2011-12-29 – NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD Questions and Answers for Superfund Site Managers

.. {In Archive} State attendance at a NRRB Westlake "meeting"? ~~~ Craig Smith to: Dan Gravatt,... View Document

Post

2012-01-04 – EPA – Request for total assessed value of businesses within the Levee District encompassing the West LakeLandfill

{In Archive} Can you get the total assessed value of businesses within the Levee District encompassing the WL landfill Cecilia Tapia to: Dan Gravatt 01/04/2012 03:13PM Cc: DeAndre Singletary, Audrey Asher
History: This message has been forwarded.
Archive: This message is being viewe~ in an archive.
Karl thought that this would be a good indicator of the private levee’s ability to maintain the levee system .
In addition he wants to know if there has ever been any flooding in the area since the levee was built.

Thanks, Cecilia Tapia Director, Superfund Division
U.S. EPA901 N. 5th Street Kansas City, KS66101 (913)551-7733 FAX: (913)551-7145 CELL:(913)449-4171 EMAIL: [email protected]
The information., t 1 ematl and in any of tt a tachmen IS confrdenbal and may be privileged. If you are n<>l the intended 1ecip~en please destroy 1 · message. (La inlonnaaon contemda en esle menS

Post

2012-01-25 – NRRB – Questions and Answers for Superfund Site Managers

{In Archive} Fw: NRRB review of Westlake Landfill Craig Smith to: Dan Gravatt 01/25/2012 03:42PM Cc: DeAndre Singletary, Audrey Asher, Robertw Jackson, Cecilia Tapia
Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.
As Amy said, here is the current schedule of meetings:
~r-:1
FY 2012 NRRB Meeting Calendar.docx
The guidance calls for the review packages as follows, so this may influence the schedule:
“Finalize the informational site package at least four weeks before the meeting and provide the package to the relevant regional NRRB member for distribution to Board members in preparation for the site review. The package will be posted on the Board’s Quickr site so that Board members may download it at their convenience. Oversized charts, maps or tables should be mailed to the Board members. The mailing list is available from the Board’s Quickr site. Please note that two additional copies should be mailed to the Board chair for distribution to OSRTI participants.”
Let me know what looks good.
Thanks, Craig S
Craig W. Smith, P.E. Senior Engineer and Policy Coordinator Superfund Division USEPA Region 7 Kansas City
(913) 551-7683
—–Forwarded by Craig Smith/SUPR/R7/USEPAIUS on 01/25/2012 03:28PM—-.
From: Amy Legare/DC/USEPAIUS· To: Dan Gravatt/R7/[email protected], Craig Smith/SUPR/R7/[email protected] Cc: Dave Crawford/DC/[email protected], Gary Worthman/DC/[email protected] Date: 01/25/2012 12:28 PM Subject: NRRB review of Westlake Landfill
Hello all! It is my understanding that the Administrator, Region 7 RA, your DD, and my OD agree that the NRRB should review the remedial action planned for this site. We have some flexibility for when this could happen. We can hold a web conference (not video) during the week of February 13 or 20, or you can join· the already planned meeting the week of March 12 in Chicago. April is difficult due to spring break and we already have a packed meeting the week of April 23. The month of May is wide open. Let me know what works for you.
Here is the Q&A guide for the Board. It contains an outline for the review package and presentation.
§1
Finai.RPM.NRRB.Manual.12.29.11.doc

Amy R. Legare
011~
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-J.o
40450137
IIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII1111111111 /II/IIIII/III
Superfund
DllD I
OSWER/OSRTI/ARD/SARDB 5828 Potomac Yard South MC 5204P 703-347-0124
3/28/2014

Completed Reviews
October 18, 2011 (web conference) Lava Cap OU3 -R9 (consultation)
December 6-7, 2011 -Seattle (NRRB/CST AG -full 2-day meeting) Lower Duwamish -R 1 0
Planned Reviews
March 12-16, 2012-Chicago or Denver Raritan Bay Slag-R2 MEW-R9
March 26-30, 2012-Hanford, WA Tour Hanford 1 00-K Area Hanford 200 UPI Hanford 300 Area
April23-27, 2012-HQ Gowanus Canal-R2 (joint w/ CSTAG) V elsicol -R4 Montross -R9
June 18-22,2012-Philadelphia Ringwood Mine-R2 681h Street Dump -R3 American Creosote-R4
July 23-27, 2012 Sauget Area 2 -R5 Stringfellow-R9 San Gabriel -R9
October 22-26, 2012 Lower Darby -R3 Casmalia -R9
Future Passaic River-R2 (with CSTAG, 2 day meeting) Libby OU4-R8 Portland Harbor-RIO Quendall Terminals-R 10

NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD

Questions and Answers for
Superfund Site Managers

December 29, 20 11
1. What is the National Remedy Review Board?
In October 1995, the EPA Administrator announced a collection of initiatives designed to help control remedy costs and to promote consistent and cost-effective Superfund cleanup decisions. As one of these initiatives, the National Remedy Review Board (NRRB, the Board) reviews proposed high-cost cleanup decisions to help evaluate whether they are consistent with current law, regulations, and Agency policy and guidance.
The Board is a technical and policy review group made up of members that have experience with both regional and Headquarters perspectives in the Superfund remedy selection process. Its members include senior managers and technical experts from each EPA region, as well as senior technical and policy experts from other EPA offices. These include the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), Office ofResearch and Development, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, and Office ofGeneral Counsel. The Board is chaired by OSRTI.
The Board generally meets quarterly to review proposed decisions that meet its cost-based review criteria. The product of the review is a memorandum sent from the Board to the regional Superfund division director that documents Board recommendations about the proposed cleanup strategy. The Board review process allows full input from EPA regional site managers and other site team members as deemed appropriate by the region whose site is under review. EPA’s site managers are asked to participate in all deliberations to ensure that the Board fully understands the circumstances influencing their proposals.
2. Which sites will the Board review?
Typically, the Board reviews cleanup strategies after the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RVFS) and before the region releases the proposed plan for comment. If necessary, the Board may review sites at other phases of cleanup, possibly before the FS is completed. The Board tries to accommodate regional preferences for scheduling reviews; however, it may not be able to meet all desired regional schedules. It is therefore imperative that site managers work closely with their Board representatives and regional management to schedule sites for review as soon as cost estimates trigger the review criteria outlined below.
Both National Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL (e.g., “Superfund Alternative”) site actions are reviewed by the Board whenever the Agency expects the work to be done underthe Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and other relevant guidance, and when the general criteria below are met. The Board reviews
sites when EPA is directly responsible for the decision or has a concurrence role, including PRP.lead, special account-funded and federal facility-lead sites.
Board Review Criteria
The Board will typically review proposed interim and final Superfund response decisions at both NPL and non-NPL (including Superfund Alternative) sites for which the proposed:

Remedial action costs more than $25 million; or


Non-time critical removal actions (NTCRA), at sites other than a federal facility, is estimated to cost more than $25 million; or

Board reviews will also occur for NPL and non-NPL sites following changes made after the release of the proposed· plan:

A different or modified alternative (which was included in the original proposed plan) is selected by the region that costs more than 20 percent when compared to the original proposal and these costs trigger review criteria (even when the earlier proposed action had undergoneBoard review).


A new alternative is developed and the costs ofthe new alternative would trigger a review.

The Board may review (at regional discretion) sites where the proposed action’s original cost estimate increases more than 20 percent after issuance ofthe Proposed Plan due to either updated cost information or minor changes to the alternative that trigger review criteria. Examples of minor changes are presented in Chapter 7 ofA Guide to Preparing Supe1:(und Proposed Plans, Records ofDecision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive No. 9200.1-23P, July 1999 (ROD guidance).
Federal Facility Sites (other than the Department ofEnergy)
Federal facility sites (including Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program-FUSRAP) follow the same review criteria above with the exception ofNTCRAs; federal facility NTCRAs do not undergo Board review unless requested by the federal facility. Decisions at Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites do not undergo Board review.
Department ofEnergy Sites
The NRRB typically will review sites where the primary contaminant is radioactive waste and · the proposed remedial action costs more than $75 million. The Board will also review NPL sites with NTCRAs exceeding $30 million involving primarily radioactive waste; (per joint Department of Energy/EPA memorandum dated October 5, 1998).
3. Can Regions Request an optional early consultation?
Regions may request an optional NRRB consultation on remedial alternatives at the draft FS scoping stage or any time prior to the draft proposed plan. Regions will not be expected to respond to this early review. Regions should notify states, tribes, local governments, PRPs and local communities when a site will be the subject of an early consultation. Stakeholder, including PRPs, input (up to 10 pages) should be requested as part ofthe early consultation process. This optional consultation will not excuse a site from NRRB review at the proposed plan stage ifthe proposed remedial action meets the NRRB review criteria.
4. Can Regions Request an exemption from Board review?
Regions may request that the NRRB Chair exempt their eligible site from Board review. In addition, Regions can request an exemption in cases where the Region selects a different alternative (after the release of the Proposed Plan for public comment) which costs more than 20 percent from the original proposal and these costs trigger review. The OSRTI office director will make the ‘final exemption decision. The Regional Division Directors can appeal a decision to deny an exemption to the OSRTI Office Director. Regions should offer states, tribes, local governments, PRPs and local communities an opportunity to summarize in writing their opinion regarding the proposed exemption decision. This information will be forwarded to the Board chair along with the exemption request. Regions will not be expected to respond to these letters but will notify the commenters ofthe final decision regarding an exemption.
NRRB Exemption Request Process and Criteria
The region requesting an exemption from an NRRB review should provide a summary of the following information to the Board chair. Exemption requests should not exceed 10 pages.
1.
Site name

2.
Media to be addressed, primary contaminants of concern, preliminary remediation goals

3.
Scope and role of the operable unit or response action

a. Does this action hinge on previous actions?

4.
Risk summary

5.
Remedial action objectives

6.
Alternatives-do they address

a.
TI or MNA?

b.
Treatment of principal threat waste?

c.
Presumptive remedy?

d.
Addressing munitions? (no chemical COCs or groundwater)

7.
Tribal or state ARARs

8.
Stakeholder views

a. Congressional or community controversy?

9.
Decisions requiring headquarters coordination or consultation

a.
Non-time critical removal actions over$ 6M

b.
Remedies for lead, radionuclides, PCBs, asbestos, mercury and dioxin

10.
Concurrence ofregional division director on exemption request

After receipt of the exemption request, the Board chair will hold a conference call with the region to discuss the request. The Board ch~ir will forward the exemption request and recommendation to the OSRTI office director. If the site is a federal facility the FFRRO Board member and office director will participate in the exemption process.
The region should seek input from site stakeholders (e.g., PRPs, states, tribes, and communities) on the request for exemption from NRRB review. Stakeholders may submit up to 10 pages stating their specific issues or concerns. Submissions may be sent to the region or Board Chair at the following address:
Amy Legare
National Remedy Review Board
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW MC5204P
Washington, DC 20460
Or
[email protected] gov
The OSRTI office director will make the final exemption decision after consultation with the regional division director and consideration of stakeholder input.
5. Will the Board review sites with Record of Decision amendments or Explanation of Significant Differences?
Generally, the Board reviews proposed Record of Decision (ROD) amendments where there is a change from the original remedial strategy (e.g., moving from a containment remedy to a treatment remedy) that results in remedial action costs greater than $25 million.
Generally, the Board does not review ROD amendments where the:

Original remedial strategy remains the same (e.g., where the cost increase results from an unexpected increase in contaminated soil volume), even ifthere is an appreciable change in cost (however, the region should consult with their board representative to contlnn review criteria) or


Amendment results in a cost savings.

The Board usually does not review Explanation of Significant Differences unless the region believes the site would benefit from such a review.
6. Will the Board review sites with final Record of Decision following an interim Record of Decision?
Generally, the Board will review final RODs that follow an interim ROD where there are new significant capital costs in addition to the incremental operation and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the final ROD. When the costs of a planned final ROD (following an interim ROD) exceed the trigger criteria due to costs driven primarily by the interim remedy’s O&M (e.g., the plant is already constructed and the remaining costs are due to long term system operation), the site does not require Board review. In lieu of a Board review, the region should conduct an optimization review, consistent with EPA guidance, before the final remedy is selected. Information on remedy optimization may be found at this linlc http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/optimize.htm
7. Will the Board review proposed sediment actions that are also subject to Headquarters consultation or Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group review under Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9285.6-08, Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites?
Yes. As explained in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9285.6-11, OSRTI Sediment Team and NRRB Coordination at Large Sediment Sites, issued on March 5, 2004, review of consultation memos by the OSRTI Sediment Team (for Tier 1 sites) and by the Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group (CST A G) will be coordinated with the Board so that the region receives only one set ofcomments at the time ofthe proposed plan. This process is explained in more detail below.
Tier 1 Sites
For Tier 1 sites that will undergo a NRRB review, the region should include a draft Tier 1 Consideration Memo in the site information package sent to the Board. A copy ofthe Consideration Memo should also be sent to the appropriate OSRTI regional coordinator and to the OSRTI Sediment Team leader. The OSRTI Sediment Team will review the Consideration Memo and the site package, and will provide comments to the chair of the NRRB prior to the Board’s meeting on the site in question. If the draft Proposed Plan is available, it should also be submitted to the OSRTI regional coordinator and the Sediment Team Leader at that time. If it is not available, it should be submitted as soon as it is drafted. The Sediment Team will not submit separate comments on the Consideration Memo to the region.
As part of its response to the NRRB recommendations, the region should include a revised Tier I Consideration Memo that addresses any comments made by the NRRB related to the issues covered by the Memo. If the NRRB chair and OSRTI Sediment Team leader believe that their comments were not appropriately addressed, and after consultation with the OSRTI Regional Branch Chief, the region may be asked to make additional revisions to the Consideration Memo.
Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group Sites
It is anticipated that the proposed remedy for most ofthe large sites being reviewed by the Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG) will also meet the NRRB review requirements. Therefore, a subset ofCSTAG members will participate in the NRRB review. This subset will be selected based on expertise matching the site characteristics. When a site manager prepares the site package for the NRRB it should include a draft Tier 2 Consideration Memo. The memo should document how the region considered all 11 principles when selecting the site’s proposed remedy; the memo should normally be less than 20 pages in length. The site manager will be provided with one set of recommendations from this joint review.
8. What is the role of the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation?
OSRTI will assign an ad hoc Board member for each review. The ad hoc member will be assigned based on the area of expertise required for the review. For example: risk assessment, contaminated sediments, radiation, groundwater contamination, or vapor intrusion. In addition, the technical regional coordinator will work closely with the Board chair on all aspects ofthe revtew.
OSRTI will also work to develop any needed policy, guidance or training materials deemed necessary after each annual review of recommendations. For additional infonnation see Question
28.
9. Will the Board review proposed remedies selected pursuant to presumptive remedy guidance?
Yes, unless the review is waived by the Board chair. Regions and regional Board members are encouraged to consult with the Board chair on presumptive remedies to ensure a productive review of t~e proposed remedy.
10. How long does a typical Board review take?
Generally, the review process takes about eight weeks, from the time the Board receives the informational site package until it transmits its recommendations to the region. Regions should consider this additional time in developing the site work plan and Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Plan targets. However, regions should also be aware that, in a few cases, Board recommendations may delay site decisions while the regional decision makers consider and respond to Board findings. Also, the region should allow adequate time for preparation of a comprehensive site package. The average preparation time is generally one to two months.
Board reviews are planned for the first month of each quarter of the year. Site managers should notify their regional Board member and the Board chair of the need for a review as soon as possible so the site can be added to the calendar ofplanned reviews. Generally one to two months time is needed to plan a review with travel, hotel, and meeting space accommodations.
11. What does the Board look at when it reviews a cleanup decision?
Generally, the Board analyzes proposed cleanup strategies to help ensure they are consistent with CERCLA, as amended, the NCP, and relevant EPA cleanup guidance. To assist Board members with these reviews, the region prepares a site information package for each site (see additional questions below and Attachment A for more details). Generally, the Board will not be reviewing the draft FS nor the draft decision document.
When the Board reviews a site, the members consider a variety of information, including elements ofthe RIIFS process related to the development of the alternatives and selection ofthe preferred alternative. Site-specific circumstances often influence the nature of the discussion. Please referto Appendix D for questions frequently asked by the Board.
12. What are the site manager’s responsibilities before the meeting?
As soon as the site manager becomes aware that he/she has a site that may trigger the Board’s · review criteria, the manager should notify his/her regional board member, who, in tum, should coordinate the NRRB review meeting date.
The site manager should:

Convey to the regional board member any preferences regarding review timing. The Board tries hard to accommodate the interests ofthe regions and site managers when scheduling reviews.


Provide the site-specific charging number to the Board chair as soon as possible once it has been determined that the site will come before the Board.


Contact the state and any appropriate tribes, Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), community groups, or federal facilities to notify them that the site triggers the review criteria. At this time, discuss with these stakeholders the procedures governing their involvement in the review process. A Community Guide is provided in Appendix E. Questions 16-21 of this packet provide additional information on the usual role ofthese parties in the review process.


Prepare a site information package that the Board will use to conduct its review . Question 13 and Appendix A present information on the package and a recommended outline.


Finalize the informational site package at least four weeks before the meeting and provide the package to the relevant regional NRRB member for distribution to Board members in preparation for the site review. The package will be posted on the Board’s Quickr site so that Board members may download it at their convenience. Oversized charts, maps or tables should be mailed to the Board members. The mailing list is available from the Board’s Quickr site. Please note that two additional copies should be mailed to the Board chair for distribution to OSRTI participants.


Prepare a presentation that summarizes the site, proposedremedy, and major issues. See Appendix C for a suggested outline forthe presentation.


Prepare for the meeting by expecting questions that probe beyond the basic information presented in the site information package (e.g., questions about important assumptions, models, peer reviews or tools used in developing key supporting information). Appendix D presents several lists ofquestions typically asked during the review and deliberations.


OPTIONAL: Participate in a pre-meeting conference call two weeks after the Board

receives the site package (i.e., two weeks before the meeting) to give the Board an opportunity to ask clarifying questions regarding the factual infonnation in the site infonnation package and to possibly request more information prior to the board meeting, or as part of the region’s presentation at the board meeting. The pre-meeting conference call should provide feedback to the region prior to the board meeting as to whether the inforn1ation provided is sufficient to support Board discussion and development of key/substantive recommendations. The Board chair and site manager will decide if a pre.call is necessary.
Recognizing that the reviews generally are part of EPA’s internal deliberative process, please label all documents “DRAFT-DELIBERATIVE.”
13. What should be in the site information package?
Appendix A contains a suggested outline for the site infonnation package.
This informational package should be written as a “stand alone” and succinct document that summarizes the key remedy selection issues faced at the site, and explains the regional rationale for choosing its preferred cleanup strategy. Additional detailed documents may be made available for review, at the region’s discretion, through Quickr or the Superfund Document Management System. The Board expects to base its review and any resulting recommendations primarily on this document. Inclusion of clear and well labeled maps, figures and tables usually are critical to the review.
Site managers should develop a site information package that tells the story and explains the rationale of the cleanup decision at the site in question. That is, the package should identify and explain the key remedy selection issues and support the preferred cleanup strategy. The exact content may vary based on site conditions. However, all packages should include summary information such as site background, contaminants and media ofconcern, site characterization, conceptual site model, key modeling land use assumptions and uncertainties, risk analysis, basis for action, the range of alternatives considered, the preferred remedy, arid the preferred remedy cost breakout. For example, if a chosen cleanup level is driven by Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), the information package should explain the ARAR, why the region believes it is applicable or relevant and appropriate, how it affects the remedy, etc. This information can help reduce or eliminate the need for exploring the subject during the review meeting. The package should contain a summary of the state and/or tribe position(s) on the site, and have attached any technical submissions from states/tribes, PRPs, federal facilities, Natural Resource Trustees, community groups and/or other stakeholders as appropriate. The Board expects to base its review and any resulting recommendations on this package.
The Board recommends that the site manager have the draft package reviewed by regional staff unfamiliar with the site to be sure the package is clear and consistent. Site managers should take advantage of the resources provided by their regional Board members and OSRTI’s remedy decisions branch; they can give advice on preparing for the review, assembling the package, characterizing key issues, and developing appropriate supporting information.
14. What happens at the meeting?
For each site review, the Board meeting typically lasts one full day and is broken into two stages:
i1~(ormation gathering and deliberations. The role ofthe various stakeholders is described in subsequent sections ofthis manual. The site manager should invite state and appropriate tribal representatives to participate in the information-gathering phase. Typically, these representatives do not participate in the deliberative discussion, which the Board limits to EPA personnel.
The site manager begins the information-gathering phase with a short site briefing. Generally, the briefing should not repeat in detail material already presented in the infonnation package. Rather, it should include a brief overview ofthe site and focus on orienting the Board members to the key site features and key remedy selection issues. Following this briefing; state and/or tribal representatives may present their view of key technical issues. Generally, the total length of the presentations should not exceed one hour (typically EPA 45 minutes, state/tribe 15 minutes). The Board usually spends some time after these presentations asking technical or clarifying questions (refer to Appendix 0 for examples). The site manager should be familiar with community, state/tribe, and/or PRP technical comments, as the Board will explore these as appropriate.
Following the briefings and the question/answer session, the Board deliberates for several hours, focusing on whether the proposed cleanup decision is cost effective, technically sound, and otherwise consistent with the NCP and/or supported by the most current program guidance. The Board asks the site manager and other regional staff, as determined by the region, to attend the deliberations for follow-up questions and to ensure the site manager understands the Board’s proposed recommendations. A draft memorandum normally will be developed at the meeting, detailing any Board findings and recommendations.
Following the review meeting (typically within two to four weeks), the Board chair transmits a final draft ofthe recommendations to Board members and the site manager before issuing the final recommendations memorandum documenting any recommendations or comments to the appropriate regional division director. EPA expects to post the recommendations memo on the Board’s web page within 30 days of the chair’s signature.
The Board considers the review to be an internal, deliberative, and (in certain cases) enforcement-sensitive process. Given the nature of the process, the Board defers to regional judgment with respect to releasing documents related to the reviews, and assumes that regions will comport with established relevant Agency policy. The Board expects the region to place the Board recommendations in the site administrative record at the time a proposed plan is published for comment. Regional materials used to support Board reviews (e.g., review packages, briefing materials, and stakeholder memoranda) should also be retained in the regional site-specific administrative record as appropriate.
15. What happens after the meeting?
Regional Response: Regional division directors are asked to respond in writing within a reasonable time frame to the Board chair regarding how the region has or will address board recommendations. As part of this response, the region is asked to describe how the Board’s review has impacted the cleanup process. The site manager is encouraged to submit a draft ofthe regional response to HQ to resolve any remaining issues prior to the issuance of the proposed plan. The site manager should work closely with the Board chair and OSRTI to incorporate the recommendations in the decision documents.
The Board’s existence does not change EPA’s remedy selection process as provided for in CERCLA and the NCP. The regions retain decision making authority as delineated in formal delegations of authority. The Board does not “approve” or “disapprove” regional proposals. However, the Agency expects decision makers to give Board recommendations substantial weight when finalizing cleanup decisions. Ifissues arise regarding incorporation of recommendations into decision documents, the OSRTI office director can request a discussion with the regional division director to resolve them.
Public inquiries and release ofinfonnation: The regions are expected to handle site-specific inquiries related to the reviews. It is .expected that regions will place Board recommendations and regional response memoranda in the site administrative records on or before the date that the region issues proposed plans for public comment. See question 25 for further clarification.
Record keeping: In the case ofboard-related materials, OSRTI maintains the Agency records of pertinent Board-issued documents (e.g., the board memos, operating protocol, etc.). General information, site-specific Board memoranda, and regional responses are available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrblindex.htm. EPA regional offices are responsible for retaining all documents prepared for the presentation package either in the site file or administrative record as appropriate (e.g., the site information packages, PRP and stakeholder submissions and any other information used in the Board process related to the cleanup decision in question). This record-keeping policy is consistent with established Agency guidance.
Web page: The recommendations memo will be posted on the Board’s web page within 30 days ofthe chair’s signature. The Board’s web page will also provide a link to the Superfund Site Progress Profile that will provide links to decision documents and the administrative record. PRP and stakeholder position papers should be included in the administrative record.
16. What is the role of the PRP?
The Board and its current process do not alter existing mechanisms for PRP involvement in the remedy selection process. The current process allows the PRP to work closely with the Agency in conducting the RI!FS, including appropriate, periodic meetings between EPA and the PRPs to ensure that issues such as site characterization, treatability of contaminated media, and the feasibility ofdifferent remedial options are fully considered.
When there is a PRP-lead RI!FS, the site manager should notify the PRPs of the pending review as soon as the region identifies the site as a review candidate. At this time, the region should offer the PRPs an opportunity to summarize in writing, 20 pages or less*, any technical issues they believe are pertinent to the cleanup decision, including their recommended approach and rationale for that approach. The site manager should attach the PRP’s summary to the site infonnation package submitted to the Board four weeks before the meeting. PRP submissions should be made part ofthe administrative record.
The region, at its discretion, may solicit comments from PRPs who do not conduct the RI!FS. Generally, the region may do this in cases where PRPs have been substantively involved in RI!FS work and/or remedy selection issues, or if the region believes that PRPs may offer technical comments critical to understanding key remedy selection issues at the site.
Note that those groups that have not been working closely with the Agency early in the remedy selection process will still have the opportunity to comment formally on the proposed action during the proposed plan corriment period.
PRPs are not involved in any direct discussions with the Board nor are they involved in Board meetings or pre-meeting calls. EPA is responsible for preparation of the Board’s review package.
* PRPs may submit up to 40 pages for sites where the estimated remedial action costs exceed $I OOM.
17. Can Potentially Responsible Parties or others nominate sites for Board review?
Site managers may get calls from PRPs or other stakeholders asking whether a site can be nominated for Board review. The Board expects to review only those decisions that meet the review criteria.
18. What is the role of federal facilities?
Consistent with policy established by EPA’s FFRRO, the Board generally treats federal facilities as PRPs for the purpose of Board reviews.
Please refer to “Which sites will the Board review?” for federal facility review criteria.
19. What is the role of the community?
The Board process does not alter existing mechanisms for community involvement in the remedy selection process. The current community engagement process allows the community to work closely with the Agency in conducting the RI/FS, including appropriate, periodic meetings between EPA and the community to ensure that issues such as site characterization, treatability of contaminated media, and the feasibility of different remedial options are fully considered. The site manager may provide the NRRB Community Guide (Appendix E) to interested stakeholders.
At sites where EPA has awarded a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) or recognized a Community Advisory Group (CAG), the site manager should notify them of the pending review as soon as the region identifies the site as a review candidate. At this time, the region should offer the TAG/CAG groups an opportunity to summarize in writing, 20 pages or less**, any technical issues they believe are pertinent to the cleanup decision, including their recommended approach and rationale for that approach. The site manager should attach this summary to the site information package submitted to the Board four weeks before the meeting. Stakeholder position papers should be included in the administrative record.
Where the site manager has established close working relationships with other stakeholder groups early in the RVFS process, the site manager may offer these groups the opportunity to submit written technical comment at his/her discretion.
** Stakeholders may submit up to 40 pages for sites where the estimated remedial action costs exceed $1OOM.
Note that those groups thathave not been working closely with the Agency early in the remedy selection process will still have the opportunity to comment formally on the proposed action during the proposed plan comment period.
Community members and TAG technical advisors are not involved in any direct discussions with the Board nor are they involved in Board meetings or pre-meeting calls.
20. Are Board discussions open to the general public?
No. The meetings ofthe Board are pre-decisional, deliberative discussions and are not open to the general public. Reviews generally occur before the region issues the proposed plan. The Agency is generally at an early stage in its decision making process when the Board meets to discuss the proposed action. The intent of this early Board review is to offer a critical discussion on key remedy selection and cost effectiveness issues before the Agency formalizes its position on a preferred cleanup strategy. It is important to note that the Board process does not affect EPA’s current procedures for soliciting public comment on proposed cleanup plans.
The recommendations memo will be posted on the Board’s web page within 30 days of the chair’s signature. The Board’s web page will also provide a link to the Superfund Site Progress Profile that will provide links to decision documents and the administrative record. PRP and stakeholder position papers should be included in the administrative record.
21. How do states and tribal governments participate in the reviews?
For each site, the site manager should invite state and appropriate tribal representatives to participate in the information-gathering phase ofthe Board meeting. Typically, these representatives do not participate in the deliberative discussion, which the Board normally limits to EPA personnel; however, they may be invited to participate for a portion ofthe deliberations where the site is a state/tribe-lead fund-financed decision or state/tribe-lead enforcement decision where the state or tribe seeks EPA concurrence. Otherwise, the Board generally limits its deliberative discussion to Agency personnel.
Regional staff should contact the state or tribal representative early in planning for the Board meeting to discuss the background and purpose ofthe Board, the structure ofthe reviews, and to explain how the state/tribe might best prepare for the meeting. The site manager may also provide the Community Guide (Appendix E) to these representatives for further information. At the meeting, the state/tribe is usually offered approximately I 0-15 minutes to speak about their specific issues or concerns.
The region should also offer the state or tribal representatives an opportunity to summarize in writing, 20 pages or less***, any technical issues they believe are pertinent to the cleanup decision, including their rationale and recommended approach for site cleanup. The site manager should attach this summary to the site infonnation package submitted to the Board four weeks before the meeting. Stakeholder position papers should be included in the administrative record.
22. What is the role of contractors?
Generally, govemment contractors can help prepare presentation and package materials but do not participate in presentations or question and answer sessions at board meetings.
23. Does the region convey the Agency’s preliminary views on the remedy in question (i.e., for stakeholders to react to)?
Generally, stakeholders have an opportunity to contribute their views on remedy selection issues, consistent with the NCP and Agency guidance. Site managers should not provide stakeholders with any preliminary indication ofAgency preferences beyond that which the Agency would provide in the absence of the Board’s review.
24. When is it appropriate for Natural Resource Trustee agencies or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to participate in board reviews?
When a Natural Resource Trustee agency or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry have formally provided unique or specialized site-specific teclmical or analytical support for the RIIFS in lieu of(or to supplement) regional expertise in a particular area, the region may invite representative(s) to attend the information-gathering phase ofthe review meeting but must inform the Board chair ofthis invitation.
25. When is it appropriate to release Board memoranda and meeting support materials?
The Agency considers the site-specific Board discussion materials, site names, and operable units under consideration to be deliberative and, where appropriate, enforcement confidential. EPA staff should refer questions regarding the nature ofthe Board discussions and findings to the
*** Up to 40 pages may be submitted for sites where the estimated remedial action costs exceed $1OOM.
appropriate regional board member or site manager.
The product of a Board review is typically a memorandum from the Board chair to the appropriate regional division director. While theAgency strives to be as open as possible about Board reviews, in some cases it may be appropriate for the region to withhold the Board’s recommendations memorandum until the region issues the proposed plan. At that point, the region should place the memorandum in the appropriate site administrative record. The region may release publicly its response to Board recommendations at its discretion, taking into account the internal, deliberative nature ofthe NRRB process. EPA will post the recommendations memo to the Board’s web page within 30 days of the chair’s signature. EPA expects that regions will make the regional response available publicly as soon as it is reasonable and appropriate to do so. EPA will also post the regional response on the Board’s web page.
In addition, the NRRB web page will provide the internet link to the Superfund Site Progress Profile that links to the site decision documents and administrative records containing stakeholder and PRP position papers.
26. Where can I find information about other Board reviews?
Site managers are encouraged to visit the NRRB internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrblindex.htm. This publicly accessible site contains basic information about the NRRB and its formation, criteria that triggers NRRB review, contact information for Board members, site-specific review memoranda, and regional responses to Board recommendations. Site-specific review memoranda may also be found in the site administrative record.
27. How are Board members selected?
HQ Offices and Regions will be requested every two years to re-evaluate their representatives on the NRRB to confinn that the members have the needed expertise, experience, and time to actively participate and contribute. The chair will request this reevaluation. The qualifications for NRRB board members are:

Senior Agency managers


Senior policy experts


Senior technical experts


Areas ofexpertise

o Remedy selection

o Cost-effectiveness

o Program implementation

o National consistency

o Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements

o CERCLA and the NCP

o Superfund policy and guidance


Available to travel at least one week per quarter to discuss proposed remedies


Ability to commit time for a detailed analysis of review packages

o Typically three review packages per quarter


Ability to reach consensus and craft recommendations to promote both consistent and cost-effective decisions at Superfund sites

28. How are recommendations used to benefit the Superfund Program?
Every year the NRRB, in consultation with the regions and OSRTI regional coordinators, will evaluate all the reviews written over that year, looking for recurring issues. OSRTI will work to develop any needed policy, guidance or training materials.
Appendix A
RECOMMENDED OUTLINE
FOR THE SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE

Recommended Outline for the Site Information Package
Inclusion of clear and well labeled maps, tables, and figures with sufficient detail are critical to the review. Time spent by the site manager in preparing the site information package, and additional regional review ofthe draft site information package, is to the advantage of everyone involved in the reviews, as complex site decisions will likely benefit from careful preparation.
It is recommended that an internal review of the draft site infom1ation package be conducted by a colleague that is unfamiliar with the site.
All reference to ROD Guidance Highlights (e.g. ROD Guidance Highlights 6-18 to 6-20) refer to examples found in OSWER Directive 9200.1-23.P, A Guide to Preparing Supe1:{imd Proposed Plans, Records ofDecision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents.
A. Summary (less than five pages)
1) Site Summary

Site name and location


Site account number


Orientation to the key features ofthe site and surrounding area


On site and surrounding land use


Brief site contamination history, and facility operational history


Identify media and primary contaminants of concern (COCs) addressed by this proposed action


List the operable units addressed by this action and the media addressed by each

2) Risk Summary
Good examples ofrisk summary tables to include in the package can be found in ROD Guidance Highlights 6-18 through 6-20.

Identify by medium and operable units, the cumulative risk (if applicable), and land use scenario( s)


Identify by medium and operable units, if applicable, the primary risk drivers

3) Cleanup levels
Include a brief summary table ofremedial action objectives (RAOs) and cleanup levels. If applicable, identify by medium and operable unit (see highlight 6-21 in the ROD Guidance identified in the Risk Summary section).
4) Description of Alternatives
Describe in a brief summary table the following for each medium and operable unit (if applicable):
• Identify remedial alternatives evaluated and associated costs

Identify expected time to achieve cleanup levels 5) Preferred Alternative In bullet fonnat, include the following for each medium and operable unit, if applicable:

• Describe remedy and estimated costs of major activities


Identify expected time to achieve cleanup levels 6) Stakeholder views


State’s position on proposed action


Other stakeholder views

B.
Detailed Information

1) Site N arne, Location, and Brief Description

Include an area map and detailed site maps with well labeled key features. Include an aerial
photograph, if available.
2) Site History and Enforcement Activities
Chronological list of significant enforcement actions, including principal PRPs.

3) Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action
Discuss how the operable unit or response action addressed by the proposed plan fits into the
overall site strategy. This discussion should describe the overall site cleanup strategy, including:


The planned sequence of actions


The scope of problems those actions will address


The authorities under which each action will be/has been implemented (e.g., removal, remedial final, or remedial interim)

4) Site Characteristics

Describe the Baseline Risk Assessment Conceptual Site Model (CSM) on which the risk assessment and response action are based


Provide an overview ofthe site, including the following:
Size of site (e.g., acres)

-Geographical and topographical infonnation (e.g., surface waters, flood plains, wetlands) Surface and subsurface features (e.g., number and volume oftanks, lagoons, structures, and drums on the site)
– Areas of archaeological or historical importance

Describe known or suspected sources of contamination


Describe types of contamination and the affected media (summarize in tables), including the following: -Types and characteristics of contaminants (e.g., toxic, mobile, carcinogenic,

non-carcinogenic) -Quantity/volume ofwaste -Concentrations of contaminants in each medium (see ROD Guidance Highlight 6.
15) and figures that illustrate hot spots, e.g. isopleths
-RCRA hazardous wastes and affected media


Include figures showing contaminant level changes over time


Describe location of contamination and known or potential routes of migration, including the following: Lateral and vertical extent of contamination -Current and potential future surface and subsurface routes ofhuman or environmental exposure

– Conceptual site model of the potential migration pathways of COCs in all media Human and ecological populations that are or could be affected


For sites with groundwater and surface water contamination, describe the following:

-Aquifer(s) affected or threatened by site contamination, types ofgeologic materials, approximate depths, whether aquifer is confined or unconfined Sources and source areas of groundwater and surface water contamination, including information on non-aqueous phase liquid extent, location, and characteristics
– Groundwater flow directions within each aquifer and between aquifers and groundwater discharge locations (e.g., surface waters, wetlands, other aquifers)
– Appropriate maps and cross sections showing stratigraphy and monitoring well
layout
• Identify any computer models used that served as the basis for risk, fate and transport, or ARAR compliance decisions. For non-EPA recommended model applications, list the input parameters: measured data, literature data, and default inputs used in the predicted outputs. Also, include results of model uncertainty and sensitivity analysis for key site parameters.
5) Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses:
Land Use

Current on-site land uses


Current adjacent/surroundingland uses


Reasonably anticipated future land uses, with expected time frames for such l!ses, and basis for future use assumptions (e.g., zoning maps, nearby development, 20-year development plans, dialogue with local land use planning officials and citizens).

Ground and Surface Water Use

Current ground/surface water uses on the site and in its vicinity


Potential beneficial ground/surface water uses (e.g., potential drinking water, irrigation, recreational) and basis for future use assumptions (e.g., Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection Plan, promulgated State classification, EPA groundwater classification guidelines)


Ifbeneficial use is an anticipated drinking water source, identify the approximate time frame ofprojected future drinking water use (e.g., groundwater aquifer not currently used as a drinking water source but expected to be utilized in future years)


Location of anticipated use in relation to location and anticipated migration of
contamination.

6) Summary ofRisk1:
Human Health Risk Assessment
• Identify potentially exposed populations in current and future scenarios (e.g., worker
currently working on site, adults and children living on site in the future)

1 The site information package should include a synopsis of the risk assessment(s). Detailed information may be provided by posting documents to the Board’s Quickr site or by providing the Superfund Document Management System document identification number.

Identify sensitive sub-populations (highly exposed and/or more susceptible) that may be exposed (e.g., farm families, children, subsistence fishermen)


Identify the routes by which each population group or sub-population group could reasonably be exposed to site contaminants (e.g., ingestion ofcontaminated groundwater for adults and children, inhalation of volatile contaminants for workers)


Include major assumptions about exposure frequency, duration, and other exposure factors that were included in the exposure assessment (e.g., exposure frequency [days/year], exposure duration [years], and body surface area for dermal exposure) could be included in an appendix


Highlight any non-standard exposure assumptions used in the baseline risk assessments


Provide a summary (preferably a table) that includes the following for all current and future land use scenarios presenting unacceptable risks: -Quantified carcinogenic risks for each COC in each exposure medium for each relevant exposure pathway -Combined carcinogenic risks reflecting total exposure to COCs in a given medium and pathway of exposure -Potential for non-carcinogenic impacts as quantified by the hazard quotient for each COC in each exposure medium for ~ach exposure pathway, as appropriate

-Potential for combined non-carcinogenic effects in each medium and pathway of exposure as expressed by hazard indices, which reflect the potential additive effects of COCs that affect the same target organ or system
– Identify key uncertainties in the baseline risk assessment
• If applicable, describe how radiological risks were calculated .
Ecological Risk Assessment (particularly where these risks drive remedy selection)

What are the assessment endpoints determined to be at risk (the foundation of the
remedial decisions, that is, the risk drivers)?


Which of these risks would require remedial action?


Which site contaminants were determined to be causal and by which exposure routes (i.e., what is the conceptual model/exposure model?).


Describe the thresholds ofexposure generating risk, and at what level ofexposure do the risk levels become severe?


What is the confidence in the risk estimates? Are there documented effects?


_Describe any site-specific data that were available


How large is the area for which ecological risks have been estimated?


Description ofkey species that could be exposed


Describe complete exposure pathways, present the conceptual site model


Monitoring or modeling data and assumptions


The ROD Guidance (Pages 6-22 to 6-25) provides summary tables that would supply the above requested information.

7) Remedial Action Objectives and Preliminary Remediation Goals

Present the basis and rationale for remedial action objectives (RAOs) & preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) (e.g., current and reasonably anticipated future land use and potential beneficial groundwater use)


Describe how the RAOs & PRGs address risks identified in the risk assessment (e.g., how will the risks driving the need for action be addressed by the response action?)


Identify any key ARARs that are driving the remedy selection


Where ecological risks drive the remedy, provide the range of protective cleanup levels and their basis.


Explain how cleanup levels are developed from these goals considering the remedy
selection criteria.


Explain the role ofbackground in the evaluation of cleanup levels.

8) Description of Alternatives:
• Provide a bulleted list and appropriate figures of the major components of each alternative. The package should include the following: -Treatment technologies and materials they will address (e.g., source materials constituting principal threats)
-Containment components ofremedy (e.g., engineering controls, cap, hydraulic barriers) and materials they will address (e.g., low concentration source materials, treatment residuals)
– Description of institutional controls and how they will be implemented and maintained and the duration -For alternatives that depend upon monitored natural attenuation, demonstrate compliance with EPA policy

Provide the total estimated capital, annual operation and maintenance (O&M), and total present worth costs, discount rate, and the number ofyears over which the remedy cost estimates are projected


Summarize the capital and annual O&M costs associated with each of the major
components of each alternative

9) Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Provide a summary table and discussion comparing alternatives that pass the threshold criteria against the nine criteria.
1 0) Principal Threat Waste Clearly identify how source materials constituting principal threats are addressed or provide an explanation ofwhy the site does not have principal threat waste (refer to A Guide to Principal Threat and LoH’ Level Threat Wastes-OSWER 9380.3-06FS, November 1991).
11) Preferred Alternative

Clearly describe the preferred alternative and how, if appropriate, it is different from the alternatives evaluated


Describe the key factor(s) that led to selecting the preferred alternative (i.e., describe how the remedy provides the best balance oftradeoffs with respect to the balancing and modifying criteria, highlighting criteria key to the decision)

12) Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements2

List the principal ARARs for the preferred alternative


Describe the ARARs that are drivers for the remedy


For each driver, explain why it is an ARAR (versus a “to be considered”)


Where actual language of the regulation is key to the Board review, include a copy of the relevant section in an appendix to the package

13) Technical & Policy Issues
Include a discussion of technical or policy issues that require further discussion prior to implementation of the preferred alternative (data gathering, ARARs, treatability studies, modeling.
14) Cost Information4

Include sufficient information to provide an estimate of total resource costs over time

(i.e., life cycle costs) for all alternatives including (ROD Guidance Highlight 6-29) -Capital costs -Annual operations and maintenance costs -Net present value of capital and O&M costs


Cost estimate summaries should address the following: -The key cost components/elements for both Remedial Action and O&M activities -The major sources of uncertainty in the cost estimate

2 The site information package should include a synopsis of this infonnation. Detailed information may be provided by posting documents to the Board’s Quickr site or by providing the Superfund Document Management System document identification number.
– The discount rate used
-The time expected to achieve RAOs and remedial goals Periodic capital and/or O&M costs anticipated in future years ofthe project (e.g., remedy replacement or rebuild)
-The methods and resources used for preparing the cost estimate (e.g., estimating guides, vendor quotes, computer cost models)

For contingency remedy decisions, the total project costs for implementing the contingency should be provided in addition to the costs for the conditional action. This estimate should include treatability study costs, if applicable.


The assumptions used to develop the cost estimate should be consistent with the stated RAOs and remedial goals (e.g., duration of the cost estimate should match time to achieve cleanup objectives).

15) Letters from Stakeholders and State
Include in the package any technical comments provided by the state or other stakeholders.
Appendix B
SAMPLE AGENDA FOR THE BOARD MEETING

Sample NRRB Meeting Agenda
8:30-8:45 Introductions
8:45-9:45 Site Presentations (1 0-15 minutes additional time for state/tribal presentations)
9:45-10:00 BREAK 10:00-11:30 Questions & Answers 11:30-12:30 LUNCH
The following sessions are for EPA staff only 12:30-2:15 Deliberations
2:15-2:30 BREAK
2:30-3:00 Board Business (not site-specific)
3:00-5:00 Write and Review Board Recommendations
5:00 ADJOURN
Appendix C
RECOMMENDED OUTLINE
FOR THE BOARD PRESENTATION

Recommended Outline for the Board Presentation
The main emphasis of the presentation, which typically runs one hour in length, should be on the preferred alternative. Hard copies ofthe presentation should be provided for all Board members at the meeting (preferably two slides per page).
Although not reconunended for the presentation, site managers should have key figures available (electronically ifpossible) from the RJJFS and site infonnation package in case of questions during the discussions.
The following suggested times should be used as a guide but are not mandatory:

Site Summary & Risk Summary-I 0


RAO & Description ofAlternatives-I5


Preferred Alternative-25


Stakeholder Views or Presentation-I 0

I) Site Summary

Orientation to the key features of the site and surrounding area (including maps)


On site and surrounding land use


Brief site contamination history, and facility operational history


Identify media and primary COCs addressed by this proposed action


List the other operable units at the site and the media addressed by each

2) Risk Summary

Identify by medium and operable units, the cumulative risk (if applicable), and land use scenario(s)


Identify by medium and operable units, if applicable, the primary risk drivers

3) Remedial Action Objectives and PRGs

Present the basis and rationale for RAOs and PRGs (e.g., current and reasonably
anticipated future land use and potential beneficial groundwater use)


Describe how the RAOs and PRGs address risks identified in the risk assessment (e.g., how will the risks driving the need for action be addressed by the response action?)


Identify any key ARARs that are driving the remedy selection

4) Description of Alternatives Describe in bullet fonnat the following for each medium and operable unit (if applicable):

Briefly identify key components of all remedial alternatives evaluated and associated costs


Identify risk reduction and expected time to achieve cleanup levels

5) Preferred Alternative

Provide a brief summary table or figure that compares all the alternatives, clearly
illustrating the commonality and differences between each alternative


For the preferred alternative, identify for each medium and operable unit: -The rationale and key factors that led to the selection of the preferred alternative -The remedy and estimated costs ofmajor activities

Expected time to achieve cleanup levels
Major technical and other unresolved issues

6) Stakeholder views .

State’s position on the proposed action


Other stakeholder views

Appendix D

QUESTIONS FREQUENTLY ASKED
BY BOARD MEMBERS

Appendix D -Questions Frequently Asked by the NRRB Members
1) NRRB discussion guide
General Groundwater Soil Sediment
Land/Water Use What are future use assumptions for the site? Are the bases for these assumptions clear? Are these assumptions consistent with state/local designations? Have efforts been made to discuss the future use with site owners, local government representatives, and other stakeholders? . What are future use assumptions for groundwater? What are future use assumptions for land? What are future use assumptions for surface water and flood plains?
Was reuse/beneficial use considered for land, water, or treatment residuals, as appropriate?
Exposure Scenarios/Risk Assumptions Are exposure scenarios and risk assumptions reasonable and consistent with future uses? Have the latest toxicity data been used (e.g., PCBs/dioxin)? What are the risk drivers for the site-media, pathways, contaminants? Is remedial action necessary? Has the groundwater/surface water pathway been adequately considered? Has ecological risk been adequately addressed? Has ecological risk been adequately addressed? Where contaminants are bioaccumulative, were appropriate fish/shellfish consumption rates used for risk analysis and are they reasonable?
Remedial Action Objectives & Cleanup Levels What are the RAOs and cleanup levels and do they adequately address risk drivers? Is it clear how cleanup levels were selected? Are RAOs and cleanup levels reasonable and clearly linked to each other? Is it clear whether the goal is restoration and/or containment? What is the expected time frame to meet cleanup levels for groundwater? How were cleanup levels for biota selected? What is the expected time frame to meet cleanup levels for sediment and RAOs for biota? What level of fish/shellfish consumption is the remedy expected to

achieve, and when?
Appendix D-Questions Frequently Asked by the NRRB Members
General Groundwater Soil Sediment
Were a variety of cleanup levels considered? Are the major ARARs identified and are there any special issues? Have the principal threat wastes been identified and does the proposed remedy anticipate treatment or explain why it is not appropriate? Where RAOs for biota will not be met for a long time, have interim goals or benchmarks been identified as appropriate?
Remedy Effectiveness Is the preferred alternative likely to be effective in meeting cleanup levels and RAOs? Are any existing source control actions effective and have any ongoing sources been appropriately incorporated into decision-making? If treatment is proposed, is a pilot necessary and if so, is it proposed? If institutional controls are necessary, are they likely to be effective? Should a contingency remedy be specified and if so, has it been? Does the proposed remedy include monitoring adequate to evaluate remedy effectiveness? Is DNAPL likely to be present? Ifyes: Do cleanup goals adequatel

Post

2012-01-25 – Legare, Amy – NRRB 2012 Meeting Schedule

{In Archive} Fw: NRRB review of Westlake Landfill Craig Smith to: Dan Gravatt 01/25/2012 03:42PM Cc: DeAndre Singletary, Audrey Asher, Robertw Jackson, Cecilia Tapia
Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.
As Amy said, here is the current schedule of meetings:
~r-:1
FY 2012 NRRB Meeting Calendar.docx
The guidance calls for the review packages as follows, so this may influence the schedule:
“Finalize the informational site package at least four weeks before the meeting and provide the package to the relevant regional NRRB member for distribution to Board members in preparation for the site review. The package will be posted on the Board’s Quickr site so that Board members may download it at their convenience. Oversized charts, maps or tables should be mailed to the Board members. The mailing list is available from the Board’s Quickr site. Please note that two additional copies should be mailed to the Board chair for distribution to OSRTI participants.”
Let me know what looks good.
Thanks, Craig S
Craig W. Smith, P.E. Senior Engineer and Policy Coordinator Superfund Division USEPA Region 7 Kansas City
(913) 551-7683
—–Forwarded by Craig Smith/SUPR/R7/USEPAIUS on 01/25/2012 03:28PM—-.
From: Amy Legare/DC/USEPAIUS· To: Dan Gravatt/R7/[email protected], Craig Smith/SUPR/R7/[email protected] Cc: Dave Crawford/DC/[email protected], Gary Worthman/DC/[email protected] Date: 01/25/2012 12:28 PM Subject: NRRB review of Westlake Landfill
Hello all! It is my understanding that the Administrator, Region 7 RA, your DD, and my OD agree that the NRRB should review the remedial action planned for this site. We have some flexibility for when this could happen. We can hold a web conference (not video) during the week of February 13 or 20, or you can join· the already planned meeting the week of March 12 in Chicago. April is difficult due to spring break and we already have a packed meeting the week of April 23. The month of May is wide open. Let me know what works for you.
Here is the Q&A guide for the Board. It contains an outline for the review package and presentation.
§1
Finai.RPM.NRRB.Manual.12.29.11.doc

Amy R. Legare
011~
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-J.o
40450137
IIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII1111111111 /II/IIIII/III
Superfund
DllD I
OSWER/OSRTI/ARD/SARDB 5828 Potomac Yard South MC 5204P 703-347-0124
3/28/2014

Completed Reviews
October 18, 2011 (web conference) Lava Cap OU3 -R9 (consultation)
December 6-7, 2011 -Seattle (NRRB/CST AG -full 2-day meeting) Lower Duwamish -R 1 0
Planned Reviews
March 12-16, 2012-Chicago or Denver Raritan Bay Slag-R2 MEW-R9
March 26-30, 2012-Hanford, WA Tour Hanford 1 00-K Area Hanford 200 UPI Hanford 300 Area
April23-27, 2012-HQ Gowanus Canal-R2 (joint w/ CSTAG) V elsicol -R4 Montross -R9
June 18-22,2012-Philadelphia Ringwood Mine-R2 681h Street Dump -R3 American Creosote-R4
July 23-27, 2012 Sauget Area 2 -R5 Stringfellow-R9 San Gabriel -R9
October 22-26, 2012 Lower Darby -R3 Casmalia -R9
Future Passaic River-R2 (with CSTAG, 2 day meeting) Libby OU4-R8 Portland Harbor-RIO Quendall Terminals-R 10

NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD

Questions and Answers for
Superfund Site Managers

December 29, 20 11
1. What is the National Remedy Review Board?
In October 1995, the EPA Administrator announced a collection of initiatives designed to help control remedy costs and to promote consistent and cost-effective Superfund cleanup decisions. As one of these initiatives, the National Remedy Review Board (NRRB, the Board) reviews proposed high-cost cleanup decisions to help evaluate whether they are consistent with current law, regulations, and Agency policy and guidance.
The Board is a technical and policy review group made up of members that have experience with both regional and Headquarters perspectives in the Superfund remedy selection process. Its members include senior managers and technical experts from each EPA region, as well as senior technical and policy experts from other EPA offices. These include the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), Office ofResearch and Development, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, and Office ofGeneral Counsel. The Board is chaired by OSRTI.
The Board generally meets quarterly to review proposed decisions that meet its cost-based review criteria. The product of the review is a memorandum sent from the Board to the regional Superfund division director that documents Board recommendations about the proposed cleanup strategy. The Board review process allows full input from EPA regional site managers and other site team members as deemed appropriate by the region whose site is under review. EPA’s site managers are asked to participate in all deliberations to ensure that the Board fully understands the circumstances influencing their proposals.
2. Which sites will the Board review?
Typically, the Board reviews cleanup strategies after the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RVFS) and before the region releases the proposed plan for comment. If necessary, the Board may review sites at other phases of cleanup, possibly before the FS is completed. The Board tries to accommodate regional preferences for scheduling reviews; however, it may not be able to meet all desired regional schedules. It is therefore imperative that site managers work closely with their Board representatives and regional management to schedule sites for review as soon as cost estimates trigger the review criteria outlined below.
Both National Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL (e.g., “Superfund Alternative”) site actions are reviewed by the Board whenever the Agency expects the work to be done underthe Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and other relevant guidance, and when the general criteria below are met. The Board reviews
sites when EPA is directly responsible for the decision or has a concurrence role, including PRP.lead, special account-funded and federal facility-lead sites.
Board Review Criteria
The Board will typically review proposed interim and final Superfund response decisions at both NPL and non-NPL (including Superfund Alternative) sites for which the proposed:

Remedial action costs more than $25 million; or


Non-time critical removal actions (NTCRA), at sites other than a federal facility, is estimated to cost more than $25 million; or

Board reviews will also occur for NPL and non-NPL sites following changes made after the release of the proposed· plan:

A different or modified alternative (which was included in the original proposed plan) is selected by the region that costs more than 20 percent when compared to the original proposal and these costs trigger review criteria (even when the earlier proposed action had undergoneBoard review).


A new alternative is developed and the costs ofthe new alternative would trigger a review.

The Board may review (at regional discretion) sites where the proposed action’s original cost estimate increases more than 20 percent after issuance ofthe Proposed Plan due to either updated cost information or minor changes to the alternative that trigger review criteria. Examples of minor changes are presented in Chapter 7 ofA Guide to Preparing Supe1:(und Proposed Plans, Records ofDecision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive No. 9200.1-23P, July 1999 (ROD guidance).
Federal Facility Sites (other than the Department ofEnergy)
Federal facility sites (including Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program-FUSRAP) follow the same review criteria above with the exception ofNTCRAs; federal facility NTCRAs do not undergo Board review unless requested by the federal facility. Decisions at Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites do not undergo Board review.
Department ofEnergy Sites
The NRRB typically will review sites where the primary contaminant is radioactive waste and · the proposed remedial action costs more than $75 million. The Board will also review NPL sites with NTCRAs exceeding $30 million involving primarily radioactive waste; (per joint Department of Energy/EPA memorandum dated October 5, 1998).
3. Can Regions Request an optional early consultation?
Regions may request an optional NRRB consultation on remedial alternatives at the draft FS scoping stage or any time prior to the draft proposed plan. Regions will not be expected to respond to this early review. Regions should notify states, tribes, local governments, PRPs and local communities when a site will be the subject of an early consultation. Stakeholder, including PRPs, input (up to 10 pages) should be requested as part ofthe early consultation process. This optional consultation will not excuse a site from NRRB review at the proposed plan stage ifthe proposed remedial action meets the NRRB review criteria.
4. Can Regions Request an exemption from Board review?
Regions may request that the NRRB Chair exempt their eligible site from Board review. In addition, Regions can request an exemption in cases where the Region selects a different alternative (after the release of the Proposed Plan for public comment) which costs more than 20 percent from the original proposal and these costs trigger review. The OSRTI office director will make the ‘final exemption decision. The Regional Division Directors can appeal a decision to deny an exemption to the OSRTI Office Director. Regions should offer states, tribes, local governments, PRPs and local communities an opportunity to summarize in writing their opinion regarding the proposed exemption decision. This information will be forwarded to the Board chair along with the exemption request. Regions will not be expected to respond to these letters but will notify the commenters ofthe final decision regarding an exemption.
NRRB Exemption Request Process and Criteria
The region requesting an exemption from an NRRB review should provide a summary of the following information to the Board chair. Exemption requests should not exceed 10 pages.
1.
Site name

2.
Media to be addressed, primary contaminants of concern, preliminary remediation goals

3.
Scope and role of the operable unit or response action

a. Does this action hinge on previous actions?

4.
Risk summary

5.
Remedial action objectives

6.
Alternatives-do they address

a.
TI or MNA?

b.
Treatment of principal threat waste?

c.
Presumptive remedy?

d.
Addressing munitions? (no chemical COCs or groundwater)

7.
Tribal or state ARARs

8.
Stakeholder views

a. Congressional or community controversy?

9.
Decisions requiring headquarters coordination or consultation

a.
Non-time critical removal actions over$ 6M

b.
Remedies for lead, radionuclides, PCBs, asbestos, mercury and dioxin

10.
Concurrence ofregional division director on exemption request

After receipt of the exemption request, the Board chair will hold a conference call with the region to discuss the request. The Board ch~ir will forward the exemption request and recommendation to the OSRTI office director. If the site is a federal facility the FFRRO Board member and office director will participate in the exemption process.
The region should seek input from site stakeholders (e.g., PRPs, states, tribes, and communities) on the request for exemption from NRRB review. Stakeholders may submit up to 10 pages stating their specific issues or concerns. Submissions may be sent to the region or Board Chair at the following address:
Amy Legare
National Remedy Review Board
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW MC5204P
Washington, DC 20460
Or
[email protected] gov
The OSRTI office director will make the final exemption decision after consultation with the regional division director and consideration of stakeholder input.
5. Will the Board review sites with Record of Decision amendments or Explanation of Significant Differences?
Generally, the Board reviews proposed Record of Decision (ROD) amendments where there is a change from the original remedial strategy (e.g., moving from a containment remedy to a treatment remedy) that results in remedial action costs greater than $25 million.
Generally, the Board does not review ROD amendments where the:

Original remedial strategy remains the same (e.g., where the cost increase results from an unexpected increase in contaminated soil volume), even ifthere is an appreciable change in cost (however, the region should consult with their board representative to contlnn review criteria) or


Amendment results in a cost savings.

The Board usually does not review Explanation of Significant Differences unless the region believes the site would benefit from such a review.
6. Will the Board review sites with final Record of Decision following an interim Record of Decision?
Generally, the Board will review final RODs that follow an interim ROD where there are new significant capital costs in addition to the incremental operation and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the final ROD. When the costs of a planned final ROD (following an interim ROD) exceed the trigger criteria due to costs driven primarily by the interim remedy’s O&M (e.g., the plant is already constructed and the remaining costs are due to long term system operation), the site does not require Board review. In lieu of a Board review, the region should conduct an optimization review, consistent with EPA guidance, before the final remedy is selected. Information on remedy optimization may be found at this linlc http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/optimize.htm
7. Will the Board review proposed sediment actions that are also subject to Headquarters consultation or Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group review under Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9285.6-08, Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites?
Yes. As explained in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9285.6-11, OSRTI Sediment Team and NRRB Coordination at Large Sediment Sites, issued on March 5, 2004, review of consultation memos by the OSRTI Sediment Team (for Tier 1 sites) and by the Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group (CST A G) will be coordinated with the Board so that the region receives only one set ofcomments at the time ofthe proposed plan. This process is explained in more detail below.
Tier 1 Sites
For Tier 1 sites that will undergo a NRRB review, the region should include a draft Tier 1 Consideration Memo in the site information package sent to the Board. A copy ofthe Consideration Memo should also be sent to the appropriate OSRTI regional coordinator and to the OSRTI Sediment Team leader. The OSRTI Sediment Team will review the Consideration Memo and the site package, and will provide comments to the chair of the NRRB prior to the Board’s meeting on the site in question. If the draft Proposed Plan is available, it should also be submitted to the OSRTI regional coordinator and the Sediment Team Leader at that time. If it is not available, it should be submitted as soon as it is drafted. The Sediment Team will not submit separate comments on the Consideration Memo to the region.
As part of its response to the NRRB recommendations, the region should include a revised Tier I Consideration Memo that addresses any comments made by the NRRB related to the issues covered by the Memo. If the NRRB chair and OSRTI Sediment Team leader believe that their comments were not appropriately addressed, and after consultation with the OSRTI Regional Branch Chief, the region may be asked to make additional revisions to the Consideration Memo.
Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group Sites
It is anticipated that the proposed remedy for most ofthe large sites being reviewed by the Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG) will also meet the NRRB review requirements. Therefore, a subset ofCSTAG members will participate in the NRRB review. This subset will be selected based on expertise matching the site characteristics. When a site manager prepares the site package for the NRRB it should include a draft Tier 2 Consideration Memo. The memo should document how the region considered all 11 principles when selecting the site’s proposed remedy; the memo should normally be less than 20 pages in length. The site manager will be provided with one set of recommendations from this joint review.
8. What is the role of the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation?
OSRTI will assign an ad hoc Board member for each review. The ad hoc member will be assigned based on the area of expertise required for the review. For example: risk assessment, contaminated sediments, radiation, groundwater contamination, or vapor intrusion. In addition, the technical regional coordinator will work closely with the Board chair on all aspects ofthe revtew.
OSRTI will also work to develop any needed policy, guidance or training materials deemed necessary after each annual review of recommendations. For additional infonnation see Question
28.
9. Will the Board review proposed remedies selected pursuant to presumptive remedy guidance?
Yes, unless the review is waived by the Board chair. Regions and regional Board members are encouraged to consult with the Board chair on presumptive remedies to ensure a productive review of t~e proposed remedy.
10. How long does a typical Board review take?
Generally, the review process takes about eight weeks, from the time the Board receives the informational site package until it transmits its recommendations to the region. Regions should consider this additional time in developing the site work plan and Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Plan targets. However, regions should also be aware that, in a few cases, Board recommendations may delay site decisions while the regional decision makers consider and respond to Board findings. Also, the region should allow adequate time for preparation of a comprehensive site package. The average preparation time is generally one to two months.
Board reviews are planned for the first month of each quarter of the year. Site managers should notify their regional Board member and the Board chair of the need for a review as soon as possible so the site can be added to the calendar ofplanned reviews. Generally one to two months time is needed to plan a review with travel, hotel, and meeting space accommodations.
11. What does the Board look at when it reviews a cleanup decision?
Generally, the Board analyzes proposed cleanup strategies to help ensure they are consistent with CERCLA, as amended, the NCP, and relevant EPA cleanup guidance. To assist Board members with these reviews, the region prepares a site information package for each site (see additional questions below and Attachment A for more details). Generally, the Board will not be reviewing the draft FS nor the draft decision document.
When the Board reviews a site, the members consider a variety of information, including elements ofthe RIIFS process related to the development of the alternatives and selection ofthe preferred alternative. Site-specific circumstances often influence the nature of the discussion. Please referto Appendix D for questions frequently asked by the Board.
12. What are the site manager’s responsibilities before the meeting?
As soon as the site manager becomes aware that he/she has a site that may trigger the Board’s · review criteria, the manager should notify his/her regional board member, who, in tum, should coordinate the NRRB review meeting date.
The site manager should:

Convey to the regional board member any preferences regarding review timing. The Board tries hard to accommodate the interests ofthe regions and site managers when scheduling reviews.


Provide the site-specific charging number to the Board chair as soon as possible once it has been determined that the site will come before the Board.


Contact the state and any appropriate tribes, Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), community groups, or federal facilities to notify them that the site triggers the review criteria. At this time, discuss with these stakeholders the procedures governing their involvement in the review process. A Community Guide is provided in Appendix E. Questions 16-21 of this packet provide additional information on the usual role ofthese parties in the review process.


Prepare a site information package that the Board will use to conduct its review . Question 13 and Appendix A present information on the package and a recommended outline.


Finalize the informational site package at least four weeks before the meeting and provide the package to the relevant regional NRRB member for distribution to Board members in preparation for the site review. The package will be posted on the Board’s Quickr site so that Board members may download it at their convenience. Oversized charts, maps or tables should be mailed to the Board members. The mailing list is available from the Board’s Quickr site. Please note that two additional copies should be mailed to the Board chair for distribution to OSRTI participants.


Prepare a presentation that summarizes the site, proposedremedy, and major issues. See Appendix C for a suggested outline forthe presentation.


Prepare for the meeting by expecting questions that probe beyond the basic information presented in the site information package (e.g., questions about important assumptions, models, peer reviews or tools used in developing key supporting information). Appendix D presents several lists ofquestions typically asked during the review and deliberations.


OPTIONAL: Participate in a pre-meeting conference call two weeks after the Board

receives the site package (i.e., two weeks before the meeting) to give the Board an opportunity to ask clarifying questions regarding the factual infonnation in the site infonnation package and to possibly request more information prior to the board meeting, or as part of the region’s presentation at the board meeting. The pre-meeting conference call should provide feedback to the region prior to the board meeting as to whether the inforn1ation provided is sufficient to support Board discussion and development of key/substantive recommendations. The Board chair and site manager will decide if a pre.call is necessary.
Recognizing that the reviews generally are part of EPA’s internal deliberative process, please label all documents “DRAFT-DELIBERATIVE.”
13. What should be in the site information package?
Appendix A contains a suggested outline for the site infonnation package.
This informational package should be written as a “stand alone” and succinct document that summarizes the key remedy selection issues faced at the site, and explains the regional rationale for choosing its preferred cleanup strategy. Additional detailed documents may be made available for review, at the region’s discretion, through Quickr or the Superfund Document Management System. The Board expects to base its review and any resulting recommendations primarily on this document. Inclusion of clear and well labeled maps, figures and tables usually are critical to the review.
Site managers should develop a site information package that tells the story and explains the rationale of the cleanup decision at the site in question. That is, the package should identify and explain the key remedy selection issues and support the preferred cleanup strategy. The exact content may vary based on site conditions. However, all packages should include summary information such as site background, contaminants and media ofconcern, site characterization, conceptual site model, key modeling land use assumptions and uncertainties, risk analysis, basis for action, the range of alternatives considered, the preferred remedy, arid the preferred remedy cost breakout. For example, if a chosen cleanup level is driven by Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), the information package should explain the ARAR, why the region believes it is applicable or relevant and appropriate, how it affects the remedy, etc. This information can help reduce or eliminate the need for exploring the subject during the review meeting. The package should contain a summary of the state and/or tribe position(s) on the site, and have attached any technical submissions from states/tribes, PRPs, federal facilities, Natural Resource Trustees, community groups and/or other stakeholders as appropriate. The Board expects to base its review and any resulting recommendations on this package.
The Board recommends that the site manager have the draft package reviewed by regional staff unfamiliar with the site to be sure the package is clear and consistent. Site managers should take advantage of the resources provided by their regional Board members and OSRTI’s remedy decisions branch; they can give advice on preparing for the review, assembling the package, characterizing key issues, and developing appropriate supporting information.
14. What happens at the meeting?
For each site review, the Board meeting typically lasts one full day and is broken into two stages:
i1~(ormation gathering and deliberations. The role ofthe various stakeholders is described in subsequent sections ofthis manual. The site manager should invite state and appropriate tribal representatives to participate in the information-gathering phase. Typically, these representatives do not participate in the deliberative discussion, which the Board limits to EPA personnel.
The site manager begins the information-gathering phase with a short site briefing. Generally, the briefing should not repeat in detail material already presented in the infonnation package. Rather, it should include a brief overview ofthe site and focus on orienting the Board members to the key site features and key remedy selection issues. Following this briefing; state and/or tribal representatives may present their view of key technical issues. Generally, the total length of the presentations should not exceed one hour (typically EPA 45 minutes, state/tribe 15 minutes). The Board usually spends some time after these presentations asking technical or clarifying questions (refer to Appendix 0 for examples). The site manager should be familiar with community, state/tribe, and/or PRP technical comments, as the Board will explore these as appropriate.
Following the briefings and the question/answer session, the Board deliberates for several hours, focusing on whether the proposed cleanup decision is cost effective, technically sound, and otherwise consistent with the NCP and/or supported by the most current program guidance. The Board asks the site manager and other regional staff, as determined by the region, to attend the deliberations for follow-up questions and to ensure the site manager understands the Board’s proposed recommendations. A draft memorandum normally will be developed at the meeting, detailing any Board findings and recommendations.
Following the review meeting (typically within two to four weeks), the Board chair transmits a final draft ofthe recommendations to Board members and the site manager before issuing the final recommendations memorandum documenting any recommendations or comments to the appropriate regional division director. EPA expects to post the recommendations memo on the Board’s web page within 30 days of the chair’s signature.
The Board considers the review to be an internal, deliberative, and (in certain cases) enforcement-sensitive process. Given the nature of the process, the Board defers to regional judgment with respect to releasing documents related to the reviews, and assumes that regions will comport with established relevant Agency policy. The Board expects the region to place the Board recommendations in the site administrative record at the time a proposed plan is published for comment. Regional materials used to support Board reviews (e.g., review packages, briefing materials, and stakeholder memoranda) should also be retained in the regional site-specific administrative record as appropriate.
15. What happens after the meeting?
Regional Response: Regional division directors are asked to respond in writing within a reasonable time frame to the Board chair regarding how the region has or will address board recommendations. As part of this response, the region is asked to describe how the Board’s review has impacted the cleanup process. The site manager is encouraged to submit a draft ofthe regional response to HQ to resolve any remaining issues prior to the issuance of the proposed plan. The site manager should work closely with the Board chair and OSRTI to incorporate the recommendations in the decision documents.
The Board’s existence does not change EPA’s remedy selection process as provided for in CERCLA and the NCP. The regions retain decision making authority as delineated in formal delegations of authority. The Board does not “approve” or “disapprove” regional proposals. However, the Agency expects decision makers to give Board recommendations substantial weight when finalizing cleanup decisions. Ifissues arise regarding incorporation of recommendations into decision documents, the OSRTI office director can request a discussion with the regional division director to resolve them.
Public inquiries and release ofinfonnation: The regions are expected to handle site-specific inquiries related to the reviews. It is .expected that regions will place Board recommendations and regional response memoranda in the site administrative records on or before the date that the region issues proposed plans for public comment. See question 25 for further clarification.
Record keeping: In the case ofboard-related materials, OSRTI maintains the Agency records of pertinent Board-issued documents (e.g., the board memos, operating protocol, etc.). General information, site-specific Board memoranda, and regional responses are available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrblindex.htm. EPA regional offices are responsible for retaining all documents prepared for the presentation package either in the site file or administrative record as appropriate (e.g., the site information packages, PRP and stakeholder submissions and any other information used in the Board process related to the cleanup decision in question). This record-keeping policy is consistent with established Agency guidance.
Web page: The recommendations memo will be posted on the Board’s web page within 30 days ofthe chair’s signature. The Board’s web page will also provide a link to the Superfund Site Progress Profile that will provide links to decision documents and the administrative record. PRP and stakeholder position papers should be included in the administrative record.
16. What is the role of the PRP?
The Board and its current process do not alter existing mechanisms for PRP involvement in the remedy selection process. The current process allows the PRP to work closely with the Agency in conducting the RI!FS, including appropriate, periodic meetings between EPA and the PRPs to ensure that issues such as site characterization, treatability of contaminated media, and the feasibility ofdifferent remedial options are fully considered.
When there is a PRP-lead RI!FS, the site manager should notify the PRPs of the pending review as soon as the region identifies the site as a review candidate. At this time, the region should offer the PRPs an opportunity to summarize in writing, 20 pages or less*, any technical issues they believe are pertinent to the cleanup decision, including their recommended approach and rationale for that approach. The site manager should attach the PRP’s summary to the site infonnation package submitted to the Board four weeks before the meeting. PRP submissions should be made part ofthe administrative record.
The region, at its discretion, may solicit comments from PRPs who do not conduct the RI!FS. Generally, the region may do this in cases where PRPs have been substantively involved in RI!FS work and/or remedy selection issues, or if the region believes that PRPs may offer technical comments critical to understanding key remedy selection issues at the site.
Note that those groups that have not been working closely with the Agency early in the remedy selection process will still have the opportunity to comment formally on the proposed action during the proposed plan corriment period.
PRPs are not involved in any direct discussions with the Board nor are they involved in Board meetings or pre-meeting calls. EPA is responsible for preparation of the Board’s review package.
* PRPs may submit up to 40 pages for sites where the estimated remedial action costs exceed $I OOM.
17. Can Potentially Responsible Parties or others nominate sites for Board review?
Site managers may get calls from PRPs or other stakeholders asking whether a site can be nominated for Board review. The Board expects to review only those decisions that meet the review criteria.
18. What is the role of federal facilities?
Consistent with policy established by EPA’s FFRRO, the Board generally treats federal facilities as PRPs for the purpose of Board reviews.
Please refer to “Which sites will the Board review?” for federal facility review criteria.
19. What is the role of the community?
The Board process does not alter existing mechanisms for community involvement in the remedy selection process. The current community engagement process allows the community to work closely with the Agency in conducting the RI/FS, including appropriate, periodic meetings between EPA and the community to ensure that issues such as site characterization, treatability of contaminated media, and the feasibility of different remedial options are fully considered. The site manager may provide the NRRB Community Guide (Appendix E) to interested stakeholders.
At sites where EPA has awarded a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) or recognized a Community Advisory Group (CAG), the site manager should notify them of the pending review as soon as the region identifies the site as a review candidate. At this time, the region should offer the TAG/CAG groups an opportunity to summarize in writing, 20 pages or less**, any technical issues they believe are pertinent to the cleanup decision, including their recommended approach and rationale for that approach. The site manager should attach this summary to the site information package submitted to the Board four weeks before the meeting. Stakeholder position papers should be included in the administrative record.
Where the site manager has established close working relationships with other stakeholder groups early in the RVFS process, the site manager may offer these groups the opportunity to submit written technical comment at his/her discretion.
** Stakeholders may submit up to 40 pages for sites where the estimated remedial action costs exceed $1OOM.
Note that those groups thathave not been working closely with the Agency early in the remedy selection process will still have the opportunity to comment formally on the proposed action during the proposed plan comment period.
Community members and TAG technical advisors are not involved in any direct discussions with the Board nor are they involved in Board meetings or pre-meeting calls.
20. Are Board discussions open to the general public?
No. The meetings ofthe Board are pre-decisional, deliberative discussions and are not open to the general public. Reviews generally occur before the region issues the proposed plan. The Agency is generally at an early stage in its decision making process when the Board meets to discuss the proposed action. The intent of this early Board review is to offer a critical discussion on key remedy selection and cost effectiveness issues before the Agency formalizes its position on a preferred cleanup strategy. It is important to note that the Board process does not affect EPA’s current procedures for soliciting public comment on proposed cleanup plans.
The recommendations memo will be posted on the Board’s web page within 30 days of the chair’s signature. The Board’s web page will also provide a link to the Superfund Site Progress Profile that will provide links to decision documents and the administrative record. PRP and stakeholder position papers should be included in the administrative record.
21. How do states and tribal governments participate in the reviews?
For each site, the site manager should invite state and appropriate tribal representatives to participate in the information-gathering phase ofthe Board meeting. Typically, these representatives do not participate in the deliberative discussion, which the Board normally limits to EPA personnel; however, they may be invited to participate for a portion ofthe deliberations where the site is a state/tribe-lead fund-financed decision or state/tribe-lead enforcement decision where the state or tribe seeks EPA concurrence. Otherwise, the Board generally limits its deliberative discussion to Agency personnel.
Regional staff should contact the state or tribal representative early in planning for the Board meeting to discuss the background and purpose ofthe Board, the structure ofthe reviews, and to explain how the state/tribe might best prepare for the meeting. The site manager may also provide the Community Guide (Appendix E) to these representatives for further information. At the meeting, the state/tribe is usually offered approximately I 0-15 minutes to speak about their specific issues or concerns.
The region should also offer the state or tribal representatives an opportunity to summarize in writing, 20 pages or less***, any technical issues they believe are pertinent to the cleanup decision, including their rationale and recommended approach for site cleanup. The site manager should attach this summary to the site infonnation package submitted to the Board four weeks before the meeting. Stakeholder position papers should be included in the administrative record.
22. What is the role of contractors?
Generally, govemment contractors can help prepare presentation and package materials but do not participate in presentations or question and answer sessions at board meetings.
23. Does the region convey the Agency’s preliminary views on the remedy in question (i.e., for stakeholders to react to)?
Generally, stakeholders have an opportunity to contribute their views on remedy selection issues, consistent with the NCP and Agency guidance. Site managers should not provide stakeholders with any preliminary indication ofAgency preferences beyond that which the Agency would provide in the absence of the Board’s review.
24. When is it appropriate for Natural Resource Trustee agencies or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to participate in board reviews?
When a Natural Resource Trustee agency or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry have formally provided unique or specialized site-specific teclmical or analytical support for the RIIFS in lieu of(or to supplement) regional expertise in a particular area, the region may invite representative(s) to attend the information-gathering phase ofthe review meeting but must inform the Board chair ofthis invitation.
25. When is it appropriate to release Board memoranda and meeting support materials?
The Agency considers the site-specific Board discussion materials, site names, and operable units under consideration to be deliberative and, where appropriate, enforcement confidential. EPA staff should refer questions regarding the nature ofthe Board discussions and findings to the
*** Up to 40 pages may be submitted for sites where the estimated remedial action costs exceed $1OOM.
appropriate regional board member or site manager.
The product of a Board review is typically a memorandum from the Board chair to the appropriate regional division director. While theAgency strives to be as open as possible about Board reviews, in some cases it may be appropriate for the region to withhold the Board’s recommendations memorandum until the region issues the proposed plan. At that point, the region should place the memorandum in the appropriate site administrative record. The region may release publicly its response to Board recommendations at its discretion, taking into account the internal, deliberative nature ofthe NRRB process. EPA will post the recommendations memo to the Board’s web page within 30 days of the chair’s signature. EPA expects that regions will make the regional response available publicly as soon as it is reasonable and appropriate to do so. EPA will also post the regional response on the Board’s web page.
In addition, the NRRB web page will provide the internet link to the Superfund Site Progress Profile that links to the site decision documents and administrative records containing stakeholder and PRP position papers.
26. Where can I find information about other Board reviews?
Site managers are encouraged to visit the NRRB internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrblindex.htm. This publicly accessible site contains basic information about the NRRB and its formation, criteria that triggers NRRB review, contact information for Board members, site-specific review memoranda, and regional responses to Board recommendations. Site-specific review memoranda may also be found in the site administrative record.
27. How are Board members selected?
HQ Offices and Regions will be requested every two years to re-evaluate their representatives on the NRRB to confinn that the members have the needed expertise, experience, and time to actively participate and contribute. The chair will request this reevaluation. The qualifications for NRRB board members are:

Senior Agency managers


Senior policy experts


Senior technical experts


Areas ofexpertise

o Remedy selection

o Cost-effectiveness

o Program implementation

o National consistency

o Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements

o CERCLA and the NCP

o Superfund policy and guidance


Available to travel at least one week per quarter to discuss proposed remedies


Ability to commit time for a detailed analysis of review packages

o Typically three review packages per quarter


Ability to reach consensus and craft recommendations to promote both consistent and cost-effective decisions at Superfund sites

28. How are recommendations used to benefit the Superfund Program?
Every year the NRRB, in consultation with the regions and OSRTI regional coordinators, will evaluate all the reviews written over that year, looking for recurring issues. OSRTI will work to develop any needed policy, guidance or training materials.
Appendix A
RECOMMENDED OUTLINE
FOR THE SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE

Recommended Outline for the Site Information Package
Inclusion of clear and well labeled maps, tables, and figures with sufficient detail are critical to the review. Time spent by the site manager in preparing the site information package, and additional regional review ofthe draft site information package, is to the advantage of everyone involved in the reviews, as complex site decisions will likely benefit from careful preparation.
It is recommended that an internal review of the draft site infom1ation package be conducted by a colleague that is unfamiliar with the site.
All reference to ROD Guidance Highlights (e.g. ROD Guidance Highlights 6-18 to 6-20) refer to examples found in OSWER Directive 9200.1-23.P, A Guide to Preparing Supe1:{imd Proposed Plans, Records ofDecision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents.
A. Summary (less than five pages)
1) Site Summary

Site name and location


Site account number


Orientation to the key features ofthe site and surrounding area


On site and surrounding land use


Brief site contamination history, and facility operational history


Identify media and primary contaminants of concern (COCs) addressed by this proposed action


List the operable units addressed by this action and the media addressed by each

2) Risk Summary
Good examples ofrisk summary tables to include in the package can be found in ROD Guidance Highlights 6-18 through 6-20.

Identify by medium and operable units, the cumulative risk (if applicable), and land use scenario( s)


Identify by medium and operable units, if applicable, the primary risk drivers

3) Cleanup levels
Include a brief summary table ofremedial action objectives (RAOs) and cleanup levels. If applicable, identify by medium and operable unit (see highlight 6-21 in the ROD Guidance identified in the Risk Summary section).
4) Description of Alternatives
Describe in a brief summary table the following for each medium and operable unit (if applicable):
• Identify remedial alternatives evaluated and associated costs

Identify expected time to achieve cleanup levels 5) Preferred Alternative In bullet fonnat, include the following for each medium and operable unit, if applicable:

• Describe remedy and estimated costs of major activities


Identify expected time to achieve cleanup levels 6) Stakeholder views


State’s position on proposed action


Other stakeholder views

B.
Detailed Information

1) Site N arne, Location, and Brief Description

Include an area map and detailed site maps with well labeled key features. Include an aerial
photograph, if available.
2) Site History and Enforcement Activities
Chronological list of significant enforcement actions, including principal PRPs.

3) Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action
Discuss how the operable unit or response action addressed by the proposed plan fits into the
overall site strategy. This discussion should describe the overall site cleanup strategy, including:


The planned sequence of actions


The scope of problems those actions will address


The authorities under which each action will be/has been implemented (e.g., removal, remedial final, or remedial interim)

4) Site Characteristics

Describe the Baseline Risk Assessment Conceptual Site Model (CSM) on which the risk assessment and response action are based


Provide an overview ofthe site, including the following:
Size of site (e.g., acres)

-Geographical and topographical infonnation (e.g., surface waters, flood plains, wetlands) Surface and subsurface features (e.g., number and volume oftanks, lagoons, structures, and drums on the site)
– Areas of archaeological or historical importance

Describe known or suspected sources of contamination


Describe types of contamination and the affected media (summarize in tables), including the following: -Types and characteristics of contaminants (e.g., toxic, mobile, carcinogenic,

non-carcinogenic) -Quantity/volume ofwaste -Concentrations of contaminants in each medium (see ROD Guidance Highlight 6.
15) and figures that illustrate hot spots, e.g. isopleths
-RCRA hazardous wastes and affected media


Include figures showing contaminant level changes over time


Describe location of contamination and known or potential routes of migration, including the following: Lateral and vertical extent of contamination -Current and potential future surface and subsurface routes ofhuman or environmental exposure

– Conceptual site model of the potential migration pathways of COCs in all media Human and ecological populations that are or could be affected


For sites with groundwater and surface water contamination, describe the following:

-Aquifer(s) affected or threatened by site contamination, types ofgeologic materials, approximate depths, whether aquifer is confined or unconfined Sources and source areas of groundwater and surface water contamination, including information on non-aqueous phase liquid extent, location, and characteristics
– Groundwater flow directions within each aquifer and between aquifers and groundwater discharge locations (e.g., surface waters, wetlands, other aquifers)
– Appropriate maps and cross sections showing stratigraphy and monitoring well
layout
• Identify any computer models used that served as the basis for risk, fate and transport, or ARAR compliance decisions. For non-EPA recommended model applications, list the input parameters: measured data, literature data, and default inputs used in the predicted outputs. Also, include results of model uncertainty and sensitivity analysis for key site parameters.
5) Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses:
Land Use

Current on-site land uses


Current adjacent/surroundingland uses


Reasonably anticipated future land uses, with expected time frames for such l!ses, and basis for future use assumptions (e.g., zoning maps, nearby development, 20-year development plans, dialogue with local land use planning officials and citizens).

Ground and Surface Water Use

Current ground/surface water uses on the site and in its vicinity


Potential beneficial ground/surface water uses (e.g., potential drinking water, irrigation, recreational) and basis for future use assumptions (e.g., Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection Plan, promulgated State classification, EPA groundwater classification guidelines)


Ifbeneficial use is an anticipated drinking water source, identify the approximate time frame ofprojected future drinking water use (e.g., groundwater aquifer not currently used as a drinking water source but expected to be utilized in future years)


Location of anticipated use in relation to location and anticipated migration of
contamination.

6) Summary ofRisk1:
Human Health Risk Assessment
• Identify potentially exposed populations in current and future scenarios (e.g., worker
currently working on site, adults and children living on site in the future)

1 The site information package should include a synopsis of the risk assessment(s). Detailed information may be provided by posting documents to the Board’s Quickr site or by providing the Superfund Document Management System document identification number.

Identify sensitive sub-populations (highly exposed and/or more susceptible) that may be exposed (e.g., farm families, children, subsistence fishermen)


Identify the routes by which each population group or sub-population group could reasonably be exposed to site contaminants (e.g., ingestion ofcontaminated groundwater for adults and children, inhalation of volatile contaminants for workers)


Include major assumptions about exposure frequency, duration, and other exposure factors that were included in the exposure assessment (e.g., exposure frequency [days/year], exposure duration [years], and body surface area for dermal exposure) could be included in an appendix


Highlight any non-standard exposure assumptions used in the baseline risk assessments


Provide a summary (preferably a table) that includes the following for all current and future land use scenarios presenting unacceptable risks: -Quantified carcinogenic risks for each COC in each exposure medium for each relevant exposure pathway -Combined carcinogenic risks reflecting total exposure to COCs in a given medium and pathway of exposure -Potential for non-carcinogenic impacts as quantified by the hazard quotient for each COC in each exposure medium for ~ach exposure pathway, as appropriate

-Potential for combined non-carcinogenic effects in each medium and pathway of exposure as expressed by hazard indices, which reflect the potential additive effects of COCs that affect the same target organ or system
– Identify key uncertainties in the baseline risk assessment
• If applicable, describe how radiological risks were calculated .
Ecological Risk Assessment (particularly where these risks drive remedy selection)

What are the assessment endpoints determined to be at risk (the foundation of the
remedial decisions, that is, the risk drivers)?


Which of these risks would require remedial action?


Which site contaminants were determined to be causal and by which exposure routes (i.e., what is the conceptual model/exposure model?).


Describe the thresholds ofexposure generating risk, and at what level ofexposure do the risk levels become severe?


What is the confidence in the risk estimates? Are there documented effects?


_Describe any site-specific data that were available


How large is the area for which ecological risks have been estimated?


Description ofkey species that could be exposed


Describe complete exposure pathways, present the conceptual site model


Monitoring or modeling data and assumptions


The ROD Guidance (Pages 6-22 to 6-25) provides summary tables that would supply the above requested information.

7) Remedial Action Objectives and Preliminary Remediation Goals

Present the basis and rationale for remedial action objectives (RAOs) & preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) (e.g., current and reasonably anticipated future land use and potential beneficial groundwater use)


Describe how the RAOs & PRGs address risks identified in the risk assessment (e.g., how will the risks driving the need for action be addressed by the response action?)


Identify any key ARARs that are driving the remedy selection


Where ecological risks drive the remedy, provide the range of protective cleanup levels and their basis.


Explain how cleanup levels are developed from these goals considering the remedy
selection criteria.


Explain the role ofbackground in the evaluation of cleanup levels.

8) Description of Alternatives:
• Provide a bulleted list and appropriate figures of the major components of each alternative. The package should include the following: -Treatment technologies and materials they will address (e.g., source materials constituting principal threats)
-Containment components ofremedy (e.g., engineering controls, cap, hydraulic barriers) and materials they will address (e.g., low concentration source materials, treatment residuals)
– Description of institutional controls and how they will be implemented and maintained and the duration -For alternatives that depend upon monitored natural attenuation, demonstrate compliance with EPA policy

Provide the total estimated capital, annual operation and maintenance (O&M), and total present worth costs, discount rate, and the number ofyears over which the remedy cost estimates are projected


Summarize the capital and annual O&M costs associated with each of the major
components of each alternative

9) Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Provide a summary table and discussion comparing alternatives that pass the threshold criteria against the nine criteria.
1 0) Principal Threat Waste Clearly identify how source materials constituting principal threats are addressed or provide an explanation ofwhy the site does not have principal threat waste (refer to A Guide to Principal Threat and LoH’ Level Threat Wastes-OSWER 9380.3-06FS, November 1991).
11) Preferred Alternative

Clearly describe the preferred alternative and how, if appropriate, it is different from the alternatives evaluated


Describe the key factor(s) that led to selecting the preferred alternative (i.e., describe how the remedy provides the best balance oftradeoffs with respect to the balancing and modifying criteria, highlighting criteria key to the decision)

12) Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements2

List the principal ARARs for the preferred alternative


Describe the ARARs that are drivers for the remedy


For each driver, explain why it is an ARAR (versus a “to be considered”)


Where actual language of the regulation is key to the Board review, include a copy of the relevant section in an appendix to the package

13) Technical & Policy Issues
Include a discussion of technical or policy issues that require further discussion prior to implementation of the preferred alternative (data gathering, ARARs, treatability studies, modeling.
14) Cost Information4

Include sufficient information to provide an estimate of total resource costs over time

(i.e., life cycle costs) for all alternatives including (ROD Guidance Highlight 6-29) -Capital costs -Annual operations and maintenance costs -Net present value of capital and O&M costs


Cost estimate summaries should address the following: -The key cost components/elements for both Remedial Action and O&M activities -The major sources of uncertainty in the cost estimate

2 The site information package should include a synopsis of this infonnation. Detailed information may be provided by posting documents to the Board’s Quickr site or by providing the Superfund Document Management System document identification number.
– The discount rate used
-The time expected to achieve RAOs and remedial goals Periodic capital and/or O&M costs anticipated in future years ofthe project (e.g., remedy replacement or rebuild)
-The methods and resources used for preparing the cost estimate (e.g., estimating guides, vendor quotes, computer cost models)

For contingency remedy decisions, the total project costs for implementing the contingency should be provided in addition to the costs for the conditional action. This estimate should include treatability study costs, if applicable.


The assumptions used to develop the cost estimate should be consistent with the stated RAOs and remedial goals (e.g., duration of the cost estimate should match time to achieve cleanup objectives).

15) Letters from Stakeholders and State
Include in the package any technical comments provided by the state or other stakeholders.
Appendix B
SAMPLE AGENDA FOR THE BOARD MEETING

Sample NRRB Meeting Agenda
8:30-8:45 Introductions
8:45-9:45 Site Presentations (1 0-15 minutes additional time for state/tribal presentations)
9:45-10:00 BREAK 10:00-11:30 Questions & Answers 11:30-12:30 LUNCH
The following sessions are for EPA staff only 12:30-2:15 Deliberations
2:15-2:30 BREAK
2:30-3:00 Board Business (not site-specific)
3:00-5:00 Write and Review Board Recommendations
5:00 ADJOURN
Appendix C
RECOMMENDED OUTLINE
FOR THE BOARD PRESENTATION

Recommended Outline for the Board Presentation
The main emphasis of the presentation, which typically runs one hour in length, should be on the preferred alternative. Hard copies ofthe presentation should be provided for all Board members at the meeting (preferably two slides per page).
Although not reconunended for the presentation, site managers should have key figures available (electronically ifpossible) from the RJJFS and site infonnation package in case of questions during the discussions.
The following suggested times should be used as a guide but are not mandatory:

Site Summary & Risk Summary-I 0


RAO & Description ofAlternatives-I5


Preferred Alternative-25


Stakeholder Views or Presentation-I 0

I) Site Summary

Orientation to the key features of the site and surrounding area (including maps)


On site and surrounding land use


Brief site contamination history, and facility operational history


Identify media and primary COCs addressed by this proposed action


List the other operable units at the site and the media addressed by each

2) Risk Summary

Identify by medium and operable units, the cumulative risk (if applicable), and land use scenario(s)


Identify by medium and operable units, if applicable, the primary risk drivers

3) Remedial Action Objectives and PRGs

Present the basis and rationale for RAOs and PRGs (e.g., current and reasonably
anticipated future land use and potential beneficial groundwater use)


Describe how the RAOs and PRGs address risks identified in the risk assessment (e.g., how will the risks driving the need for action be addressed by the response action?)


Identify any key ARARs that are driving the remedy selection

4) Description of Alternatives Describe in bullet fonnat the following for each medium and operable unit (if applicable):

Briefly identify key components of all remedial alternatives evaluated and associated costs


Identify risk reduction and expected time to achieve cleanup levels

5) Preferred Alternative

Provide a brief summary table or figure that compares all the alternatives, clearly
illustrating the commonality and differences between each alternative


For the preferred alternative, identify for each medium and operable unit: -The rationale and key factors that led to the selection of the preferred alternative -The remedy and estimated costs ofmajor activities

Expected time to achieve cleanup levels
Major technical and other unresolved issues

6) Stakeholder views .

State’s position on the proposed action


Other stakeholder views

Appendix D

QUESTIONS FREQUENTLY ASKED
BY BOARD MEMBERS

Appendix D -Questions Frequently Asked by the NRRB Members
1) NRRB discussion guide
General Groundwater Soil Sediment
Land/Water Use What are future use assumptions for the site? Are the bases for these assumptions clear? Are these assumptions consistent with state/local designations? Have efforts been made to discuss the future use with site owners, local government representatives, and other stakeholders? . What are future use assumptions for groundwater? What are future use assumptions for land? What are future use assumptions for surface water and flood plains?
Was reuse/beneficial use considered for land, water, or treatment residuals, as appropriate?
Exposure Scenarios/Risk Assumptions Are exposure scenarios and risk assumptions reasonable and consistent with future uses? Have the latest toxicity data been used (e.g., PCBs/dioxin)? What are the risk drivers for the site-media, pathways, contaminants? Is remedial action necessary? Has the groundwater/surface water pathway been adequately considered? Has ecological risk been adequately addressed? Has ecological risk been adequately addressed? Where contaminants are bioaccumulative, were appropriate fish/shellfish consumption rates used for risk analysis and are they reasonable?
Remedial Action Objectives & Cleanup Levels What are the RAOs and cleanup levels and do they adequately address risk drivers? Is it clear how cleanup levels were selected? Are RAOs and cleanup levels reasonable and clearly linked to each other? Is it clear whether the goal is restoration and/or containment? What is the expected time frame to meet cleanup levels for groundwater? How were cleanup levels for biota selected? What is the expected time frame to meet cleanup levels for sediment and RAOs for biota? What level of fish/shellfish consumption is the remedy expected to

achieve, and when?
Appendix D-Questions Frequently Asked by the NRRB Members
General Groundwater Soil Sediment
Were a variety of cleanup levels considered? Are the major ARARs identified and are there any special issues? Have the principal threat wastes been identified and does the proposed remedy anticipate treatment or explain why it is not appropriate? Where RAOs for biota will not be met for a long time, have interim goals or benchmarks been identified as appropriate?
Remedy Effectiveness Is the preferred alternative likely to be effective in meeting cleanup levels and RAOs? Are any existing source control actions effective and have any ongoing sources been appropriately incorporated into decision-making? If treatment is proposed, is a pilot necessary and if so, is it proposed? If institutional controls are necessary, are they likely to be effective? Should a contingency remedy be specified and if so, has it been? Does the proposed remedy include monitoring adequate to evaluate remedy effectiveness? Is DNAPL likely to be present? Ifyes: Do cleanup goals adequatel

Post

2012-01-05 – Earth City Levee District Chair – John Basilico – Past Flooding Events and Valuation of Properties

{In Archive} Fw: My Conversation with John Basilico -Earth City Levee
District Chair
Dan Gravatt to: Cecilia Tapia 01/05/2012 11:12 AM
Cc: DeAndre Singletary Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.
Cecilia, here is the information from the Earth City Levee District responding to Karl’s questions. Note that none of the flood events mentioned below and on the website breached or overtopped the levee.
Sincerely, Daniel R. Gravatt, PG US EPA Region 7 SUPR I MOKS 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone (913) 551-7324 Fax (913) 551-7063
Principles and integrity are expensive , but they are among the very few things worth having. -Forwarded by Dan Gravatt/R7/USEPAIUS on 01/05/2012 11:10 AM-
From: Debbie Kring/R7/USEPAIUS To: Dan Gravatt/R7/[email protected], Audrey Asher/R7/[email protected] Date: 01105/2012 10:48 AM Subject: My Conversation with John Basilica -Earth City Levee District Chair
Per your request to get information about the Earth City Levee System & past flooding events, I have the following to report:
1) The valuation of properties within the Levee system (as of 2007) showed a market value of $1,235,000,000. This included structures and roadways. For purposes of looking at a comparable valuation for 2011 , John stated the value should be deduced by 20%, making the 2011 valuation in the range of $950,000,000-$1,100,000,000.
2) The Levee system was constructed in the summer of 1972. John indicated he is aware of 2-3 flooding events, but most importantly noted the event of 1993. He also stated that the following website would be a great resource for additional questions like this: www.earthcityld.com
I also checked EPA’s Responsiveness Summary, where it states on page 6 (top) that four (4) major floods have occurred since the levy was built.
Debbie
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7725 or [email protected] 1-800-223-0425
l’l 40447607 b ~
\IIII~Bll\11\lll\111

Superfund

Post

2012-01-09 – Cecilia Tapia does not think community interviews should be conducted during this stage of the Superfund process

Just Spoke with Cecilia about Westlake Landfill-and Ramona Debbie Kring to: Hattie Thomas, Dan Gravatt Cc: Rich Hood, Cecilia Tapia 01/09/2012 02:21 PM
From: To: Deb~ie Kring/R7/USEPA/US Hattie Thomas/R7/[email protected], Dan Gravatt/R7/USEPA/[email protected]
Cc: Rich Hood/R7/USEPA/[email protected], Cecilia Tapia/R7/USEPA/[email protected]

Hattie & Dan:
I just spoke to Cecilia as she walked by enroute to the MDNR Call in the RA Conference Room at 2:00
p.m. She is fully supportive of CPA’s role at Westlake and also does not think “community interviews” should be conducted during this phase of the Superfund process. She does not have an opinion about Ramona’s role at the site, but indicated that MDNR (Ramona) should not be lobbying on anyone’s behalf, i.e., the city, community members, et al and that is why she asked for her to be removed from the site to begin with.
I briefly explained what our call will entail (at 3:00 p.m. today) with Brandon of MDNR. She is supportive!
As a historical reference, Ramona and her management made several comments to my updated Community Involvement Plan (CIP)P (done last summer). Some of the comments I chose to incorporate (because they made the plan better). Some of the comments were not applicable, and a few of them were not even implementable. Ramona offered her assistance to EPA Hqtrs. when it was working on the Community Engagement Initiative, so feels like she should be in charge of every aspect of community activities that involve EPA. Please note ………… MDNR comments to the CIP were suggestions only.
When we (EPA officials & MDNR) toured Westlake Landfill on October 4, 2011, we discussed the CIP and possible next steps for community interaction. The dialogue went well, Ramona was not present for that tour.
They are insistent that community interviews be conducted, RIGHT NOW! I don’t disagree that we need the community’s view of past and current EPA activities and their affects on the community-at-large. However, I believe that once the SFS activities get finalized and we move to the next phase of community meeting·s and additional activity, that would be the appropriate time to conduct the community interviews. I plan to perform these interviews in the spring of 2012.
Stay tuned ……………. l’ll keep you apprised of next steps. If you need any more information regarding this history of this site or EPA’s interactions with MDNR, please don’t hesitate to ask. Dan and I have a conference call coming up within the hour.
Debbie
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7725 or [email protected] 1-800-223-0425
D71 Lf 404401 os
IIIII~ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Superfund
Dl(DO

Post

2012-01-09 – EPA discussion of next steps for community outreach per MDNR request

{In Archive} EPA Call with MDNR Re: Westlake Landfill-Next Steps for
Community Outreach
Debbie Kring to: Hattie Thomas, Dan Gravatt 01/09/2012 04:30PM
Cc: Rich Hood, Cecilia Tapia, DeAndre Singletary
Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.
Dan & I called MDNR (Branch Chief Brandon Doster) at his request to discuss next steps for community outreach activities at the Westlake Landfill Superfund Site in Bridgeton, MO.
MDNR would like EPA to conduct community interviews in support of the most recent Community Involvement Plan update (fall of 2011 ). They would also like these interviews to be done subsequent to the upcoming public meeting EPA will hold to release the Supplemental Feasibility Study (SFS) to guage interest community-wide. While EPA concurs with the need to get current perspectives from community members about the progress of Westlake Landfill, doing interviews during this particular phase of the Superfund process is poor timing. EPA has made it clear that the SFS process is NOT a public comment process or period. Conducting interviews at the same time considerations are being made about the SFS gives the community mixed messages about what EPA is asking.
We conveyed to MDNR that EPA would prefer to conduct these interviews in the spring of 2012, not only to alleviate confusion within the public domain, but also because EPA’s EJ program would like to begin conducting Healthy Homes assessments near Westlake Landfill in the spring as well. I believe those two activities positively parallel each other and give the community a more clarified direction .
MDNR asked Dan and I if they could conduct their own community interviews prior to the SFS being released to the public. I specifically asked Brandon, what they would do with the comments received, since we are NOT in a public comment period. He appeared to understand and thanked Dan and I for our time.
If you need additional information about this call or any other facet of the Westlake Landfill site, please call Dan or I.
Debbie
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7725 or [email protected] 1-800-223-0425
OliLj
~.D
40450119
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Superfund
OLtol

Post

2012-01-09 – EPA EJ program would like to begin conducting Healthy Homes assessmens near West Lake Landfill

{In Archive} EPA Call with MDNR Re: Westlake Landfill-Next Steps for
Community Outreach
Debbie Kring to: Hattie Thomas, Dan Gravatt 01/09/2012 04:30PM
Cc: Rich Hood, Cecilia Tapia, DeAndre Singletary
Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.
Dan & I called MDNR (Branch Chief Brandon Doster) at his request to discuss next steps for community outreach activities at the Westlake Landfill Superfund Site in Bridgeton, MO.
MDNR would like EPA to conduct community interviews in support of the most recent Community Involvement Plan update (fall of 2011 ). They would also like these interviews to be done subsequent to the upcoming public meeting EPA will hold to release the Supplemental Feasibility Study (SFS) to guage interest community-wide. While EPA concurs with the need to get current perspectives from community members about the progress of Westlake Landfill, doing interviews during this particular phase of the Superfund process is poor timing. EPA has made it clear that the SFS process is NOT a public comment process or period. Conducting interviews at the same time considerations are being made about the SFS gives the community mixed messages about what EPA is asking.
We conveyed to MDNR that EPA would prefer to conduct these interviews in the spring of 2012, not only to alleviate confusion within the public domain, but also because EPA’s EJ program would like to begin conducting Healthy Homes assessments near Westlake Landfill in the spring as well. I believe those two activities positively parallel each other and give the community a more clarified direction .
MDNR asked Dan and I if they could conduct their own community interviews prior to the SFS being released to the public. I specifically asked Brandon, what they would do with the comments received, since we are NOT in a public comment period. He appeared to understand and thanked Dan and I for our time.
If you need additional information about this call or any other facet of the Westlake Landfill site, please call Dan or I.
Debbie
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7725 or [email protected] 1-800-223-0425
OliLj
~.D
40450119
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Superfund
OLtol

Post

2012-07-26 – Earth City Board of Trustees – Community will be mad if 100% excavation not performed

\

Summarized Phone Conversation I had with John Basilica, Chair, Earth City Board of Trustees-Re: West Lake Landfill Debbie Kring to: Dan Gravatt, DeAndre Singletary, Audrey Asher 07/26/2012 02:02PM Cc· Rich Hood, Hattie Thomas, Cecilia Tapia, Robertw Jackson, Kristina
· Gonzales
The attached document serves as a phone record for a conversation that I had with John Basilica today, July 27, 2012. Please let me know if you have questions. For the record, this site is currently in lit.-hold.
~~~u
WestlakelandfiiiOverviewBoardofTrustees.docx
Debbie
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7725 or [email protected] 1-800-223-0425
v711 ltmniiiiill1 3
‘ o
Superfund
OL,f D/

Write-Up Re: Discussion with John Basilica,
Chairman, Earth City, MO Board of Trustees

West Lake Landfill
I spoke by phone today with Mr. John Basilica of Earth City, MO. He calls.me every 4-6 months to get an update on West Lake Landfill. Their next board meeting is August 22nd, so the update for this call was of key importance to him.
As background, John and the Earth City Board were extremely supportive of EPA’s initial remedy selection, primarily due to the concern about bird strikes at the St. Louis airport.
We talked for about 15 minutes about the status
of the landfill, and EPA’s current stance with
respect to the SFS. I outlined some of the
current and proposed actions (very generically)
as we are proposing to do in an updated Fact
Sheet.
..

In summary, John stated that he is on the ground in this community and the area in general and really hears what the constituents say. He stated that whatever EPA plans to do at the landfill, it should take the following into consideration, understanding that the two solutions are: full excavation of the landfill OR EPA’s preferred remedy, which includes capping, groundwater monitoring, and institutional controls:
Unless it is deemed that the appropriate action for the landfill is 100% +excavation (which would include the removal of every molecule of contaminated material), the public will be mad.
Unless it is deemed that EPA’s preferred remedy is going to be performed in the near future (sooner vs. later), the public’s patience is running out.

Post

2014-04-30 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Gravatt, Dan – If we help public we will be giving their work credibility

Gravatt, Dan
From: Tapia, Cecilia
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Wednesday, April30, 2014 3:53PM
Gravatt, Dan
Subject:
Field, Jeff; Hoefer, David; Peterson, Mary; Hammerschmidt, Ron; Hooper, Charles A.
RE: Draft letter on H drive responding to data submitted from Dawn Chapman
Dan, just add your language to the letter in another color.
(}i\ Cecilia Tapia
-;_.• DlrC!dor, Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental P~Htlon Agc.oncy • Region 7
1t101 Renner Blvd.
t..ene•o. KS 66219
Phone1 (91J)!5t•nJs Celh (911)449·4171
Email: tapla.cedllaftH’FH r..; ·~ ~”‘t;,ul ~ud \.’Fj ifll)” .. ,! a~ W.t<.:f.ITT~TII" ,,. 'illflt"'U:!.·nl .. -.~ no~ he- ~'""*~•I I! ~'t.t: 111e ~<.t-.:t;:: U,h:-=...t...-.;.1 en::l~•i.ml. i!k'-'•r' .b~~V:• 1!':' u:~.kiC (l. '!·,~f. ." l:M"Lh:'t.:"~r~....,lTMf.l.i~ C'U "...:~ rr;.en~t1~ (lc..;-rr.·<1"':0.•\· .:'!L.'.''1•1W'~ .rk un u...-'lCI""'.;r•nf..o~-i.,d;-.·r'!k7'k~,..;..*r"."'l.t. \1 rn.~,,f no• .. -.. ~~ dC"lr".r.. . thcrtl•, l'"' fch'W ;inl'.tlll:.·:~ n-1c ~):.I 2

Post

2014-05-01 – EPA – USACE – West Lake Landfill – Haul Road Information

To: Tapia, Cecilia[Tapia.Cecilia@epa.gov]
Cc:
From:
Field, Jeff[Field.Jeff@epa.gov]; Kiefer, Robyn V NWK[Robyn.V.Kiefer@usace.army.mil]
Cotner, Sharon R MVS
Sent: Thur 5/1/2014 2:17:49 PM
Subject: RE: Haul Roads Information (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Dear Cecilia:
I’m going to assume that you are looking for information regarding USAGE sampling of haul roads
between Latty & Westlake (since that seems to be the topic of the day.)
USAGE has sampled and remediated haul roads between SLAPS and HISS since the completion of the
2005 ROD. These roads are Pershall Road, Latty Ave, Hazelwood Ave, a small stretch of Lindbergh,
Frost, Banshee and McDonnell Blvd.
USAGE never sampled the roads from Latty to Westlake Landfill.
The sampling mentioned in the 2005 was completed by DOE prior to USAGE assignment to FUSRAP in
1997. It was only mentioned in the ROD in order to give a full picture of the sampling completed to date in
the area. (In hindsight perhaps it should not have been mentioned.)
The sampling completed by DOE was briefly mentioned in a report completed by DOE. We are trying to
find some sort of document with the actual sample results but are having no success. (At this point I am
not sure we even have the data since the area would be outside the scope of FUSRAP as Westlake was
not a FUSRAP project at the time of the transfer of the program from DOE.)
If we find anything more, we will let you and the State know.
(Also- as a side thought, someone here recalls MDNR sampling these roads in the 2003-2004 timeframe.
You may wish to touch base with them.)
I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Sharon Cotner
—–Original Message—–
From: Tapia, Cecilia [mailto:Tapia.Cecilia@epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:16PM
To: Cotner, Sharon R MVS
Cc: Field, Jeff
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Haul Roads Information
Is there any other haul road information other than the work USAGE completed that resulted in the 2005
ROD?
Thanks
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058973
Cecilias Microsoft Outlook Signature large font
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058974

Post

2014-05-13 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC

To:
From:
Sent:
Carey, Curtis[ Carey. Curtis@epa.gov]
Sanders, LaTonya
Tue 5/13/2014 9:30:48 PM
Subject: RE: ACTION: RE: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
From: Carey, Curtis
Sent: Tuesday, May 13,2014 9:47AM
To: Tapia, Cecilia; Hammerschmidt, Ron; Gravatt, Dan
Cc: Hayes, Scott; Washburn, Ben; Field, Jeff; Campbell, Todd; Peterson, Mary; Sanders,
LaTonya
Subject: ACTION: RE: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
c__jc_Jl_L_jc_J_j_j_j_jc__j EPA has no validated information indicating the need to screen for radiation
outside of the West Lake Landfill site. We are undertaking a screening ofBMAC to allay public
concerns at that heavily used recreation complex. The screening procedures EPA will use there
has been employed at many sites across the country and is supported by research and
documented procedures. Soil sampling will also be performed at BMAC to confirm the
screening results. With regard to screening haul roads, they remain under the purview of the
USACE FUSRAP program [PLEASE CONFIRM THIS IS CORRECT] and have previously
been exhaustively tested for radiation. Regarding a ditch at BMAC where local residents using
donated equipment reported finding “radiation”, even if the information they provided is
accurate the radiation levels are not elevated enough to present any health risk. Reportedly, the
highest concentration of gamma-emitting radionuclides in their soil samples works out to 5.13
pCi/g. For reference, the cleanup standard in the SFS forTh and Ra was set at 5 pCi/g plus
background [DAN, PLEASE TOTAL THESE TWO SO WE HAVE A TOTAL. RIGHT NOW
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058473
FOR THE LAY PERSON IT WOULD LOOK LIKE 5.13 IS ABOVE 5 AND THEREFORE
REQUIRES REMEDIATION].
From: Carey, Curtis
Sent: Monday, May 12,2014 10:50 AM
To: Tapia, Cecilia; Brooks, Karl; Hague, Mark; Hammerschmidt, Ron
Cc: Hayes, Scott; Washburn, Ben; Field, Jeff; Campbell, Todd; Peterson, Mary; Gravatt, Dan
Subject: RE: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
c__jc_Jl_L_jc_J_j_j_j_jc__j EPA has no validated information indicating the need to screen for radiation
outside of the West Lake Landfill site. We are undertaking a screening ofBMAC to allay public
concerns at that heavily used recreation complex. The screening procedures EPA will use there
has been employed at many sites across the country and is supported by research and
documented procedures. Soil sampling will also be performed at BMAC to confirm the
screening results. With regard to screening haul roads, they remain under the purview of the
USACE FUSRAP program [PLEASE CONFIRM THIS IS CORRECT] and have previously
been exhaustively tested for radiation. Regarding a ditch at BMAC where local residents using
donated equipment reported finding “radiation”, even if the information they provided is
accurate the radiation levels are elevated enough to present any health risk. Reportedly, the
highest concentration of gamma-emitting radionuclides in their soil samples works out to 5.13
pCi/g. For reference, the cleanup standard in the SFS forTh and Ra was set at 5 pCi/g plus
background [DAN, PLEASE TOTAL THESE TWO SO WE HAVE A TOTAL. RIGHT NOW
FOR THE LAY PERSON IT WOULD LOOK LIKE 5.13 IS ABOVE 5 AND THEREFORE
REQUIRES REMEDIATION].
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058474
From: Tapia, Cecilia
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:48PM
To: Carey, Curtis; Brooks, Karl; Hague, Mark
Cc: Hammerschmidt, Ron; Hayes, Scott; Washburn, Ben; Field, Jeff; Campbell, Todd
Subject: RE: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
From: Carey, Curtis
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:41PM
To: Tapia, Cecilia; Brooks, Karl; Hague, Mark
Cc: Hammerschmidt, Ron; Hayes, Scott; Washburn, Ben; Field, Jeff; Campbell, Todd
Subject: RE: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058475
The suspected haul roads have been extensively sampled and have not shown levels of concern.
In addition, the haul roads are under the purview of the FUSRAP program and are not part of the
NPL site.
From: Tapia, Cecilia
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 10:58 AM
To: Brooks, Karl; Hague, Mark; Carey, Curtis
Cc: Hammerschmidt, Ron; Hayes, Scott; Washburn, Ben; Field, Jeff; Campbell, Todd
Subject: FW: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
From: Johnson, James
Sent: Friday, May 09,2014 10:19 AM
To: Peterson, Mary; Tapia, Cecilia
Cc: Campbell, Todd
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058476
Subject: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
Mary, as we discussed yesterday, the questions have started about testing other sites (Fire
stations) than just the BMAC.
Robertson Fire protection District, Maynard Howell, Assistant Chief, Cell 314.575 5011:
Stopped by EPA trailer and asked us to test his fire station (i.e. if we are sampling BMAC, why
can’t we sample fire station to assure haz mat responders that they are safe), since we do
technically have a trailer on their property. We can discuss more later.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058477

Post

2014-04-07 – EPA – Report on West Lake-Bridgeton Landfill Fire – Cover Transmittal Letter and Report

To: Brecht Mulvihill[brecht.mulvihill@mail.house.gov]; Brendan
Fahey[brendan_fahey@mccaskill.senate.gov]; Downey Palmer[downey_palmer@blunt.senate.gov];
Edwilla Massey[edwilla.massey@mail.house.gov]; Erik Rust[erik.rust@mail.house.gov]; Joeana
MiddletonUoeana_middleton@mccaskill.senate.gov]; John ScatesUohn_scates@blunt.senate.gov]; Kerry
DeGregorio[kerry_degregorio@blunt.senate.gov]; Lou Aboussie[lou.aboussie@mail.house.gov]; Mark
Fowler[mark_fowler@mccaskill.senate.gov]; Mary Beth Wolf[marybeth_wolf@blunt.senate.gov]; Mattie
Moore[mattie_moore@mccaskill.senate.gov]; Miriam Stonebraker[miriam.stonebraker@mail.house.gov];
Nichole Distefano[distefano.nichole@epa.gov]; Patrick Bond[patrick_bond@mccaskill.senate.gov];
Pauline Jamry[pau line .ja mry@mai I. house .gov]; Steven Engelhardt[ steven. engel hardt@mail. house .gov];
Tod Martin[tod_martin@mccaskill.senate.gov]
From: Sanders, LaTonya
Sent: Mon 4/7/2014 2:41:47 PM
Subject: FW: Report on West Lake-Bridgeton Landfill Fire – Cover Transmittal Letter and Report
From: Tapia, Cecilia
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 8:36AM
To: anderson@recycleworlds.net
Subject: FW: Report on West Lake-Bridgeton Landfill Fire – Cover Transmittal Letter and Report
Importance: High
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058480
From: Peter Anderson
Sent: Monday, March 24,2014 5:02:50 PM
To: Stanislaus, Mathy
Subject: FW: Report on West Lake-Bridgeton Landfill Fire- Cover Transmittal Letter and
Report
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058481
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058482
From: Peter Anderson L’-‘-“==~~~===’-‘~=~”-=J
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 6:52 PM
To: ‘chris.koster@ago.mo.gov’
Cc: ‘mogov@mail.mo.gov’; ‘brooks.karl@epa.gov’; ‘christopher.hall@usace.army.mil’
Subject: Report on West Lake-Bridgeton Landfill Fire – Cover Transmittal Letter and Report
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058483
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058484

Post

2014-02-06 – EPA – Health Assessment West Lake Landfill

Gravatt, Dan
From: Tapia, Cecilia
Sent: Friday, February07, 201411 :16AM
To:
Cc:
Hammerschmidt, Ron; Hague, Mark; Field, Jeff; Gravatt, Dan; Brooks, Karl
Peterson, Mary; Whitley, Christopher; Sanders, LaTonya
Subject: Document referred to in news artcle – followup info
Attachments: westlake health-threat.pdf
From: Rodenbeck, Sven (ATSDR/DCHI/OD) [mailto:svrl@cdc.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 11:13 AM
To: Jordan-Izaguirr, Denise; Tapia, Cecilia; Cvsl@cdc.gov; Harman, Erin
Subject: RE: kid question
Hey Everyone!
I have just reviewed the ATS DR Records Room file for the Westlake Landfill. We do not have a copy of the attached
document in our files.
The Westlake Landfill was proposed to the NPL in 1989. So it is unlikely that ATSDR had done any “health assessments”
prior to that date. Our first ATSDR public health assessment was finalized in 1991.
Sorry!
Sven
Sven E. Rodenbeck, Sc.D., P.E., BCEE
Rear Admiral (retired), USPHS
ATSDR/DCHI – Mailstop F59
1600 Clifton Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30333
Office Telephone: (770) 488-3660
Cell Telephone: (404) 729-5041
FAX: (770) 488-1543
Machinatores Vitae
(Engineering for Life)
07/t./
40490540
Illl lll lllll II/II llllll llll llll/l llll lllll II/I llll
Superfund
1
OUOI
From: Jordan-Izaguirre, Denise (CDC epa.gov)
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:58 AM
‘ ‘
To: Tapia, Cecilia; Rodenbeck, Sven (ATSDR/DCHI/OD); Smith, Casandra V. (ATSDR/DCHI/WB); Harman, Erin (CDC
epa.gov)
Subject: Fw: kid question
Cecilia – I’m out of office so can’t check our files. I’ve read attached document and here are my thoughts l}Without letter
head or signature line it’s hard to say who wrote this; 2) It’s dated 8/85 which is pre ATSDR; 3}The document states no
chemical concentrations were reviewed (last sentence in first paragraph); 4) MDOH appears to have done private well
sampling, cancer inquiry and possibly a’ health survey’; 5}Conclusions are not based on data concentration only MDNR
reported chemical and Rad presence; and 6)this is a Draft document with only state agencies mentioned. Without
signature, letterhead or author and pre-ATSDR (although there was a Superfund Implementation Group part of NCEH) I
don’t think this is ours. But 1985 predates me in ATSDR plus I didn’t come to Reg 7 until 1992. Hopefully HQ can find this
or I will look when I’m back Mon.
From: Tapia, Cecilia
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 9:18:25 AM
To: Jordan-lzaguirr, Denise
Cc: Gravatt, Dan; Field, Jeff; Hammerschmidt, Ron
Subject: FW: kid question
Denise, is this something that ATSDR produced or MDHSS?
From: Peterson, Mary
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 9:16 AM
To: Tapia, Cecilia; Gravatt, Dan; Field, Jeff
Subject: FW: ksdk question
Attached is the memo that KSDK references in their report. Apparently, the inquiry came in late yesterday after Chris
had left for the day.
Mwy P. Pot111soH, AdlHIJ Dopl.ty Dltoetor
Office of Public Affairs
EPA Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd .
Lenexa, KS 66219
913-551-7882 – desk
816-398-3945 – mobile
From: Whitley, Christopher
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 9:09 AM
To: Peterson, Mary; Thomas, Hattie
Subject: FW: ksdk question
She sent this at 4:59 p.m. I left the office yesterday at my usual time of 4 p.m.
From: Zigman, Leisa [mailto:LZIGMAN@ksdk.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Whitley, Christopher
Subject: FW: ksdk question
2
Hi Chris,
I sent this 1985 memo to DNR and asked the question below. I was told to ask EPA. Any thoughts?
From: Terlizzi, Gena [mailto:Gena.Terlizzi@dnr.mo.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:55 PM
To: Zigman, Leisa
Subject: RE: ksdk question
Hi Leisa,
For information on work completed at Westlake Landfill over that timeframe, I’d recommend reaching out to the EPA, as
they are the oversight authority for West Lake Landfill.
Gena·
Gena Terlizzi
Communications Director
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Ph: (573) 751-1010
From: Zigman, Leisa [mailto:LZIGMAN@ksdk.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 3:36 PM
To= Terlizzi, Gena
Subject: ksdk question
Hi Gena,
Did something happen from the SO’s to now to show that the threat to public health at the Westlake landfill was
diminished? I ask based of this memo. (deadline for six)
Thanks!
Leisa Zigman
Five on Your Side
KSDK-TV
314-444-5295
lzigman@ksdk.com
3

HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Westlake Landfill) 11VHO
The Westlake Lapdfill site, located near Bridgeton, St. Louis County
Missouri, has been’·found to be contaminated with 4000 tons of chlordane,
trichloroethylene and toluene, and 7,000 tons of low level uranium ore wastes.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources personnel have characterized the site
containment and diversion system as leaking and unsound. lnformation supplied
did not contain concentrations of contaminants.
Chlordane is a broad spectrum insecticide that has been observed to cause
the following symptoms: blurred vision, confusion, ataxia, delirium, coughing,
abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, irritability, tremors, convulsions,
anuria, and cancer in laboratory animals. It attacks the central nervous
system, eyes, lungs, liver, kidneys, and skin. TCE or trichloroethylene is an
animal carcinogen and is also capable of causing the following symptoms:
irritation of the eyes, nose and throat; dermatitis; headache, dizziness,
vertigo, tremors, nausea and vomiting, irregular heartbeat, sleepiness,
fatigue, blurred vision, unconsciousness, and death. Damage occurs to the
respiratory system, heart liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. Toluene
has been observed to cause irritation of the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin;
dermatitis, headache, dizziness, fatigue, muscular weakness, drowsiness,
incoordination, staggering gait, skin paresthesia, collapse and coma.
Uranium is reported to cause adverse health effects in two ways: toxic
chemical effects including damage to the kidney and liver, pneumoconiosis,
pronounced changes in the blood and generalized injury; and radiation effects
including lung cancer, osteosarcoma, and lymphoma.
Analysis of the rates of fetal death, low birth weight, and malformations
for 1972-1982 showed no rate significantly higher than the state average.
A well survey and water sampling has been completed and an exposure
questionnaire is at present being administered to selected residents
surrounding the site in conjunction with a survey of all hazardous waste sites
in the State by the Missouri Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental
Epidemiology. This investigation has yielded the following information
concerning Westlake Landfill:
There are only four wells still in use in the area that are down gradient
from the site. One is used only occasionally and one 1s not used for potable
water at all. None of the wells sampled had detectable amounts of any of the
chemicals disposed of at the site. None of the residents questioned so far
appeared to have any adverse health effects caused by materials disposed of at
the site.
Based on available information, a health threat exists due to the toxic
effects of chemicals and low level uranium wastes buried at the site and the
possibility that off site migration of the materials might occur because of the
unsound condition of the site. While there is no evidence of past or present
exposure, a potential does exist for future exposure based on the possibility
that off site migration may occur. Sampling and corrective containment and
diversion should continue at this site until risk to the public health can more
accurately be determined.
8/85

Search Document Archive

Navigating the Archives

The archives can be accessed here.

To make a detailed query of the text of every document in the Archives, use the search bar at the top of the screen

The file names for each record include up to three components:

  1. the date of publication;
  2. the acronym of the agency or organization involved (if applicable);
  3. and the subject matter of the record.

Search Queries:

To search for any record that contains one or more words in the body of the document, put those search terms in the search bar. A search query with two or more search terms (ie: Fukushima Daiichi) will return all records that include ANY of the terms entered(Fukushima AND Daiichi), even if they are not found consecutively in the document.

To search for specific strings of two or more search terms(ie: Fukushima Daiichi ), while excluding records that include separate references to each search term, place the search query in quotations "Fukushima Daiichi" in the search bar.

Document Collections

Records are grouped together into the following collections:

  1. Collections by Agency
  2. Collections by Organization
  3. Collections by Event
  4. Collections by Site