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 20460
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

 ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. iv

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. v

Background of the NPL.......................................................................................................................... v

Development 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 November 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 Non-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 .............................................. 37
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

 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, EPA
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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

This document provides responses to public 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 September 

2012.
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

 v 

Introduction

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 on 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 NCP, 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 contaminants. 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 throughout 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 taken 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 December 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 provided 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 original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an 

HRS score of 28.50 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 2012 

 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, identifying 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 does 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, therefore, is primarily an informational 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 the 

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 known 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 appropriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of 

policy, the EPA has the discretion 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 the 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 HRS 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 response 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 analysis 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 2012 

• 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 (Sgw) 

- drinking water

• Surface Water Migration (Ssw) 

The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood 

migration and ground water to surface water.

- drinking water

- human food chain

- sensitive environments

• Soil Exposure (Ss) 

- resident population

- nearby population

- sensitive environments

• Air Migration (Sa) 

- 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 only one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some 

extremely dangerous sites pose threats through only one pathway. For example, 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 other than the HRS by which sites 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

gw
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

 viii

• EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its 

emergency removal authority to respond to the 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 throughout 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 Federal Regulations

CLP Contract Laboratory Program

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 per 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 entry
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

 ix

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RI Remedial investigation

RI/FS Remedial investigation/feasibility study

SA Superfund Alternative

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 organic compound

WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

1 

1.0 List 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 Oil Recovery PRP Group, Munsch 

Hardt Kopf & Harr, PC.

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0653-0007 Comment, dated November 14, 2011, submitted by Bob Allen, 

Director, Harris County Pollution Control Services Department 

(PCS).

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0653-0008 Comment, dated November 15, 2012, submitted by MUNSCH 

HARDT KOPF & HARR, PC on behalf of U.S. Oil Recovery 

PRP Group.

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0653-0009 Comment, dated August 1, 2012, submitted by Rock Owens, 

Managing Attorney, Environmental & Infrastructure Practice 

Group, on behalf 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 MUNSCH 

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, CoChair, 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 2012 

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. The 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 wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). 

The 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 Site. The waste quantities for Sources 1 and 5 were determined by the hazardous 

wastestream quantity and the remaining sources (Sources 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 farm. 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 connected to the aerobic digester tank. The belt filter press building is between the aerobic 

digester tank 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). Contamination, 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 into 

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 Site 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 2012 

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 2012 

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 2012 

5 

Figure 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 2012 

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 Comments

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 Alternative (SA) approach, which could save resources 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 the EPA had already performed characterization/containment activities, and that the 

Group had 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 delaying

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 23, 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 in hazardous substance concentrations to a release from the Site. 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 background 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

7 

conditions of the Vince Bayou, to characterize the contributions of other sources, and isolate the contribution 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 for 

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 improved for site 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, the 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 consequences 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 Site 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 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.

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

August 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 PCS Department support the listing of this site. 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:
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 of USOR compliance 

and threats posed by the Site: 

• “On numerous occasions investigations and inspections resulted in documented instances of noncompliance related to the unauthorized discharges of industrial wastewater, both onsite and into the Vince 

Bayou, 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 public 

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 NPL1

. 

In correspondence to the EPA2 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 listing.

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 2012 

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 extended 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 NPL3

. However, the Group asserted that if the 

EPA lists the Site 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 and lacks 

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 it is “evaluating other measures to reduce rainwater exposure to the 

truck bays” at the Site. 

• The Group stated that it 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 extension 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 of the comment period would give time for newly identified parties 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 beyond March 2012. 

 

3 Referring to the EPA Superfund Alternative Approach website at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/saa.html#started
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 policy 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 your 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, the 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 

rationale 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 stated 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 letter4 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 Site. 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). This 

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 2012 

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 Site.

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 Site 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

Comment: 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 the 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 Assessment 

Section Chief, Superfund Division, EPA, of this support document). 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 Manager for the Harris County Pollution 

Control Services Department, to the EPA, that agency’s support for listing the Site on the NPL was conveyed5

. 

Also, in correspondence to the EPA6 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.

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 actions 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 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 one 

of these buyers may assist in Site removal activities. The Group asserted that listing the Site on the NPL would 

likely “thwart ongoing discussions regarding the cleanup and future use of the Site,” it 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 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 should 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 redevelopment 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. 

Placement of the Site on the NPL does not necessarily 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 Site. 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 2012 

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 County, 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 Site, 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 offsite releases of materials do not occur 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 

stabilization, 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 accomplishments 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/characterization/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 2012 

14

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

best 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.” The Group’s 

request for 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 effects 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 section 

3.3, June/July 2012 Request to Defer Listing, of this support document, the 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, Consideration of Removal 

Actions (Current Versus Initial Conditions, 55 FR 51568, December 14,1990), explains that 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 from 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, 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. 

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 HRS 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 state 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]” The 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 environment. (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 2012, 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 sent a correspondence 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 

deferred due to the progress of the removal actions at the Site, and the perceived 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 participation 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 extend 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 considered 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 Site.

The Agency has also reviewed the correspondence dated August 16, 2012, from the Group but identified no 

reason to revise the decision to list the Site, as explained in the correspondence from Pamela Phillips, Acting 

Director, Superfund Division, EPA Region 6, to the Group dated August 21, 2012 (see Attachment 4, August 21, 

2012, Correspondence 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 2012 

16

sections 3.3.2, Delay Cleanup, 3.5, Consideration of Removal Actions, 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.” 

Response: The response actions taken to date by the Group have been considered in deciding to list this Site, but 

the risks posed to the public and the environment by the past, and potentially future releases at the Site were not 

addressed. These actions neither removed all the hazardous substances from the sources that were evaluated, nor 

did 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 actions 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 identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal have been 

completely contained according to the HRS. Therefore, risk to the public and environment still exists based on 

previous releases and the potential for future releases from the sources at the Site. Accordingly, based on the factspecific 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 Descriptions, of this support 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 Site score as 

calculated in the HRS documentation record at proposal. 

 

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 2012 

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 the 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 would 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 the 

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 Site 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 

CERCLA 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 the 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 result 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 2012 

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 Other Pathways 

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 evidence 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 found 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 Site 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

Site. Similarly, regarding the Group’s general statement that focusing on one pathway for the purpose of NPL 

listing is insufficient, this is incorrect. Other 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 potentially 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 2012 

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 § 116.110 (a), a 

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

b. “HCPHES 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 indispensable 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 hearing. 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 this 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 Site. 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 in hazardous substance concentrations to a release from the Site. 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 Site, and the significant 

increase in the hazardous substance levels is at least in part due to the release from the Site. 

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 background 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 establish 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 

released 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 

water 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 release, 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 background level. Further, some portion of the 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 rationale 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 

meet 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 states: 

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 site 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. 

The background samples used in the HRS evaluation 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 2012 

22

Also, 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 increase 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 that: 

[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 contributed 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 argued 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 Site 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 of 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 Establishment 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

The 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 determining 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 hazardous 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 Establishment of Attribution

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

from the Site sources to the surface water. Page 84 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states: 

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 2012 

24

Station 

Location 

(CLP 

Sample No.)

Sampling Location Sample 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 Site sources could make their way to Vince Bayou (see also Figures 1-3 of this support 

document). 

Page 85 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states: 

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 provides the following table of hazardous substances 

found in these tables—showing many of the same contaminants found in site sources and samples used to 

establish an observed release by chemical analysis.
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

25

Station Location

(CLP Sample No.)

Hazardous

Substance

Concentration2

mg/kg

Adjusted 

CRQL1

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 The 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, Section 

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, manganese, 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 

observation to the Vince Bayou in October 2009, January 2010, and July 2010 (two from the MCC property 

portion of the Site and one from the US Oil Recovery property portion of the Site). Samples of the wastes 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 hazardous substances). 

Evidence 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 not 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 Value1

Bioaccumulation 

Value Fresh2

Bioaccumulation 

Value Salt2

Toxicity/

Persistence/

Bioaccumulation 

Factor Value Reference

Arsenic 3,4,7,OR 10,000 1 5 500 5 x 106 Ref. 2, p.1

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate

2,4,6,OR 100 1 50,000 500 5 x 106 Ref. 2, p. 2

Cobalt 1,4,5,6,8,

OR

10 1 5,000 5,000 5 x 104 Ref. 2, p. 3

Lead 3,4,5,6,

OR

10,000 1 5 5,000 5 x 107 Ref. 2, p. 8

Manganese 1,2,4,5,6,

7,8, 

OR

10,000 1 50,000 50,000 5 x 108 Ref. 2, p. 8 

Mercury 3,6,OR 10,000 1 50,000 50,000 5 x 108 Ref. 2, p. 8

2-Methylnaphthalene 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 107 Ref. 2, p. 9

Silver 3,4,OR 100 1 50 50,000 5 x 106 Ref. 2, p. 10

Vanadium 3,4,5,6, 

7,OR 

100 1 500 500 5 x 104 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 support document, show that the site sources remain uncontained and show evidence 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 Sources 

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 upgradient 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 (see Figure 1 of this support document), the increase in the hazardous 

substance concentrations above any contributions from upstream source is correctly attributed to the Site. 

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, as 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 petroleum 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 explains that the possibilities 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 support 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 documentation 

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 2012 

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 Increase, 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 

following 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 Site 

contributed to mercury and manganese levels in the Vince Bayou. Page 73 of the HRS documentation record at 

proposal establishes that an investigator with the TCEQ Water Quality Pretreatment Program observed an 

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 Discharge 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 Site. 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 

release by direct observation demonstrates that the Site has contributed, at least in part, to the significant increase 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

29

of these hazardous substances in the Vince Bayou from the MCC property to sample SW-02 (see 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 Site 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 any 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 isolate 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 site. Also, there were two background samples used in the 

HRS evaluation—one in Vince Bayou just upstream of the Site, 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 required 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 to 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 Manual 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 provides clear evidence that the significant increase in concentration is attributable to the Site 

(evidence which includes background samples between the Site and potential upgradient contributions from the 

industrialized 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 2012 

30

3.10 Source Descriptions

Comment: The Group commented that the Site is no longer abandoned and stabilization activities are actively 

being undertaken at the facility, which have included removal actions on the site 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 site sources have changed since 

proposal; specifically, that work is underway to remove the bioreactor. 

Response: The site sources were correctly identified and evaluated in the HRS documentation record at proposal. 

Although temporary actions have stabilized the site sources since proposal, all of the sources still remain at the 

Site 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 Source 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 documentation 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 Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous substances associated with a source, presents the requirements for 

identifying 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 Source 1, as shown in the tables below:
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 Limit1

(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 Value1

Bioaccumulation

Value

Fresh2

Bioaccumulation

Value

Salt2

Toxicity/

Persistence/

Bioaccumulation 

Factor Value Reference

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

OR

10,000 1 50,000 50,000 5 x 108 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 site sources were appropriately assigned in the HRS documentation 

record at proposal and although temporary actions may have stabilized the site sources, all of the site sources are 

incompletely contained (have HRS containment factor values of greater than zero). Although temporary actions 

on Sources 1, 3 and 5 (which included properly staging and containing open and leaking drums and poly totes; 

and repairs to guttering and stormwater drains on the truck bay sumps) have 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 with no liquids 

collection and removal system and their HRS containment factor values remain 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, consider the following hazardous substances available to 

migrate from the sources at the site to the pathway:

... 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

32

• Surface water migration—overland/flood component.

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

the watershed 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 requirements to assign sources a containment value based on their source type. 

For HRS purposes, Sources 1 and 5 are both considered containers for Table 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

overflow 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 

container, 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 record at proposal characterizes the Site 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 sources. 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 surface 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 found 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 

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).

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 water (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 property’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 of 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 record at proposal describes the Source 5 containment and assigns an HRS 

containment factor value as follows:
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 secondary 

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 assigns 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 Site sources, all 

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

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

Site was currently abandoned and there was no inspection or maintenance of the containment area. While the Site 

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 stormwater 

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 by 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 Site 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 these 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 Work 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 HRS 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 2012 

35

3.10.3 Source Waste Quantity 

Comment: The Group commented that Site activities are being undertaken at the facility which have included 

removal actions on the Site 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 required 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 the sumps at less than full levels. 

Finally, the Group commented that Source 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 

scored 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 documentation 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 sources. 

Source 2 - Bioreactors

Page 27 of the HRS documentation 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 recent 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 cubic yard = 2,933.333 cubic yards 

Volume of source (cubic yards): 2,933.333 

Volume Assigned Value = 2,933.333/2.5 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 documentation 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 onsite (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 

centrally 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 1,315,790
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 evaluates the waste 

quantities of these sources, according to the HRS.

Regarding the bioreactors and the Group’s comments that the Group is in the 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 hazardous 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 Site score. As stated on page 89 of the HRS documentation 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 

Section 2.4.2.1.2, Hazardous wastestream quantity.) For HRS purposes, hazardous wastestream is defined in HRS 

Section 1.1, Definitions (55 FR 51586, December 14, 1990) as:

Material containing CERCLA 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 includes 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 currently in each source is not a complete wastestream quantity estimate. As directed 

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

contaminants for the 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 Consideration of Revisions in Mercury River Persistence Value

The commenters did not challenge the river persistence value for mercury used in the HRS documentation record

at proposal. However, based on the EPA’s March 2012 revision to the mercury river persistence value based on 
US Oil Recovery NPL Listing Support Document September 2012 

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 atmosphere) 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 108 

for the human food chain threat (previously 5 x 108 at proposal), and a combined 

ecotoxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value of 2 x 108 for the environmental threat (also previously 5 x 

108 at proposal) assigned for mercury. 

However, 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 Site 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 site or in an observed release from a site. 

Specifically, in evaluating the human food chain threat waste characteristics factor category value, HRS Section 

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 Table 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/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value from Table 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/bioaccumulation 

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 108 (manganese is assigned a human food chain threat toxicity/persistence/ 

bioaccumulation factor value of 5 x 108

, and silver is assigned an environmental threat ecosystem 

toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value of 5 x 108

). Manganese is in an observed release by direct 

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

and 79

; and, silver is in an observed release by chemical analysis and is associated with Sources 3 and 410. As 

manganese 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 observed 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 2012 

39

Thus the combined threat scores and the overall HRS site score is the same at promulgation 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: NS [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, 

EPA 
 

 

 

 

From: John Meyer/R6/USEPA/US 

To: Bob.Patton@tceq.texas.gov 

Cc: Ben Banipal/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Brenda Cook/R6/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, especially 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 conversation 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 this 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 proposal, 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 Services 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 meeting may be arranged with the EPA, TCEQ and 

Pollution Control to discuss the issue and our joint concerns. 

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

Jennifer L. Wheeler 

Compliance Manager 

Harris County Pollution Control Services Department 

John Phelps Courthouse 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 this and check to see if there's been any change. 

Thanks in advance for your expedited response. 

Adam Adams, FOSC 

USEPA, R6 

214-202-6952 
Attachment 3 

Excerpt of 1997 GAO report, Superfund: 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-97-20
 
1 

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 

34 
57 

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 Process 
Appendix 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 Process 
Appendix V 

Comments From the Environmental 

Protection Agency 

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

Comments From the Environmental 

Protection Agency 

See comment 1. 

See comment 2. 

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

Comments From the Environmental 

Protection Agency 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

Page 41 GAO/RCED-97-20 Duration of Superfund Process 
Appendix 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, EPA 
Strasburger & Price, LLP 

901 Main Street, Suite 4400 

Dallas, TX 75202 

Re: U.S. Oil Recovery Superfund Site 

Response to PRP Group Letter of August 16, 2012 

Dear Ms. Westfall: 

Thank you for your letter dated August 16,2012. I appreciate your clarifying the Group's 

position concerning its commitment to participate in the performance of a remedial investigation 

and feasibility study ("RIIFS") at the U.S. Oil Recovery Superfund Site ("Site"). In your letter, 

you reiterated the Group's willingness to commit provided other potentially responsible parties 

("PRPs"), namely past owner/operators of the Site property, are in.cluded in that effort. 

The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") remains committed in its continued efforts to 

identify any additional PRPs associated with the Site, including any past owners and/or operators 

who fall within the definition of liability under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). 

With respect to including additional PRPs in any RIIFS settlement negotiations, the EPA intends 

to follow the provisions in Sections 104(a), 122(a) and 122(e) ofCERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

9604(a), 9622(a) and 9622(e). Section 122(e) ofCERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9622(e), states that 

"[w]henever the President determines that a period of negotiation .. . would facilitate an 

agreement with [PRPs] for taking response action (including any action described in section 9604(b) of this title) and would expedite remedial action, the President shall notify all such 

parties .... " Those PRPs identified by the EPA who meet the requirements of those provisions 

will be notified of any RIIFS settlement negotiations, including any past owner/operators 

identified in the PRP Search. 

I understand the Group's PRP Search consultant, Mr. Randy Smith, has been working closely 

with Ms. Cindy Brown, the EPA Region 6 Enforcement Officer assigned to the Site, in sharing 

information that would help the EPA identify additional PRPs. I appreciate the Group's 

assistance in this regard. My staff will continue to consider and evaluate information provided 

by the Group for purposes of our PRP Search. 

RecycledIRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Recycted Paper (40% Postconsumer)