Response to NPL listing controversy

[zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu]

From: Don Zweifel <zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu>

To Laura Olah and all interested parties:

"According to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act, 42, section 9605; CERCLA section 105 (c) thru (g):

The President shall by rule promulgate amendments to the hazard ranking
system (HRS).

The President shall consider each of the following factors in adding
facilities covered by this section to the Nat'l Priorities List (NPL):

The extent to which the hazard ranking system (HRS) score for the facility
is affected by the presence of any special study waste at or any release
from such facility.

Available information as to the quantity, toxicity and concentration of
hazardous substances that are constituents of any special study waste at
or released from such facility, the extent of or potential for release of
such hazardous constituents, the exposure or potential exposure to human
population and the environment posed by the release of such hzardous
constituents at such facility. 

This refers only to available information on actual concentrations of
hazardous substances and not on the total quantification of special study
waste at such facility."

In other words the USEPA is the final arbiter of which site is of
sufficient toxicity to detrementally affect human health and/or the
environment. Their score card must have enough minus points to declare it
for national priority listing. Some sites like Marine Corps Air Station,
Tustin, Ca. came very close to being declared a Superfund site, but the
adverse impacts at this particular site just didn't add up to a
substantial and/or imminent risk to human health. This factor is the sini
qua non or absolutely critical and all-encompassing element here.

Most of the funding is still available to remediate at this installation
but the USEPA's oversight, such as the EPA's nine alternative remediation
evaluation criteria "yard-stick" is not usually legally applicable and/or
relevant at a non-NPL site.

In summary, may we reiterate that usually only those sites that have been
characterized as being particularly dangerous to human health and/or
to the environment and its imminency could be considered for adoption to
the NPL, e.g., a violation of an MCL or maximum contaminant level would
probably but not necessarily, have to be substantial, as a prerequisite.

On an added note: 

If your RAB members fear that a particular section of the Federal
statutory law code has been violated then so stipulate. Call the legal
council for your USEPA region and query him /her as to a legal finding
on a specific site characterization.

Don't just wring your hands and grouse. Our EPA region's are known for
having some of the finest legal council in the land. They are your public
servants so avail yourselves of it.

A final note:

Re CERCLA section 9621

"In assessing alternative remedial action the President shall at a
minimum, take into account the foolowing:

The long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal.

The goals, objectives and rqmts of the "Solid Waste Disposal Act (US Code
annotated) section 6901.

The persistence, toxicity, mobility and propensity to bioaccumulate of
such hazardous substances and their constituents.

Short and long-term potential for adverse health effects from human
exposure.

Long-term maintenance costs.

The potential for future remedial action costs if the alternative remedial
action in question were to fail.

And the potential threat to human health and the environment associated
with excavation, transportation and redisposal or containment.

The President shall select a remedial action that is protective of human
health and the environment, that is cost effective, and that utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximun extent practicable. If the President
selects a remedial action not appropriate for a preference under this
subsection, the President shall publish an explation as to why a remedial
action involving such reductions were not selected."

There's more in this section that is of critical importance so please
obtain a copy at your nearest federal repository and/or large library.

 Don Zweifel
 CalEPA DTSC Adv Grp