NR 710.13(4)(b)1.1. Any site or facility may be removed from the LUST section of the report if the department determines that the site or facility is in compliance with all applicable public health and environmental standards, and that the environment has been restored to the extent practicable.
NR 710.13(4)(b)2.
2. The department shall delist an individual site or facility by excluding the site or facility from the next Wisconsin remedial response site evaluation report published subsequent to the department's decision and the LUST program list.
NR 710.13(4)(b)3.
3. When no response action is required [at] the site or facility, the department shall use the screening process contained in
s. NR 710.07 or the no further action criteria in
s. NR 708.09 (1) to decide whether or not to delist the site or facility in compliance with this paragraph.
NR 710.13(4)(b)4.
4. At the completion of an immediate action, a site or facility may be delisted after no further action is required by the department pursuant to
s. NR 708.09.
NR 710.13(4)(b)5.
5. A site or facility may be delisted after the department has approved the request for case closure under
ch. NR 726.
NR 710.13 History
History: Cr.
Register, April, 1994, No. 460, eff. 5-1-94; corrections made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register, February, 2001, No. 542.
NR 710.15
NR 710.15
Environmental repair program hazard ranking system. NR 710.15(1)(a)(a) Sites or facilities to be scored. All sites or facilities listed on the inventory under
s. NR 710.13 (2) shall be scored using the environmental repair program hazard ranking procedures in this section.
NR 710.15 Note
Note: The hazard ranking system does not quantify the probability of harm from a site or facility or the magnitude of the harm that could result, although the factors have been selected in order to approximate both those elements of risk. It is a procedure for ranking facilities in terms of the potential threat they pose by describing the manner in which the substances of concern are contained, the route by which they would be discharged, and the likely impacts on the public health, safety or welfare or the environment. The hazard ranking system, as currently drafted, incorporates the ranking system formerly found in ch. NR 550, without revision. It is the intent of the department to revise the hazard ranking system in the near future, after reviewing alternative scoring systems including other state systems, as well as the new federal hazard ranking system.
NR 710.15(1)(b)
(b) Rescoring. The department shall evaluate the information obtained from the site investigation conducted in compliance with
ch. NR 716 and if appropriate, the site or facility using the environmental repair program hazard ranking procedures in this section.
NR 710.15(1)(c)1.1. All sites or facilities that receive a migration route score equal to, or greater than, 15.0 using the scoring procedures listed in
ss. NR 710.17 to
710.27 shall be considered by the department to pose a substantial threat to the public health, welfare or safety or the environment.
NR 710.15(1)(c)2.
2. The department may, on a case-by-case basis, determine that a site or facility that has not been scored or that receives a migration route score of less than 15.0 poses a substantial threat to the public health, welfare or safety or the environment, based on relevant information which was not considered in the hazard ranking system. In this case, the department shall maintain a written record of the decision, including a detailed explanation of the factors considered to determine that a substantial threat exists.
NR 710.15(2)(a)(a) Ranking list. The department shall publish a hazard ranking list of sites or facilities scored using the scoring procedures in this section.
NR 710.15(2)(b)2.
2. Amendments to the hazard ranking list shall be published no later than December 31 of every odd-numbered year, after the initial hazard ranking list is published.
NR 710.15(2)(c)
(c) List information. For each site or facility scored, the hazard ranking list shall contain all of the following information:
NR 710.15(2)(c)3.
3. Migration route score, the fire and explosion score, and the direct contact score.
NR 710.15(2)(c)4.
4. Notice that the site or facility poses a substantial threat to public health, welfare, safety or the environment.
NR 710.15(2)(c)5.
5. Brief description of the reason why the substantial threat exists.
NR 710.15(2)(c)6.
6. Statement describing response actions taken at the site or facility, if any and whether the response actions have been completed.
NR 710.15(2)(d)
(d) Other substantial danger sites or facilities. The hazard ranking list shall also include those sites or facilities that have been determined by the department to pose a substantial threat to the public health, welfare or safety or the environment, under
sub. (1) (c) 2.
NR 710.15(3)(a)(a) General. The hazard ranking system assigns 3 hazard mode or route scores to a site or facility. These hazard mode or route scores are the migration score, the fire and explosion score, and the direct contact score.
NR 710.15(3)(b)
(b) Migration score. The migration score, SM, reflects the potential for harm to humans or the environment from migration of substances away from the site or facility by routes involving groundwater, surface water, or air. It is a composite of separate scores for each of the 3 routes. The migration score is computed by the following equation:
-
See PDF for table 
NR 710.15 Note
Note: The effect of combining the route scores is to emphasize the highest scoring route while giving some additional consideration to the other routes. The factor 1/1.73 is used to reduce SM scores to a 100-point scale.
NR 710.15(3)(c)
(c) Fire and explosion. The fire and explosion score, SFE, reflects the potential for harm from contamination that can explode or cause fires.
NR 710.15(3)(d)
(d) Direct contact. The direct contact score, SDC, reflects the potential for harm from direct contact with contamination at the site or facility.
NR 710.15 Note
Note: The hazard ranking system does not quantify the probability of harm from a site or facility or the magnitude of the harm that could result, although the factors have been selected in order to approximate both those elements of risk. It is a procedure for ranking facilities in terms of the potential threat they pose by describing the manner in which the substances of concern are contained, the route by which they would be released, and the likely impacts on humans or natural resources.
NR 710.15(4)
(4) Rating factors. The score for each hazard mode (migration, fire and explosion and direct contact) or route is obtained by considering a set of factors that characterize the potential for the site or facility to cause harm (Table 1). Each factor is assigned a numerical value according to the procedures set forth in
ss. NR 710.17 to
710.27. This value is then multiplied by a weighing factor yielding the factor score. The factor scores within each category are added, and the total scores for each factor category are multiplied together to develop a score for groundwater, surface water, air, fire and explosion, and direct contact. In computing the fire and explosion, direct contact, or individual migration route score, the product of its factor category scores is divided by the maximum possible score and multiplied by 100 to reduce scores to a 100-point scale.
NR 710.15(5)(a)(a) Repair action. The migration route score shall be used to determine substantial danger under
sub. (1), and for establishing repair priorities for projects being addressed by the department under s.
292.31, Stats.
NR 710.15(5)(b)
(b) Emergency action. Fire and explosion and direct contact scores shall be used by the department to help identify sites or facilities requiring an emergency immediate action under
ch. NR 708.
NR 710.15(6)
(6) Information. Use of the hazard ranking system requires considerable information about the site or facility, its surroundings, the contamination present, and the geological character of the area. Where there are no data for a factor, it shall be assigned a value of zero. However, if a factor with no data is the only factor in a category (for example: containment), then the factor is given a score of 1. If data are lacking for more than one factor in connection with the evaluation of either any migration or exposure route that route score is set at zero. Figure 1 illustrates the format for recording general information regarding the site or facility being evaluated. It shall also serve as a cover sheet for the work sheets used in the evaluation.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.15 History
History: Cr.
Register, April, 1994, No. 460, eff. 5-1-94; corrections in (2) (b) 1. and (5) (a) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register, February, 2001, No. 542.
NR 710.17
NR 710.17
Groundwater migration route. NR 710.17(1)(a)(a) Scoring. If a release is observed using the criteria listed in
par. (b), enter a score of 45 on line one of the groundwater route worksheet (Figure 2), and do not evaluate the route characteristics and containment factors (lines 2 and 3). If direct evidence of a discharge or release is lacking, enter a value of zero on line one and proceed with scoring the route characteristics and containment factors as described in
subs. (2) and
(3).
NR 710.17(1)(b)
(b) Direct evidence. Direct evidence of release must be analytical. If a contaminant is measured, regardless of frequency, in groundwater or a well in the vicinity of the site or facility at a higher level than the background level, then quantitative evidence exists, and a release or discharge has been observed. For the purpose of this paragraph, one of the following methods may be used to evaluate an observed release:
NR 710.17(1)(b)1.
1. In the vicinity of the site or facility, the concentration of a substance of public health or welfare concern attains or exceeds the preventive action limits contained in Table 1,
s. NR 140.10, or Table 2,
s. NR 140.12;
NR 710.17(1)(b)3.
3. In the vicinity of the site or facility, a sample contains a detectable concentration of a substance not detected in a background sample; or
NR 710.17(1)(b)4.
4. The department determines by using other appropriate information that the increase in the concentration of a substance in the vicinity of the site or facility is from the site or facility.
NR 710.17 Note
Note: Tables 12 and 15 contained in sub. (4) and Tables One, 2 and 3 contained in ch.
NR 140, list substances which may be used for determining an observed release.
NR 710.17(1)(c)
(c) Qualitative evidence. Qualitative evidence of release, e.g., an oily or otherwise objectionable taste or smell in well water, constitutes direct evidence only if it can be confirmed that it results from a release at the site or facility in question.
NR 710.17(2)(a)(a) Depth to groundwater. Depth to groundwater is measured vertically from the lowest point of the substances of concern to the highest seasonal groundwater level. This factor is one indicator of the ease with which a pollutant from the facility could migrate to groundwater. Values for depth to groundwater are shown in Table 2.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(2)(b)
(b) Infiltration potential. Infiltration potential is a measure of the site characteristics which encourage, or allow, the accumulation of water on the site surface and movement of water through the wastes or hazardous substances generating leachate. Infiltration potential is a function of the available water at the site, the slope of the site surface, the type of surface soils, and the vegetative cover. Infiltration potential is assigned a value from Table 3. The infiltration score is determined by adding the individual values obtained from Tables 4 and 5, and Figure 3.
-
See PDF for table -
See PDF for table -
See PDF for table NR 710.17(2)(c)
(c) Subsurface permeability. Permeability of unsaturated zone (or intervening geological formations) is an indicator of the speed at which a contaminant could migrate from a site or facility. Values for permeability are shown in Table 6.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(2)(d)
(d) Physical state of waste. Physical state refers to the state of the substances of concern at the time of disposal, except that gases generated by the substances in a disposal area should be considered in rating this factor. Values for the physical state of the substance are shown in Table 7.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(3)
(3) Containment. Containment is a measure of the natural or artificial means that have been used to minimize or prevent a substance from entering groundwater. Examples include liners, leachate collection systems, and sealed containers. Containment values are shown in Table 8. Consideration shall be given to all ways in which substances are stored or disposed at the site or facility. If the site or facility involves more than one method of storage or disposal, assign the highest from among all applicable values, e.g., if a landfill has a containment value of one, and, at the same location, a surface impoundment has a value of 2, assign containment a value of 2.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(4)(a)(a) Scoring. The waste characteristics score is evaluated using the most hazardous substances, or the strength of collected leachate, at the site or facility that may migrate to groundwater. Take the substance with the highest score as representative of the potential hazard due to waste characteristics. Note that the substance that may have been observed in the release category can differ from the substance used in rating waste characteristics.
NR 710.17(4)(b)
(b) Toxicity and persistence. Toxicity and persistence have been combined into a matrix because of their important relationship. Determine the matrix toxicity/persistence value for a substance using Table 12, or evaluate each factor individually as discussed in
pars. (c) and
(d). Match the individual values assigned from Tables 10 and 11 with the values in Table 9 for the combined rating factor. Evaluate several of the most hazardous substances at the facility independently and enter only the highest score from Table 9 or 12 on the worksheet.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(4)(c)
(c) Toxicity. The toxicity of each substance being evaluated is given a value using the rating schemes shown in Table 10. Specific information about chemical toxicity is given in Table 13 or 14.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(4)(d)
(d) Persistence. Persistence of each substance is evaluated based on its biodegradability. Persistence values are shown in Table 11. Specific information about chemical persistence is given in Table 15.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(4)(e)
(e) Leachate strength. Leachate strength may be used to estimate the potential environmental pollution caused by the site or facility. Values for leachate strength are based on chemical oxygen demand, COD, and are given in Table 16. Only one of the 2 estimates, toxicity/persistence or leachate strength, is to be used.
-
See PDF for table -
See PDF for table -
See PDF for table -
See PDF for table NR 710.17 Note
Note: The source of this table is
40 CFR part 300, Appendix A and guidance from EPA using information from:
-Sax, N.I.; Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 4th Edition, 1975.
-JRB Associates, Inc.; Methodology for Rating the Hazard Potential of Waste Disposal Sites, May 5, 1980.
-National Fire Protection Association, National Fire Codes, Vol. 13, No. 49, 1977.
-Professional judgment based on information contained in the U.S. Coast Guard CHRIS Hazardous Chemical data, 1978, and existing
literature.
NR 710.17 Note
Values given for ignitability, reactivity, and volatility in the Table are taken from
40 CFR part 300, Appendix A. The above-referenced documents, or EPA, should be referred to for values not shown in the table.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17 Note
Note: The source of this table is
40 CFR part 300, Appendix A, Table 6, and is based on information taken from: Sax, N.I.; Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 4th Edition, 1975, and 5th Edition, 1979.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17 Note
Note: The source of this table is
40 CFR part 300, Appendix A, Table 7, and is based on information taken from: National Fire Protection Association, National Fire Codes, Vol. 13, No. 49, 1977.
-
See PDF for table -
See PDF for table NR 710.17 Note
Note: The source of this table is
40 CFR part 300, Appendix A, Table 5., and is based on information from: JRB Associates, Inc; Methodology for Rating the Hazards Potential for Waste Disposal Sites, May 5, 1980.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(4)(f)
(f) Waste quantity. Waste quantity includes all hazardous and nonhazardous substances received at a site or facility. Do not include amounts of contaminated soil or water; in such cases, the substance may be estimated. On occasion, it may be necessary to convert data to a common unit to combine them. In such cases, 1 ton = 1 cubic yard = 4 drums and for the purpose of converting bulk storage, 1 drum = 50 gallons. Values for waste quantity are shown in Table 17.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(5)(a)(a) Groundwater use. Groundwater use indicates the nature of the use made of groundwater within 3 miles of a substance of concern, including the geographical extent of the measurable concentration of the substance in the groundwater. Groundwater use values are shown in Table 18.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(5)(b)
(b) Distance to wells and population. Distance to nearest well and population served have been combined in the matrix shown in Table 19 to reflect the important relationship between the distance of a population from substances of concern and size of the population served by groundwater that might be contaminated by those substances. To determine the overall value for this combined factor, score each factor individually as discussed in
pars. (c) and
(d). Match the individual values assigned with the values in the matrix for the total score.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(5)(c)
(c) Distance to nearest well. Distance to nearest well is measured from the substance of concern to the nearest water supply well. If the actual distance to the nearest well is unknown, use the distance between the substance and the nearest occupied building not served by a public water supply. Distance values are shown in Table 20.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17(5)(d)
(d) Population served. Population served by groundwater is an indicator of the population at risk, which includes residents as well as others who would regularly use the water such as workers in factories or offices and students. Include employees in restaurants, motels, or campgrounds but exclude customers and travelers passing through the area in autos, buses or trains. If aerial photography is used, and residents are known to use groundwater, assume each dwelling unit has 2.8 residents. Where groundwater is used for irrigation, convert to population by assuming 1.5 persons per acre of irrigated land. The well or wells of concern must be within 3 miles of the substances, including the area of known groundwater contamination, but the "population served" need not be since water supplies may be distributed over a wider area. Likewise people within 3 miles who do not use water from the groundwater are not to be counted. Population values are contained in Table 21.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.17 History
History: Cr.
Register, April, 1994, No. 460, eff. 5-1-94.
NR 710.19(1)(1)
Observed release. Direct evidence of release to surface water, including wetlands, may be quantitative evidence that the facility or site is releasing contaminants into surface water or visual evidence of an active discharge which flows to a surface water. Quantitative evidence could be the measurement of levels of contaminants from a site or facility in surface water, either at the site or facility or downhill from it, that represents an increase over background levels. Visual evidence of a discharge must flow to a surface water which is readily identifiable in the field, from topographic maps, or from air photographs. If direct evidence of release has been obtained (regardless of frequency), enter a value of 45 on line 1 of the worksheet (Figure 5) and omit the evaluation of the route characteristics in
sub. (2) and containment factors in
sub. (3). If there is no direct evidence of release, enter a value of zero on line 1 and continue with the scoring procedure discussed in
sub. (2).
NR 710.19(2)(a)(a) Slope. Facility slope and intervening terrain are indicators of the potential for contaminated runoff or spills at a site or facility to be transported to surface water. The site or facility slope is an indicator of the potential for runoff or spills to leave the site or facility. Intervening terrain refers to the average slope of the shortest path which would be followed by runoff between the site or facility boundary and the nearest downhill surface water. The rating factor can be assessed using topographic maps. Table 22 shows values assigned to various facility conditions.
-
See PDF for table -
See PDF for table NR 710.19(2)(b)
(b) Runoff potential. Vegetative cover and surface soils at a site or facility are indicators of the potential of contaminated runoff or spills at a site or facility to be transported to a surface water. Table 23 shows the assigned values for runoff potential based on these 2 indicators.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.19(2)(c)
(c) Distance to surface water. Distance to the nearest surface water is the shortest distance from the substance of concern, not the facility or property boundary, to the nearest downhill body of surface water, such as a lake, stream or intermittent stream, to which runoff can be expected to flow. This factor indicates the potential for pollutants flowing overland and into surface water bodies. In areas of extreme topographic relief, the migratory distance is to be estimated, and that distance used for determining a value. Values for distance to surface water are shown in Table 24.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.19(3)
(3) Containment. Containment is a measure of the means that have been taken to minimize the likelihood of a contaminant entering surface water either at the site or facility or beyond the site or facility boundary. Examples of containment are diversion structures and the use of sealed containers. If more than one type of containment is used at a site or facility, evaluate each separately using Table 25 and assign the highest score.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.19(4)
(4) Waste characteristics. Evaluate waste characteristics for the surface water route with the procedures described in
s. NR 710.17 (4).
NR 710.19(5)(a)(a) Surface water. Surface water use brings into the rating process the use of the surface water downstream from the site or facility. The use or uses of interest are those associated with water taken from surface waters within a distance of 3 miles from the location of the hazardous substance. Use values are contained in Table 26.
-
See PDF for table NR 710.19(5)(b)
(b) Sensitive environments. Distance to sensitive environment refers to the distance from the substance of concern, not the site or facility boundary, to an area containing an important biological resource or to a fragile natural setting that could suffer an especially severe impact from pollution. Table 27 provides guidance on assigning a value to this rating factor.
NR 710.19(5)(c)
(c) Population. Population served by surface water with water intake within 3 miles downstream from the site or facility, or 1 mile in static surface water such as a lake, is a rough indicator of the potential hazard exposure of the nearby population served by potentially contaminated surface water. Measure the distance from the probable point of contaminant entry to surface water following the surface flow. The population includes residents as well as others who would regularly use the water such as workers in factories or offices and students. Include employees in restaurants, motels, or campgrounds but exclude customers and travelers passing through the area in autos, buses and trains. The distance is measured from the substance of concern, including observations in stream or sediment samples, regardless of site or facility boundaries. Where only residential houses can be counted (e.g., from an aerial photograph), and residents are known to be using surface water, assume 2.8 individuals per dwelling unit. Where surface water is used for irrigation, convert to population by assuming 1.5 persons per acre of land irrigated. Population values are shown in Table 28.
-
See PDF for table -
See PDF for table
