments from the sources to the probable points of entry to Vince Bayou.

Pages 84

- 85 of the HRS documentation record at proposal present a table describing these soil samples showing migration:US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

24 Station

Location

(CLP Sample No.) Sampling Location Sam ple Date (Military Time) Reference

EPA Supplemental Sampling Event

– March 2011

SS -01 (MF3SD8) North of the 400 N. Richey Street property between the property boundary

and PPE

- 01 into Vince Bayou 03/01/2011 (1022) Ref. 28, p. 68; Ref. 40, p. 24; Attachment A, Figure A -5

SS -02 (MF3SD7) North of the 400 N. Richey Street property between the property boundary

and PPE

- 01 into Vince Bayou 03/01/2011 (1012) Ref. 28, p. 68; Ref. 40, p. 24; Attachment A, Figure A -5

SS -03 (MF3SD5) Northeast corner of the 400 N. Richey Street property between the property boundary and PPE

- 02 into Vince Bayou 03/01/2011 (0948) Ref. 28, p. 68; Ref. 40, p. 23; Attachment A, Figure A -5

SS

- 03

field duplicate (MF3SD6) Northeast corner of the 400 N. Richey Street property between the property boundary and PPE

- 02 into Vince Bayou 03/01/2011 (0955) Ref. 28, p. 68; Ref. 40, p. 23; Attachment A, Figure A -5

SS -04 (MF3SD4) East side of the 400 N. Richey Street property between property boundary and

PPE

- 03 into Vince Bayou 03/01/2011 (0925) Ref. 28, p. 68; Ref. 40, p. 23; Attachment A, Figure A -5

SS -05 (MF3SD3) Southeast side of the 400 N. Richey Street property between the property boundary and PPE

- 04 into Vince Bayou 03/01/2011 (0902) Ref. 28, p. 68; Ref. 40, p. 23; Attachment A, Figure A -5

SS -06 (MF3SD1) East side of western portion of 200 N. Richey Street property between the property boundary and PPE

- 06 into Vince Bayou 03/01/2011 (0833) Ref. 28, p. 68; Ref. 40, p. 23 ; Attachment A, Figure A -5

SS -07 (MF3SD2) West side of eastern portion of 200 N. Richey Street property between the property boundary and PPE

- 05 into Vince Bayou 03/01/2011 (0846) Ref. 28, p. 68; Ref. 40, p. 23; Attachment A, Figure A -5

Figure A

- 5 of the HRS documentation record cited in the table above shows the location of each sample, and its proximity to the probable points of entry (PPEs) and proximity to the observed release samples in Vince Bayou

identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Figures A

- 2A and A

- 2B of the HRS documentation record at proposal show that these samples are located along the overland drainage routes at the Site, where

hazardous substances in S ite sources could make their way to Vince Bayou (see a lso Figures 1

- 3 of this support document)

.

Page 85 of the HRS documentation record at proposal state s:

Analytical results from soil samples collected from overland flow pathways are included to support migration of site

- related contamination at observed release concentrations along the overland flow segment from site source to the PPEs only. The analytical results from these samples were not used to score the site, but to support attribution.

Page 85 of the HRS documentation record at proposal then provi de s the following table of hazardous substances

found in these tables

— showing many of the same contaminants found in s ite sources and samples used to establish an observed release by chemical analysis.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

25 Station Location (CLP Sample No.) Hazardous

Substance Concentration 2

mg/kg Adjusted CRQL 1

mg/kg Reference

EPA Supplemental Sampling Event

– March 2011

SS

- 02 (MF3SD7) Arsenic 11.9 J 1.3 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 15, 24, 48

SS

- 03 field duplicate (MF3SD6) Arsenic 464 J 13 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 46

Cobalt 57.7 13 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 46

Manganese 3,600 J 13 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 46

Mercury 0.16 0.13 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 45

Nickel 30.9 J 13 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 46

Vanadium 65.9 J 65 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 46

SS -03 (MF3SD5) Arsenic 205 J 3.3 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 44

Cobalt 19.1 J 3.3 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 44

Manganese 1,170 J 3.3 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 44

Mercury 0.15 0.13 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 43

SS -04 (MF3SD4) Antimony 1.8 J 1.7 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 42

Arsenic 10.5 J 0.83 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 14, 23, 42

SS

- 06 (MF3SD1) Mercury 0.59 0.12 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 13, 23, 35

SS

- 07 (MF3SD2) Mercury 0.66 0.12 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 13, 23, 37

Silver 5.1 0.61 Ref. 40, pp. 8, 13, 23, 38

Notes:

1 T

he Adjusted Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL) terminology used by the CLP Laboratory is detection limits which have been adjusted for sample aliquot, sample volume, and dilutions for the analysis and meet the HRS definition of SQL (Ref. 1, Sectio n 1.1, Table 2 -3; Ref. 24, p. 3; Ref. 26).

2 The qualification did not indicate bias and did not require use of an adjustment factor (Ref. 40, p. 11; Ref. 21)

J Result is estimated because of outlying quality control parameters or the result is below the CRQL (Ref 40, p. 11).

Pages 85

- 86 of the HRS documentation record at proposal state:

Results of attribution soil samples revealed detects of several metals as shown above. Of the metals detected above in attribution soil samples, arsenic, mercury, silver , cobalt, manganese, and vanadium were also detected within Vince Bayou at concentrations meeting observed release criteria (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 3). Due to historical operations at the site (operations that have demonstrated to cause arsenic, barium, cobalt, m anganese, mercury, silver, and vanadium contamination as shown through sampling results of sources) combined with the overall lack of containment of the sources at the site and the fact that sediment samples of overland flow pathways meeting observed release criteria are present which support arsenic, cobalt, manganese, mercury, silver, and vanadium contamination migration from sources at the site into the surface water pathway, the arsenic, cobalt, manganese, mercury, silver, and vanadium contamination in sediments at the site can be attributed (wholly or, at least, in part) to the USOR site

.

Thus, there is evidence along the overland flow migration path from the sources to the observed release points in Vince Bayou showing that hazardous substances from the Site have migrated to the surface water, supporting the

attribution of the hazardous substances in the observed release to the Site.

In addition, pages 70

- 74 of the HRS documentation record at proposal establish three observed releases by direct

observ ation to the Vince Bayou in October 2009, January 2010, and July 2010 (two from the MCC property portion of the S ite and one from the US Oil Recovery property portion of the S ite ). Samples of the wastesUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

26 involved in these releases showed the presence of many of the same hazardous substances as those found in observed release by chemical analysis samples collected later in the March 2011 investigation. Shared hazardous substances included carbon disulfide, bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate, 2

- methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, arsenic, barium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, silver, vanadium (see HRS documentation record at proposal pages 70

- 74 for observed release by direct observation hazardous substances and pages 82

- 83 for observed release by chemical analysis haz ardous substances ).

E vidence of Hazardous Substance Migration from the Site and Association with Observed Release

Given the HRS requirements and the information in the HRS documentation record at proposal, the commenter ’ s assertion that attribution was n ot established is incorrect. The discussion supporting this statement is presented in the following headings :

o Association of Hazardous Substances in Release Samples with Sources

o Screening of Other Possible Off

- Site Sources

o Magnitude of Significant Increase and Proximity to Site

o Presence of Observed Releases by Direct Observation

Association of Hazardous Substances in Release Samples with Sources

Hazardous substances in the observed release samples were correctly associated with the sources in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Pages 21, 26, 29, 34, 44, 49, 56, and 61 of the HRS documentation record at proposal summarize the hazardous substances associated with each source ; the hazardous substances are also summarized in the following table that is reproduced from page 88 of the HRS documentation record at proposal:

Hazardous

Substance Source

Number Toxicity

Factor

Value Persistence

Factor Value 1 Bioaccumulation

Value Fresh 2 Bioaccumulation

Value Salt 2 Toxicity/

Persistence/

Bioaccumulation

Factor Value Reference

Arsenic 3,4,7,OR 10,000 1 5 500 5 x 10 6 Ref. 2, p.1

Bis(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate 2,4,6,OR 100 1 50,000 500 5 x 10 6 Ref. 2, p. 2

Cobalt 1,4,5,6,8,

OR 10 1 5,000 5,000 5 x 10 4 Ref. 2, p. 3

Lead 3,4,5,6,

OR 10,000 1 5 5,000 5 x 10 7 Ref. 2, p. 8

Manganese 1,2,4,5,6, 7,8,

OR 10,000 1 50,000 50,000 5 x 10 8 Ref. 2, p. 8

Mercury 3,6,OR 10,000 1 50,000 50,000 5 x 10 8 Ref. 2, p. 8

2

- Methyl

naphthalene 1,2,4,5,6, 8, OR 0 0.4000 50,000 50,000 0 Ref. 2, p. 9

Naphthalene 1,2,3,4,5, 6,8,

OR 1,000 0.4000 50,000 5,000 2 x 10 7 Ref. 2, p. 9

Silver 3,4,OR 100 1 50 50,000 5 x 10 6 Ref. 2, p. 10

Vanadium 3,4,5,6, 7,OR 100 1 500 500 5 x 10 4 Ref. 2, p. 11

The Group did not question the association of these hazardous substances with each source, therefore these hazardous substances were correctly considered available to migrate from these sources. In addition, section 3.10, Source Descriptions , of this suppo rt document, show that the s ite sources remain uncontained and show evidenceUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

27 of migration from the facility

, providing further evidence that these hazardous substances are available to the surface water pathway.

Screening of Other Possible Off

- Site Source s

As summarized above

, the HRS documentation record at proposal provided rationales for why the significant

increase was not due to releases from off

- site sources. First, the background sample locations are such that any contamination contribution from up gradient sources on either the Vince Bayou or Little Vince Bayou would be reflected in the hazardous substance concentrations in these samples. Therefore, given that there is a significant increase above those levels and the Site is the only known source between the background sample locations and the observed release sample locations ( s ee Figure 1 of this support document), the increase in the hazardous substance concentrations above any contributions from upstream source is correctly attributed to the S it e.

Second, regarding downstream sources being transported upstream, page 86 of the HRS documentation record at proposal explains:

Although the surface water pathway includes water bodies which are tidally influenced there is no

documentation to that there is tidal carry from other possible downgradient sources (Ref. 51, p. 1). The site is located approximately 18 stream miles from the coast and therefore only minimal elevation changes due to tidal influence are expected to occur (Ref. 3, pp. 1

- 3).

In addition, off

- site sources on the Vince Bayou were evaluated for possible contributions of the release

substances , a s also presented on page 86 of the HRS documentation record at proposal:

A search of the Toxic Release Inventory and EPA EnviroMapper databases were performed within the zip code of the site location. The facilities identified upgradient along Vince Bayou included: Macdermid, a facility that contains glycol ethers, diethanolamine and ethylene glycol; JE Merit Constructors, Inc. and inactive paper facility; Corrosion Fighters an inactive facility with no compliance history; Houston Tape and Label an inactive facility which produced labels; Naylor Industrial Services an inactive general freight trucking company; and Exxon Company an inactive pe troleum facility. No nearby facilities along the surface water pathway have shown a release of arsenic, cobalt, manganese, mercury, silver, and vanadium (Ref. 50; Ref. 53, pp.1

- 6).

Thus, the HRS documentation record at proposal explain s that the possibili ties of off

- site source contributions from both upstream and downstream off

- site sources were considered in the HRS evaluation . Upstream sources were screened for by the background sample locations and, of those off

- site facilities found downstream of the Site on the Vince Bayou, none was specifically associated with a known release of several of the metals found in sources at the Site and in observed release samples (arsenic, cobalt, manganese, mercury, silver, and vanadium).

Additionally, the background samples used to set observed release criteria for establishing observed releases to surface water and sediment reflect the industrialized nature of the area. As shown on Figure A

- 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal (see also Figure 1 of this sup port document) , these background samples are located just upstream of the Site

— one background sample location was in Vince Bayou and one background sample location was in Little Vince Bayou. And as shown in the tables on pages 76

- 80 of the HRS documentatio n record at proposal, these background samples do contain detectable levels of many metals and semi

- volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). The background samples therefore screen out the effects of off

- site contaminants prevalent in the industrial area where the Site is located.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

28 Magnitude of Significant Increase and Proximity to Site

Furthermore, the observed release sample concentrations were not simply at the minimum increase criteria (the

HRS Table 2

- 3 criteria as discussed in section 3.9.1

, Significant I ncrease , of this support document) for establishing an observed release. Several of the hazardous substance concentrations in the observed release samples located in close proximity to US Oil/MCC facilities exceed these requirements. For example, the

follo wing sediment sample concentrations are greater than 10 times the detected background concentration (or greater than 10 times the sample quantitation limit if the relevant analyte was not detected in the background).

Sediment Sample

Location (ID) Hazardous Substance Concentration* mg/kg Relevant Background

Concentration* mg/kg

SW

- 02 (MF3SG4) Mercury 0.92 0.076

SW

- 04 (MF3SH6) Mercury 1.8 0.076

PPE

- 03 (PPE

- 03

- 03

- 51) Bis(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate 7.45 0.694

SW

- 08 (MF3SJ0) Mercury 0.81 0.076

SW

- 08 Silver 7.9 0.70 * See background results and observed release results on pages 77

- 80 and 82

- 83, respectively of the HRS documentation record at proposal.

Therefore, not only have the background samples in Vince Bayou and Little Vince Bayou indeed shown that there may be industrial contamination throughout the area; but the observed release samples, by meeting and sometimes far exceeding the HRS requirements to establish an observed release, have demonstrated that there is a significant increase in the immediate vicinity of the Site.

Presence of Observed Releases by Direct Observation

In addition to chemical analysis, the HRS documentation record identifies observed releases in the Vince Bayou by direct observation. At least one of these observed releases by direct observation documents that the S ite contributed to mercury and manganese levels in the Vince Bayou. Page 73 of the HRS documentation record at

p roposal establishes that an investigator with the TCEQ Water Quality Pretreatment Program observed a n unpermitted discharge into the Vince Bayou that contained both mercury and manganese

, among other hazardous

substances.

In January 2010, an investigator with the TCEQ Water Quality Pretreatment Program observed unpermitted discharges into Vince Bayou from the USOR property (Ref. 6, p. 18). A violation was issued due to failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of wastewater into the waters of

the State . Wastewater was discharging from the old chlorine contact tank to Vince Bayou from two unpermitted outfalls. Two separate discharges were observed from the two outfall pipes located downstream of an old chlorine contact chamber. The two old outfall pipes are adjacent to each other; both pipes are located at the east plant of the MCC property and both pipes discharge to Vince Bayou (Ref. 6, p. 18; Ref. 12, p. 25; Ref. 54). The wastewater discharging into the bayou was sampled on 8 January 2010 (labeled Disc harge to Bayou) and 13 January 2010 (44028

- 01

and

- 02) (Ref. 12, p. 21). Analytical results indicated that acetone, arsenic, manganese, mercury and zinc was present in the discharge as shown in the table below (Ref. 6, pp. 18, 664

- 665; Ref. 12, pp. 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35

- 37, 49, 53, 54, 64

- 68). [emphasis added]

This finding, by itself, is sufficient to show that the significant increase in the concentrations of mercury and manganese can be attributed in part to a release from the S ite. Therefore, the mercury in the release samples used to establish an observed release by chemical analysis was present, at least in part, due to a release from the Site. For example, mercury was found in the farthest downgradient samples (e.g., SW

- 02); therefore, the observed

r elease by direct observation demonstrates that the S ite has contributed, at least in part, to the significant increaseUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

29 of these hazardous substances in the Vince Bayou from the MCC property to sample SW

- 02 (se e Figure 1 of this support document ).

Conclusion

The HRS documentation record clearly provides evidence that some portion of the significant increase in hazardous substances identified in observed release samples is attributable to the Site, including that:

• The same hazardous substances found in observed release samples are found in S ite sources.

• There is evidence that many of these same substances have migrated via the overland flow route toward

the surface water.

• The possibility of off

- site sources that could contribute hazardous substances was investigated and there is

no evidence of a ny source that would explain the observed releases found at the Site.

• Background samples upstream of the Site exhibit levels of metals and SVOCs that may be linked to the general industrial nature of the greater area; but observed release samples still identify a significant increase in hazardous substances above these background levels in the immediate vicinity of the Site.

Regarding the commenter’s assertion that a single background sample is inadequate to i solate the contribution of

other off

- site sources, this is incorrect. First, the HRS has no specific requirements on the number of background samples necessary to establish background levels for a s ite. Also, there were two background samples used in the

H RS evaluation

— one in Vince Bayou just upstream of the S ite, and one in Little Vince Bayou just upstream of the Site. And, the commenter has provided no evidence that the background levels established by these background samples were somehow inappropriate.

Regarding the following comment:

[t]he HRS Guidance makes clear that in a heavily

- industrialized area with numerous potential sources of contamination, a pattern of distribution that points to the source in question as the origin of the purported contamination, or equivalent proof, is req uired to establish “attribution.”

If the commenter is implying that the HRS requires attribution of the observed release significant increase to a specific source at a site, it does not; the HRS only requires that the significant increase be attributed t o the site (as explained in the quoted material above from HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release , and HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release ).

Regarding the commenter’s assertion that the EPA has not followed the HRS Guidance Manual, the HRS

Guidance Ma nual imposes no mandatory requirements on the EPA and simply provides suggested methods to carry out an HRS evaluation depending on the site

- specific circumstances. However, the HRS documentation record did satisfy the HRS Guidance Manual suggestion quoted by the commenter (that “it generally is necessary to obtain sufficient samples between the site being evaluated and other known potential sources

. . . in order to demonstrate an increase in concentration attributable to the site”). As explained above, the HRS documentation record at proposal provide s clear evidence that the significant increase in concentration is attributable to the Site (evidence which include s background samples between the Site and potential upgradient contributions from the

industria lized area in which the Site is located).

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

30 

### 3.10 Source Descriptions

Comment: The Group commented that the S ite is no longer abandoned and stabil ization activities are actively being undertaken at the facility

, which ha ve included removal actions on the s ite sources. The Group stated that the Site is being maintained in accordance with an EPA

- approved Site Monitoring and Stabilization Work Plan

and that “Site monitoring activities are designed to detect containment issues and maintenance activities are performed as needed based on site monitoring.” The Group stated “when the agency assessed the Site for listing, the Site was abandoned and the uncontrolled conditions posed a risk of release.” Further, the Group stated that “[t]he Site is now secure” and commented that the current conditions of the s ite sources ha ve changed since proposal; specifically, that work is underway to remove the bioreactor.

Response: The s ite sources were correctly identified and evaluated in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Although temporary actions have stabilized the s ite sources since proposal, all of the sources still remain at the

S ite and the Waste Characteristics remain the same. Regarding activities since proposal, the Group’s specific comments about the current source conditions are addressed in the following subsections:

• 3.10.1 Source 1 Eligible Hazardous Substances

• 3.10.2 Source Containment

• 3.10.3 Sour ce Waste Quantity

3.10.1 Source 1 Eligible Hazardous Substances

Comment : The Group commented that the analytical results from Source 1 “do not indicate elevated levels of mercury or manganese, the constituents considered in the HRS.”

Response : The HRS d ocumentation record correctly documented and evaluated hazardous substances associated with Source 1 at proposal. While only two of 797 55

- gallon drums were sampled for hazardous substances, it is correct that mercury is not considered a hazardous constituent associated with Source 1; however, manganese was identified in Source 1 and correctly associated with the source and is eligible for scoring.

HRS S ection 2.2.2 , Identify hazardous substances associated with a source, presents the requirements for

iden tifying hazardous substances associated with a source. The HRS states:

For each of the three migration pathways, consider those hazardous substances documented in a source (for example, by sampling, labels, manifests, oral or written statements) to be associated with that source when evaluating each pathway. In some instances, a hazardous substance can be documented as being present at a site (for example, by labels, manifests, oral or written statements), but the specific source(s) containing that hazardous substance cannot be documented. For the three migration pathways, in those instances when the specific source(s) cannot be documented for a hazardous substance, consider the hazardous substance to be present in each

source at the site, except sources for which definitive information indicates that the hazardous substance was not or could not be present.

As illustrated on pages 21 and 88 of the HRS documentation record at proposal

, manganese was identified and is

associated with S ource 1

, as shown in the tables below:US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

31 Excerpt from the table on page 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal :

Hazardous

Substance Evidence

References Sample ID Concentration
(mg/L) Reporting Limit 1

(mg/L)

EPA Supplemental Sampling Activities

– March 2011

Manganese D0745

- 00

- 81 852 0.5 Ref. 24, pp. 176, 326; Ref. 28, p. 73

Excerpt from the table on page 88 of the HRS documentation record at proposal :

Hazardous

Substance Source

Number Toxicity

Factor

Value Persistence

Factor Value 1 Bioaccumulation

Value

Fresh 2 Bioaccumulation

Value

Salt 2 Toxicity/

Persistence/

Bioaccumulation

Factor Value Reference

Manganese 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,

OR 10,000 1 50,000 50,000 5 x 10 8 Ref. 2, p. 8

As shown in the HRS documentation record at proposal

, manganese was correctly identified in Source 1. Therefore, manganese was correctly associated with the source and is eligible for scoring.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.10.2 Source Containment

Comment: The Group commented that the current conditions at the Site are not represented in the HRS documentation record at proposal and commented that the containment structures have changed at the Site. The Group commented that Source 1 (drums) and Source 5 (Poly

- Totes) have been staged with containment constructed to “reduce potential for release.” The Group also commented that the containment on Source 3 has changed in that “[r]epairs to guttering and stormwater drains have been implemented and a temporary diversion

berm has been constructed to reduce rainwater accumulation.” The Group noted that all of the sources are

monitored on a bi

- weekly basis, in accordance with an EPA

- Approved Site Monitoring and Stabilization Work Plan, and “pumped down as necessary to avoid releases.”

Response : The containment values for all s ite sources were appropriately assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal and although temporary actions may have stabilized the s ite sources, all of the s ite sources are incompletely contained (have HRS containment factor values of greater than zero). Although temporary actions

on S ources 1, 3 and 5 (which included properly staging and containing open and leaking drums and poly totes; and repairs to gut tering and stormwater drains on the truck bay sumps) ha ve reduced the potential for release from these sources at the Site, these actions have not eliminated the threat of a release from them, nor has it cleaned up what has been released, nor lowered the HRS containment factor values to zero. While the Site may no longer be abandoned, and is regularly inspected and maintained, Sources 1 and 5 are still staged in an area w ith no liquids collection and removal system and their HRS containment factor value s re main greater than zero.

HRS Section 2.2.3, Identify hazardous substances available to a pathway, presents the requirements for each pathway to evaluate hazardous substance migration from a source. It states:

In evaluating each migration pathway, conside r the following hazardous substances available to migrate from the sources at the site to the pathway:

...US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

32 • Surface water migration

— overland/flood component.

– Hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release to surface water in

the water shed being evaluated.

– All hazardous substances associated with a source with a surface water containment factor value greater than 0 [emphasis added] for the watershed (see sections 4.1.2.1.2.1.1 and 4.1.2.1.2.2.1).

Table 4

- 2 of the HRS provides the requ irements to assign sources a containment value based on their source type. For HRS purposes, Sources 1 and 5 are both considered containers for T able 4 -2, as Source 1 was identified as source type “Drum” (HRS documentation record at proposal page 20) and Source 5 was identified as “Tanks and Containers Other than Drums” (HRS documentation record at proposal page 43). HRS Table 4

- 2 states in relevant
part:

Containers

All containers buried Evaluate using All

Sources criteria.

Evidence of hazardous substance migration from container area ( i.e. , container area includes containers and any associated containment structures) 10

No diking (or no similar structure) surrounding container area 10
Diking surrounding container area unsound or not regularly inspected and maintained 10

No evidence of hazardous substance migration from container area and container area surrounded by sound diking that is regularly inspected and maintained 9

No evidence of hazardous substance migration from container area, container area surrounded by sound diking that is regularly inspected and maintained, and: 9

(a) Essentially impervious base under container area with liquids collection and
removal system 7

(b) Containment system includes essentially impervious base, liquids collection system, sufficient capacity to contain 10 percent of volume of all containers, and functioning and maintained run

- on control; and spilled or leaked hazardous substances and accumulated precipitation removed in timely manner to prevent

ov erflow of collection system, at least weekly inspection of containers, hazardous substances in leaking or deteriorating containers transferred to containers in good condition, and containers sealed except when waste is added or removed 5

(c) Free liquids present, containment system has sufficient capacity to hold total volume of all containers and to provide adequate freeboard, and single liner under container area with functioning leachate collection and removal system below liner 5

(d) Same as (c) except: double liner under container area with functioning leachate collection and removal system between liners 3

Containers inside or under maintained intact structure that provides protection from precipitation so that neither runoff nor leachate would be generated from any unsealed or ruptured containers, liquids or materials containing free liquids not deposited in any

c ontainer, and functioning and maintained run

- on control present 0

No evidence of hazardous substance migration from container area, containers leaking, and all free liquids eliminated at closure (either by removal of liquids or solidification of remaining wastes and waste residues) Evaluate using All

Sources criteria (with no bulk or free liquids deposited).

The HRS documentation rec ord at proposal characterize s the S ite sources and their containment values in Section 2.2, Source Characterization. Pages 20

- 64 of the HRS documentation record at proposal identify and characterize

Site s ources

.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

33 Source 1

– Drums

Page 20 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the Source 1 containment and assigns the HRS

containment factor value as follows:

Source Containment

Release To Surface Water

Contents of the drums were previously exposed to precipitation and potentially surf ace water (through runoff and flooding) and were in direct contact with floodwater (Ref. 6, pp. 68, 97, 100, 101, 102, 120, 187, 208, 211). Before the EPA response activities in July 2010 to secure and properly stage the drums, several of the drums were fo und opened and in varying states of disrepair (Ref 7, p. 18; Ref. 10, pp. 1

- 63; Ref. 43, pp. 5, 9, 11, 12). During inspections of the USOR property conducted in November and December 2009 by EPA, TCEQ, and/or HCPHES, drums located within the Container Storage Area were observed to be leaking, badly deteriorated, and lacking secondary containment (Ref. 5, pp. 18, 75, 288

- 289; Ref. 8, pp. 8, 110

- 119, 123

- 138,

140

- 142). Since the EPA response activities in 2010 have placed the drums within secondary

containmen t, a containment value of 9 was selected for Source 1 based on the current containment conditions, but the site is currently abandoned, and there is no maintenance of the containment area (Ref. 1, Table 4

- 2).

Source 3

- Truck Bays (sumps )

Page 29 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the Source 3 containment and assigns the HRS

containment factor value as follows:

Source Containment

Release To Surface Water

The contents of the truck bay sumps are exposed to precipitation and surface wa ter (through flooding) (Ref. 6, pp. 79, 80, 100, 102, 106, 141, 151, 152, 199, 214, 235). During one large rainfall event in July 2010, TCEQ found the truck bays were overflowing oily liquids into the parking lot area, which was then discharging down the p roperty’s front driveway and into Vince Bayou (Ref. 5, pp. 19, 88, 89). In November 2010, the available freeboard in the truck bay sumps (also known as Sumps 34 through 36) had become compromised due to heavy rains and the contents were overflowing to the parking lot (Ref. 6, pp. 105, 226

- 231; Ref. 7, p. 22). On 1 June 2006, a TCEQ investigator also observed oily waste migrating outside the secondary containment to the concrete truck unloading/staging area (Ref. 5, pp. 16, 495, 496).

A containment value o f 10 was selected for Source 3 based on the evidence of hazardous substance migration from the truck bay sumps and the lack of spill prevention containment measures at the site (Ref. 1, Table 4

- 2).

Source 5

- Poly Totes

Page 43 of the HRS documentation r ecord at proposal describes the Source 5 containment and assigns an HRS

containment factor value as follows:US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

34 Source Containment

Release to Surface Water

Contents of the poly totes are exposed to precipitation and potentially surface water (through flooding and were in direct contact with floodwater (Ref. 6, pp. 68, 97, 100, 101, 102, 120, 187, 208, 211). On 16 November 2009, the TCEQ Region 12 Waste Program conducted an investigation at USOR and found unauthorized hazardous waste being stored in the container storage area. The following violations were observed in the container storage area: leaking containers; containers stored in an unsafe manner; universal waste not stored in double rows of containers; failure to ensure all containers of hazardous waste were closed or covered; failure to ensure waste was stored in leak free containers; failure to obtain a RCRA permit; and failure to prevent the discharge or imminent threat of discharge of industrial solid waste or municipal

hazardous waste into the Vince Bayou (Ref. 8, p. 8). EPA documented that several of the totes were found in varying states of disrepair with evidence of leakage (Ref 7, pp. 18, 25; Ref. 43, pp.

6- 10).

Since the EPA response activities in 2010 have placed the poly totes within se condary containment, a containment value of 9 was selected for Source 1 based on the current containment conditions, but the site is currently abandoned, and there is no maintenance of the containment area (Ref. 1, Table 4

- 2).

The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly assign s the containment values for Sources 1 , 3, and 5. Although these sources are now regularly inspected and maintained according to an EPA

- approved Site Monitoring and Stabilization Work Plan

, and these temporary actions may have stabilized these S ite sources, all

of these S ite sources have containment values that remain greater than zero.

The HRS documentation record at proposal assign s a containment value of 9 for both Sources 1 and 5 because the

S ite was currently abandoned and there was no inspection or maintenance of the containment area. While the S ite may no longer be abandoned, thus allowing for regular inspection and maintenance, Sources 1 and 5 are still staged in an area with no liquids collection and removal system and their containment value remains greater than zero. The HRS documentation record at proposal assigned a containment value of 10 for Source 3 as there is evidence of hazardous substance migration from the source area. Although repairs to guttering and storm water drains have been completed to limit rainwater accumulation in Source 3, the containment value remains at 10 as there is still evidence of hazardous substance migration from the source area and the source is still vulnerable to flooding. As directed b y the HRS, all hazardous substances associated with a source with a surface water containment factor value greater than 0 are considered available to the pathway and included in the S ite score. Further, the temporary actions that have occurred at the Site have not addressed the contamination that was released prior to the stabilization efforts.

Although the Group did not mention any changes to the containment structures on the remaining sources (Sources 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8), the containment structures on the se sources remain the same as they were in the HRS documentation record at proposal , yielding values greater than zero. Although these other sources are now regularly inspected and maintained according to an EPA

- approved Site Monitoring and Stabilization W ork Plan, the containment scores for these sources at proposal are not based on whether they are inspected and maintained (i.e., they are based on other factors such as evidence of hazardous substance migration) and remain at their assigned values in the H RS documentation record at proposal

, which are all greater than zero.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

35 3.10.3 Source Waste Quantity

Comment : The Group commented that S ite act ivities are being undertaken at the facility which ha ve included

removal actions on the S ite sources. The Group commented that Sources 2, 3 and 4, which use Tier C, Volume, to evaluate waste quantity are incorrect because sources have been pumped down as r equired by the Site Monitoring

and Stabilization Work Plan

, and that the HRS documentation record at proposal significantly overstated the actual waste quantity for these sources

.

The Group commented that Source 2 (Bioreactors) has had all liquids removed from the source and solids removal and demolition are anticipated to be completed by September 2012. The Group commented that the source was evaluated based on a full bioreactor, and stated that “once the current closure activities are completed,

the bioreactor will have been demolished such that it does not retain any volume of solids or liquids.”

The Group commented that Source 3 (Truck Bays) was evaluated based on completely full sumps; however, the monitoring and pump down program maintains th e sumps at less than full levels.

Finally, the Group commented that S ource 4 (MCC Surface Impoundments) was evaluated based on completely full impoundments; however, the Group stated that “[t]he current volumes are estimated to be less than half of the

s cored volume.”

Response : The HRS documentation record correctly evaluated the waste quantities for each source at proposal. Sources 2, 3, and 4 were all evaluated using Tier C, Volume, to score the waste quantity and although they were pumped down according to the stabilization activities, the waste quantities of these sources were correctly evaluated according to the HRS. The HRS directs the volume evaluation of the hazardous waste quantity to be

based on the volume of the source and not the volume of waste in the source.

HRS Section 2.4.2.1.3, Volume , presents the requirements to evaluate the volume of a source and states “Evaluate the volume measure using the volume of the source (or the volume of the area of observed contamination).”

The HRS do cumentation record at proposal characterized the waste quantity for each source in Section 2.2, Source Characterization. Pages 20

- 64 of the HRS documentation record at proposal characterize Site s ources

.

Source 2

- Bioreactors

Page 27 of the HRS document ation record at proposal states that the Source 2 waste quantity is as follows:

The quantity volume of the bioreactors was determined by measurements obtained by using GIS software, and the assumed maximum permissible fluid depth. GIS software contains re cent aerial photography of the site, which allows the user to trace an area and determine length and width measurements of the bioreactor. Using this methodology, the bioreactors were determined to measure 120 feet x 60 feet with a fluid depth of 11 feet ( Attachment A, Figure A

- 2A; Ref. 8, p., 279; Ref. 25). The Tier C equation for assigning a value for volumes of a source type “Surface Impoundment ” is V/2.5 (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 5).

120 x 60 x 11 = 79,200 cubic feet

79,200 cubic feet / 27 cubic feet per 1 cu bic yard = 2,933.333 cubic yards

Volume of source (cubic yards): 2,933.333

Volume Assigned Value = 2,933.333/2.5US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

36 Volume Assigned Value = 1,173.333

Source 3

- Truck Bays (sumps)

Page 31 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states that the Source 3 waste quantity is as follows:

The volume of the secondary containment structures and truck bay sumps was determined by measurements obtained by using GIS software. The depth was determined on site by field personnel. The truck bay sumps measure 75 feet x 22 feet x 2 feet (Attachment A, Figure A

- 2A; Ref. 46). The Tier C equation for assigning a value for volumes of a source type “Surface Impoundments” is V/2.5 (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 5).

Truck Bay Sumps

– 75 x 22 x 2 = 3,300 cubic feet Total = 3,300 cubic feet

3,300 cubic feet / 27 cubic feet per 1 cubic yard = 122.222 cubic yards

Volume of source (cubic yards): 122.222

Volume Assigned Value = 122.222/2.5

Volume Assigned Value = 48.889

Source 4

- MCC Surface Impoundments

Pages 41 and 42 of the HRS docu mentation record at proposal state that the Source 4 waste quantity is as follows:

The quantity volume of the surface impoundments was determined by measurements obtained on

site (Ref. 13, pp. 1

- 4). The surface impoundments and their volumes are as follows (Attachment A, Figure A

- 2B; Ref. 13, pp. 1

- 4):

Reservoir Name Location Volume (gallons)

Gravity Thickener Located on eastern side of 200 N. Richey Street property

at southwest corner 10,794

Final Clarifier Located on western side of 200 N. Richey Street property

on east side 293,640

Primary Clarifier Located on western side of 200 N. Richey Street property

on south side 48,937

Clarifier #1 Located on eastern side of 200 N. Richey Street property

on north side 305,624

Clarifier #2 Located on eastern side of 200 N. Richey Street property

on north side 297,141

Chlorine Contact Tank Located on eastern side of 200 N. Richey Street property

on northwest side 143,640

Oxygen Digester #1 Located on eastern side of 200 N. Richey Street property

centr ally located south of clarifiers 90,589

Oxygen Digester #2 Located on eastern side of 200 N. Richey Street property centrally located south of clarifiers 125,425

Headworks Located on western side of 200 N. Richey Street property

on north side unknown

Total Reservoir Volume 1,315,790US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

37 The volume calculated for the surface impoundments is estimated to be 1,315,790 gallons. The Tier C equation for assigning a value for volumes of a source type “Tanks and Containers Other than Drums” is V/2.5 (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 5).

Volume of source (gallons): 1,315,790

1,315,790 gallons/201.97 (gallons per cubic yard) = 6,514.779 cubic yards

Volume Assigned Value = 6,514.779/2.5

Volume Assigned Value = 2,605.912

The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly evaluated the waste quantities for Sources 2, 3, and 4 using Tier C, Volume

, regardless of the pumping activities that have been undertaken at the Site since proposal. The HRS directs the volume evaluation of the hazardous waste quantity to be based on the volume of the source and

not the volume of waste in the source. The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly evaluate s the waste quantities of these sources

, according to the HRS.

Regarding the bioreactors and the Group ’s comments that the Group is in t he process of closing and removing the

bioreactor structures

, although the removal actions have not been completed and solid hazardous substances remain in the bioreactors (thus the HRS documentation record at proposal correctly evaluated Source 2 as having

a h azardous waste quantity value of 1,173.33), if the waste quantity for the bioreactors were to be reduced to greater than zero (the waste quantity would remain greater than zero because the releases from the source have not been addressed)

, it would not change the S ite score. As stated on page 89 of the HRS docu mentation record at proposal, “A hazardous waste quantity of 5,790.916 is estimated for sources at the USOR site that when applied

in HRS Table 2

- 6 yields a pathway hazardous waste quantity of 100.” Even if the bioreactor were removed from this evaluation, the hazardous waste quantity would remain 4,617.58 and yield the same pathway hazardous waste quantity of 100.

Furthermore

, for all three sources (2, 3

, and 4) , if the volume of the waste in the sources had been the only volume of waste placed in the sources (no discharge or other release from the tanks had ever occurred) it would have been appropriate to evaluate the remaining waste quantity using Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity. (See HRS

S ection 2.4.2.1.2, Hazardous wastestream quantity

. ) For HRS purposes, hazardous wastestream is defined in HRS

S ection 1.1

, Definitions (55 FR 51586, December 14, 1990) as:

Material containing CE R CLA hazardous substances (as defined in CERCLA section 101 [ 14 ] )

that was deposited, stored, disposed, or placed in , or that otherwise migrated to a source. [emphasis added] :”

Hence

, a wastestream quantity include s all waste ever placed into a source. However, as acknowledged by the Group, the volume remaining in each source is not the total amount ever placed in the source; therefore, the

volume of hazardous waste curr ently in each source is not a complete wastestream quantity estimate. As directed

in HRS S ection 2.4.2.1.2, because the “ total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and

contaminants for th e source and releases from the source ... ” is not known or “ estimated with reasonable

confidence

, ” a volume measure is provided.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.



### 3.11 Considerati on of Revisions in Mercury River Persistence Value

The c ommenters did not challenge the river persistence value for mercury used in the HRS documentation record at proposal . However, based on the EPA’s March 20 12 re vision to the mercury river persistence v alue based onUS Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

38 an estimate of the volatility of mercury using up

- to

- date projection procedures , the river persistence factor value (which reflects the length of time mercury will remain in rivers under normal conditions before it volatilizes into the atmosp here) for mercury has been updated from 1.0 to 0.4.

As shown on pages 88

- 89 and 94

- 95 of the documentation record at promulgation, this reduction in the river persistence value for mercury results in a combined toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value of 2 x 10 8
for the human food chain threat (previously 5 x 10 8 at proposal), and a combined ecotoxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value of 2 x 10 8 for the environmental threat (also previously 5 x

10 8 at proposal) assigned for mercury.

Ho wever, this revision to the combined value for mercury has no effect on the combined values for other substances associated with the Site. In selecting the combined values for use in calculating the HRS S ite score, the HRS specifies use of the hazardous substance with the highest toxicity/persistence/ bioaccumulation factor value for the human food chain threat and ecotoxicity/persistence/ bioaccumulation factor value for the environmental threat for any hazardous substance associated with a source at a sit e or in an observed release from a site. Specifically, in evaluating the human food chain threat waste characteristics factor category value, HRS S ection

4.1.3.2.1.4

, Calculation of toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value , states to:

Assign each hazardous substance a toxicity/persistence factor value from table 4

– 12, based on the values assigned to the hazardous substance for the toxicity and persistence factors. Then assign each hazardous substance a toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value from table 4

– 16, based on the values assigned for the toxicity/persistence and bioaccumulation potential factors. Use the hazardous substance with the highest toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value for the watershed to assign the value to this factor

. [emphasis added]

Similarly, in evaluating the environmental threat waste characteristics factor category value, HRS Section 4.1.4.2.1.4, Calculation of ecosystem toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value , states to:

Assign each hazardous substance an ecosystem toxicity/ persistence factor value from T able 4

– 20, based on the values assigned to the hazardous substance for the ecosystem toxicity and persistence factors. Then assign each hazardous substance an ecosystem toxicity/persiste nce/bioaccumulation factor value from T able 4

– 21, based on the values assigned for the ecosystem toxicity/persistence and ecosystem bioaccumulation potential factors. Select the hazardous substance with the highest ecosystem toxicity/persistence/bioaccumul ation factor value for the watershed and use it to assign the value to this factor . [emphasis added]

Pages 88 and 94 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation show that other hazardous substances were also assigned a combined value of 5 x 10 8 (manganese is assigned a human food chain threat toxicity/persistence/

bioaccumulation factor value of 5 x 10 8 , and silver is assigned an environmental threat ecosystem toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value of 5 x 10 8 ). Manganese is in an observed release by direct

observation from the S ite, in an observed release by chemical analysis, and is associated with Sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 6,

and 7 9 ; and, silver is in an observed release by chemical analysis and is associated with S ource s 3 and 4 10 . As

mang anese and silver combined values both exceed the revised combined values for mercury, the manganese and

silver combined values are appropriately used in the HRS scoring.

9 See HRS documentation record at promulgation, page 73 (showing manganese in an obse rved release by direct observation), page 83 (showing manganese in an observed release by chemical analysis), and pages 21, 27, 35

- 39, 45, 52 -53, and 57 (showing manganese in source samples).

10 See HRS documentation record at promulgation, page 83 (showing silver in an observed release by chemical analysis) and pages 30 and 38 (showing silver in source samples).US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 201 2

39 Thus the combined threat scores and the overall HRS site score is the same at promul gation as at proposal, and the decision to place the Site on the NPL is unaltered.



## 4. Conclusion

The original HRS score for this site was 50.00. Based on the above responses to public comments, the score remains unchanged. The final HRS scores for the US Oil Recovery site are:

Ground Water: N S [not scored]

Surface Water: 100.00 Soil Exposure: NS Air Pathway: NS

HRS Score: 50.00

## Attachment 1

July 13, 2012 Correspondence from John C. Meyer, Region 6 Risk and Site Assessment Section Chief, Superfund Division,

EPAFrom: John Meyer/R6/USEPA/US

To: Bob.Patton@tceq.texas.gov

Cc: Ben Banipal/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Brenda Cook/R 6/USEPA/US@EPA, Pam Phillips/R6/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/13/2012 03:15 PM Subject: US Oil Recovery

Bob, I am glad I was able to catch you this afternoon, espec ially since your time in Superfund is so close to an

end!

Thank you for updating us on TCEQ's position on the final listing of US Oil to the National Priority List. You noted that you, along with Beth Seaton, Remediation Director, and a TCEQ attorney met with the US Oil PRP group yesterday. I understand from our conver sation that TCEQ is still supporting finalizing the US Oil Recovery in the absence of any formal proposal from the PRP group, and if a formal proposal is received from the PRP group before the deadline to proceed with final listing, it would need to contain several elements such as a detailed schedule and a scope of work.

I noted that the EPA attorney spoke with the US Oil PRP group representative th is morning and reminded them of our looming deadline. The PRP group indicated that they may be sending EPA a letter by COB today. If EPA receives a letter containing a formal pr oposal, we will coordinate with your office prior to making a decision either to delay listing or to proceed with listing. In the absence of a proposal from the PRP group by Monday, EPA intends to proceed with the final steps for final listing of the site.

John C. Meyer Chief, Risk and Site Assessment Section Superfund Division (6SF-TR) EPA Region 6

214-665-6742

## Attachment 2

July 25, 2012 Correspondence from Jennifer L. Wheeler, Harris County Pollution Control Serv ices Department Compliance
Manager

### Page 1 of 1

From: "Wheeler, Jennifer (PCS)" <Jennifer.Wheeler@pcs.hctx.net>

To: Adam Adams/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Terry Andrews < terry.andrews@tceq.texas.gov >

Cc: Brenda Cook/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, "Allen, Bob (PCS)" < Bob.Allen@pcs.hctx.net>

Date: 07/25/2012 11:07 AM

Subject: RE: NPL listing of USOR



### Good morning Adam and Terry,

No our position has not changed. When I last discussed this issue with our director Bob Allen
the indication that we had is that a meetin g may be arranged with the EPA, TCEQ and
Pollution Control to discuss th e issue and our joint concerns.

Sorry for the delay in my resp onse, the message went to my junk mail for some reason.

J

enni f

er L. Wheeler Compliance Manager Harris County Pollution Co ntrol Services Department John Phelps Cour thouse Annex 4 101 South Richey, Suite H Pasadena, TX 77506

Main: 713-920-2831
Desk: 713-274-6355

From: Adam Adams [ mailto:Adams.Adam@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 4:39 PM

To: Wheeler, Jennifer (PCS); Terry Andrews

Cc: Brenda Cook Subject: NPL listing of USOR

Jennifer and Terry, per our discussions a few weeks ago after your meetings with the PRP Group, you both indicated your agencies had not waivered on your initial positions and recommendations that the USOR Site be listed on the NPL. I just wanted to document th is and check to see if there's been any change.

Thanks in advance for y our expedited response.

A dam Adams, FOSC USEPA, R6

214-202-6952

## Attachment 3

Excerpt of 1997 GAO report, Super fund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites

### United States General Accounting Office 

# GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives

March 1997 

# SUPERFUND

Times to Complete the
Assessment and Cleanup of Hazardous
Waste Sites

GAO/RCED-97-201 

# Contents

Letter

Appendix I 20 Steps in the Process of Listing a Site 20 

# Time Taken to Preliminary Assessments 21 

# Accomplish the Site Inspections 23 Proposing a Site as a National Priority 25 

# Principal Steps in the Duration of Evaluation Steps 26 

# Process of Placing
Sites on the NPL

Appendix II 28 Steps in the Process of Cleaning Up a Site 28 

# Time Taken to Selecting a Remedy 29 

# Accomplish the Designing a Remedy 31 Duration of Cleanup Steps 32 

# Principal Steps in the Process of Cleaning Up Sites

Appendix III
Number of
Observations Represented in This Report’s Figures

Appendix IV Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35



# Appendix V
Comments From the
Environmental Protection Agency GAO’s Comments 38

52

Page 18 GAO/RCED-97-20 Duration of Superfund Process 3457 Contents



# Appendix VI Major Contributors to This Report

Figures Figure 1: Average Time From Site Discovery to Placement on the 5

NPL Figure 2: Percentage of Nonfederal Listing Decisions Made 6 Within 4 Years of Discovery Figure 3: Average Time From Placement on the NPL to 9 Completion of Cleanups at Operable Units Figure 4: Percentage of Nonfederal Operable Units Cleaned Up 11 Within 5 Years of Listing Figure 5: Average Time From Placement on the NPL to 12 Completion of Cleanups at Sites Figure I.1: How a Site Gets on the NPL 20 Figure I.2: Average Time From Site Discovery to Completion of 22 the Preliminary Assessment Figure I.3: Average Time From Site Discovery to Completion of 24 the Site Inspection Figure I.4: Average Time From Completion of Site Inspection to 25 Proposal for Listing Figure II.1: How Sites Are Cleaned Up 28 Figure II.2: Average Time From Placing a Site on the NPL to 30 Selecting a Remedy Figure II.3: Average Time From Placing a Site on the NPL to 32 Developing a Remedial Design

Abbreviations

CBO Congressional Budget Office

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

NPL National Priorities List

RI/FS remedial investigation and feasibility study

SACM Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

Page 19 GAO/RCED-97-20 Duration of Superfund ProcessAppendix V 

# Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end of this appendix.

Page 38 GAO/RCED-97-20 Duration of Superfund ProcessAppendix V

Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

Page 39 GAO/RCED-97-20 Duration of Superfund ProcessAppendix V

Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

Page 40 GAO/RCED-97-20 Duration of Superfund ProcessAppendix V

Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

Page 41 GAO/RCED-97-20 Duration of Superfund ProcessAppendix V

Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

See comment 7.

Page 42 GAO/RCED-97-20 Duration of Superfund Process

## Attachment 4

August 21, 2012 Correspondence from Pamela Phillips, Acting Director, Superfund Division, EPAUNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGION61445ROSSAVENUE,SUITE1200DALLAS,TX75202-2733AUG212012CourtneyConstanceWestfallStrasburger&Price,LLP901MainStreet,Suite4400Dallas,TX75202Re:U.S.OilRecoverySuperfundSiteResponsetoPRPGroupLetterofAugust16,2012DearMs.Westfall:ThankyouforyourletterdatedAugust16,2012.IappreciateyourclarifyingtheGroup'spositionconcerningitscommitmenttoparticipateintheperformanceofaremedialinvestigationandfeasibilitystudy("RIIFS")attheU.S.OilRecoverySuperfundSite("Site").Inyourletter,youreiteratedtheGroup'swillingnesstocommitprovidedotherpotentiallyresponsibleparties("PRPs"),namelypastowner/operatorsoftheSiteproperty,arein.cludedinthateffort.TheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency("EPA")remainscommittedin itscontinuedeffortstoidentifyanyadditionalPRPsassociatedwiththeSite,includinganypastownersand/oroperatorswhofallwithinthedefinitionofliabilityunderSection107(a)oftheComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,CompensationandLiabilityAct("CERCLA"),42U.S.C.§9607(a).WithrespecttoincludingadditionalPRPsinanyRIIFSsettlementnegotiations,theEPAintendstofollowtheprovisionsinSections104(a),122(a)and122(e)ofCERCLA,42U.S.C.§§9604(a),9622(a)and9622(e).Section122(e)ofCERCLA,42U.S.C.§9622(e),statesthat"[w]heneverthePresidentdeterminesthataperiodofnegotiation...wouldfacilitateanagreementwith[PRPs]fortakingresponseaction(includinganyactiondescribedinsection9604(b)ofthistitle)andwouldexpediteremedialaction,thePresidentshallnotifyallsuchparties...."ThosePRPsidentifiedbytheEPAwhomeettherequirementsofthoseprovisionswillbenotifiedofanyRIIFSsettlementnegotiations,includinganypastowner/operatorsidentifiedinthePRPSearch.IunderstandtheGroup'sPRPSearchconsultant,Mr.RandySmith,hasbeenworkingcloselywithMs.CindyBrown,theEPARegion6EnforcementOfficerassignedtotheSite,insharinginformationthatwouldhelptheEPAidentifyadditionalPRPs.IappreciatetheGroup'sassistanceinthisregard.MystaffwillcontinuetoconsiderandevaluateinformationprovidedbytheGroupforpurposesofourPRPSearch.RecycledIRecyclable •PrintedwithVegetable011BasedInkson100%RecyctedPaper(40%Postconsumer)