Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0005-0022
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-12-10T05:00Z

Background
Information
on
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)
BACKGROUND
$
CERCLA
Section
105(
a)(
8)(
B)
establishes
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL).

S
A..
the
President
shall
list
as
part
of
the
plan
national
priorities
among
the
known
releases
or
threatened
releases
throughout
the
United
States
and
shall
revise
the
list
no
less
often
than
annually.@

$
The
NPL
is
EPA=
s
list
of
sites
that
warrant
further
investigation
under
CERCLA
and,
if
necessary,
need
remedial
action.

$
Only
NPL
sites
may
receive
Superfund
dollars
for
remedial
activities.

$
As
of
May
2002,
there
are
1,221
final
sites
and
74
proposed
sites.
In
addition,
258
sites
have
been
deleted
from
the
NPL.

$
In
recent
years,
approximately
40
sites
per
year
have
been
added
to
the
NPL.
PLACING
SITES
ON
THE
NPL
$
As
a
matter
of
policy,
EPA
updates
the
NPL
quarterly.
Each
NPL
Update
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register
and
the
list
of
sites
is
codified
in
40
CFR
Part
300
Appendix
B.

$
There
are
3
mechanisms
for
placing
sites
on
the
NPL:

S
Sites
can
be
placed
on
NPL
if
the
Hazard
Ranking
System
(
HRS)
score
is
28.5
or
greater.

S
Each
State
may
designate
a
single
site
as
its
top
priority.

S
Certain
other
sites
may
be
listed
if
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
issues
a
health
advisory
recommending
dissociation
and
EPA
determines
costeffectiveness
factors.

$
The
majority
(
greater
than
90%)
of
sites
are
placed
on
the
NPL
using
the
HRS.
HAZARD
RANKING
SYSTEM
(
HRS)

$
The
HRS
is
a
mathematical
scoring
system
that
serves
as
a
screening
tool
to
evaluate
the
relative
threat
posed
by
a
site
and
determine
whether
the
site
should
be
included
on
the
NPL.

S
The
HRS
is
not
a
risk
assessment.

$
The
HRS
evaluates
four
pathways:
ground
water,
surface
water,
soil
exposure,
and
air.

$
A
site
score
is
calculated
through
the
mathematical
algorithms
prescribed
in
the
HRS.
This
score
does
not
represent
a
specified
level
of
risk
but
serves
as
a
screening­
level
indicator.

$
Sites
that
score
28.5
or
greater
are
eligible
for
listing
on
the
NPL.
NPL
LISTING
PROCESS
$
A
site
is
first
proposed
to
the
NPL
in
a
proposed
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register.

$
The
public
then
has
60
days
in
which
to
comment
on
EPA=
s
evaluation
and
basis
for
placing
the
site
on
the
NPL.

$
EPA
considers
all
technical
comments
received
during
the
comment
period
and
determines
whether
to
finalize
the
site
on
the
NPL.

$
If
it
is
determined
that
a
site
shall
be
finalized
on
the
NPL,
EPA
publishes
a
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register
and
concurrently
provides
a
support
document
that
addresses
the
comments
received
for
the
site.
GOVERNOR/
STATE
CONCURRENCE
POLICY
$
In
April
1995,
Congress
placed
a
provision
in
EPA=
s
appropriations
bill
that
required
the
Governor=
s
concurrence
when
placing
a
site
onto
the
NPL.

$
Although
no
longer
required
by
appropriations
language,
as
a
matter
of
policy,
EPA
continues
to
request
State
support
on
the
listing
of
sites
onto
the
NPL.

$
Since
1995,
EPA
has
proposed
203
sites
to
the
NPL.
EPA
received
State
concurrence
for
all
NPL
listings
except
for
one
site
which
was
proposed
with
State
opposition.
(
The
Fox
River
site
in
Wisconsin
was
proposed
to
the
NPL
in
July
1998
and
has
not
been
finalized.)

$
EPA
has
received
State
concurrence
on
the
202
proposed
sites
from
40
different
States,
the
District
of
Columbia,
Puerto
Rico,
and
the
Virgin
Islands.

$
If
a
State
opposes
the
listing
of
a
particular
site,
EPA
has
an
issue
resolution
process
that
elevates
the
decision
to
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
EPA
POLICIES
THAT
AFFECT
NPL
LISTING
$
EPA
Removal
Program:
EPA
has
achieved
cleanup
of
many
NPL­
eligible
sites
using
removal
authority
and
funding.
In
many
cases,
PRPs
have
been
willing
to
act
under
direction
of
the
removal
program.
A
February
14,
2000
OSWER
memo
titled
AUse
of
Non­
Time­
Critical
Removal
Authority
in
Superfund
Response
Actions@
establishes
procedures
for
selecting
these
removal
actions
at
such
sites.

$
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
(
NRC)
Deferral
policy
(
12/
82):
Defers
listing
of
releases
of
source,
by­
product,
or
special
nuclear
material
from
any
NRClicensed
facility
since
NRC
has
full
authority
to
require
cleanup
of
releases
from
such
facilities.
Deferral
does
not
include
releases
from
State­
licensed
facilities.

$
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Deferral
policy
(
11/
89):
Defers
listing
of
RCRA
Treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
with
certain
defined
exceptions)
that
can
be
addressed
under
RCRA
subtitle
C
corrective
action
authorities.

$
State
Deferral
policy
(
05/
95):
Establishes
formal
agreements
between
EPA
and
State/
Tribe
in
which
EPA
defers
consideration
of
NPL
listing
at
sites
while
State/
Tribe
compels
and
oversees
PRP­
lead
response
actions.
Response
actions
should
be
substantially
similar
to
a
response
required
under
CERCLA.
EPA
claims
no
further
interest
at
these
sites
after
cleanup
is
successfully
completed.

$
Voluntary
Cleanup
Program
(
11/
96):
Establishes
Memorandum
of
Agreements
(
MOAs)
with
States
to
provide
comfort
for
sites
that
are
cleaned
up
under
State
programs
e.
g.
EPA
assumes
that
State
activities
are
sufficient
and
generally
EPA
does
not
anticipate
taking
removal
or
remedial
action
at
sites
in
the
State
program.
In
total,
EPA
has
signed
VCP
MOAs
with
19
States.
EPA
POLICIES
THAT
AFFECT
NPL
LISTING
(
CONT.)

$
NPL­
equivalent
policy
(
under
development):
Provides
a
framework
for
EPA
and
PRPs
to
negotiate
cleanup
agreements
at
non­
NPL
sites.
Note
that
EPA=
s
enforcement
authorities
for
remedial
actions
under
CERCLA
are
not
limited
to
NPL
sites.
EPA
Regions
have
been
conducting
such
negotiations
since
1980s.
Recently,
the
level
of
activity
has
increased,
with
over
200
sites
subjectively
identified
as
NPL
equivalent
(
NPLEq).
About
80
sites
have
enforcement
agreements
in
place
and
19
proposed
NPL
sites
are
currently
considered
NPL
equivalent.

$
Brownfields
legislation
(
01/
02):
Subtitle
A
of
Public
Law
107­
118
allows
EPA
to
provide
grant
funding
for
site
characterizations
and
remediation
work
at
an
NPL­
eligible
site
if
the
site
passes
the
Aeligible
response
site@
exclusions
criteria.
Subtitle
C
requires
EPA
to
defer
final
listing
of
an
Aeligible
response
site@
in
lieu
of
a
State/
Tribal
program
cleanup
(
with
caveats).
NPL
POLICY
REVIEW
$
NPL
policy
is
a
core
element
of
the
charge
to
NACEPT.

$
EPA
has
formed
an
ARole
of
the
NPL
Workgroup@
that
consists
of
representatives
from
various
EPA
offices
at
Headquarters,
EPA
Regions,
States
and
Tribes.

S
The
purpose
of
the
Workgroup
is
to
discuss
near­
term
strategy
for
NPL
listing
policy
prior
to
receiving
recommendations
from
NACEPT.

S
The
Workgroup
is
also
available
to
support
NACEPT
by
providing
information
to
any
NACEPT
requests,
responding
to
questions
and
providing
expert
analysis.
IMPORTANCE
OF
THE
NPL
$
EPA
typically
lists
sites
with
no
PRPs,
recalcitrant
PRPs,
or
large
areas
of
contamination
beyond
a
State=
s
cleanup
ability.

$
The
ability
to
list
new
sites
on
the
NPL
is
essential
to
successful
implementation
of
the
Superfund
program.

$
The
NPL
provides
leverage
to
EPA
and
States
to
secure
PRP
commitments
for
non­
NPL
cleanups.

$
Approximately
70%
of
the
NPL
sites
are
PRP­
lead
cleanups,
and
involve
on
average
only
a
fraction
of
the
EPA
resources
spent
at
Fund
lead
sites;
NPL
listing
is
essential
to
securing
PRP
commitment
to
conduct
response.

$
EPA
rarely
initiates
NPL
listing
independently.
More
commonly,
EPA
responds
to
requests
from
States/
Tribes
or
requests
from
communities
when
non­
NPL
response
options
have
not
proved
viable.
SUMMARY
$
The
NPL
remains
a
critical
tool
in
the
cleanup
of
toxic
waste
sites.

$
However,
it
is
being
used
more
selectively
to
focus
on
eligible
sites
where
other
cleanup
approaches
aren=
t
viable.

$
When
other
approaches
are
able
to
provide
cleanup,
EPA
allows
time
for
these
alternatives
to
effectively
address
site
risks.

$
However,
when
other
options
are
unavailable
or
ineffective,
NPL
listing
ensures
a
comprehensive
response
to
protect
human
health