United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

March 2012

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Support Document for the 

Revised National Priorities List 

Final Rule – Chemfax, Inc.
Support Document for the 

Revised National Priorities List 

Final Rule 

Chemfax, Inc. 

March 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

 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... ii

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

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

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

Development of the NPL ............................................................................................................................ v

Hazard Ranking System ............................................................................................................................ vi

Other Mechanisms for Listing ................................................................................................................. vii

Organization of this Document ................................................................................................................ vii

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................... viii

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence ................................................................................... 1

2. Site Description .............................................................................................................................. 1

3. Summary of Comments ................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Support for Listing ..................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Late Comments ........................................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Eligibility of Process Releases .................................................................................................... 5

3.4 Releases Below Regulatory Limits ............................................................................................. 6

3.5 Response Actions/Current Conditions ...................................................................................... 7

3.6 Other Pathways Not Scored ....................................................................................................... 9

3.7 Consideration of Costs .............................................................................................................. 10

3.8 Deletion ...................................................................................................................................... 10

3.9 Other Contaminants Not Scored ............................................................................................. 11

3.10 Source Characterization – Additional Sources ...................................................................... 11

3.11 Effect of Removal on Sources .................................................................................................. 15

3.12 Likelihood of Release: Observed Release ............................................................................... 17

3.12.1 Data Quality and Reliability ............................................................................................... 19

3.12.2 Single Sample ..................................................................................................................... 20

3.12.3 Effect of Removal on Release ............................................................................................. 21

3.12.4 Observed Release: Attribution ............................................................................................ 22

3.13 Site Score .................................................................................................................................... 23

ii
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

iii

4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 26

Attachment A – Pollution Report #5 and Final 

Attachment B – OSWER Directive # 9345.1-25, April 4, 1997, Revision to OSWER NPL Policy “The 

Revised Hazard Ranking System: Evaluating Sites After Waste Removals,” Publication 

No. 9345.1-03FS, October 1991 

Attachment C – Figure illustrating areas excavated as part of the time-critical removal action 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

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 Chemfax, Inc. site, proposed on 

June 23, 1993 (58 FR 34018). 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 March 2012. 

iv
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

Introduction 

This document explains the rationale for adding the Chemfax, Inc. site in Gulfport, Mississippi, 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 June 23, 1993 (58 FR 34018). 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 March 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 September 16, 

2011 (76 FR 57662). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. 

The most recent proposal was on September 16, 2011 (76 FR 57702). 

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]). 

 v 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

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 CERCLAfinanced 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 principal 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; 

• 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 

 vi 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

• 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: 

4

S + S + S + S = S

2

a

2

s

2

sw

2

gw

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 

• 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 Chemfax, Inc. site on June 23, 1993 (58 FR 34018). 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. 

 vii 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

 viii 

Glossary 

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text: 

Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ASBOQAM Analytical Support Branch Operations and Quality Assurance Manual

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

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 EPA Contract Laboratory Program 

CRQL Contract-Required Quantitation Limit 

D.C. Cir U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

DL Detection Limit 

EISOPQAM Engineering Support Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance 

Manual

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, also USEPA 

ESD EPA Region 4 Environmental Services Division 

FR Federal Register 

FS Feasibility study 

HAZCLEAN HAZCLEAN Environmental Consultants, Inc. 

HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP 

HWQ Hazardous waste quantity 

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 

NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP 

OSWER USEPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RI Remedial Investigation 

RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

ROD Record of Decision 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SQL Sample Quantitation Limit 

SSI Screening Site Inspection

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

SVOC Semi-volatile organic compound 

VOC Volatile organic compound 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence 

NPL-U15-3-7-L1-R4 Comment submitted by E. Corbin McGriff, Jr., Ph.D., 

 P.E., HAZCLEAN Environmental Consultants, Inc. on 

 behalf of Chemfax, Inc., with attached comments from 

 Chemfax, Inc., on February 18, 1994. 

 

NPL-U15-3-7-L2-R4 Comment submitted by G.E. Estes, Jr., of Estes and 

 Estes, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of Chemfax, Inc. 

 on June 20, 1994. 

2. Site Description 

The Chemfax, Inc. site (the Site; the Chemfax site) is composed of contaminant releases from identified sources 

on the Chemfax, Inc. facility property, and includes at promulgation two sources identified in the HRS 

documentation record at proposal and three sources identified by Chemfax in its comments. The Chemfax facility 

is an inactive and abandoned 11-acre facility located in an industrial section of Harrison County just north of 

Gulfport, Mississippi. The facility manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon resins and waxes from 1955 until 1995. 

The primary operation was a paraffin blending process in which different grades of paraffin wax were heated to a 

liquid state, blended and then cooled with water. The cooling water reportedly did not come into contact with the 

wax; however, samples collected from a cooling water pond during a 1988 sampling investigation at the facility 

contained a number of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds. A 1990 sampling investigation also 

documented an area of contaminated soil at the facility in which volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds 

were detected. This area of contaminated soil was located a few hundred feet to the north and northwest of the 

cooling pond. 

The Site was proposed to the NPL on June 23, 1993 (58 FR 34018). The cooling water pond was designated as 

Source 1 and the area of contaminated soil north and northwest of the cooling water pond was designated as 

Source 2 in the HRS documentation record at proposal. During the 1990 sampling investigation, air samples were 

collected upwind and downwind of the cooling water pond and an observed release to air was documented based 

on these samples. Sources and air sample locations are shown in Figure 1. The hazardous substances found in the 

observed release samples were benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, styrene, total xylenes and naphthalene. In 

addition, the benzene and styrene concentrations were above HRS-designated health-based benchmarks for air, 

and workers were scored as exposed to these contaminant levels. At some point between the June 1993 proposal 

of the Site and January 1994, Chemfax backfilled the cooling pond with soil. Chemfax submitted comments on 

the proposed listing in February 1994 and June 1994, after the closure of the comment period for the proposal of 

the Site to the NPL. 

As discussed in Reference 3, page 8 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation, the EPA conducted field 

work for a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Supplemental Ground Water Characterization in January 1995 and 

March 1999, respectively. The RI report was finalized in January 1996 and the Feasibility Study (FS), which 

included a baseline risk assessment for human health, was finalized in April 2000. An FS Addendum was 

completed in June 2000 to address additional issues. 

As part of the Feasibility Study, the EPA conducted a site visit in December 1998. As described in Reference 3, 

page 8 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation, this site visit revealed that the Site was easily 

accessible to trespassers, many drums were stored on-site and the buildings were occupied by transients. The Site 

was therefore assessed under Superfund’s removal authority. Based on the available data, the EPA conducted a 

time-critical removal at the Chemfax facility from July 1999 to December 1999, as detailed in Attachment A to 

this support document. The purpose of this removal was to address imminent threats posed by the Site. 

 1 
=

o 

II: 

(I 

II: 

au

:­

ii 

au 

II: 

o. 

\ 0CF-AT-Gt 

-' 'CP.ATi.8 

0CP-AT-G7 

[J 00

I , . FIGURE 1

.... s 

I t!l~
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

During the removal, approximately 195 tons of drummed contaminated soils; 52,258 gallons of hazardous waste 

from above-ground storage tanks; additional contaminated soils from around the tank farms; and a number of 

buried drums of waste paraffin, wax and oil were removed. 

The EPA published a Record of Decision (ROD) in 2002. The ROD, provided as Reference 3 of the HRS 

documentation record at promulgation, selected remedial actions necessary to provide a more comprehensive and 

permanent remedy to address the remaining threats posed by the Site to human health. The major components of 

the remedy outlined in the ROD include: 

• Excavation of contaminated soils and sediments from areas exceeding cleanup standards; 

• Backfilling of excavated areas with clean soil; 

• Off-site disposal of excavated soils and sediments at an approved facility; 

• Extraction of contaminated ground water, treatment by physical and/or chemical means and discharge to 

surface water; 

• Continuation of ground water remediation until performance standards are met; 

• Institutional controls to restrict land use during remediation; 

• Control of fugitive dust emissions and surface water runoff during remediation. 

In 2009, Environmental Management Services, Inc. conducted a Site Characterization sampling investigation at 

the Site on behalf of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the EPA to determine 

Site conditions following the removal action. The Site Characterization is provided as Reference 4 of the HRS 

documentation record at promulgation. This investigation characterized the extent of contaminants in soils and 

ground water, developed aquifer characterization data and compared the results to those of previous 

investigations. The results of this investigation revealed remaining contamination with volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) documented in soil and shallow ground water 

at the Site. The Site Characterization also indicated that the deeper, confined aquifers are currently used for 

drinking water in the area. As a result of the data obtained, the 2002 ROD ground water remedy is being amended 

from a pump-and-treat option to a monitored natural attenuation option. As part of community involvement 

during development of the ROD amendment, the EPA Region 4 and an MDEQ representative conducted 

community interviews in the adjacent Turkey Creek community in August 2011 and held a Proposed Plan public 

meeting in Gulfport in October 2011. The public’s verbal comments are included in the Administrative Record 

and in the amended ROD, which is currently in review. No written comments were received. EPA is now adding 

the Site to the NPL to effectuate the ROD so that the remaining contamination can be properly addressed. 

The following illustrates a timeline of significant events related to the Site: 

• 1955: Chemfax facility operations began 

• 1990: Expanded Site Inspection, including Air Sampling Study, conducted 

• 1990, November 7: Facility inspected by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

• 1993, June 23: Site proposed to NPL 

• 1993, August 23: Public comment period on proposal ended 

• 1994, January 26: Between June 1993 and this date, Chemfax conducted “abatement” on cooling pond 

• 1994, February 18: Chemfax submitted comments through HAZCLEAN 

• 1994, June 20: Chemfax submitted comments through Estes and Estes, P.A. 

• 1995: Chemfax facility operations ended 

• 1996: Remedial Investigation completed 

• 1999, March: Supplemental Groundwater Characterization conducted 

• 1999, July to December: EPA time-critical removal conducted 

 3 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

• 2000: Feasibility Study, including baseline risk assessment, completed 

• 2002: Record of Decision published 

• 2009: Site Characterization investigation conducted 

• 2011: Public interviews and public meeting held 

• 2012: ROD amendment in review 

3. Summary of Comments 

On December 6, 2011, the State of Mississippi sent a letter concurring that the HRS score for the Chemfax site 

qualifies the Site for NPL listing. 

On February 18, 1994, Chemfax along with HAZCLEAN Environmental Consultants, Inc. (HAZCLEAN) 

submitted comments that opposed the listing of the Chemfax site. On June 20, 1994, Mr. G.E. Estes, Jr. of Estes 

and Estes, P.A., Attorneys at Law (Mr. Estes), on behalf of Chemfax, submitted comments that opposed the 

listing of the Chemfax site. In both sets of comments, Chemfax urged the EPA to remove the Site from further 

consideration for listing and, in the February 1994 comments, Chemfax stated that it would greatly appreciate the 

EPA’s assistance in its goals of “securing control of environmental issues and avoidance of being placed on the 

NPL.” 

Chemfax stated in its June 1994 comments that it had discovered “evidence of fundamental errors, serious 

irregularities and inconsistencies in the scoring” of the Site that should be considered by the EPA. Chemfax 

specifically contended that key data points used in scoring reflected a minor spill and plant processes (thencurrent operating conditions). Chemfax, also in June 1994, asserted that without the use of data obtained from the 

1990 sampling during the time the spill occurred and during plant processes, further CERCLA-financed remedial 

action would not be needed. Chemfax did not, however, specify factor values that would be affected in the scoring 

due to these “fundamental errors, serious irregularities and inconsistencies.” 

Chemfax identified in its February 1994 comments that it had conducted certain “abatement” activities 

(apparently between August 1993 and January 1994), specifically, filling in of the cooling pond. Chemfax 

asserted that if these activities were reflected in the Site score, the score “would drop below action threshold 

levels.” 

3.1 Support for Listing 

Comment: The State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality commented on December 6, 2011 that, 

after review of the HRS score and the EPA RI, it concurs that the Site score qualifies the Site for placement on the 

NPL. 

Response: The Chemfax, Inc. site is being added to the NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for remedial actions 

under CERCLA, and the Site will be examined 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 need for Superfund monies will be determined 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. Work will not stop at some sites to 

begin work at other, higher scoring sites added to the NPL more recently. 

 

3.2 Late Comments 

Comment: Chemfax submitted two sets of comments, both of which were submitted after the close of the public 

comment period for the proposed listing, August 23, 1993 (58 FR 34018). Chemfax acknowledged that it made no 

 4 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

submission during the actual comment period, and stated in its February 1994 comments submission that the 

lateness of the comments was due to an “incomplete understanding” of Superfund protocol rather than lack of 

concern about environmental or health issues. Chemfax stated in its comment submission on June 20, 1994, that 

the EPA had not yet responded to its initial submission of comments [in February 1994], and expressed its 

assumption that the EPA would consider both submissions. 

Response: All of Chemfax’s comments on the proposed listing are addressed in this support document. Consistent 

with CERCLA, the Agency has in place an orderly procedure for identifying sites where releases of hazardous 

substances addressed under CERCLA have occurred or may occur, placing those sites on the NPL, evaluating the 

nature and extent of the threat at the site, responding to the threat 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. As identified most 

recently in the Federal Register (76 FR 57706, September 16, 2011) as well as at the time this site was proposed 

(58 FR 34018, June 23, 1993), the Agency is not required to consider late comments, and as a matter of policy 

does not allow late comments to delay a listing decision. However, responses are provided to late comments to the 

extent practicable. All late comments received on the Chemfax, Inc. proposed listing (i.e., both of Chemfax’s 

submissions) were, in fact, considered and are discussed in this response. 

3.3 Eligibility of Process Releases

Comment: In its June 1994 comment submission, Chemfax included a number of comments questioning the 

eligibility of process operations under CERCLA. Chemfax stated that: 

• Included in the HRS scoring were “three (and arguably four) data points” that Chemfax asserted were 

samples that were contaminated by the facility process operations 

• A spill of raw material of approximately a liter of feedstock occurred during the air sampling event, the 

quantity of which was sufficient to affect the air sample results, allegedly invalidating the results 

• These data points are not eligible under CERCLA for HRS/NPL purposes — process operations 

specifically permitted under statutes other than CERCLA are not appropriately addressed under 

CERCLA, as CERCLA is remedial in nature and was intended to address uncontrolled or the threat of 

uncontrolled releases. 

Response: Releases from industrial facility process operations are not excluded from the purview of CERCLA. 

CERCLA applies to facilities generally, not being limited to facilities that are inactive, as can be seen from the 

statutory language in CERCLA Section 101(9). CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs the EPA to list on the NPL 

“releases” of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants according to specific criteria set out in CERCLA 

Section 105(a)(8)(A). This section states that: 

Criteria and priorities under this paragraph shall be based upon relative risk or danger to public 

health or welfare or the environment, in the judgment of the President, taking into account to 

the extent possible the population at risk, the hazard potential of the hazardous substances at 

such facilities, the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential for 

direct human contact, the potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems, the damage to 

natural resources which may affect the human food chain and which is associated with any 

release or threatened release, the contamination or potential contamination of the ambient air 

which is associated with the release or threatened release, State preparedness to assume State 

costs and responsibilities and other appropriate factors. 

 5 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

Further, CERCLA Section 101(14) defines a “hazardous substance” broadly by authorizing a list of hazardous 

substances under CERCLA Section 102 and by referencing several environmental statutes, such as the Clean 

Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (known and RCRA) and the Toxic Substances 

Control Act. Courts have found it sufficient for CERCLA regulation that a substance fall within any of the 

subsections of CERCLA 101(14). All HRS listings, including this one, are based entirely on hazardous 

substances, pollutants or contaminants. 

The definition of “release” in CERCLA Section 101(22) is as follows: 

The term “release” means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, 

discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment 

(including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles 

containing any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant), but excludes (A) any release 

which results in exposure to persons solely within a workplace, with respect to a claim which 

such persons may assert against the employer of such persons, (B) emissions from the engine 

exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock, aircraft, vessel, or pipeline pumping station engine, 

(C) release of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material from a nuclear incident. . ., and (D) 

the normal application of fertilizer. 

As shown above, the definition exempts certain releases from its scope, but it does not exempt process releases. 

Thus, process releases of hazardous substances are eligible for evaluation for HRS purposes. 

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

3.4 Releases Below Regulatory Limits 

Comment: Chemfax made a number of comments about its facility being in compliance with applicable 

regulations, being within permit limits and not violating reportable quantities, implying that on this basis, the 

facility should not be addressed under CERCLA. Specifically: 

• In February 1994, Chemfax related that its facility was inspected by the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on November 7, 1990, and that the inspection revealed no violations of 

the Mississippi Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. 

• Also in its February 1994 comments, Chemfax stated it was receiving assistance from its consultant “in 

air emissions and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) development.” 

• In its June 1994 comments, Chemfax maintained that the processing activities that were occurring at the 

time the EPA’s samples were being collected were “within the limits of their valid air emissions permit.” 

• Also in its June 1994 comments, Chemfax alleged that the spill that occurred during the onsite sampling 

study was not of a “reportable” quantity. 

• Chemfax pointed out in its February 1994 comments that “[l]evels of Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and 

Xylenes [in the air observed release] were below the benchmark of [the] EPA.” 

 

Response: Releases of hazardous substances within regulatory limits are eligible for evaluation under CERCLA, 

including in listing of sites on the NPL utilizing the HRS. On July 16, 1982, when responding to public comments 

on the proposed (original) HRS (47 FR 31188), and again on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40665), the Agency 

rejected the idea that releases within regulatory limits should not be considered "observed releases" under the 

HRS. As stated in 1982, "emission or effluent limits do not necessarily represent levels which cause no harm to 

 6 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

public health or the environment. These limitations are frequently established on the basis of economic impacts or 

achievability." In contrast, an observed release represents a 100-percent likelihood that substances can migrate 

from the site (47 FR 31188, July 16, 1982). Releases (emissions or effluent streams) can also be reflected within 

the other factor category evaluations of the HRS, as discussed below. 

That the release may have been Federally permitted or within State regulations also does not preclude listing. 

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs the EPA to list on the NPL "releases" of hazardous substances, pollutants 

and contaminants according to specific criteria set out in CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(A). The definition of 

"release" in CERCLA Section 101(22) exempts certain releases from its scope, but it does not exempt Federally 

permitted or State regulated releases; thus, even if discharges occur within the regulatory limits set by State law or 

those Federal laws enumerated in CERCLA Section 101(10), so as to constitute "Federally permitted releases," 

the discharges may be considered releases under CERCLA and, if appropriate under the HRS, placed on the NPL. 

CERCLA exempts Federally permitted releases only from the notification (Section 103(a)) and cost-recovery 

(107(j)) sections of the statute; such releases remain subject to the other sections of the statute. 

HRS Section 2.3 states that an observed release can be established either by direct observation or by chemical 

analysis. An observed release by chemical analysis has occurred when a contaminant is measured significantly 

above background level if some portion of the release is attributable to the site. Even though levels may be lower 

than regulatory limits, an observed release has nevertheless occurred if the measured levels are significantly 

higher than background levels. The HRS does, however, consider whether releases are above regulatory limits in 

evaluating target populations, increasing by a factor of 10 the weight assigned populations exposed to 

contaminants above the limits. 

Of course, the observed release factor alone is not intended to reflect the hazard presented by the particular 

release. Instead, the hazard of the site is approximated by the total HRS score, which incorporates the observed 

release factors with other factors such as waste characteristics (including waste quantity, toxicity and mobility) 

and targets. This total HRS score reflects the hazard of the site relative only to the other sites that have been 

scored. The actual degree of contamination and its effects are more fully determined during the Remedial 

Investigation that typically follows listing. 

By the same rationale, regarding the “minor spill of raw material,” whether or not a quantity of spilled material is 

sufficient to be reportable under Federal or State regulations is not germane to the establishment of an observed 

release under the HRS. 

Regarding Chemfax’s comment that toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene “were below the benchmark of [the] 

EPA,” these hazardous substances are three of the six substances that are part of the observed release to air 

established in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Apparently, Chemfax is referring to the fact that two of 

the other observed release substances are present at levels above HRS-specific health-based benchmark 

concentrations (cancer risk screening concentrations), but these three named substances are not. However, there is 

no requirement for contaminants to be present above HRS-specific health-based benchmark concentrations to be 

scored as part of an observed release. As explained in HRS Section 2.3, an observed release by chemical analysis 

is demonstrated by analytical evidence of a hazardous substance in the media significantly above the background 

level, with some portion of the release being attributable to the Site. 

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

3.5 Response Actions/Current Conditions

Comment: In its February 1994 comments, Chemfax stated that “[i]f the air pathway has been effectively abated,” 

the score would “drop below action threshold levels.” Chemfax pointed out that it had backfilled the cooling 

water pond (Source 1) with soil, and claimed that it had thereby “eliminated the source of airborne contaminants,” 

 7 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

and additionally offered to collect new air sampling data to verify the pond “abatement.” Chemfax also 

commented that it had drained and backfilled another, separate pond - the holding pond, in accordance with 

instructions from the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, who had declared the liquid in that pond nonhazardous in 1982. Chemfax also stated that it was considering bioremediation of the soil “in an effort to 

remediate the source of the contaminants,” and that its contractor “HAZCLEAN is currently assisting Chemfax in 

air emissions...” In its June 1994 comments, Chemfax maintained that aside from the data used for the HRS 

scoring (which it has addressed in other comments), the remaining data relating to the Site suggest that no further 

remedial action or response is needed under Superfund, and that health and environmental risks associated with 

the Site are minimal. 

Response: The Chemfax site has been appropriately evaluated with respect to the response actions and current 

conditions. The Chemfax response actions and current conditions have been considered, and the Site qualifies for 

listing based on the finding that further response actions are called for to address unabated releases. 

 

Removal actions are considered in the site scoring when no unacceptable risk remains at the site. In other words, 

the HRS scoring will only reflect removal actions if sufficient evidence is provided demonstrating that the 

removal actions left no unacceptable risk remaining. Attachment B to this support document is OSWER Directive 

# 9345.1-25, April 4, 1997, Revision to OSWER NPL Policy “The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Evaluating 

Sites After Waste Removals,” Publication No. 9345.1-03FS, October 1991. The stated purpose of the policy is as 

follows: 

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide greater flexibility to the current National Priorities 

Listing (NPL) policy for evaluating the impact of completed removals on the Hazard Ranking 

System (HRS) score (Publication No 9345.1-03FS, October 1991). Flexibility is accomplished by 

allowing post-Site Inspection (“post-SI”) completed removals to be considered in HRS scoring. 

The policy states in relevant part: 

Based on experiences in applying the current NPL policy, the Agency recognizes that some postSI removal actions can substantially address the threat to human health and environment and 

should be considered up to the time of NPL listing. 

The “Implementation” section of the policy states that: 

This consideration only applies where the Region has documentation (e.g. OSC Removal Site 

File containing responsible party work plans, sampling data, closeout assessment) that clearly 

demonstrates there is no remaining release or potential for a release that could cause adverse 

environmental or human health impacts (e.g., all releases have been dealt with such that 

hazardous substances are not present at potentially harmful levels). Otherwise, the removed waste 

should be counted in the HRS waste quantity value calculation. 

Chemfax stated in its February 1994 comment submittal through Mr. Estes that it had backfilled the cooling pond 

with soil to grade level, apparently between the time of Site proposal and submittal of the comments. As 

previously discussed in section 2, Site Description, of this support document, a time-critical removal action was 

conducted at the Chemfax facility from July to December 1999 to address imminent threats posed by the Site. 

Attachment A to this support document, “Pollution Report #5 and Final,” for the time-critical removal action, 

provides information regarding this action. Attachment C to this support document is a figure illustrating areas 

excavated as part of this action. These are the response actions to be considered for the Chemfax site. 

The 2000 baseline risk assessment (based on remedial investigation data) identified soil contamination and 

ground water contamination as the risks posed by the Chemfax site. The baseline risk assessment took into 

 8 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

consideration the removal of waste and the areas of contaminated soil excavated during the time-critical removal 

action. No ground water remediation was conducted during the 1999 time-critical removal action, as shown in 

Attachment A. Attachments A and C indicate that Source 1 was not addressed as part of the time-critical removal 

action. Further, Chemfax provided no documentation to demonstrate reduction or elimination of risks posed by 

the Site after either response action. In addition, the results of the 2009 Site Characterization demonstrated that 

both soil and ground water contamination are still present at the Site. 

Based on this information, the way in which the removal affects the evaluation of sources is described in section 

3.11, Effect of Removal on Sources, of this support document. How the removal, in conjunction with current Site 

conditions, impacts the evaluation of observed release is detailed in section 3.12.3, Effect of Removal on Release, 

of this support document. 

Regarding Chemfax’s comment about whether further response is needed under Superfund, this is not a listing 

issue, and this determination is made in a separate phase of the Superfund process. As discussed above, such data 

gathered for the Chemfax site has identified risk that remains at the facility. 

With respect to the other, separate pond that Chemfax stated it drained and backfilled - the holding pond, this 

pond was not considered in the HRS scoring of the Site; its closure is therefore not relevant to the listing decision. 

Further, the proposed response activities, e.g., the bioremediation Chemfax mentions, were not implemented, and 

as such were not considered in HRS scoring of the Site. 

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

3.6 Other Pathways Not Scored

Comment: In its June 1994 comments, Chemfax commented that the site was scored on a single pathway only. 

Response: The HRS does not require scoring all four 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. A subsequent stage of the Superfund 

process, the RI, characterizes conditions and hazards at the site more comprehensively. 

The HRS is intended to be a "rough list" of prioritized hazardous sites; a "first step in a process--nothing more, 

nothing less" Eagle Picher Indus. v. EPA, 759 F.2d 922, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Eagle Picher II). It would be 

preferred to investigate each possible site completely and thoroughly prior to evaluating them for proposal for 

NPL, but the need for certainty before action must be reconciled with the need for inexpensive, expeditious 

procedures to identify potentially hazardous sites. 

For the Chemfax site, the Baseline Risk Assessment that was completed in 2000 as part of the EPA RI/FS 

demonstrated that risks were present at the Site in the form of soil and ground water. In addition, the 2009 Site 

Characterization documented remaining soil and ground water contamination. 

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

 9 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

3.7 Consideration of Costs

Comment: In its June 1994 comment submission, Chemfax commented that the EPA should consider its 

comments and remove the site from further NPL consideration due to the costs involved, both potentially to 

Chemfax and to taxpayers. 

Response: The costs potentially involved in taking action at this site under the Superfund program, such as those 

raised by the commenter, are not considered in the assessment of whether a site belongs on the NPL. While 

discussed in NPL rules in the Federal Register, this discussion is by necessity only of a general nature. The cost 

discussion clearly states that including a site on the NPL does not cause the EPA necessarily to undertake 

remedial action, or that any action is required by, nor liability for site response costs assigned to, a private party 

(56 FR 21462, May 9, 1991). The cost discussion then outlines the Agency's perception of average potential costs 

per site that may occur in association with events generally following the proposed listing of a site. Any Agency 

actions that may impose costs on firms are made on a case-by-case basis independent of the listing decision. Also, 

responsible parties may bear some or all the costs of the RI/FS and subsequent work, or the costs may be shared 

by the EPA and the States. Therefore, expenditures cited by the commenter are associated with events that 

generally follow listing the site, not with the listing itself. 

There can be both indirect, contingent costs and benefits that can be associated with listing a site in that the costs 

or benefits may only possibly occur contingent on the listing decision. Among the benefits associated with listing 

a site on the NPL are increased health and environmental protection as a result of increased public awareness of 

potential hazards. Listing sites as national priority sites also may lead to 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. 

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

3.8 Deletion

Comment: In both sets of comments, Chemfax requested that the EPA consider “delisting” the site, using its 

authority under 40 CFR 300.425(e). 

 

Response: Deletion is a separate stage in the Superfund process and will be considered at the appropriate time, in 

accordance with the NCP. 

The regulations governing deletion of sites from the NPL (40 CFR 300.425(e), as cited by the commenter) specify 

that: 

EPA shall consult with the state on proposed deletions from the NPL prior to developing the 

notice of intent to delete. In making a determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall 

consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria has been met: 

 (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response 

actions required; 

 (ii) All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and 

no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or 

 (iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to 

public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Deletion is a separate stage in the Superfund process and logically occurs after final listing on the NPL. Listing 

makes a site eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA. A site is examined during the RI/FS phase of 

 10 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

the Superfund process to determine what response action, if any, is appropriate. After a period of public comment, 

the Agency responds to the threats identified in the RI/FS by issuing a Record of Decision (ROD), which selects 

the most appropriate remedial alternative. As discussed in section 2, Site Description, of this support document, 

the RI/FS and the ROD stages of the process have been conducted for the Site. The selected remedy is expected to 

be implemented during the Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) phase. As detailed in the criteria listed 

above, the site may be deleted from the NPL when the Agency determines that no further response is appropriate. 

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

3.9 Other Contaminants Not Scored 

Comment: Chemfax, in its June 1994 comment submission, made several comments denying its use of acetone 

and several other organic compounds at the facility, appearing to have the impression that one of the references to 

the HRS documentation record at proposal (Reference 14) associates these contaminants with the Chemfax 

facility. Chemfax observed that, while Reference 14 indicated that Chemfax had used acetone as a process 

material at some past time, neither Chemfax nor any prior facility occupant had actually used acetone. Chemfax 

further stated that none of the following had ever been used as or been a constituent of, any raw material used at 

the property: acetone, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, cyclobutanol or tetramethyltetroxane. Chemfax speculated 

that a former occupant of the adjoining property to the south may at one time have used acetone and/or 

trichloroethylene. 

Response: None of the substances denied as used by Chemfax (acetone, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, 

cyclobutanol or tetramethyltetroxane) were used in scoring the Site, therefore these comments have no impact on 

the listing decision. 

These substances (acetone, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, cyclobutanol and tetramethyltetroxane) are discussed 

in one location in Reference 14 of the HRS documentation record at proposal as having been detected in an air 

sample collected upwind of a former lagoon located on the Chemfax facility. This lagoon was not a scored source 

at proposal, nor are the substances associated with any of the sources that were scored at proposal or those that are 

added in the HRS documentation record at promulgation. Neither are any of the substances part of the scored 

observed release to air. In fact, except for the mention in Reference 14 just cited, none of the substances is 

mentioned at all in the HRS documentation record either at proposal or at promulgation. Hence, any comments 

regarding their presence at the facility or possible use by another facility are not relevant to the HRS scoring or to 

the listing. However, if any of these substances is found to be associated with the Chemfax site during further 

investigation, it will be included in the evaluation of possible risk and need for response. 

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 Source Characterization – Additional Sources 

Comment: In its June 1994 comments, Chemfax commented that process-related sources contributed to the 

documented air release, stating that “process vapors were actually sampled...” Chemfax argued that the four key 

data points (three air samples and one soil sample) used in the scoring were reflective of process operations, 

which were operating within the limits of their valid air emissions permit, and a minor spill, as opposed to a 

release from Source 1, the cooling pond. 

• Chemfax specifically commented that the quantity spilled was “usually contained within the drip pan 

provided for that purpose,” but was sufficient to be detected in the air sampling as contributing to the air 

release. 

• Chemfax also stated that, at the time of sampling, an air release was likely occurring from molten resins 

being pumped through filters in the area. 

 11 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

• Chemfax stated that, while not foreseeing the results of the air study, it informed the EPA at the time of 

sampling of the proximity of the samples to the process area. 

• Two other Chemfax representatives who were on-site at the time of the sampling study attested to the 

resin processing and the spill in the proximity of the sampling vessels. 

Response: After review of Chemfax’s comments and the HRS documentation record at proposal, three sources 

have been added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation: Source 3, the spill of raw feedstock; Source 

4, the drip pan; and Source 5, the molten resin processing operation. 

The evaluation of the additional sources begins with the definition of source, in HRS terms. HRS Section 1.1, 

Definitions, defines “source” as: 

Any area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus 

those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous substance. Sources 

do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments 

that have become contaminated by migration, except: in the case of either a ground water 

plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified 

source, the plume or contaminated sediments may be considered a source. 

The instructions for characterizing sources are provided in HRS Section 2.2 and its subsections. 

HRS Section 2.2.1, Identify sources, states, “[f]or the three migration pathways, identify the sources at the site 

that contain hazardous substances. Identify the migration pathway(s) to which each source applies.” 

HRS Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous substances associated with a source, states in relevant part: 

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. 

HRS Section 2.2.3, Identify hazardous substances available to a pathway, states: 

In evaluating each migration pathway, consider the following hazardous substances available to 

migrate from the sources at the site to the pathway: 

• Air migration. 

- Hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release to the 

atmosphere. 

- All gaseous hazardous substances associated with a source with a gas containment 

factor value greater than 0 (see section 6.1.2.1.1). 

In addition, HRS Section 6.1.2.1.1, Gas containment, and HRS Section 6.2, Waste characteristics, discuss the 

assignment of containment values for sources and the assignment of the waste characteristics value for the air 

migration pathway. 

In the HRS documentation record at promulgation, pages 17 through 25 provide the source characterization 

documentation for the newly added sources. 

 12 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

Source 3 — Spill of Raw Feedstock 

In its comments, Chemfax referred to the spill as “the liter or so of raw feedstock that sometimes spills when a 

hose is disconnected that has not been properly purged, or when a valve is not properly closed when the charging 

process is begun.” Because Chemfax described this quantity as “sufficient to be detected by the air sampling 

equipment,” the hazardous substances in the observed release can be associated with this source. These are 

benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, styrene, total xylenes and naphthalene. 

As discussed on pages 17-18 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation, Source 3 is documented to have 

a containment value greater than zero. It is unknown whether the area of the spill was addressed during the 1999 

time-critical removal action. However, because of the nature of a spill, there are no containment features 

associated with it. The category of HRS Table 6-3, Gas Containment Factor Values, to which this corresponds is 

“All situations except those specifically listed below,” which receives a value of 10 and thus contaminants from it 

are not sufficiently contained to prevent their release to air. 

Regarding hazardous waste quantity, the “liter” can be considered a conservative one-time hazardous wastestream 

quantity. One liter equals approximately 0.264 gallon, and next, to obtain the hazardous waste quantity value, 

HRS Section 6.2, Waste Characteristics, cited above, specifically subsection 6.2.2, Hazardous waste quantity, is 

applied. This subsection directs the user to evaluate hazardous waste quantity as specified in HRS Section 2.4.2. 

That section contains detailed instructions for assigning hazardous waste quantity values to each source at a site 

and Table 2-5, which provides the equations for use in this process. In accordance with HRS Table 2-5, one 

gallon can be converted to approximately 10 pounds. Therefore, 0.264 gallon equals an estimated 2.64 pounds. 

Using the equation provided in HRS Table 2-5 for Tier B, Hazardous Wastestream Quantity, W/5,000, this yields 

a source hazardous waste quantity value of 0.000528. 

Source 4 — Drip Pan 

Chemfax states that spills of raw feedstock are “usually contained within the drip pan provided for that purpose.” 

However, the use of the word “usually” suggests that feedstock also, at some frequency, spills outside of the drip 

pan; it is assumed that this has occurred at least once. On this basis, the spill and the drip pan can be considered to 

be separate sources. (In effect, however, whether they are separate or combined has no impact on the Site score.) 

Chemfax’s reference to “sufficient to be detected by the air sampling equipment” also applies to the drip pan, and 

as such, the hazardous substances in the observed release can also be associated with this source. These are 

benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, styrene, total xylenes and naphthalene. 

Pages 20-21 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation discusses the assignment of a non-zero 

containment value for this source. It is unknown whether the area including the drip pan was addressed during the 

1999 time-critical removal action. However, because during its operational period the drip pan received spills 

from Chemfax’s operations area, it can be concluded that it was open, without cover, and based on Chemfax’s 

comments, was located in an open area in the vicinity of the air sampling stations. The category of HRS Table 6-

3, Gas Containment Factor Values, to which this corresponds is “All situations except those specifically listed 

below,” which receives a value of 10 and thus contaminants from it are not sufficiently contained to prevent their 

release to air. 

Because hazardous substances are associated with the source (with the spilled material, by virtue of Chemfax’s 

comments that it contributed to the air release), but no information is available to indicate the frequency of spills 

entering the drip pan, the volume of the pan, or other waste quantity information, a source hazardous waste 

quantity value of unknown but greater than zero is assigned. 

 13 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

Source 5 — Molten Resin Processing Operation 

In its comments above, Chemfax stated the following concerning the molten resin processing: “Also, at the time 

of sampling the process area was in use, and molten resins were being pumped through filters in the area.” 

Chemfax also attributed at least a portion of the observed release to air to this area, and stated: 

Molten resins necessarily release considerably more vapor than resins and distillates at ambient 

temperatures. This, too, would invalidate air sample data for the purposes of this evaluation. 

The hazardous substances present in the observed release can be associated with this source as well. These are 

benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, styrene, total xylenes and naphthalene. 

The assignment of a non-zero containment value for this source is discussed on pages 23-24 of the HRS 

documentation record at promulgation. Because the Site is no longer active, the molten resin processing area is no 

longer in operation. However, during its operational period, this processing area was located in the open, adjacent 

to the cooling pond, according to Chemfax’s comments, and open to release “vapors” to the atmosphere. The 

category of HRS Table 6-3, Gas Containment Factor Values, to which this corresponds is “All situations except 

those specifically listed below,” which receives a value of 10 and thus contaminants from it are not sufficiently 

contained to prevent their release to air. 

Although hazardous substances are associated with the source (by virtue of Chemfax’s comments that it 

contributed to the air release), no information is available concerning hazardous waste quantity; therefore, a 

source hazardous waste quantity value of unknown but greater than zero is assigned. 

Regarding Sources 3, 4 and 5, the newly added sources, Chemfax’s response action addressed only the cooling 

pond and holding pond, and no other areas. It is not clear whether the time-critical removal action specifically 

addressed the area where these sources were located; however, Attachment A, “Pollution Report #5 and Final,” 

documents that the Chemfax facility was inactive and abandoned as of the time-critical removal action. 

Notwithstanding, the air release had already occurred and was well documented – this release was clearly 

associated with Sources 3, 4 and 5 by Chemfax itself in its comments. The removal action did not address the risk 

already posed or the harm already done by this release. On this basis, Sources 3, 4 and 5 are evaluated in the HRS 

documentation record at promulgation. 

As a result of the three added sources, no new hazardous substances are added to the scoring. Regarding 

hazardous waste quantity, as detailed above, the source-specific values are 0.000528, >0 and >0, respectively. 

Page 10 of the HRS documentation record at proposal shows that the source hazardous waste quantity of Source 1 

is 444; as shown in section 3.11, Effect of Removal on Sources, of this support document, that value does not 

change after consideration of response actions. However, the same section of this support document shows that, 

after consideration of response actions, the source hazardous waste quantity of Source 2 is >0. Combining the 

source hazardous waste quantity values of all five sources yields a value of 444.000528, as compared to the sum 

of the source hazardous waste quantity values at proposal of 444.02 that is shown on page 21 of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal. These two values, applied to HRS Table 2-6 in accordance with HRS Section 

6.2, cited above, and HRS Section 2.4.2.2, yield the same pathway hazardous waste quantity value of 100. Hence, 

there is no impact to the Site score related to the addition of these sources. A detailed discussion of the how these 

sources’ hazardous waste quantity values are incorporated into the Site score is provided in section 3.14, Site 

Score, 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. 

 14 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

3.11 Effect of Removal on Sources 

Comment: Chemfax made a number of comments describing its “abatement” of the cooling pond, as previously 

mentioned in section 3.6, Response Actions/Current Conditions, of this support document. Chemfax specifically 

describes having “backfilled the cooling water pond with soil to grade level and . . . seeded with rye grass.” 

Response: Neither Chemfax’s response, nor the time-critical removal action or the operating status of the facility 

impacts the scoring of the five sources. As discussed in this section and the section above, the response actions on 

these sources do not completely address the risk posed by the sources prior to the response actions. 

To clarify the characterization of the sources, the HRS and the HRS documentation record at proposal provide the 

following information. 

HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, defines “source” as: 

Any area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus 

those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous substance. Sources 

do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments 

that have become contaminated by migration, except: in the case of either a ground water 

plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified 

source, the plume or contaminated sediments may be considered a source. 

For Source 1, page 9 of the HRS documentation record at proposal contains the following source characterization 

information: 

Number of the source: 1 

Name and description of the source: 

Cooling pond: The water in this pond is used to cool paraffin wax after it is blended. The water 

does not come into contact with the wax. This pond has a clay bottom (Ref. 12, p. 11). The type 

of clay bottom is not documented. The cooling pond (source) is limited to the water placed in 

the pond. 

Regarding Source 1, the cooling pond, the documentation indicates that Chemfax’s response action did not 

eliminate all unacceptable risk associated with this source. The description of the response action is that Chemfax 

filled the pond in to grade with soil, with no statement identifying removal of any of its contents, and seeded the 

top. Further, as indicated in Attachment A, Pollution Report # 5 and Final, and Attachment C, the figure 

illustrating the time-critical removal action excavations, the time-critical removal action did not include removal 

of all contaminants associated with the cooling pond. As discussed in section 3.5, Response Actions/Current 

Conditions, of this support document, the contaminants remaining in this source may still pose a risk and the 

source is therefore still considered in the scoring for the Site. 

HRS Table 6-3, Gas Containment Factor Values, is used to assign a containment value to Source 1. Because the 

response description above states that the pond was backfilled to grade, it is estimated that uncontaminated soil 

cover could be between 1 and 3 feet. Conservatively (i.e., to err on the side of a lower value), it is assumed that 

the soil could be heavily vegetated, given the inactive and abandoned status of the Site, but the cover soil type is 

unknown. This combination of conditions, applied to Table 6-3, results in a gas containment value of 7 for the air 

pathway and thus contaminants from it are not sufficiently contained to prevent their release to air. 

For the ground water pathway, HRS Table 3-2 is used to assign a ground water containment value. Page 9 of the 

HRS documentation record at proposal states that the cooling pond has a clay bottom of unknown type, but does 

 15 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

not specify a liner. Applying this information to the “Surface Impoundment” section of HRS Table 3-2 yields a 

ground water containment value of 10, and thus contaminants from it are not sufficiently contained to prevent 

their release to ground water. Since it cannot be concluded that no unacceptable risk remains, the source 

hazardous waste quantity value is unchanged. 

For Source 2, page 12 of the HRS documentation record at proposal contains the following source 

characterization information: 

Number of the source: 2 

Name and description of the source: 

Contaminated soil: An area of contaminated soil has been delineated on the site. (Ref. 12, 

Appendix F; 18, Appendix A). 

Regarding Source 2, the delineated area of contaminated soil, this area is shown in a figure on page 15 of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal and on Figure 1 of this support document. There is no indication in Chemfax’s 

description of its response that any areas were addressed by Chemfax besides the cooling pond. Attachment C, the 

figure illustrating areas excavated during the time-critical removal action, indicates that only a small portion of 

the delineated area of contaminated soil designated as Source 2 was excavated. The balance of Source 2 remains 

at the facility. As discussed in section 3.6, Response Actions/Current Conditions, of this support document, this 

source is therefore still considered in the scoring for the Site because not all contamination associated with the 

source has been addressed. 

HRS Table 6-3, Gas Containment Factor Values, is used to assign a containment value to Source 2. Because the 

soil is documented to be contaminated at the surface (Reference 12 of the HRS documentation record at proposal), 

the category “All situations except those specifically listed below” applies; this receives an assigned value of 10, 

and thus contaminants from it are not sufficiently contained to prevent their release to air. For the ground water 

pathway (since it has been indicated that risk to ground water from the Site remains), HRS Table 3-2 is used to 

assign a ground water containment value. Page 12 of the HRS documentation record at proposal provides a 

description of the contaminated soil source, and no indication is provided of a liner, nor would one be expected. 

This information, applied to the “All Sources” section of HRS Table 3-2, yields a ground water containment value 

of 10 and thus contaminants from it are not sufficiently contained to prevent their release to ground water. 

The hazardous waste quantity value calculated in the HRS documentation record at proposal was based on an area 

of contaminated soil of approximately 34,596 square feet; this is based on the outlined area on the figure, 

excluding areas covered by pavement, buildings or other features. According to Attachment C, an estimated 70-

by-50 foot area of this was excavated and removed. However, because the specific location and precision of this 

latter estimate is unknown, the area of Source 2 is considered as unknown but greater than zero. 

This value is assigned as the source hazardous waste quantity value for Source 2. 

Regarding Sources 3, 4 and 5, the newly added sources, the containment values for these three sources are 

assigned in section 3.10, Source Characterization - Additional Sources, of this support document (namely, 10, 10 

and 10), and the hazardous waste quantity values are estimated in the same section (specifically, 0.000528, >0 and 

>0). 

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

 16 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

3.12 Likelihood of Release: Observed Release 

Comment: Chemfax made a number of comments about the observed release to air, questioning the quality and 

reliability of the data, alleging that the release was reliant on a single sample and arguing that without this sample 

the Site score would not qualify for the NPL. 

Response: The observed release is appropriately documented and supported with reliable analytical data. 

The instructions for evaluating likelihood of release that are common to multiple pathways are provided in HRS 

Section 2.3. HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release, specifies that the user is to: 

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... 

Table 2-3 Observed Release Criteria for Chemical analysis 

Sample Measurement < Sample Quantitation Limit a

No observed release is established. 

Sample Measurement ≥ Sample Quantitation Limit a

An observed release is established as follows: 

• 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.a

 

• 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. 

a

 If the sample quantitation limit (SQL) cannot be established, determine if there is an observed release as follows: 

• If the sample analysis was performed under the EPA Contract Laboratory Program, use the EPA contractrequired quantitation limit (CRQL) in place of the SQL. 

• If the sample analysis is not performed under the EPA Contract Laboratory Program, use the detection limit (DL) 

in place of the SQL 

For evaluating an observed release to air, HRS Section 6.1.1 provides the relevant instructions. HRS Section 

6.1.1, Observed release, states the following: 

Establish an observed release to the atmosphere by demonstrating that the site has released a 

hazardous substance to the atmosphere. Base this demonstration on either: 

 17 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

• Direct observation — a material (for example, particulate matter) that contains one or 

more hazardous substances has been seen entering the atmosphere directly. When 

evidence supports the inference of a release of a material that contains one or more 

hazardous substances by the site to the atmosphere, demonstrated adverse effects 

accumulated with that release may be used to establish an observed release. 

• Chemical analysis — an analysis of air samples indicates that the concentration of 

ambient hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background 

concentration for the site (see section 2.3). Some portion of the significant increase 

must be attributable to the site to establish the observed release. 

If an observed release can be established, assign an observed release factor value of 550, enter 

this value in table 6-1, and proceed to section 6.1.3. 

Page 17 of the HRS documentation record at proposal provides the following information and concentrations for 

the background samples. 

Sample ID Date Start/Stop Time Sampling Inlet 

Height above 

Ground (inches) 

Reference(s) 

CF-AT-01 5-31-90 8:38 am/12:35pm 26.75 39, p. 18 

CF-AT-02 5-31-90 8:41am/12:37pm 26 39, p. 18 

Sample ID Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

(ppbv) 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limit (ppbv) 

Reference(s) 

CF-AT-01 Benzene ND 0.48u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 4 

Toluene 0.90 NA 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 4 

Ethyl benzene 0.16J NA 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 4 

Styrene 0.07J NA 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 4 

Total xylenes ND 0.90u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 4 

Naphthalene ND 0.30u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 5 

CF-AT-02 Benzene ND 0.44u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 6 

Toluene ND 0.70u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 6 

Ethyl benzene 0.37 NA 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 6 

Styrene ND 0.40u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 6 

Total xylenes ND 1.4u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 6 

Naphthalene 2.40 NA 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 7 

Page 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal provides the following information on the observed release 

samples: 

Sample ID Date Start/Stop Time Sampling Inlet 

Height above 

Ground (inches) 

Reference(s) 

CF-AT-03 5-31-90 8:43 am/12:40pm 26.25 39, p. 18 

CF-AT-04 5-31-90 8:45am/12:39pm 26 39, p. 18 

CF-AT-05 5-31-90 8:52am/12:38pm 27.5 39, p. 18 

 18 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

 

Sample ID Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

(ppbv) 

Sample 

Quantitation 

Limit (ppbv) 

Reference(s) 

CF-AT-03 Benzene 14 0.48u/0.44u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 2 

Toluene 17 0.70u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 2 

Ethyl benzene 44 NA 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 2 

Styrene 120 0.40u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 2 

Total xylenes 95 1.4u/0.90u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 2 

Naphthalene 12 0.30u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 3 

CF-AT-04 Benzene 18 0.48u/0.44u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 1 

Toluene 18 0.70u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 1 

Ethyl benzene 22 NA 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 1 

Styrene 62 0.40u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 1 

Total xylenes 45 1.4u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 1 

Naphthalene 8.8 0.30u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 8 

CF-AT-05 Toluene 3.6 0.7u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 9 

Ethyl benzene 7.3 NA 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 9 

Styrene 23 0.40u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 9 

Total xylenes 17 1.4u/0.9u 14, p. 10; App. B, p. 9 

Chemfax’s specific comments are addressed in the following four subsections: 

• 3.12.1 Data Quality and Reliability 

• 3.12.2 Single Sample 

• 3.12.3 Effect of Removal on Release 

• 3.12.4 Observed Release: Attribution 

3.12.1 Data Quality and Reliability 

Comment: Chemfax questioned the quality and reliability of the air data used in the HRS scoring, as provided in 

the report titled “Final Report Expanded Site Inspection, Chemfax, Inc., Gulfport, Harrison County, Mississippi, 

EPA ID No. MSD008154486 Volume II Air Study (TDD No. F4-8911-102, R-586-9-1-44) Revision 0, 

September 25, 1991,” prepared by NUS Corporation and used as Reference 14 in the HRS package at proposal. 

Chemfax alleged that the report expresses concerns over the validity of the air data, but does not “address the 

possibility of process interference in the analysis of data reliability. . .” The “concerns over the validity” of the air 

data involved substances found in upwind samples but not in downwind samples with respect to the cooling pond. 

Chemfax also stated that the report mistakenly dismissed those concerns, and that the data were not reproducible, 

by virtue of being “either erroneous or already abated.” 

Response: The observed release is appropriately documented and supported with sufficient data of known and 

documented quality to meet HRS requirements. The possibility of process interference was correctly considered. 

Regarding the report expressing concern over the validity of the data, Chemfax has misinterpreted the statements 

in Reference 14 of the HRS documentation record at proposal. Reference 14 indicates that several substances 

were found in background samples but not in downwind samples indicating that these substances might have 

come from off-site sources. Reference 14 suggests that this evidence weakens the ability for these substances to 

be used to identify an observed release, not that it casts doubt over the validity of the data in general. These 

substances include methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, trans-1,3-dichloropropene, 

 19 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

cyclobutanol, methylpentane and ethylidenebicycloheptane. However, none of these substances was used in the 

HRS documentation record to identify an observed release. (As can be seen in the above excerpt from the HRS 

documentation record at proposal, these substances are not included in the background levels or release levels 

tables.) Reference 14 does not question the validity of identifying an observed release of other substances 

included in the sampling event, including those substances identified in the HRS documentation record at 

proposal (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, styrene, xylenes and naphthalene). 

Regarding the possibility of interference in the data from other possible process sources, in fact it is 

acknowledged that there are other possible on-site sources, as also stated by Chemfax in its other comments, and 

three new sources have been added to the HRS documentation record at promulgation in response, as detailed in 

section 3.10, Source Characterization - Additional Sources, of this support document. Furthermore, the HRS does 

not require “clean” background levels. The HRS in Section 2.3, as explained above, requires that to identify an 

observed release by chemical analysis, there must be a significant increase over background concentrations, not 

that the background be clean. 

Regarding the analytical validity of the data and the allegation that it is “erroneous,” the following information 

concerning quality assurance of sampling and analysis is provided to demonstrate that the analytical data resulting 

from the investigation are of known and documented quality. 

• Air samples were analyzed by Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) analytical laboratory 

• Laboratory analytical data were validated according to EPA Region 4 Environmental Services Division 

(ESD) laboratory data guidelines by ESD 

• Laboratory analytical data sheets are provided as Reference 14, Appendix B 

• Laboratory analyses and laboratory quality assurance procedures were in accordance with Analytical 

Support Branch Operations and Quality Assurance Manual (ASBOQAM), USEPA 

• Detailed descriptions of air sampling equipment and methodology are provided as Reference 14, 

Appendix A 

• Air Sampling Logbook is provided as Reference 39 

• Sample collection, sample preservation and chain-of-custody procedures were in accordance with 

Engineering Support Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual 

(EISOPQAM), USEPA. 

Further, Chemfax has not provided any information or documentation to demonstrate that the analyses in question 

are not valid or reliable. 

Regarding the allegation that the data are not reproducible, or are abated, the HRS does not require that a release 

be reproducible at a different time, only that an observed release has occurred. This issue is addressed in detail in 

section 3.12.3, Effect of Removal on Release, 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. 

3.12.2 Single Sample 

Comment: Chemfax asserted in its June 1994 comments that the Site score was primarily based on a single 

sample: CF-AT-03, stating that other samples from the Site, such as surface water and sediment, while 

contaminated, were not unexpectedly so. It also argued that without sample CF-AT-03 the Site score would not 

qualify for the NPL. 

Response: The observed release to air is appropriately identified in accordance with the HRS. The HRS requires 

that a single observed release has occurred to assign a score based on the presence of an observed release. In fact, 

 20 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

three observed release samples were identified. Thus, it is also not correct that the Site score would not qualify for 

the NPL without that sample. 

As shown above in the excerpts from HRS Sections 2.3 and 6.1.1, the HRS specifies how an observed release is 

to be established (i.e., by direct observation or chemical analysis). Therefore, a single release sample is all that is 

required, if it meets the observed release criteria. In addition, HRS Section 6.1.1, as it describes the requirements 

for chemical analysis, states that “[s]ome portion of the significant increase. . .”, again indicating singularity. 

However, while only one observed release is required, there are actually three samples that meet the criteria for an 

observed release and document three observed releases (samples CF-AT-03, CF-AT-04 and CF-AT-05) in the 

HRS documentation record at proposal, as shown above in the excerpts from pages 17 and 18 of that document. 

Regarding the commenter’s allegation that without this sample the Site score would not qualify for the NPL, this 

statement is not true. Under these conditions, the remaining air samples, CF-AT-04 and CF-AT-05, would fulfill 

the purpose of documenting the observed release, and in addition, CF-AT-04 also contained Level I 

concentrations of three hazardous substances, thereby satisfying both of the conditions of CF-AT-03 in the 

scoring. The Level I concentrations and their effect on the score are discussed further in section 3.14, Site Score, 

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. 

3.12.3 Effect of Removal on Release 

Comment: In its February 1994 submission, Chemfax stated that “violation of the [benzene and styrene] from the 

pond were primary criteria for ‘listing’,” and the contamination has since been eliminated by abating the pond. 

Chemfax offered to have HAZCLEAN implement a new air sampling program, which would presumably show 

no release, calling the existing data “not reproducible, and therefore. . .already abated.” 

Response: The observed release is correctly scored. Neither the pond “abatement” nor the time-critical removal 

action addressed the materials released prior to the remediation, the exposure to the release that had already 

occurred, and the risk posed by that release, regardless of whether the release was occurring at other times. 

HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release, as shown above, states that the likelihood of release “is a measure of the 

likelihood that a waste has been [emphasis added] or will be released to the environment.” An observed release 

documents that the “Likelihood of release” is certain and at its maximum as it documents the release has occurred. 

HRS Section 6.1.1, Observed release, likewise shown above, instructs the scorer to “[e]stablish an observed 

release to the atmosphere by demonstrating that the site has released [emphasis added] a hazardous substance to 

the atmosphere.” As shown above in the excerpts from pages 17 and 18 of the HRS documentation record at 

proposal, the observed release criteria were met by the sampling conducted on May 31, 1990. Therefore, the 

likelihood of release factor value for the air migration pathway is based on whether or not a release “has 

occurred” or its potential to occur, not on whether it is continuing to occur; no timeframe is specified. That the 

release is no longer occurring does not change that the contamination migrated via air and posed a risk to anyone 

exposed to that release. 

Even if new air sampling were to be conducted at the Site (as Chemfax offers in its comments), and such 

sampling did not duplicate the results of the original air sampling (i.e., did not show an observed release), this 

would not refute that the observed release to air did occur previously. 

Thus, the removal actions do not result in a change in the Likelihood of release scoring, since the actions did not 

address the hazardous substances already released or the risk associated with them. Therefore, the Likelihood of 

release value remains the same (the maximum value of 550) at promulgation as at proposal. 

 21 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

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

3.12.4 Observed Release: Attribution 

Comment: Chemfax, in its June 1994 comment submission, made a number of comments challenging the 

association of the benzene in the air release to the cooling pond. Chemfax asserted that the evidence showed that 

the benzene in the air release actually came from process vapors rather than the cooling pond. Chemfax argued 

that, while the level of benzene in air sample CF-AT-03 was “180 times the permissible level,” the benzene level 

in the pond water was not correspondingly elevated. Chemfax also claimed that the pond’s effluent waters did not 

demonstrate sufficiently high benzene levels to support that the benzene air release came from the pond, nor did 

the soil samples from around the pond. Chemfax alleged that air samples not associated with the process area did 

not reflect “unpermissible” benzene levels in the pond. 

Response: The release of the observed release substances, including benzene, has been properly attributed to the 

Site, in accordance with the HRS. 

HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release, states, in relevant part: 

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. [Emphasis added.] 

HRS Section 6.1.1, Observed release, directs the user to: 

 Establish an observed release to the atmosphere by demonstrating that the site has released a 

hazardous substance to the atmosphere. Base this demonstration on either: 

• Chemical analysis — an analysis of air samples indicates that the concentration of 

ambient hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background 

concentration for the site (see section 2.3). Some portion of the significant increase 

must be attributable to the site to establish the observed release. [Emphasis added.] 

Page 17 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, excerpted above, shows that no benzene was detected in 

either of the two background air samples documented as part of the observed release. The other observed release 

substances, toluene, ethyl benzene, styrene, total xylenes and naphthalene, were largely not detected; a few were 

detected at very low levels. Page 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, also excerpted above, shows 

that benzene, along with all of the remaining observed release substances, was detected in both CF-AT-03 and 

CF-AT-04 as part of the observed release, at levels meeting the “significant increase” criteria. In addition, toluene, 

ethyl benzene, styrene and total xylenes also met the “significant increase” criteria in sample CF-AT-05. 

In general, attribution is established in two steps. First it is documented that the substances are associated with onsite sources, and second it is established that no other off-site sources caused the significant increase in hazardous 

substance concentrations. 

For the first step, page 9 of the HRS documentation record at proposal shows that all of the observed release 

substances were found in Source 1 samples and therefore are associated with that source. Page 12 of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal shows that the observed release substances naphthalene, styrene, xylenes and 

ethyl benzene were found in samples from and are associated with Source 2. For the second step, the commenter 

did not identify any off-site sources as possible origins of the observed release contaminants. In addition, that no 

concentrations or very low concentrations of the observed release contaminants were present in either of the two 

 22 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

background samples demonstrates that the “significant increases” in the release samples did not come from some 

other nearby (off-site) source. 

Page 20 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states the following: 

. . . The final report for the Site Screening Inspection (SSI) indicates that Chemfax used 

various solvents in its processing, these include: alkylated xylene and naphthalene (Ref. 18, 

pp. 7, 18). [Emphasis added.] 

This passage supports that the substances found in the observed release, including benzene, are associated with 

processing operations at the facility. In addition, since the spill of raw feedstock, the drip pan and the molten resin 

processing operations have been added as sources, as detailed in section 3.10, Source Characterization - 

Additional Sources, of this support document, whether the benzene came from process areas or the pond, or some 

combination of these, is not inconsistent with the identification of an observed release. Chemfax stated that the 

observed release was contributed to by the process area of the Site. The locations of the observed release samples, 

i.e., adjacent to the cooling pond and the operational areas including the drip pan and the molten resin processing 

area, (see Figure 1 of this support document) also supports that the significant increase in the observed release 

substances is attributable to the Site, thus fulfilling the HRS requirement. 

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

3.13 Site Score 

Comment: Chemfax challenged the NPL-qualifying site score. In Exhibit A to its February 1994 comments, 

Chemfax alleged that if the air pathway had been effectively addressed [presumably by its pond “abatement”], 

“then the HRS Site Score would drop below action threshold levels” [presumably below the 28.50 score that 

qualifies a site for listing]. 

Response: The air pathway score and the HRS Site score are appropriately calculated in accordance with the HRS 

for the Chemfax site including when taking the removal actions into account. 

Likelihood of Release 

For Likelihood of release, as detailed in section 3.12.3, Effect of Removal on Release, Chemfax’s response action 

did not remove or otherwise remedy the release that had already occurred. That the release may no longer be 

occurring does not change that the contamination migrated via air, and that the released substances have not been 

addressed. Thus, the Likelihood of release value remains the same as in the HRS documentation record at 

proposal, 550, as explained above in section 3.12, Likelihood of Release: Observed Release, of this support 

document. 

Waste Characteristics 

The HRS waste characteristics category value is determined based on the instructions in HRS Section 6.2 and its 

subsections. 

 

HRS Section 6.2, Waste characteristics, states to: 

Evaluate the waste characteristics factor category based on two factors: toxicity/mobility and 

hazardous waste quantity. Evaluate only those hazardous substances available to migrate from 

the sources at the site to the atmosphere. Such hazardous substances include: 

 23 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

• Hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release to the atmosphere. 

• All gaseous hazardous substances associated with a source that has a gas containment 

factor value greater than 0. . . 

• All particulate hazardous substances associated with a source that has a particulate 

containment factor value greater than 0. . . 

* * * 

HRS Section 6.2.1.3, Calculation of toxicity/mobility factor value, specifies that the user is to: 

Assign each hazardous substance a toxicity/mobility factor value from table 6-13, based on the 

values assigned to the hazardous substance for the toxicity and mobility factors. Use the 

hazardous substance with the highest toxicity/mobility factor value to assign the value to the 

toxicity/mobility factor for the air migration pathway. Enter this value in table 6-1. 

* * * 

HRS Section 6.2.2, Hazardous waste quantity, states to: 

Assign a hazardous waste quantity factor value for the air migration pathway as specified in 

section 2.4.2. Enter this value in table 6-1. 

HRS Section 6.2.3, Calculation of waste characteristics factor category value, specifies to: 

Multiply the toxicity/mobility factor value and the hazardous waste quantity factor value, 

subject to a maximum product of 1 x 108

. Based on this product, assign a value from table 2-7 

(section 2.4.3.1) to the waste characteristics factor category. Enter this value in table 6-1. 

Page 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal explains how the HRS was applied at this site; it states the 

following: 

Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, styrene and have been assigned mobility values of 1.0 because 

they were found in observe release to air. Naphthalene was assigned a gas and particulate 

mobility value of 1 and 0.02 respectively because naphthalene was also found in observed 

release to air (Ref. 1. Section 6.2.1.2). .Mercury was detected in the cooling pond, but not in 

observe release to air (Ref. 12, App.F, p.1; 42). 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 2000 

For Waste Characteristics, in accordance with HRS Section 6.2 shown above, all of the contaminants associated 

with Sources 1 and 2 remain eligible for scoring because these sources have non-zero gas containment (actually 

each source has a value of 10), as detailed in section 3.11, Effect of Removal on Sources, of this support 

document and in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Because the observed releases identified in the HRS 

documentation record at proposal remain valid, as detailed in section 3.12.3, Effect of Removal on Release, of 

this support document, the hazardous substances found in the release are also eligible to be scored for 

toxicity/mobility. All of the hazardous substances found in the observed release are assigned the maximum 

mobility value of 1, as directed by HRS Section 6.2.1.2, Mobility. Mercury, which was associated with the 

cooling pond (Source 1) by sampling, receives the maximum overall toxicity/mobility value of 2,000 among all 

the eligible hazardous substances. There were no comments received in opposition to the assignment of toxicity, 

mobility or combined toxicity/mobility values provided in the HRS documentation record at proposal. 

 24 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

Regarding hazardous waste quantity, because Sources 1 and 2 remain eligible for scoring, their hazardous waste 

quantity values as calculated in section 3.11, Effect of Removal on Sources, of this support document are used in 

scoring. These values are 444 and >0, respectively. As calculated in section 3.10, Source Characterization - 

Additional Sources, of this support document, the source hazardous waste quantity values for the newly added 

sources, Sources 3, 4 and 5, are 0.000528, >0 and >0, respectively. Combining these five source hazardous waste 

quantity values results in a value of 444.000528. Applying this value to HRS Table 2-6, this results in the same 

pathway hazardous waste quantity value of 100 as in the HRS documentation record at proposal. 

Even if the sum of the source HWQ values were less than 100, the pathway hazardous waste quantity value would 

remain 100, as required in HRS Section 2.4.2.2, which specifies that, for a migration pathway, if the hazardous 

constituent quantity is not adequately determined for one or more sources, and if any target for that pathway is 

subject to Level I or Level II concentrations, assign either the value from Table 2-6 or a value of 100, whichever 

is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway. As discussed in the subsection titled 

Targets immediately below, targets for the air pathway are subject to Level I concentrations; the hazardous waste 

quantity factor value for the pathway is 100. In combination with the toxicity/mobility value for mercury of 2,000, 

using HRS Table 2-7, this yields a Waste Characteristics factor category value of 18, which is the same as was 

assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal. 

Targets 

The HRS documentation record at proposal contained documentation of actual contamination at a target location 

(on-site) for the air pathway. Because an observed release was appropriately established (as demonstrated in 

section 3.12, Likelihood of Release: Observed Release, of this support document), and workers were exposed at 

contaminant levels above health-based benchmarks, the score for actual contamination (Level I) remains. The 

only Targets categories assigned non-zero values in the HRS documentation record at proposal were as follows: 

Nearest Individual 50 

Level I Population 590 

Potential Population 12 

As such, the values for nearest individual (50, based on presence of Level I targets), and Level I population, 590, 

remain the same as in the HRS documentation record at proposal. The population subject to potential 

contamination was not scored in the HRS documentation record at promulgation since the Level I population 

score is sufficient in magnitude to achieve a site score sufficient for NPL listing. The resulting value for Targets is 

640 at promulgation.

Pathway Score 

From HRS Section 6.4, Calculation of air migration pathway score: 

Multiply the values for likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets, and round the 

product to the nearest integer. Then divide by 82,500. Assign the resulting value, subject to a 

maximum value of 100, as the air migration pathway score (Sa). 

(Likelihood of Release (550) x Waste Characteristics (18) x Targets (640)) / 82,500 = 76.80 

Site Score 

In HRS Section 2.1.1, Calculation of HRS site score, the following is specified: 

 25 
Chemfax, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document March 2012

 26 

Scores are first calculated for the individual pathways as specified in sections 2 through 7 and 

then are combined for the site using the following root-mean-square equation to determine the 

overall HRS site score, which ranges from 0 to 100: 

4

S + S + S + S = S

2

a

2

s

2

sw

2

gw

Since the Air Pathway is the only pathway scored for the Chemfax site, the resultant Site score is 38.40. 

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

4. Conclusion 

The original HRS score for this Site was 39.12. Based on the above responses to comments, at promulgation the 

score is 38.40. The final scores for the Chemfax site are: 

Ground Water: Not Scored 

Surface Water: Not Scored 

Soil Exposure: Not Scored 

Air Pathway: 76.80 

HRS Score: 38.40 
ATTACHMENT A 

Pollution Report #S and Final 
II 

~=_.,~_... .-.. 

!t1c~ =~ .'.0 .. ----..:-= 2 10 0011 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

POLLUTION REPORT #5 AND FINAL 

Date:	 December 27, 1999 

From:	 Roberta M. Runge. On-St:ene Coordinator 

USEPA Region IV 

Subject:	 Chemfax, Harrison County, Gulfport, Miss. 

To:	 Doug Lair, Branch Chief 

USCG Gulf Coast Strike Team 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

r~----------__ POLREP No.:	 POLREP five (5) and FINAL 10066098 "' 

I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION 

1111/11~1I1 "IIIII~I 11111~~111/111/11~/IIIII Site name: Chemfax Inc. 

Site address: ]0045 Three Rivers Road 

City, county, state: Gulfport. HalTison County, Miss. 

CERCUS No.: 04JF 

Site rD: MSD()O~ 1544~6

Response Authority: CERCLA 

NPL Status: Not listed 

Incident Category: Time critical 

State Notification: MDEQ has been working with EPA for several years on remedial 

investigations concerning this site. 

Action Memorandum: Completed 

Start Date: July 12, 19l)l) 

Completion Date: Nov 24, 1':)99 

BACKGROUND rNFORMATION 

A . Type of Facility 

This Site is ap inactive and abandoned facility whit:h manufactured synthetit: hydrot:arbon 

resins and waxes from 1955 until 1995. The primary operation at the Site was a paraffin blending 

process that involved the heating, blending, and cooling of different grades of paraffin wax. The 

Site currently consists of several buildings in disrepair, numerous above ground storag.e tanks and 

approximately 1000 drums of spent solvents, waste products, and manufacturing bi-products. 

B. Site Description 
2 10 0012 

The Site is located on approximately 11 acres of property zoned for industrial usage. It is 

situated approximately 700 feet to the south of Bernard Bayou in a relatively flat area having a 

2% slope over most of the property. All surface water drainage flows into a storm drain system 

located on the east side of the property. and inouted directly to the Bayou. 

The area surrounding the Site is predominately industrial and l,;ommen::ial. The commercial 

businesses consist of various discount centers, factory outlets and gas stutions. The Site is within 

0.25 miles of Interstate 10 which is the major traffic route across southern Mississippi. 

The Site has unrestricted access, acts as a home for numerous vagrants and has large. 

quantities of highly flammable liquids stored in drums and tanks. A fire in one of the abandoned 

buildings on the Site would quickly spread to the tlammable liquids and could lead to un 

explosion. Additionally, the concentration of hazardous substances in the soil pose a significant 

health threat to persons entering the Site. 

Ill. RESPONSE INFORMATION 

A. Actions Taken 

A Removal Site Evaluation which involved the inventory, mapping and sampling of the 

tanks, drums and waste piles on the Site was conducted on January 26-27 •. 1999. Eleven surface 

soil samples, two sediment samples and one water sample were collected, as well as samples from 

eighteen drums and five tanks. All samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds. 

sem-volatile organic compounds, total cyanides, and target analyre list (TAL) metals. The 

contaminants on the Site were found to include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene. styrene 

and methylene chloride as well as a wide variety of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, including 

anthrul.:ene, fluorene, methylnaphthalene, phenanthrene and pyrene. TAL metals on Site include 

arsenic and clu·omium. 

Analytical data from the 1996 Remedial Investigation sumpling of monitoring wells 

indicate that benzene concentrations in ground water beneath the Sire exceed the Maximum 

Contaminant Level for drinking water. 

On July 12, 1999 a time critical removal action was initiated. The main objective of the 

action was to remove all contaminated drummed soils (llJ4.lN tons) stockpiled by the t~ll.:ility

owner, remove aU asbestos (~O cubic yards) from the process lines/boilers/buildings. and remove 

all hazardous waste (0001, F003, F005) from above ground storage tanks (52,25X gallons). By 

taking these actions, the Emergency Response and Removal Branch, negated the immediate threat 

of exposure to hazardous wastes, improperly stored at the Site, to the 101.:411 residents and the 

surrounding environment. All materials were transported to CERCLA approved off site dispos:lI 

facilities. 
IV 

2 10 0013 

All above ground storage tanks were demolished and deconti.lIl1inated on Site. FoUowing 

completion of the tank demolition, the secondary containment areas around the tank farms were 

excavated to access buried process lines and l:omaminated soils. In the process of excavating the 

secondary containment areas, several facility dump sites were located including a drum disposal 

area. The drum') contained waste paraffm and waxes as well as waste oils. In order to ensure that 

all dump sites had been located, an elet.:tromagnetic survey of the Site was conducted prior to 

demobilization of heavy equipment. No additional dump sites were located as a result of the 

survey. All waste streatn<; were characterized and transported to CERCLA approved disposal 

facilities. 

On November 16, 1999, a Site walk through was conducted with personnel from the EPA 

remedial branch to ensure a smooth transition from removal activities to remedial i.H.:tivities. On 

the same date, the OSC and Community Relations Coordinator (CRC) provided an invitation to 

local media representatives to view the progress on the Site and advise them of the transition from 

a removal action to a remedial action. Two television interviews and one new paper interview 

were conducted at the Site. The OSC and CRC also participated in a well attended public 

meeting, the evening of the 16th, at the request of the remedial branch. 

CONTRACTOR INFORMATION AND ESTIMATED COSTS 

A.	 Contractor Information 

CONTRACTOR DO NUMBER POP START/POP 

END 

DOAMOU~T

CMC 4006-F4-033 July 12, 1999 

Nov 24, 1999 

$ I,OOO,()()O.OO 

B.	 Estimated Costs 

Extramural: 

ERCS/ERRS $ X74,';>46.31 

START/USCG $ I 25,627.59 

Total Estimated Extramural Costs: $ 1,000,573.90 

Intramural:' . 

EPA Direct Costs $ 17,500.00 

EPA Indirect Costs $ 34,000.00 

TOTAL SITE COSTS $1,052,073.9() 
2 '10 001'4 

Costs shown are not fmal. They are based on information currently available. 

V. DISPOSITION OF WASTES 

Waste stream #	 Waste code Description Approx. Vol. Handling Disposal 

/Quantity Method Locatioll 

#1 Non-haz. Soil 194J~9 tons Dump trul:k Pecan Grove 

SLF 

#2 Asbestos 80 cubic 

yards 

Lined 

Roll-offs 

Pecilll Grove 

SLFasbestos l:ell 

#3 0001 

F003 

F005 

PAH 52.258 gal. Vae.Trucks M&M/ 

Giant Cement 

#4 Non-haz. Waste 

solvents & 

resins 

131 drums Lined 

RoU-offs 

Clean 

Management/ 

Omni S.E. 

#5 Non-haz. Non-PCB 

waste oil 

3,000 gal. Vae. TruCks Clean 

Managementl 

International 

Petroleum 

VI. ROSTER OF AGENCIES ASSISTING IN REMOVAL 

Agency Contact Phone# Role 

EPA Brian Farrier 404-562-8lJ52 RPM 

EPA Greg Luetseher 404()-562-Y677 Site Attorney 

EPA Paula Walraven 404-562-8858 USCGIAA 

Implementation 

EPA Annette Hill 404-562-8060 Cost Recoverv 

EPA Jeff Napier 404-562-8386 Contract Officer 

EPA Houston Gillian 404-562-8591 Non-haz. Disposal 

EPA Jack Coward 404-562-8591 Haz. Disposal 

EPA Rick Glaze 404-562-9554 Criminal 

Investigations 

USCG Marty Danuels 334-441-6706 USCG FOSe 
2 10 0015
 

MDEQ Ken Whitten 601-Y61-5306 State Haz. Waste 

Division 

MDEQ Jerry Banks 601-961-5306 State Haz. Waste 

Division 

Harrison Co. Schools Henry Arledge 228-53Y-6500 Property Trustee 

City of Gulfport William Small 228-868-5810 Mayor 

MDOT Judy Singletary 601-359-7573 Railroad Liaison 

,.
 
ATTACHMENT B
 

OSWER Directive #9345.1-25
 

April 4, 1997
 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
 

-

APR'" 11 !997 .. ' 

OFF1CS OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPCSSE _ 

OSWER Directive # 9345.1~25 ~jE:\I.QRANDllM

Revision to OSWER ?,\PL Policy "The Rc\ ised Hazard Ranking S)stcm: halu3ting' Sl'BJECT: 

Sites Afier Waste Removals" Publication No. 9345.I-03FS, October 1991­

FRO\I: SlCphen D. Luftig. Direclo;ST~ Lft:v

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 0 

Director. Oftice of Site Remediation and Restoration TO: 

Region I 

Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division 

Region II 

Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division 

Regions III, IX 

Director, Waste Management Division 

Region IV . -, '\' ,::,. ," I:' ' ' 

Director, Superfund Division .. . 

Regions V, VI, VII .. . :.: ~',,< ;'~'~'"'\'(>'-. :;-~",' -,.', 

Assistant Regional Administrator, _.. '", ':: :.; "r r;:',': '::::-. :-:,,:',' 

Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation. " 

• "... _. .1. ~~ '.. ~'" ~;~~~:~. . • .- ., 

Region VIII .... ": . ':'. '~"~ :';;~~',::~:~'~:~,,'.:'~;-"~~ " 

Director, Environmental Cleanup Office-.- .".~~,,:;}: .\',,7~r. "af Sit,:> Ex,:;;:;;· 

Region X 

' .......;:.: _: ..~' t.... ... 
 

. t ~:: .; •• t', •.:_~ .;'.•• -..... '.' Purpose: 

Tre purpose of this memorandum is to pro\'ide grp ' '·er flexibility t~ the current' Nation'at 

Priorities Listing (,1\PL) polic)' forevalu<lling the Impact of completed removals on the Hazard 

Ranking System (HRS) score (Publication No. 9345.I-03FS, October 1991). Flexibility is 

accomplished by allowing post-Site Inspection ("post~Sr') completed removals to be considered 

in HRS scoring. 
The October \99\ NPL policy "The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Evaluating Sites 

{ Afler Waste Removals" (Publication No. 9345.1-03FS) established three requirements for 

considering removal actions when scoring a site using the HRS. First, all the waste subject to 

the removal must be physically removed from the site. Second, the removal action must have 

occurred prior to the SL (55FR 51567, December 14, 1990). Third. all waste removed must be 

disposed or destroyed at a facility permitted under.the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

Taxies Substances Control Act, or by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Based ~n experiences in applying the CUlP'nt NPL policy. the Agency recognizes that
 

~i)me post-51 removal actions can substantially address the threat to human health and
 

t.'I1\ironment and should be considered up to the time ofNPL listing. Therefore. as a means of
 

encouraging early response actions, especially by private parties, when set1ing priorities for the
 

~·PL. EPA (;m now corlsidl?r certain types ofpost-SI removal completions (removals completed
 

~~Il\- time b;'!I,:'re the site is prop~)st'd to the ~PL) in prl?paring l-lRS s(L)ring p3ckagcs.
 

Additionally, this post-SI consideration hereon modit1cs'the second of three requirenlcnts cited in
 

th~ October J991 NPL policy.
 

ImpkIlH'ntion: 

Thi~cOnsid~ratiQi.i;Qhly~ppJid;\\:here'the;Regionha:s:docuiiW,)t~ti9n(~,g.,QSC-RemoYalt.f

'i;ii~~iijii;!ff~i!!~~i!i~i~i;E~iiii~ii?
 drops below 28.5 as a result ofthese changes, and if alfcost recovery activities have been --'<
 

addressed (a decision not to cost recover has been completed or final payment ofoutstanding
 

oversight or response costs has been received) etc.), the Region can proceed with archiving the
 

site from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information
 

System (CERCUS). The attached Post-Site Inspection Removal Site Example is provided to
 

assist you in implementing this new reform.
 

In summary, the' Agency believes that trus refonn would reduce EPA and private sector
 

legal/transaction costs associated with the listing and subsequent deletion process. Most
 

importantly) this ref0n11 bet1er reflects the Agency's priorities for listing only those sites
 

adwlscly im ' ,cting human health and the en\'iro'1;~)ent
 

2 
If you have any questions regarding this rdonn. please contact Tim Gill. OfTice of 

Emergency and Remedial Response. at 003) 603·8856. 

( 

n,is rCrOm) is not a rule, and does not create any legal obligations. The extent to which 

EPA applies this policy will depend on the facts of each case. 

cc:	 EPA HQ OSWERIIO
 

OSPSlBrownfields
 

OERRtl0 

OERR Center Directors 

OSW:10 

OGC10 

OSRE.l0 

OFFR010
 

OFFE 10
 

EPA Regional Removal Managers
 

EPA Regional ~PL Chiefs
 

EPA Regional NPL Coordinators
 

EPA Regional Cost Recovery Mangers
 

EPA Regional Counsel
 

Association of State Terroritorial Solid Waste Officials I Kris Hoellen 

;·1 

3 
Post·Sile Inspection Remora! Site Example 

( 

To illustrate the implementation of !his policy. consider a CERCUS site thaI is a candidate for 

the NPL because of !he threat it poses 10 ground water. The sile consists of leaking transformers and 

soils contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in a 5.000 square foot area at a fonner 

storage facility. Targets include more than 3,000 people who receive drinking waler from ground 

water wells within lh to I mile of the site. 

In 1989. EPA conducted a Site Inspection (SI) at the facility to ga!her !he data necessary to 

prepare an HRS documentation record. Preliminary evaluations by EPA indicate lhatthe sile will score 

greater than 28.50 on the HRS (\3sed on the threat to ground water alone. AI!hough no release 10 

ground water was dicco\"cred. the potential for a re!e;lse to Ihe local drinking waler aquifer is high and 

Jnilny pevplc near the site use this aquifer. 

In 1993. the PRP drained fluids containing PCBs from the transformers and hauled away the 

transformers and PCB-ct-.maining Ouids to an approved disposal facility. The soil was excavated to a 

Jt'pth t-.f arrroxim:uely 3 feet ,ind ar0"Jnd 1:'00 drums of PCB-Ct'fll,lnlinated $\'il were taken t\' an 

approved facility for the di~p0sal of PCBs. Post-remoyal soil sampling rcveakJ no PCBs. Current 

data show no PCB contamination in do\\ ngradient drinking water and monitoring wells \l,'ithin 'h mile 

of the site, 

After the removal was completed. EPA developed a revised HRS score. Under EPA's original 

policy. the HRS score would still be greater lhan 28.50 because the response action occurred after the 

Sf. Under this revised policy, the site score .....ould be reduced to 0 because !he Hazardous Waste 

Quantity value became 0 once all hazardous waste sources were physically removed from the site and 

disposed of at an appropriately penniued facility. The nondetection of PCBs during a resampling of 

the ground water monitoring well and drinking water wells within Ih mile downgradient of !he site 

ensured EPA that the PRP's response action removed a sufficient quantit)' of PCBs to restrict further 

contaminant migration. EPA began the procedures to archive the site from CERCUS. 

4 
ATTACHMENT C 

Figure illustrating areas excavated
 

as part of time-critical removal action
 

I·· ..•
 
N 

lID _17_ 

ifttH+ff 1INLIDlI_

!

I --_1llTc:It 

o 150' JOO' II..$" '-"- ~--

DCAVAl1llll "",uW;;:UUI&4 g"i'C"IOIiIloU.lU 1liI.&..... Flaure No. 

". 

coUIIlY _1lCIIlII 

o 

----~-=-. 11 1""11 L~I I II 

J 

O' • . GulfIlOrt, Milllillllilllli Emergency Rellponse and DRAINAGE DITCH Removal Branch Soil Excavations 2-8 . I . C,_OM ..' e4-..l_Pra ~l£mo luly 12, 1999 - November 23, 1999'1-------1

11 - 5/00