OVERVIEW
OF
THE
NPL
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
NPL
Listing
(
Overview)
2
PROGRAM
CHARGE
°
What
should
be
the
role
of
the
NPL
in
addressing
waste
cleanup
given
other
cleanup
options?
Should
it
be
a
"
tool
of
last
resort?"

°
What
parties
(
e.
g.,
states,
tribes,
and
communities)
should
have
formal
consultation
roles
in
NPL
listing?
Should
this
role
differ
by
site
type
or
risk?

°
What
kinds
of
sites
belong
on
the
NPL?
Should
the
NPL
be
used
for
a
more
limited
range
of
sites
(
for
example,
only
sites
where
human
health
is
at
risk,

not
ecological
risk)?
If
so,
how
might
other
major
risks
be
addressed?
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
NPL
Listing
(
Overview)

Statutory
Basis
for
the
HRS:
Section
105(
a)(
8)(
A)

Amend
the
NCP
to
include:

°
"
8)(
A)
criteria
for
determining
priorities
among
releases
or
threatened
releases
throughout
the
United
States
for
the
purpose
of
taking
remedial
action
and
...
removal
action"

°
"
Criteria
and
priorities
under
this
paragraph
shall
be
based
upon
relative
risk
or
danger
to
public
health
or
welfare
or
the
environment,
in
the
judgment
of
the
President"
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
NPL
Listing
(
Overview)

Statutory
Basis
for
the
HRS:
Section
105(
a)(
8)(
A)
(
cont.)

Taking
into
account
to
the
extent
possible
the:

°
population
at
risk
°
hazard
potential
of
the
hazardous
substances
°
potential
for
contamination
of
drinking
water
supplies
°
potential
for
direct
human
contact
°
potential
for
destruction
of
sensitive
eco­
systems
°
damage
to
natural
resources
which
may
affect
the
human
food
chain
°
contamination
or
potential
contamination
of
the
ambient
air
°
State
preparedness
to
assume
State
costs
and
responsibilities,
and
other
appropriate
factors
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
NPL
Listing
(
Overview)

Statutory
Basis
for
the
NPL:
Section
105
(
a)(
8)(
B)

Based
on
criteria
in
(
A)
the
President
shall:

°
list
national
priorities
among
the
known
releases
or
threatened
releases
throughout
the
United
States
°
revise
the
list
no
less
often
than
annually
°
consider
any
priorities
established
by
the
States
°
to
the
extent
practicable,
designate
[
at
least
400
of]
the
highest
priority
facilities
individually
°
include
among
the
one
hundred
highest
priority
facilities
one
such
facility
from
each
State
which
shall
be
the
facility
designated
by
the
State
as
presenting
the
greatest
danger
...
among
the
known
facilities
in
such
State
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
NPL
Listing
(
Overview)

The
National
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP)

°
The
Hazard
Ranking
System,
promulgated
as
Appendix
B
to
the
NCP
in
July
1982
and
amended
December
1990,
meets
the
requirements
for
establishing
criteria
°
The
NCP,
as
amended
in
March
1990,
limits
Fund­
financed
remedial
actions
to
releases
on
the
NPL
°
Listing
does
not
imply
that
funds
will
be
expended
and
does
not
by
itself
set
funding
priorities
°
The
NCP
establishes
the
criteria
(
HRS,
State
designation,
or
ATSDR
health
advisory)
for
listing
a
site
Presentation
to
the
NACEPT
SUPERFUND
SUBCOMMITTEE
­
June
18­
19,
2002
NPL
Listing
(
Overview)

Conclusion
°
CERCLA
and
the
NCP,
including
the
HRS,
provide
the
specific
statutory
and
regulatory
framework
for
the
NPL
