Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47495

DC 20460, telephone (800) 490–9194.

The complete announcement can be

accessed on the Internet from the EPA

home page: http://www.epa.gov/ncerqa.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its

Requests for Applications (RFA) the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) invites research grant

applications in the following areas of

special interest to its mission: (1)

Exploratory Research, (2) Indicators of

Global Climate Change, and (3)

Interindividual Variation in Human

Susceptibility to Environmentallycaused Disease. Applications must be

received as follows: December 16, 1997,

for the human health and environmental

chemistry areas of exploratory research;

February 12, 1998, for Indicators of

Global Climate Change and

Interindividual Variation in Human

Susceptibility to Environmentallycaused Disease; March 12, 1998, for the

physics and environmental engineering

areas of exploratory research; and March

31, 1998, for the environmental biology

area of exploratory research.

The RFAs provide relevant

background information, summarize

EPA’s interest in the topic areas, and

describe the application and review

process.

Contact person for the Exploratory

Research RFA is Clyde Bishop

(bishop.clyde@epamail.epa.gov),

telephone 202–564–6914; for Indicators

of Global Change, Barbara Levinson

(levinson.barbara@epamail.epa.gov),

telephone 202-564–6911; and for

Interindividual Variation in Human

Susceptibility to Environmentallycaused Disease, David Reese

(reese.david@epamail.epa.gov),

telephone 202–564–6919.

Dated: August 28, 1997.

Approved for publication:

Henry L. Longest II,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Research

and Development.

[FR Doc. 97–23838 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5889–6]

Fellowships for Graduate

Environmental Study

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of request for

applications.

SUMMARY: This notice provides

information on the availability of the

fiscal year 1998 Science to Achieve

Results (STAR) Fellowships for

Graduate Environmental Study Program

announcement, in which the scientific

disciplines of interest, eligibility and

submission requirements, evaluation

criteria, and implementation schedule

are set forth. Fellowships will be

competitively awarded following peer

review.

DATES: Closing date for receipt of preapplications is November 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

National Center for Environmental

Research and Quality Assurance

(8703R), 401 M Street SW, Washington

DC 20460, telephone (800) 490–9194.

The complete announcement can be

accessed on the Internet from the EPA

home page: http://www.epa.gov/ncerqa.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its

announcement for the STAR

Fellowships for Graduate

Environmental Study Program the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

invites fellowship pre-applications the

advance education (masters and

doctoral levels) in 27 fields of study

relevant to environmental science and

policy. Pre-applications must be

received no later than 4:00 p.m. on

November 14, 1997.

The announcement provides relevant

background information, identifies

eligible fields of study, and describes

the application and review process.

The contact person for the STAR

Fellowships Program is

Virginia Broadway

(broadway.virginia@epamail.epa.gov),

telephone 202–564–6923.

Dated: August 29, 1997.

Approved for publication:

Henry L. Longest, II,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Research

and Development.

[FR Doc. 97–23837 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5890–5]

Notice of Availability of Final Draft

Guidance for Developing Superfund

Memoranda of Agreement (MOA)

Language Concerning State Voluntary

Cleanup Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of the document ‘‘Final

Draft Guidance for Developing

Superfund Memoranda of Agreement

(MOA) Language Concerning State

Voluntary Cleanup Programs’’ and the

Agency’s request for stakeholder

comment on both aspects of the

document, i.e., the final draft guidance

and the site screening or designation

process. In this document, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency is

encouraging its Regions to develop

partnerships with States by negotiating

MOAs that delineate roles and

responsibilities for the cleanup of

hazardous substance sites, such as

Brownfields, that do not pose the type

of risk usually addressed by Federal

Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)

cleanups. These MOAs are designed to

facilitate the expeditious cleanup of

these lower risk sites under State

voluntary cleanup programs. This

document sets out baseline criteria that

EPA will use to evaluate State voluntary

cleanup programs. This evaluation will

be part of the negotiation of an MOA, or

work planning document. As explained

more fully in the draft guidance, for

those sites included within the scope of

the MOA, EPA will not exercise cost

recovery authority and does not

generally anticipate taking removal or

remedial actions under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) at

these sites except under the limited

circumstances detailed in the draft

guidance.

DATES: Written comments must be

postmarked or submitted by hand or

electronically by October 24, 1997. Due

to the previous stakeholder discussions

on this guidance, including the

February 27, 1997 open meeting noticed

in the February 13, 1997 Federal

Register, this comment period is not

expected to be extended, and thus, this

is likely to be the final opportunity for

public comment on this guidance.

ADDRESSES: To submit comments, the

public must send an original and two

copies to Docket Number SFMOA,

located at the Superfund Docket. The

official address is: U.S. EPA, Superfund

Docket (MC5202G), 401 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460. Handdelivered comments should be taken to:

U.S. EPA, Superfund Docket, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal

Gateway 1, First Floor, Arlington, VA

22202. (Also, see the section under

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ regarding

the paperless office effort for submitting

public comments.) The Superfund

Docket is open for public inspection and

copying of supporting information from

9:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
47496 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

except for Federal holidays. The public

must make an appointment to review

docket materials by calling 703–603–

9232. The public may copy a maximum

of 100 pages from any regulatory

document at no cost. Additional copies

cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Garczynski, Director, Outreach

and Special Projects Staff, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Mail Stop 5101, 401 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460, phone: (202)

260–4039, or Linda Boornazian, Policy

and Program Evaluation Division, Office

of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Mail Stop 2273A,

401 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20460, phone: (202) 564-5144.

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: The Final

Draft Guidance for Developing

Superfund Memoranda of Agreement

(MOA) Language Concerning State

Voluntary Cleanup Programs follows

this notice. In addition, the document

can be accessed electronically through

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/brownfields.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: States are

developing voluntary cleanup programs

to speed up the cleanup of non-National

Priorities List sites, which, generally

speaking, pose a lower risk than those

sites listed on the National Priorities

List (NPL). These voluntary cleanup

programs pose an alternative to the

conventional CERCLA or State

Superfund-like enforcement approach to

cleaning up contaminated sites.

Through State voluntary cleanup

programs, site owners and developers

identify and clean up sites by using less

extensive administrative procedures.

The site owners and developers may

then obtain some relief from future state

liability for past contamination. This

approach encourages cleanup of sites,

such as Brownfields, that might

otherwise not be cleaned up because of

limited Federal and State resources.

In addition, financial and real estate

sectors are sometimes reluctant to

support the redevelopment of

brownfields and lower risk sites because

they are concerned about potential

liability under CERCLA. Some

developers have also expressed concern

that the uncertainty that can arise from

potentially overlapping Federal/State

cleanup authorities can become a

disincentive to cleanup and

redevelopment of these sites. This

guidance addresses this concern by

clarifying EPA and State roles and

responsibilities, which helps reduce

such uncertainty and promotes the

cleanup and redevelopment of lower

risk sites such as Brownfields. As of

August 1997, eleven States and EPA

Regions have signed Memoranda of

Agreement clarifying their respective

roles at certain sites being addressed

under State voluntary cleanup

programs.

This draft guidance includes a draft

site designation or screening process

and proposes that this new process be

used in conjunction with the guidance

to designate sites as either Tier II (lower

risk sites that are eligible for inclusion

within the scope of an MOA concerning

a State voluntary cleanup program) or

Tier I (higher risk sites of the type that

historically have been listed on the

National Priorities List). Tier I sites are

not eligible for inclusion within the

scope of an MOA concerning a State

voluntary cleanup program.

The Agency is requesting comment on

both the draft guidance and the site

designation or screening process. EPA

would like to receive comments of both

a general nature, e.g., on the usefulness

of the MOA approach to clarifying roles

and responsibilities; the feasibility and

ease of implementation of the site

designation or screening process; as

well as specific suggestions as to how

the guidance or site tiering process

could be improved. In particular, EPA

would appreciate feedback and

comment in the following areas:

Draft Guidance

1. Does the final draft guidance

represent an appropriate balance among

assuring protective site cleanups; the

appropriate level of State, Federal and

community involvement at voluntary

cleanup sites; and, encouraging cleanup

and redevelopment of these sites,

particularly in the following areas?

a. Universe of sites eligible for

inclusion within scope of MOA

b. Criteria for evaluating State

voluntary cleanup programs

c. Level of Federal involvement

(including provision of technical or

financial assistance), if any, in State

voluntary cleanup programs

d. Level of Federal involvement, if

any, in specific sites being addressed

under State voluntary cleanup programs

e. Methods for determining the

protectiveness of voluntary cleanups at

lower risk sites.

f. Role of the community in voluntary

cleanups

Site Designation and Screening Process

2. What type and amount of

information is needed at each stage in

the decision process to reach a Tier I or

Tier II decision?

3. Are the screening steps in the best

logical sequence?

4. If there are nearby populations or

sensitive environments, how could EPA

ensure that private parties would

evaluate them to account for changes in

land use in the near or long-term?

5. What information/tools (e.g.,

software) are currently available to the

public that would allow them to collect

the requested information?

6. What are the resource implications

for stakeholders who use these tools at

each step of the process, i.e., how much

is the estimated cost (in dollars and

time) of conducting each step of the

process?

7. Are there preferred alternative

mechanisms for screening sites? If so,

please describe briefly.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperless Office Effort

EPA is asking prospective

commenters to voluntarily submit one

additional copy of their comments on

labeled personal computer diskettes in

ASCII (TEXT) format or a word

processing format that can be converted

to ACSII (TEXT). It is essential to

specify on the disk label the word

processing software and version/edition

as well as the name of the commenter.

This will allow EPA to convert the

comments into one of the word

processing formats utilized by the

Agency. Please use mailing envelopes

designed to physically protect the

submitted diskettes. EPA emphasizes

that submission of comments on

diskettes is not mandatory, nor will it

result in any advantage or disadvantage

to any commenter. Rather, EPA is

experimenting with this procedure as an

attempt to expedite our internal review

and response to comments. This

expedited procedure is in conjunction

with the Agency’s ‘‘Paperless Office’’

campaign.

Dated: August 29, 1997.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

Steven A. Herman,

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Oswer Directive lllllllllllll

Guidance for Developing Superfund

Memoranda of Agreement (MOA)

Language Concerning State Voluntary

Cleanup Programs

This document gives guidance to EPA staff

on how to draft MOAs with States on State

voluntary cleanup programs. It is not a

regulation, and does not create legally

binding obligations on any person, including

States and EPA. Whether or not EPA follows
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47497

1These MOAs are developed under the National

Contingency Plan definition of a Superfund

Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA), which is a

nonbinding, written document executed by an EPA

Regional Administrator and the head of a State

agency to establish the nature and extent of EPA

and State interaction during the removal, preremedial, remedial, and/or enforcement response

process. The SMOA generally defines roles and

responsibilities; it is not a site-specific document

although attachments may address specific sites.

2EPA may obtain access, conduct site assessment

or information gathering as necessary to determine

whether an imminent and substantial

endangerment exists.

3The NPL means the list, compiled by EPA

pursuant to CERCLA section 105, of uncontrolled

hazardous substance releases in the United States

that are priorities for long-term remedial evaluation

and response.

4Higher Risk (or Tier I) sites are sites that, while

not currently proposed for listing on the NPL, have

greater potential for being addressed under CERCLA

authorities.

the guidance in any particular case will

depend on the circumstances. EPA may

change the guidance in the future.

I. Purpose

This guidance will assist the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Regions and States in developing

or amending Memoranda of Agreement

(MOA) 1 regarding EPA/State

relationships with respect to sites being

addressed by State voluntary cleanup

programs. Regions should use this

guidance in determining whether to

acknowledge the adequacy of a State

voluntary cleanup program through an

MOA. For those sites included within

the scope of the MOA, Regions and

States can agree that EPA will not

exercise cost recovery authority and

does not generally anticipate taking a

removal or remedial action 2 at certain

sites being addressed by a State’s

voluntary cleanup program except

under limited circumstances. The

decision to sign an MOA is

discretionary upon the part of the

Regional Administrator.

II. Introduction

State Voluntary Cleanup Programs

A State voluntary cleanup program is

an alternative to the conventional

CERCLA or State Superfund-like

enforcement approach to cleaning up

contaminated sites. States are

developing voluntary cleanup programs

to speed up the cleanup of non-National

Priorities List sites, which, generally

speaking, pose a lower risk than those

sites listed on the National Priorities

List (NPL). 3 These voluntary cleanup

programs are designed to achieve results

that are acceptable to the State in terms

of costs and protection of the

environment and human health.

Many States have established

voluntary cleanup programs. The key

ingredients of a documented State

voluntary cleanup program include

established authority, investigative and

remedial procedures, cleanup targets

appropriate to sites, State sign-off

conditions and procedures, and liability

provisions. These voluntary cleanup

programs allow volunteers, such as site

owners and developers, to identify and

clean up sites, to use less extensive

administrative procedures, and to obtain

some relief from future state liability for

past contamination. These sites might

otherwise not be cleaned up because of

their relatively low priority, and

because these sites are too numerous for

other State or Federal cleanup programs

to address within a reasonable time

frame.

State-established voluntary cleanup

programs allow private parties to

initiate and proceed with a cleanup

with varying levels of State oversight

and enforcement conditions. This

guidance is intended to be flexible

enough to accommodate variability

among State voluntary cleanup

programs; however, the guidance does

describe a minimum set of criteria that

a State voluntary cleanup program

should meet before EPA signs an MOA

with the State concerning its voluntary

cleanup program.

In this guidance, EPA uses the term

‘‘voluntary’’ to mean ‘‘private partyinitiated.’’ It does not imply a lack of

State oversight and/or approval of

cleanup activities. Some State voluntary

cleanup programs require the

‘‘voluntary’’ party to enter into an

enforceable consent agreement.

III. Implementation

A. Scope and Applicability

The principles outlined in this policy

may apply to all sites, except as

specified below.

1. Those sites designated as Higher

Risk (or Tier I) sites,4 either under the

screening process described in the

Attachment to this guidance, or under

an alternative screening process or

mechanism proposed by the State and

approved by EPA Headquarters, are not

eligible for inclusion within the scope of

an MOA.

2. Those sites proposed for or listed

on the National Priorities List (NPL); or,

those sites where ranking packages

proposing their inclusion on the

National Priorities List (NPL) are

submitted to EPA Headquarters, are not

eligible for inclusion within the scope of

the MOA.

3. Those sites for which an order or

other enforcement action is issued or

entered under CERCLA or sections

3008(h), 3013(a), or 7003(a) of RCRA,

and is still in effect, are not eligible for

inclusion within the scope of an MOA.

4. Those sites undergoing RCRA

corrective action pursuant to RCRA

sections 3004(u), 3004(v) or 3008(h) are

not eligible for inclusion within the

scope of an MOA. (However, see below

for details on certain situations where

exceptions may be made to this

restriction for facilities or portions of

facilities where correction action has

not yet been initiated under an order or

permit.)

The Region and the State may agree

to apply the principles of the MOA to

voluntary cleanups that have already

begun if the State’s voluntary cleanup

program met the requirements of this

guidance at the time those voluntary

cleanups commenced. The MOA should

clarify that EPA is not waiving its

claims for past costs under CERCLA or

other relevant authority (to the extent

EPA has incurred such costs), and the

MOA does not affect EPA’s ability to

recover these costs.

B. Site Designation

Generally, sites that are included

within the scope of the MOA will be

those types of sites that are often lesscontaminated or that pose lower risk to

public health, welfare or the

environment; these types of sites are not

typically addressed by EPA CERCLA

cleanup actions. For purposes of this

guidance, EPA will designate these sites

as Lower Risk (or Tier II) sites. EPA’s

expectation for Lower Risk (Tier II) sites

covered by an EPA/State MOA

concerning State voluntary cleanup

programs is that EPA cleanup actions

should be necessary only under very

limited circumstances, and that the

contact for cleanup of Lower Risk (or

Tier II) sites is the State.

EPA has developed a site designation

and screening mechanism that

distinguishes Higher Risk (or Tier I) and

Lower Risk (or Tier II) sites (See

Attachment). The MOA should explain

that States or volunteering parties will

use this screening mechanism, which is

attached, to designate a site as Higher

Risk (Tier I) or Lower Risk (Tier II). A

State may propose to EPA Headquarters

an alternative screening process or

mechanism for designating sites as

Higher Risk (or Tier I) or Lower Risk (or

Tier II). The State should demonstrate

that the proposed alternative screening

mechanism achieves results consistent

with the results of the process described

in the Attachment. If EPA Headquarters

approves the alternative site tiering

process, the MOA should attach the

description of the alternative screening

process. The MOA should also
47498 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

recognize that alternative method as a

way to designate sites as Higher Risk (or

Tier I) or Lower Risk (or Tier II).

The MOA should state that

documentation of the decision

designating a site as Higher Risk (or Tier

I) or Lower Risk (or Tier II) should be

kept in the file maintained by the State

voluntary cleanup program, and be

made available to EPA upon request.

The MOA should also specify that the

State is responsible for the site

designations. If EPA subsequently

determines that a site was improperly

designated as Lower Risk (Tier II), the

provisions of section III. D. ‘‘EPA

CERCLA Action’’ do not apply to that

site. The sites addressed through a State

voluntary cleanup program that do not

have documentation establishing a site

as Lower Risk (Tier II), should not be

eligible for inclusion within the scope of

an MOA concerning EPA CERCLA

cleanup actions.

C. Applicability to Facilities subject to

RCRA Requirements

This guidance is also applicable to

CERCLA actions at sites subject to

RCRA requirements, subject to the

restrictions in section III. A., above, and

as discussed below. Generally, this

guidance could apply to two types of

sites subject to RCRA: (1) sites at which

there are only generators of hazardous

waste; and (2) hazardous waste

treatment, storage or disposal facilities

(TSDFs).

Generators

Sites at which there are only

generators of hazardous waste are

typically cleaned up by State cleanup

programs (or, in some cases, the Federal

CERCLA program) and are within the

scope of the MOA unless otherwise

excluded by the restrictions in Section

III.A., above.

TSDFs

Hazardous waste treatment, storage or

disposal facilities (TSDFs) are typically

cleaned up by EPA or authorized States

under the RCRA corrective action

provisions (See, RCRA sections 3004(u)

and (v) and 3008(h)). TSDFs or portions

of TSDFs where corrective action has

not yet been initiated under an order or

permit may be included within the

scope of the MOA on a case-by-case

basis. At the Federal level, the CERCLA

program has already generally deferred

cleanups of RCRA TSDFs, including

those RCRA TSDFs currently being

addressed in authorized States under

order or permit, to the RCRA program

(see, 60 FR 14641; March 20, 1995).

Effect of RCRA Authorization

Under RCRA section 3006, EPA may

authorize States to carry out the RCRA

program (including corrective action

requirements), subject to EPA oversight.

In a State authorized to implement

RCRA corrective action, EPA expects

the State to be the primary implementor

of RCRA requirements at all facilities

subject to corrective action, including

facilities that have, have had, or should

have had, RCRA interim status.

Authorized States may, at their

discretion, allow cleanup of TSDFs or

portions of TSDFs under a State

voluntary program. In an authorized

State, TSDFs or portions of TSDFs

where corrective action has not yet been

initiated under an order or permit may

be addressed by the policy discussed in

section III. D. of this guidance on a caseby-case basis.

Effect of Cleanup Under a State

Voluntary Program on RCRA Permitting

Requirements

In authorized and non-authorized

States, a voluntary cleanup at a TSDF

does not avoid the requirements that

TSDFs obtain RCRA permits and that

RCRA permits address corrective action.

In cases where voluntary cleanups occur

prior to permit issuance, EPA or the

authorized State, at the time of permit

issuance, must determine whether or

not a voluntary cleanup satisfied all

corrective action requirements or

whether additional corrective action

activities are needed (e.g., if the

voluntary cleanup addressed only a

portion of the facility subject to

corrective action). Voluntary cleanups

can substantially accelerate the

corrective action process by, for

example, allowing it to proceed before

permit issuance or, where a permit has

been issued, by allowing more

immediate remediation of certain areas

which are not covered by the permit,

unless otherwise excluded by the

restrictions in section III.A., above.

D. EPA CERCLA Action

The Regions should state in the

Memorandum of Agreement the

following:

For sites being investigated or cleaned

up consistent with the practices and

procedures of a State voluntary cleanup

program that meets the criteria

discussed in this guidance, EPA will not

exercise its cost recovery authority

unless:

a. The Administrator determined that

the release or threat of release may

present an imminent and substantial

endangerment to public health or

welfare or the environment; or,

b. The State requests the

Administrator to take action; or,

c. Conditions at the site, that were

unknown to the State at the time the

response action plan was approved, are

discovered, and such conditions

indicate, as determined by the

Administrator or the State, that the

response action is not protective of

human health or the environment; or,

d. The cleanup of the site is no longer

protective of human health or the

environment, as determined by the

Administrator or the State, because of a

change or a proposed change in the use

of the site.

Except as provided in (a) through (d)

above, EPA does not generally

anticipate taking removal or remedial

action at sites involved in State

Voluntary Cleanup Programs addressed

by a signed EPA/State Superfund

Memorandum of Agreement.

E. EPA/State Coordination

The outcome of these MOAs is EPA

acknowledgment of the adequacy of a

State voluntary cleanup program, and

EPA’s intention to rely on States to be

responsible for addressing sites

included within the scope of MOAs

concerning these State voluntary

cleanup programs. EPA and States

should be developing MOAs in the

context of the new framework for the

State/EPA partnership, which EPA and

State Environmental Managers endorsed

in July 1994. A key principle governing

the EPA/State relationship is that each

State/EPA relationship must be based

on an understanding of—and consent

for—a clear assignment of roles and

responsibilities. This principle

envisions utilization of the comparative

advantages and inherent strengths that

each party brings to the relationship.

Adherence to this principle should help

avoid duplication of effort, and

maximize the number of sites cleaned

up through the efficient use of EPA and

State resources.

Prior to signing an MOA concerning

a State voluntary cleanup program, the

Region should review all relevant

documents concerning the voluntary

cleanup program to determine if the

State voluntary cleanup program meets

the six criteria discussed below. A

Region may wish to conduct a State visit

to review the State voluntary cleanup

program prior to signing an MOA.

The MOAs concerning State voluntary

cleanup programs should include a

provision that EPA will review the

MOA upon significant changes to the

State voluntary cleanup program, and

that the State will provide EPA with

prompt notice of changes to their laws,

regulations, resource levels, guidance,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47499

policies and practices governing such

programs. The MOA should also state

that EPA will periodically conduct

reviews of State Voluntary Cleanup

Programs where EPA has signed MOAs

with States for the purpose of assessing

how effectively EPA and the States are

meeting the goals and expectations

described in the MOA.

These reviews of signed MOAs should

be conducted on a staggered basis so

that all MOAs signed in a Region are not

up for review at the same time. At a

minimum, the initial review of an MOA

should be conducted three years after

the date EPA signs an MOA; at a

minimum, subsequent reviews of MOAs

should be conducted every five years

thereafter. While this guidance does not

invalidate MOAs signed by EPA and

States before the effective date of this

guidance, an EPA Region should begin

its staggered reviews by starting with

those MOAs. Reviews of existing

voluntary cleanup MOAs should be

conducted to assess the consistency of

State voluntary cleanup programs with

this guidance.

When an interested party expresses

concern to EPA about a specific site

covered under the MOA, EPA may

contact the State, which would be

responsible for providing

documentation to EPA that designates

the site as a Lower Risk (Tier II) site.

EPA and the State should discuss the

party’s concern as well as the status of

the site under the State voluntary

cleanup program. If the public expresses

significant concerns to EPA about any

aspect of the State voluntary cleanup

program, EPA and the State will discuss

how the MOA is being implemented,

and whether the State’s voluntary

cleanup program continues to meet the

requirements set forth in this guidance.

Prior to EPA deciding to sign an MOA

concerning State voluntary cleanup

programs, the Region will discuss with

the State its views and record on NPL

listing, and will consider that

information as a factor in deciding

whether to sign an MOA. EPA will

include the State’s views and record on

NPL listing as part of its periodic

reviews of how effectively the MOA is

being implemented.

F. Criteria for a State Voluntary Cleanup

Program

Before a Region and State sign an

MOA that acknowledges the adequacy

of a State voluntary cleanup program,

the Region should ensure that the State

voluntary cleanup program meets the

criteria described below. The MOA

should make clear to any private party

that recovery of response costs under

CERCLA will require that the cleanup

action meet the requirements outlined

in the National Contingency Plan (See

40 CFR 300.700 et. seq.).

1. Community Involvement

Public involvement activities ensure

that the public is both informed of and,

if interested, involved in planning for

response actions. Under voluntary

cleanup programs, the State and/or the

private sector may provide the

opportunity for community involvement

activities. General methods of providing

the opportunity for meaningful

community involvement may include

practices, policies, guidance, or

regulations on conducting community

involvement on a site-by-site basis.

The State voluntary cleanup program

should provide opportunities for

meaningful community involvement

that are responsive to the risk posed by

the site contamination and the level of

public interest. While States should be

afforded discretion in how their

program provides such opportunities,

State programs should, at a minimum,

provide for adequate notification of the

proposed voluntary cleanup plan to

affected parties. The community

involvement criterion can be

substantively met, on a site-by-site

basis, by the State voluntary cleanup

program through any of the methods

suggested below. At sites where a

significant segment of the community

does not speak English as a first

language, there should be provisions for

providing site information in languages

other than English.

a. Notifications about voluntary

response actions to local government

officials and community groups;

b. Publication of legal notices about

voluntary response actions in city or

community newspapers (or other media,

such as radio, church organizations and

community newsletters) at key

milestones in the response action

process;

c. Other forms of notification about

voluntary response actions;

Where the public has been involved

in site activities and demonstrates an

interest in participating in response

action planning and implementation,

additional meaningful public

involvement opportunities may include:

d. Preparation of a public

involvement plan that establishes

opportunities for public involvement.

Such a plan may provide background

about the site, response actions already

conducted, and the history of public

involvement at the site; identify the

specific opportunities for public

participation in cleanup decisions that

will take place; and, describe activities

that will be undertaken to address and

incorporate public concerns in the

cleanup.

e. Involvement of the public in

understanding the risk reduction

aspects of the voluntary cleanup.

f. The publication and distribution of

site fact sheets.

g. Conduct of community interviews,

including interviews through

notification and communication with

community organization officials,

environmental justice groups, civic

groups, environmental interest

organizations, and church organizations.

h. Numerous other methods to solicit

public participation and comment.

i. Public meetings or hearings, either

formal or informal.

j. Local land use planning activities

on current and/or future uses of sites.

2. Protectiveness

A State voluntary cleanup program

should ensure that voluntary response

actions are protective of human health,

welfare, and the environment.

Reasonably anticipated future land uses

should be considered in establishing

protective contaminant concentrations.

All voluntary response actions must

comply with any Federal, State or local

laws that apply to that site. Ways to

determine protectiveness may include,

but are not limited to:

a. Background contaminant

concentrations;

b. Site specific risk assessments,

based on U.S. EPA’s Risk Assessment

Guidance for Superfund, part A and B,

and associated policy updates, e.g., soil

screening guidance, or on State

regulations and guidance;

c. Contaminant-specific models such

as the biokinetic uptake model for lead;

d. Applicable and/or Relevant and

Appropriate Requirements, such as

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)

for groundwater;

e. Consistency with a human health

risk range, as defined in 40 CFR

300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(2) for known or

suspected carcinogens, or a hazard

index for threshold contaminants, as

defined in 40 CFR 300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(1);

or,

f. Risk-based corrective action

assessment.

2A. Response selection. Response

actions should be conducted costeffectively, consistent with projected

future uses at the site. All response

actions must comply with any Federal,

State and local laws that apply to the

site. Long-term reliability should also be

a goal when selecting response actions.

Response actions may include one or

more of the following:

a. Treatment (active or passive) that

eliminates or reduces the toxicity,
47500 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

5CERCLIS is the abbreviation of the CERCLA

Information System, EPA’s comprehensive data

base and management system.

mobility, or volume of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants;

b. Containment of contaminated

media to acceptable exposure levels;

c. Transport to off-site treatment;

d. Restricted access to and/or use of

the site through institutional controls

that are enforceable over time.

3. Resources/Technical Assistance

The State should demonstrate that its

voluntary cleanup program has

adequate resources, including financial,

legal and technical, to ensure that

voluntary response actions are

conducted in an appropriate and timely

manner, and that meaningful outreach

efforts are made to the affected

community. The State agency should

make available both technical

assistance, and streamlined procedures

where appropriate, to ensure

expeditious voluntary response actions.

4. Certification of Response Action

Completion

A State Voluntary cleanup program

should provide adequate mechanisms

for the written approval of response

action plans and a certification or

similar documentation indicating that

the response actions are complete. In

situations where a State uses alternative

mechanisms to approve cleanup

decisions, all approval determinations

will be considered the same as the State

making the determinations, and as such,

the State will be viewed as responsible

for such decisions.

5. Oversight Authorities

A State voluntary cleanup program

should provide adequate oversight to

ensure that voluntary response actions,

including site assessments/

characterizations, are conducted in such

a manner to assure protection of human

health, welfare and the environment, as

described above. For sites with

nonpermanent remedies, especially

nonpermanent remedies premised on

the restricted use of the land, the State

voluntary cleanup program should meet

this criterion by including a

requirement that the State program

receives progress reports on site

conditions, or by reserving the State

program’s right to conduct site

inspections. If the State voluntary

cleanup program does not require the

State to monitor a site after the final

cleanup report is approved, then the

State voluntary cleanup program could

meet this criterion by reserving the

State’s authority to remove the cleanup

certification under certain

circumstances, such as a change in the

site’s use, a failure of institutional

controls, or the discovery of additional

contamination.

6. Enforcement Authorities

The State voluntary cleanup program

should show the capability, through

enforcement or other state authorities, of

ensuring completion of response actions

if the volunteering party(ies) conducting

the response action fail(s) or refuse(s) to

complete the necessary response

activities, including operation and

maintenance or long-term monitoring

activities.

G. Reporting Requirements

The Region and the State should

negotiate the need for reporting site

names and the status of the sites by

name to best suit the needs of that

Region and State. The MOA should

state, however, that the State agrees to

maintain a list of site names (and

locations) covered by the MOA and to

make such list available to EPA and the

public upon request. The State Agency

should report, at a minimum, the

following information to the Region on

an annual basis.

a. Number of sites in each stage of the

State voluntary cleanup program;

b. Number of sites entering the

voluntary cleanup program the previous

year; and,

c. Number of sites having received

State agency approvals of full or partial

completions in the previous year.

EPA should state in the MOA that it

will conduct selective audits of sites

within the scope of the MOA for the

purpose of assessing how the site

designation methodology attached to

this guidance, or an alternative site

designation mechanism approved by

EPA Headquarters, is being

implemented by either the State or the

volunteering party. Regions and States

should discuss the status of CERCLIS 5

sites covered by the MOA at least semiannually to ensure EPA/State

coordination on sites covered by the

MOA. This is especially important since

EPA decides which sites are removed

from CERCLIS.

IV. Financial Assistance to States To

Support Voluntary Cleanup Program

Activities

EPA recognizes that most State

voluntary cleanup programs are

intended to be self-sustaining. Most of

the voluntary programs with active State

oversight require the private party to

pay an hourly oversight charge to the

State environmental agency in addition

to all cleanup costs. Some States require

application fees that can be applied

against oversight costs.

However, EPA does recognize that

States may need financial assistance to

help establish new State voluntary

cleanup programs and to help enhance

existing State voluntary cleanup

programs. To accomplish this, the

Region may enter into cooperative

agreements with the State to provide

funding to the State for certain

purposes.

The Region may provide Fund money

to States for development and

enhancement of voluntary cleanup

programs through core program

cooperative agreements. OSWER has

developed guidance for use of core

program cooperative agreement funding

of State voluntary cleanup program

infrastructure. (See May 1, 1997

memorandum from Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Acting Assistant Administrator,

OSWER, entitled ‘‘Approach for

Regional Funding of State Voluntary

Cleanup Programs.’’) If the Region

intends to provide funds to the State for

voluntary programs, the Region should

identify its resource needs for State

voluntary cleanup programs in its

annual budget development process.

V. Technical Assistance to States to

Support Voluntary Cleanup Program

Activities

EPA will also provide technical

assistance to States to support voluntary

cleanups. EPA will share with States

information contained in publicly

available national databases. EPA will

share any lessons learned or national

expertise it has gained through the

CERCLA program with States who face

similar assessment and cleanup

problems at voluntary cleanup sites.

Tier I/II Designation and Screening

Process Summary

Introduction/Purpose

This document summarizes EPA’s

Tier I and Tier II definitions and

screening process for sites being

addressed through voluntary cleanup

programs. Tier I sites are among those

where EPA has historically taken

cleanup actions under the Federal

Superfund program. Tier II sites are

generally representative of those where

EPA has not historically taken Federal

Superfund cleanup actions. EPA intends

that any party can use the process

outlined below to make Tier I/II

designations. Understanding the

potential for Superfund involvement

enables stakeholders to make more

informed property cleanup, transfer,

and redevelopment decisions.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47501

Defining Tier I and Tier II Sites

Tier I sites are those that have greater

potential to require long-term or

emergency cleanup work under the

Federal Superfund program. These are

sites which have a release of a

hazardous substance, pollutant, or

contaminant that has caused, or is likely

to cause, human exposure or

contamination of a sensitive

environment. These sites typically

involve contamination of drinking

water, surface water, air, or soils which

has either caused, or is likely to cause,

exposure to nearby populations, or has

contaminated, or is likely to

contaminate, sensitive environments

(such as wetlands, national parks, and

habitats of endangered species, etc). Tier

II sites are those that have less potential

to require long-term or emergency

cleanup work under the Federal

Superfund program. This includes sites

which: (1) Do not qualify for response

under Superfund (e.g., CERCLA

petroleum exclusion sites); (2) score

below 28.5 based on EPA’s Hazard

Ranking System (HRS), 55 FR 51532; (3)

are being adequately addressed under

other Federal statutes, subject to the

restrictions specified in Section III. A.

‘‘Scope and Applicability’’ of the MOA/

VCP guidance document; or (4)

otherwise do not meet the criteria given

above for Tier I sites.

Screening Process

To conserve resources, EPA has

employed a phased, progressively more

detailed screening process to identify

Federal Superfund sites. Key factors in

making decisions about sites include

whether a release of hazardous

substances has occurred or is likely to

occur and determining whether people

or sensitive environments have been or

are likely to be impacted by the release.

Only about 15 percent of the sites

screened by Superfund to date have

required removal or remedial actions—

most are screened out. The Superfund

screening process differs from the

private sector site evaluation approach

which typically is interested in what

environmental liabilities and

remediation costs are associated with a

site or property. Consequently, the

private sector assessments focus on

collecting information on the property,

not offsite impacts. The Tier I/II

screening process outlined below uses

common elements of both approaches

and incorporates, when necessary, the

data needed for EPA to ensure human

health and environmental issues are

addressed.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

EPA’s HRS model can also be applied

at any point in the assessment process

to assist parties in determining the

likelihood of Federal Superfund

interest. Sites with an HRS score below

28.5 are considered Tier II by the

Agency and account for most of the sites

assessed under Superfund.

The steps involved in making a Tier

I/II determination are further described

in the Screening Process section of the

Tier I/II Designation and Screening

Process document.
47502 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

Conclusion

EPA believes the screening process

described above can by used by any

party to determine whether a site, in

most cases, would be Tier I or Tier II.

It enables parties to make many Tier I

or Tier II designations based on

information collected as part of the

private due diligence process.

Additional detail can be found in the

attachment entitled ‘‘Tier I/II

Designation and Screening Process.’’

Tier I/II Designation and Screening

Process

Purpose

The purpose of this guidance is to

provide definitions of Tier I and Tier II

sites within the context of MOAs

covering State VCPs. The guidance also

describes a process that can be used by

any party, e.g., site owners, State

Agencies, etc., to decide whether a site

should be classified as Tier I or Tier II

for the purpose of determining status

under the MOA. The overall goal of this

guidance is to assist users in reaching

consistent decisions regarding Tier I/II

designations.

Scope

EPA intends that this approach be

used by states and/or private parties,

including, for example, site owners, to

assist them in making decisions

regarding their status under a State

VCP/MOA. EPA believes that in most

instances private parties can use the

following definitions and screening

process to make accurate determinations

on whether sites are Tier I or Tier II.

Although the volunteering party may

conduct the assessment on which the

tiering decision is based, the State is

ultimately responsible for tiering

decisions. If the EPA subsequently

determines that a site was improperly

classified as ‘‘Tier II’’, the provisions of

section III. D. ‘‘EPA CERCLA Actions’’

of the MOA/VCP guidance document

will not apply.

The Agency anticipates that some of

the sites addressed through voluntary

cleanup programs may be included in

EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Information System (CERCLIS)

inventory. EPA removes sites from

CERCLIS after assessment and any

necessary Superfund response and

enforcement actions are completed.

Approximately 75 percent of the sites

addressed under the Federal Superfund

program to date have been removed

from the CERCLIS inventory. With

respect to voluntary cleanup programs,

EPA will continue to decide which sites

are removed from CERCLIS based on the

same criteria that are applied to sites not

covered under these programs.

Background

The Federal Superfund program

evaluates sites brought to the Agency’s

attention to identify those sites posing

the most serious threats to human

health and the environment. Generally,

EPA employs a multi-phase evaluation

process to identify which sites are

among the highest priority for response,

including whether they need removal

actions, and to determine what response

actions are appropriate. Results of the

evaluations are used to determine

whether involvement by the Federal

Superfund program, e.g., remedial

actions at National Priorities List (NPL)

sites, performing time critical removal

actions by the Federal Superfund

program, etc., is warranted.

These evaluations, including

identifying hazardous substances,

exposure pathways, and receptors/

targets, seek to identify sites that have

caused, or are likely to cause, human

exposure or contamination of sensitive

environments. The definition of Tier I

sites is directed towards delineating

these sites. Sites that do not meet these

criteria, which the Agency expects to be

the majority of sites brought to the

Agency’s attention, are defined as Tier

II sites. Specifics of these definitions are

addressed below.

Tier I Definition

The Federal Superfund Program will

generally classify a site as Tier I if a

release from that site has caused, or is

likely to cause, human exposure to the

release or contamination of a sensitive

environment, and the release can be

addressed under CERCLA authorities,

and cleanup of the release has not been

generally deferred to another Federal

cleanup program. This includes, but is

not limited to, sites where:

• Drinking water supplies have been,

or are likely to become, contaminated

with a hazardous substance (as defined

in HRS); or

• Soils on or in close proximity to

school, day care center, or residential

properties have been contaminated by a

hazardous substance three times above

background levels; or

• Toxic substances that

bioaccumulate have been discharged

into surface waters; or

• Air releases of hazardous

substances have been identified in a

populated area; or

• Sensitive environments have been

contaminated; or

• Releases would require immediate

action from EPA (e.g., fire, explosions).

Note: Italicized terms are defined in the

Tier I/II Screening Mechanism Definitions

section at the end of this document.

Tier II Definition

Tier II sites are those that would be

unlikely to warrant Federal remedial

actions, i.e., those that do not meet the

definition for Tier I sites. Tier II sites

would also include sites that score

below 28.5, based on the Hazard

Ranking System (HRS), 55 FR 51532,

and do not meet any of the

characteristics of Tier I sites identified

above. The majority of sites brought to

the Agency’s attention over the course

of the Superfund program have scored

below 28.5 and are considered Tier II.

Screening Process

The screening process below

represents an approach to determine

whether a site is Tier I or Tier II. The

process consists of multiple steps in

which each successive step involves

more detailed information about a site

and its environs. Information needed at

each step is used to determine whether

a site is Tier I, Tier II, or if further

evaluation is necessary to make a Tier

I/II decision. EPA’s HRS model can be

applied at any point in the process to

assess a site. Those sites which score

below 28.5 at any step in the process

and do not meet any of the

characteristics of Tier I sites identified

above are defined as Tier II. The HRS

model is backed by a substantial body

of guidance available to assist users in

making decisions consistent with those

of EPA. On the other hand, if the

reviewer identifies conditions

consistent with any of the elements that

make up a Tier I site, no further

investigation would be needed to

classify the site as Tier I. Given that

each step in the process builds upon

information collected in previous stages,

the process may be entered at any point

based on the amount of knowledge and

data available regarding site conditions

and its environs.

The iterative nature of assessing sites

by collecting more detailed information

and reaching conclusions in successive

evaluation stages is similar to both the

public sector approach (e.g., preliminary

assessment followed by a site inspection

if warranted) and the private sector

approach (e.g., phase I assessment based

on ASTM Standard Practice E 1527,

followed by a phase II if warranted and

requested).

Tier I/II status reflects site conditions

at the time the assessment data are

collected and a decision is made. As

such, a Tier I/II decision could become

invalid, if site conditions change, new

information is discovered, or site
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47503

6Under this act, ‘‘source’’ means uranium or

thorium, or any combination of the two, in any

physical or chemical form, ‘‘by-product’’ means any

radioactive material that was made radioactive by

exposure to radiation from the process of using or

producing special nuclear material, and ‘‘special

nuclear material’’ is plutonium, uranium-233,

enriched uranium-233 or—235, or any material that

the NRC determines to be special nuclear material

not including source material.

characteristics change (e.g., a new

residential development is built on a

site).

The five major steps in making a Tier

I/II determination include: (1)

Exclusions; (2) Phase I; (3) Expanded

Phase I; (4) Limited Sampling; and (5)

Extensive Sampling. Each of these steps

is described in detail below.

Exclusions. The first step in

determining whether a site is Tier I or

Tier II involves determining whether the

site is eligible for cleanup under

CERCLA authorities or if the site is

being adequately addressed under

another federal statute such as the

Resource, Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). Sites that are ineligible for

CERCLA response or are being

addressed under another federal statute

instead of CERCLA should receive a

Tier II designation.

A. Statutory restrictions. Some

substances are excluded under CERCLA,

and sites that contain only those

substances are ineligible for CERCLA

response actions. Similarly, Section

104(a)3 of CERCLA lists other

limitations on CERCLA response. In

general, a CERCLA response may be

taken at a site if there is a release or

threat of a release of a hazardous

substance, pollutant or contaminant, or

if the site poses an imminent or

substantial danger to public health,

welfare, or the environment).

Section 101(14) of CERCLA defines

hazardous substances by referencing

substances specifically listed under

other Federal laws. A ‘‘hazardous

substance’’ is any element, compound,

mixture, solution or substance

specifically designated as a ‘‘hazardous

substance’’ or is regulated under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,

or Toxic Substances Control Act.

Section 101(33) of CERCLA broadly

defines the term ‘‘pollutant or

contaminant’’ which could include any

substance known or reasonably

anticipated to be harmful to human

health or ecological health. Because no

substances are actually listed as

pollutants or contaminants in CERCLA,

the Agency determines on a case-bycase basis which substances fall within

the definition.

There are specific statutory exclusions

that could cause a site to be ineligible

for CERCLA response. For example,

hazardous substances, as defined under

CERCLA, specifically exclude

petroleum and natural gas, and therefore

CERCLA authority may not be used to

respond to releases of these substances

unless they are specifically listed or

designated under CERCLA. The

exclusion applies to petroleum,

including crude oil or any fraction

thereof (if the fraction is not specifically

listed nor designated a hazardous

substance by other listed federal acts),

natural gas, natural gas liquids,

liquefied natural gas, and synthetic gas

usable for fuel. Sites are excluded if

they contain only excluded petroleum

products. EPA expects that most

releases from petroleum underground

storage tanks (USTs) at gasoline filling

stations, for example, would qualify for

this exemption.

On the other hand, releases of

petroleum products that are

contaminated with hazardous

substances (i.e., used oil/waste oil

contaminated with metals or PCBs) may

fall within CERCLA response

authorities, if the hazardous substances

cannot be separated from the petroleum,

or if plumes of exempted substances are

commingled with plumes of nonexempted substances.

In addition, section 101(22) of

CERCLA excludes a limited category of

radioactive materials from the statutory

definition of ‘‘release,’’ making a site

ineligible for CERCLA response. The

excluded categories of radioactive

materials are:

1. Releases of source, by-product, or

special nuclear material (not including

source material) subject to section 170

of the Atomic Energy Act; 6 and

2. Any release of source, by-product,

or special nuclear material from any

processing site specifically designated

under the Uranium Mill Tailings

Radiation Control Act of 1978.

Parties should consult with State and/

or Federal contacts and consult

appropriate case law to determine

whether the site is excluded from

CERCLA consideration due to statutory

restrictions.

B. Other federal statutes. In addition

to statutory restrictions, sites being

adequately addressed under other

federal statutes, such as RCRA, may also

qualify for a Tier II designation, but

refer to Section III. A. ‘‘Scope and

Applicability’’ of the MOA/VCP

guidance document to determine

whether a specific site is eligible for

inclusion under the MOA/VCP. RCRA is

EPA’s other central authority for

cleaning up releases of hazardous

substances, and has roughly parallel

procedures to CERCLA in responding to

releases of hazardous substances. The

Agency has adopted a policy to use

RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste)

authority to respond to sites that can be

addressed under RCRA Subtitle C

corrective action authority (see 54 FR

41000, October 4, 1989).

Types of sites covered under the

policy include hazardous waste

treatment, storage and disposal facilities

(TSDFs) that qualify under EPA’s

National Priorities List/RCRA deferral

policy (see 51 FR 21057, 53 FR 23980,

and 54 FR 41004). Parties should

consult with State and Federal contacts

to determine whether a site is being

addressed under another federal statute,

and therefore, whether a Tier II

designation is appropriate. Again,

parties must still refer to Section III. A.

‘‘Scope and Applicability’’ of the MOA/

VCP guidance document to determine

whether a specific site is eligible for

inclusion under the MOA/VCP.

Parties should consult with State and/

or Federal contacts and consult

appropriate case law to answer the

following questions:

Question 1A: Is the site eligible for

response under CERCLA authorities?

If NO, the site should be classified as

Tier II and no further work under this

process is necessary;

If YES, refer to Question 1B:

Question 1B: Is the EPA or the State

addressing the site under another

federal statute instead of CERCLA?

If NO, proceed to the Phase I step (or

other appropriate step depending on site

information available);

If YES, the site should be classified as

Tier II and no further work under this

process is necessary.

Phase I

The Phase I step within this process

is quite similar to the methods

prescribed by ASTM Standard Practice

E 1527, although it is limited to

hazardous substances as defined under

CERCLA. The primary purpose of the

Phase I step is to gather readily available

information about a site to identify the

presence or likely presence of an

existing or past release of a hazardous

substance into the ground (i.e., soil),

ground water, surface water, or air. This

step determines whether there is

evidence or an indication that

hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants were ever handled or

disposed at the site either currently or

in the past.

The Phase I step in this process

consists of a review of records and

related environmental reports pertaining

to the site and a site visit to observe site

conditions. Types of information

collected during this step include a
47504 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

general site description, current and

past site use (e.g., nature and type of

industrial use), topography, and waste

characteristics, including an estimation

of the type and quantity of hazardous

substances at the site. Visual

observations should consider stressed

vegetation, discolored soils, oily ponds,

and similar signs of contamination. No

sampling is involved in this step.

Geologic, hydrogeologic, and hydrologic

data will prove useful along with

topographic maps to determine whether

migration of hazardous substances is

likely. Data collected should help

identify the potential distribution and

mobility of hazardous substances in

soil, ground water, surface water, and

air.

Observations should also identify any

site conditions warranting immediate or

emergency actions. Examples of these

include the threat of fire and/or

explosion from unstable or reactive

hazardous materials, the threat of direct

contact with a hazardous substance, the

threat of a continuing release of a

hazardous substance, and the threat of

contaminating surface waters or

drinking water supplies.

The collection and review of readily

available information at this step should

be sufficient to answer the following

question:

Question 2: Is it reasonable to expect

that hazardous substances are present at

the site?

If NO, the site should be classified as

Tier II and no further work under this

process is necessary;

If YES, proceed to the Expanded

Phase I step (or other appropriate step

depending on site information

available).

Note: The site should be classified as Tier

I if information indicates a release of a

hazardous substance, pollutant, or

contaminant has caused, or is likely to cause,

human exposure or contamination of a

sensitive environment, or if the site

otherwise exhibits conditions such as those

described under the Tier I definition above.

Expanded Phase I

If the Phase I indicates a reasonable

expectation that hazardous substances

are present at the site, the next step in

this process involves gathering environs

data to determine what could be

impacted by a release from the site.

Therefore, the purpose of the Expanded

Phase I step is to identify and verify the

existence and locations of nearby people

(or pathways of human exposure, e.g.,

water intakes or wells) and sensitive

environments that might be threatened

by a release from the site.

Examples of data collected at this

stage include nearby residential, worker,

and student population estimates,

nearby municipal, private, and other

drinking water supplies, drinking water

wells and intakes, fisheries (including

sport and subsistence fishing), and

sensitive environments such as

wetlands, national parks, wildlife

refuges, and habitats of threatened or

endangered species. This information is

collected to determine whether a release

of hazardous substances at the site

could lead to human exposure or

contamination of sensitive

environments.

Data collected under the Expanded

Phase I step should be sufficient to

answer the following question:

Question 3: Could nearby populations

or sensitive environments be at risk

from the site?

If NO, the site should be classified as

Tier II and no further work under this

process is necessary;

If YES, proceed to the Limited

Sampling step (or other appropriate step

depending on site information

available).

Note: The site should be classified as Tier

I if information indicates a release of a

hazardous substance, pollutant, or

contaminant has caused, or is likely to cause,

human exposure or contamination of a

sensitive environment, or if the site

otherwise exhibits conditions such as those

described under the Tier I definition above.

Limited Sampling

If the Phase I investigation indicates

a reasonable expectation that hazardous

substances have been present at the site

and the Expanded Phase I indicates that

human populations or sensitive

environments may be threatened by a

release from the site, sampling should

be conducted to confirm the presence of

hazardous substances on the site. The

purpose of the Limited Sampling step is

to collect and analyze waste and

environmental samples, using field

screening and analytical techniques

where appropriate, to determine the

hazardous substances present at a site

and whether they are being released to

the environment.

The Limited Sampling step is not

intended to be an exhaustive assessment

of environmental conditions at a site.

Rather investigators should obtain

enough information to confirm whether

hazardous substances are present. As in

the Phase I step, investigations should

identify site conditions posing

immediate health or environmental

threats which require emergency

response.

Site sampling typically requires

developing a work plan, along with

sampling and health and safety plans.

Sampling and analysis should comply

with a screening level quality of data

following adequate quality assurance

and quality control (QA/QC) procedures

(40 CFR 31.45). The sampling plan

should employ sound, scientific and

professional judgment in identifying

sampling locations.

The sampling data must be sufficient

to answer the following question:

Question 4: Does site specific

sampling confirm the presence of

hazardous substances at the site?

If NO, the site should be classified as

Tier II and no further work under this

process is necessary;

If YES, proceed to the Extended

Sampling step (or other appropriate step

depending on site information

available).

Note: The site should be classified as Tier

I if information indicates a release of a

hazardous substance, pollutant, or

contaminant has caused, or is likely to cause,

human exposure or contamination of a

sensitive environment, or if the site

otherwise exhibits conditions such as those

described under the Tier I definition above.

Extensive Sampling

If the Limited Sampling step confirms

the presence of hazardous substances at

the site, more extensive sampling may

be required to determine whether the

site is Tier I or Tier II. The purpose of

the Extensive Sampling step is to further

evaluate the degree to which a site

presents a threat to human health or

welfare or the environment by collecting

and analyzing waste and environmental

media samples. This step is

implemented to document releases and

exposure/contamination on-site and offsite. Off-site sampling is needed to

provide background samples, and where

appropriate, identify human exposure or

environmental contamination.

Background samples are needed to

determine whether contamination at the

site is at least three times higher than

background levels. Sampling conducted

under this step should comply with a

definitive data level of QA/QC (40 CFR

31.45). The detection limits used in the

analysis of both the background and

site-related contamination samples

should be quantitatively consistent with

sample quantitation limits as specified

under the Superfund Contract

Laboratory Program. Quantification of

on-site and off-site threats should be

sufficient to answer the following:

Question 5: Do on-site and off-site

sampling data show exposure, or likely

exposure, of nearby populations, and/or

contamination, or likely contamination

of sensitive environments at a minimum

of three times above background levels

or above EPA standard sample

quantification limits?
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47505

If NO, the site should be classified as

Tier II and no further work under this

process is necessary;

If YES, the site should be classified as

Tier I.

Note: The site should also be classified as

Tier I if the site otherwise exhibits conditions

such as those described under the Tier I

definition above.

Request for Comments

The Agency is requesting comment on

the criteria and screening process. EPA

would like to receive comments on the

screening mechanism, both how it

works in general (for example,

feasibility and ease of implementation),

and specific suggestions for how the

process could be improved. In

particular, EPA would appreciate

feedback and comment on the following

questions:

1. What type and amount of

information is needed each stage in the

decision process to reach a Tier I or Tier

II decision?

1a. Would collecting the suggested

information allow a party to move

forward through the decision-making

process efficiently and expeditiously?

1b. What can be done with the

process to guard against inaccurate

assessments?

1c. How well will this process work

within established State programs?

2. Are the screening steps in the best

logical sequence?

2a. At what point it is useful to have

information on exposure targets (i.e.,

nearby populations and sensitive

environments).

2b. Would it be more useful to have

information about exposed/potentially

exposed targets before or after limited

sampling is performed?

2c. When would information on target

access to contamination be collected?

3. If there are nearby populations or

sensitive environments, how could EPA

ensure that private parties would

evaluate them to account for changes in

land use in the near or long-term?

4. What tools are currently available

to the public that would allow them to

collect the requested information?

4a. How would these tools work to

support a party’s decision from a cost

effectiveness and timeliness standpoint.

Tier I/II Screening Mechanism

Definitions

The following definitions support

terms identified in the Tier I, Tier II,

and Process sections above:

Background: the level of a hazardous

substance that provides a defensible

reference point that can be used to

evaluate whether or not a release from

the site has occurred. The background

level should reflect the concentration of

the hazardous substance in the medium

of concern for the environmental setting

on or near a site. Background level does

not necessarily represent pre-release

conditions, nor conditions in the

absence of influence from the source(s)

at the site. A background level may or

may not be less than the detection limit

(DL), but if it is greater than the DL, it

should account for variability in local

concentrations. A background level

need not be established by chemical

analysis. Hazard Ranking System

Guidance Manual, Interim Final, pp. 55

and 57.

Bioaccumulation: the tendency of a

hazardous substance to be taken up and

accumulated in the tissue of aquatic

organisms, either from water directly or

through consumption of food containing

the hazardous substance. Hazard

Ranking System Guidance Manual,

Interim Final, p. 294; Rand, Gary M.,

and Sam R. Petrocelli, Fundamentals of

Aquatic Toxicology, 1985, p. 652.

Definitive Data: data that are

documented as appropriate for rigorous

uses that require both hazardous

substance identification and

concentration. Definitive data are often

used to quantify the types and extent of

releases of hazardous substances.

Guidance for Performing Site

Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim

Final, p. 99; Guidance for Data

Useability in Site Assessment, Draft, pp.

13 and 14.

Drinking Water Supply: any source of

water (surface or ground) that is

currently used or could be used to

supply potable water. Guidance for

Performing Site Inspections Under

CERCLA, Interim Final, p.118; Hazard

Ranking System Guidance Manual,

Interim Final, p. 116.

Facility: any building, structure,

installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline

(including any pipe into a sewer or

publicly owned treatment works), well,

pit, pond, lagoon, impoundment, ditch,

landfill, storage container, motor

vehicle, falling stock, or aircraft, or any

site or area where a hazardous substance

has been deposited, stored, disposed of,

or placed, or otherwise come to be

located; but does not include any

consumer product in consumer use or

any vessel. CERCLA section 101(9).

Ground Water: water in a saturated

zone or stratum beneath the surface of

land or water. CERCLA section 101(12).

Hazard Ranking System: scoring

system used by EPA’s Superfund

program to assess the relative threat

between sites associated with actual or

potential releases of hazardous

substances. It is a screening tool for

determining whether a site is to be

included on the National Priorities List.

Hazard Ranking System Guidance

Manual, Interim Final, p.1.

Hazardous Substance: CERCLA

hazardous substances, pollutants, and

contaminants as defined in CERCLA

section 101(14) and 101(33), except

where otherwise specifically noted in

the HRS. 40 CFR 300, Appendix A

(Hazard Ranking System), Section 1.0.

Human Exposure: any exposure of

humans to a release of one or more

hazardous substances via inhalation,

ingestion, or dermal contact. Amdur,

Mary O., John Doull, and Curtis D.

Klaassen, Toxicology, The Basic Science

of Poisons, Fourth Edition, 1991, p. 14;

Hazard Ranking System Guidance

Manual, Interim Final, pp. 153, 259,

293, 317, 363, and 411.

Nearby Populations: regularly present

residents, workers, and students and

sensitive environments located on or

within 1 mile from the boundaries of a

hazardous substance release. 40 CFR

300, Appendix A (Hazard Ranking

System), section 5.2.

Populated Area: any area occupied by

a regularly present resident, student, or

worker and/or sensitive environment.

Populated areas do not include transient

populations such as business patrons or

travelers passing through the area.

Hazard Ranking System Guidance

Manual, Interim Final, p. 412; 40 CFR

300, Appendix A (Hazard Ranking

System), section 3.3.2.

Release: any spilling, leaking,

pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,

discharging, injecting, escaping,

leaching, dumping or disposing into the

environment (including the

abandonment or discharging of barrels,

containers, and other closed receptacles

containing any hazardous substance or

pollutant or contaminant). CERCLA

section 101(22).

Screening Data: data that are

appropriate for applications that only

require determination of gross

contamination areas and/or for site

characterization decisions that do not

require quantitative data. Screening data

are often used to specify which areas to

sample to collect definitive data.

Guidance for Performing Site

Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim

Final, pp. 99 and 100; Guidance for Data

Useability in Site Assessment, Draft, p.

15.

Sensitive Environments: consist of

environmental receptors recognized in

40 CFR 300, Appendix A (Hazard

Ranking System), Table 4–23, Table 5–

5, and wetlands as defined by 40 CFR

230.3.

Site: area(s) where a hazardous

substance has been deposited, stored,

disposed, or placed, or has otherwise
47506 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

come to be located. Such areas may

include multiple sources and may

include the area between sources 40

CFR 300, Appendix A (Hazard Ranking

System), Section 1.0. The site is neither

equal to nor confined by the boundaries

of any specific property that may give

the site its name. 60 FR 190, p. 51391.

Surface Waters: water present at the

earth’s surface. Surface water includes

rivers, lakes, oceans, ocean-like water

bodies, wetlands, and coastal tidal

waters, which include embayments,

harbors, sounds, estuaries, back bays,

lagoons, wetlands, etc. seaward from

mouths of rivers and landward from the

baseline of the Territorial Sea. 40 CFR

300, Appendix A (Hazard Ranking

System), section 4.0.2.

Wetlands: a type of sensitive

environment defined in 40 CFR 230.3 as

‘‘* * * those areas that are inundated or

saturated by surface or ground water at

a frequency and duration sufficient to

support, and under normal

circumstances do support, a prevalence

of vegetation typically adapted for life

in saturated soil conditions.’’ Wetlands

can be natural or man-made. Wetlands

generally include swamps, marshes,

bogs, and similar areas. Hazard Ranking

System Guidance Manual, Interim Final,

p. A–20.

[FR Doc. 97–23831 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5890–6]

SES Performance Review Board;

Membership

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the

membership of the EPA Performance

Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Zandra Kern, Executive Resources and

Special Programs Division, Office of

Human Resources and Organizational

Services, Office of Administration and

Resources Management, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260–2975.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

4314 (c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C.,

requires each agency to establish in

accordance with regulations prescribed

by the Office of Personnel Management,

one or more SES performance review

boards. This board shall review and

evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior

executive’s performance by the

supervisor, along with any

recommendations to the appointment

authority relative to the performance of

the senior executive.

Members of the EPA Performance

Review Board are:

William A. Spratlin (Chair), Director,

Air, RCRA and Toxics Division,

Region 7

Devereaux Barnes, Director, Office of

Program Management, Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response

Samuel Coleman, Director, Compliance

Assurance and Enforcement, Region 6

Alexander Cristofaro, Deputy Director,

Office of Policy Development, Office

of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation

Deborah Y. Dietrich, Director, Office of

Resources Management and

Administration, Office of Research

and Development

William Finister, Deputy Chief of Staff,

Office of the Administrator

Phyllis Harris, Regional Counsel, Office

of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance

William M. Henderson, Director, Office

of Administration and Resources

Management—Cincinnati, Office of

Administration and Resources

Management

Kenneth A. Konz, Assistant Inspector

General for Audits, Office of Inspector

General

Dr. Hugh McKinnon, Associate Director

for Health, Office of Research and

Development

John W. Meagher, Director, Wetlands

Division, Office of Water

Joseph J. Merenda, Director, Health and

Environmental Review Division,

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and

Toxic Substances

James C. Nelson, Associate General

Counsel (Pesticides and Toxics

Substances), Office of General

Counsel

John B. Rasnic, Director, Manufacturing,

Energy and Transportation Division,

Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

Carol Rushin, Director, Enforcement,

Compliance and Environmental

Justice Division, Region 8

Alan B. Sielen, Deputy Assistant

Administrator for International

Activities, Office of International

Activities

Mary Smith, Director, Indoor

Environments Division, Office of Air

and Radiation

David J. O’Connor (Executive Secretary),

Director, Office of Human Resources

and Organizational Services, Office of

Administration and Resources

Management

Members of the Inspector General

Subcommittee to the EPA Performance

Review Board are:

Donald Mancuso, Assistant Inspector

General for Investigations,

Department of Defense

Everett L. Mosley, Deputy Inspector

General, Agency for International

Development

Thomas D. Roslewicz, Deputy Inspector

General for Audit Services,

Department of Health and Human

Services

Dated: August 15, 1997.

Alvin M. Pesachowitz,

Acting Assistant Administrator for

Administration and Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 97–23832 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Open Meeting, Advisory Committee for

the National Urban Search and Rescue

Response System

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C.

App.), announcement is made of the

following committee meeting:

Name: Advisory Committee for the

National Urban Search and Rescue

Response System.

Date of Meeting: September 15–16,

1997.

Place: FEMA Mt. Weather Emergency

Assistance Center, The Conference and

Training Center, Building 430, 19844

Blue Ridge Mountain Road, State Route

601, Berryville, VA 20135.

Time: September 15th: 9:00 a.m.–5:00

p.m., September 16th: 9:00 a.m.–5:00

p.m.

Proposed Agenda: The Committee

will be provided with a program update

that will address the status of ongoing

audits and program reviews, functional

training and program support efforts,

and Fiscal Year 1997 through 1999

budgets for the Urban Search and

Rescue Program. The committee will

review, discuss, and develop final

recommendations for the organization of

the Advisory Committee working group

structure and the decision making

process. Other items for discussion may

include sponsoring agency head

involvement, authorizing legislation,

functional training methodologies, and

program strategic planning and

budgeting.

The meeting will be open to the

public, with approximately 20 seats

available on a first-come, first-served

basis. All members of the public