EPA/540/6-89/002
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3A
April 1989
Procedures for Completion and Deletion
of National Priorities List Sites
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
401M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pag
1. 0 INTRODUCTION « !
2 . 0 SITE COMPLETION , 2
3.0 THE CLOSE OUT REPORT 6
4.0 NPL DELETION CRITERIA . . 9
5.0 THE DELETION PROCESS 10
Appendix A. Completion Process Diagrams
Appendix B. Sample Close Out Report
Appendix C. Sample Notice of Intent to Delete
Appendix D. Sample Local Notice of Intent to Delete
Appendix E. Sample Notice of Deletion
ill
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit page
1. Close Out Report Review and Approval Process 4
2. Contributions of Superfund Cleanup
Activities to the Close Out Report 8
3. The Deletion Process
IV
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),
requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to maintain a
National Priorities List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites with
known or threatened releases. The NPL identifies abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that warrant further
investigation to determine if they pose a threat to human health
or the environment. Only sites on the NPL are eligible for
Superfund-financed remedial action under CERCLA (removal and
enforcement actions may be taken at sites that are not on the
NPL). The EPA may delete a site from the NPL if it determines
that no further response is required to protect human health and
the environment.
This document focuses on the technical requirements that
have been developed to determine completion of Superfund sites
and the subsequent procedural requirements for deleting sites
from the NPL. Completion requirements were developed to provide
a definable endpoint to Superfund cleanup activities as well as
satisfy the requirements for deletion. This guidance does not
apply to proposed sites that do not get placed on the final NPL.
Such sites will be handled as part of the rulemaking process for
placing sites on the NPL.
Following implementation of all appropriate remedial
actions, a site will be classified as either a completion or a
long-term response action (LTRA). Both completions and LTRAs
require that all activities identified in the Record of Decision
(ROD) (or Action Memorandum for removal sites) be implemented.
Remedies must be performing according to design specifications
and all pathways of exposure must be addressed.
LTRAs are actions that require a continuous period of on-
site activity before cleanup levels specified in the ROD or
Action Memorandum are achieved. Site completion occurs at the
point where cleanup levels are achieved for all pathways of
exposure and no further Superfund response is required to protect
human health or the environment. Protectiveness can be provided
through treatment, containment or removal of waste, provision of
an alternate water supply, or use of institutional controls. The
activities required to achieve protectiveness for a site will be
determined in the ROD. It is not necessary that all waste be
treated or removed, as long as protectiveness is achieved. In
cases where waste has been left on site, the five year review
procedures established in Section 121(c) of CERCLA as amended by
SARA will continue to be appropriate regardless of the completion
-------
or deletion status of the site. Following site completion, it
may still be necessary to perform some Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) activities to maintain the integrity of the remedy. O&M
must be performed by either the State or Responsible Parties
(RPs).
EPA Regions are responsible for identifying sites as
completions or LTRAs. EPA Headquarters and States will be given
the opportunity to comment on completion decisions through review
of the Superfund Site Close Out Report described in this
document.
This document is intended for use by the EPA, States and RPs
in the completion and deletion of NPL sites. The roles and
responsibilities of all parties are described.
2.0 SITE COMPLETION
Completion of a Superfund site will occur when the following
requirements are satisfied:
1) Cleanup levels specified in the ROD have been achieved and
all cleanup actions identified in the ROD have been
successfully implemented;
2) The site is protective of human health and the environment
across all pathways of exposure;
3) The constructed remedy is operational and functional and
performing according to engineering design specifications;
and
4) The only activities remaining at the site are O&M activities
to be provided or performed by the State or RP.
In order to demonstrate the satisfaction of these
requirements, a Superfund Site Close Out Report will be prepared
for every NPL site. The format and contents of this report are
discussed in Section 3.0. Site completion may occur following
any of a number of activities including a final operable unit
remedial action, a no-action ROD, a removal action where the
removal was sufficient to meet completion requirements, or an
LTRA. The Close Out Report will be prepared following conclusion
of all Superfund cleanup activities.
For Federal-Lead and RP-lead sites, the Close Out Report
will be prepared by the Region and approved by the Regional
Administrator (RA). The State and EPA Headquarters will be given
the opportunity to review and comment on the report prior to RA
approval. For State-lead sites, the State may elect to prepare
-------
i-ho close Out Report, however, EPA regional and headquarters
Out Report is illustrated in Exhibit 1.
Preparation of a Close Out Report will be appropriate for
all NPL sites. The following paragraphs describe the
relationship of the Close Out Report to each of the possible
completion scenarios and LTRAs:
Final Operable TTnit
Actions
SSS SHS ±£S««~4S»vf %
operable units.
No Action Sites
This category includes sites where first operable unit
remedial "actions/expedited response act ions -Agency
-- actions have been performed and the final operatae
..-. _ i ^.-IA.~*WIIW -i /-<+- -ixnT"iOCt a T"ft T"GCTu.l.L
reference any pertinent information contained in the ROD to
satisfy the requirements for site completion.
-------
Exhibit 1. Close Out Report Review
and Approval Process
^
, NOTIFY STATE OF
GRANT SITE COMPLETION OR
LTRA STATUS (HQ NOTIFIED
THROUGH SCAP TARGETS)
REGION (OR STATE) PREPARES
CLOSE OUT REPORT
PEER-REVIEW OF CLOSE OUT
REPORT IN REGION (OR STATE)
HQ AND STATE REVIEW AND
COMMENT ON CLOSE OUT REPORT
CLOSE OUT REPORT APPROVAL
BY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
LTRA STATUS
(INTERIM REPORT)
AMEND INTERIM
REPORT
SUPERFUND SITE COMPLETION
-------
It is anticipated that very few NPL sites will require no
cleanup actions whatsoever. In these cases, thorough
documentation of all site information will be especially
important and a Close Out Report will continue to be appropriate.
The Close Out Report will be abbreviated as components pertaining
to cleanup activities will not be relevant.
Removal Sites
Some sites will use removal actions to perform a complete
cleanup and, therefore, will not have a ROD. A Close Out Report
will be required for these removal sites. The engineering
evaluation and cost analysis (EE/CA) and Action Memorandum_
process used in performing removal actions is less exhaustive
than the RI/FS and ROD prepared for remedial sites. As such, the
Close Out Report will take on added significance to provide
adequate documentation that the activities performed at the site
are sufficient to meet the completion requirements.
In each of the cases presented above, the activities
performed to bring the site to completion will vary. Appendix A
presents the most likely completion process for each of the
scenarios.
LTRA Sites
An Interim Close Out Report, prepared by the Region and
approved by the RA, will be required of all LTRA sites. The
Interim Report will contain final information for all completed
operable units at the site and describe the LTRA activities to be
performed and the cleanup levels to be achieved for the LTRA
portion of the site. The Interim Report will act as the
determining factor for designating sites as LTRAs on the NPL and
for internal Superfund tracking. Once the LTRA operable unit is
operating as designed, States are expected to assume
responsibility for operation of the LTRA. The Interim Report
will be amended when cleanup levels are achieved to include final
information for the LTRA operable units of the site in order to
satisfy completion requirements. The Interim Report and the
amendment together will constitute the final Close Out Report for
the site.
-------
3.0 THE CLOSE OUT REPORT
The Close Out Report provides a brief technical
demonstration of how the implemented remedy at the site satisfies
the completion requirements. The exact format and contents of
the Close Out Report will vary depending upon the specific site.
The Region should use its discretion in determining the level of
detail necessary in the report to demonstrate the completion of
activities at the site. The Report should be prepared by the
Regional Project Manager (or appropriate State personnel) and
should generally not exceed 10 to 15 pages in length (for very
large sites with multiple operable units, the report may be
longer). The information used in compiling the report should be
readily available from previous documentation of site activities.
The following components should be addressed as appropriate:
1) Summary of Site Conditions
Site background
RI/FS results
ROD findings
Design criteria
Cleanup activities performed
Community relations activities performed
2) Demonstration of QA/QC from Cleanup Activities
QA/QC protocol followed
Sampling and analysis protocol followed
Results of on-site inspections
Equipment Acceptance
3) Monitoring Results
Sufficient data must be available to demonstrate that the
cleanup levels specified in the ROD or Action Memorandum
have been achieved and that implemented remedies are
performing at design specifications.
For no action sites, results of any monitoring specified in
the ROD must be presented to satisfy completion
requirements.
This section will be contained in the amendment to the
Interim Close Out Report for any LTRA operable units.
4) Summary of Operation and Maintenance
Assurance that O&M plans are in place and are sufficient to
maintain the protectiveness of the remedy.
-------
Assurance that all necessary institutional controls (e.g.
deed restrictions) are in place.
Assurance that O&M activities specified for the site will
be provided or performed by the State or RP.
This section will be contained in the amendment to the
Interim Close Out Report for any LTRA operable units.
5) Protectiveness
Assurance that the implemented remedy (or no action
decision) achieves the degree of cleanup or protection
specified in the ROD(s) for all pathways of exposure and
that no further Superfund response is appropriate in order
to provide protection of human health and the environment.
Assurance that all areas of concern described in the NPL
listing have been adequately addressed.
This section will be contained in the amendment to the
Interim Close Out Report for any LTRA operable units.
6) Bibliography
Complete citations of all referenced documents and any
other documents relevant to completion of the site should
be included.
Many of these sections, particularly QA/QC and monitoring results,
will embody a great deal of information. The Close Out Report
should only summarize this information to the degree necessary to
inform the reader of the activities performed and the results
achieved. Detailed technical information and data should be
referenced to keep the report brief. The Close Out Report should
clearly identify any issues that might be of continued concern to
the Agency or the involved community and explain why these issues
do not preclude the site from completion. An Example of a
completed Close Out Report is presented in Appendix B.
The Close,Out Report provides the only overall technical
justification for site completion. As such, it must clearly
demonstrate how the activities performed at the site have been
sufficient to satisfy the completion requirements. Each activity
performed in the cleanup process will have a specific impact on
site completion. Exhibit 2 illustrates the contributions of each
of these steps to the contents of the Close Out Report.
-------
Exhibit 2. Contributions of Superfund Cleanup
Activities to the Close Out Report
CLEANUP ACTIVITY
CONTRIBUTION TO CLOSE OUT REPORT
MRS ACTIVITY
PA/SI
NPL Listing Criteria
Pathways of Exposure
RI/FS, EE/CA
RISK ASSESSMENT
Site Characteristics
Site Hazards
Types, volumes of waste
RECORD OF DECISION
ACTION MEMORANDUM
Cleanup goals
Protectiveness required
State and RP responsibilities
Community Relations activities
Compliance with CERCLA
Institutional control requirements
REMEDIAL DESIGN
Performance criteria
QA/QC requirements
O&M Plan
Performance criteria
Compliance with intent of ROD
REMEDIAL ACTION
REMOVAL ACTION
EXPEDITED RESPONSE
Activities performed
Construction inspection results
QA/QC results
Confirmatory sampling results
Compliance with design specifications
8
-------
The design of the remedial action will be of particular
importance in determining completion of site activities. The
design should develop specific performance criteria and detail
specific methods and measures to be used to determine the
effectiveness of the implemented remedy and compliance with the
design criteria and ROD objectives. The design should also detail
QA/QC requirements during construction and necessary O&M and
institutional controls pertinent to effective operation of the
remedy. Care should be taken during construction and monitoring
activities to document the compliance with design criteria.
Regions should notify EPA Headquarters and the State of their
intent to assign completion or LTRA status to sites prior to the
approval of the Close Out Report. The report should receive peer-
review in the Region and then be transmitted to EPA Headquarters
and the State for review and comment. The Region must receive
these comments prior to approval of the report by the Regional
Administrator. Each region has a technical staff member within the
Hazardous Site Control Division of the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response who will act as the primary reviewer of the Close
Out Report. These individuals will work closely with the Region in
performing completion activities and will provide prompt review of
the Close Out Report. A copy of the approved Close Out Report
should be sent to EPA Headquarters following RA signature.
In addition to the Close Out Report, the Region should prepare
a one page fact sheet summarizing the pertinent facts of site
completion to be used for public information and press release
purposes. A copy of this fact sheet should be forwarded to
Headquarters along with the approved Close Out Report.
The Close Out Report does not constitute the completion of
cooperative agreements, consent decrees, or administrative orders,
nor does it signify the resolution of all contractual or other
administrative issues for Superfund activities.
4.0 NPL DELETION CRITERIA
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(NCP), Section 300.66(c)(7) states that sites may be deleted from
or recategorized on the NPL where no further response is
appropriate. In making this determination, EPA will consider
whether any of the following criteria has been met:
(i) EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined
that responsible or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
-------
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA
has been implemented, and EPA, in consultation with the State,
has determined that no further cleanup by responsible parties
is appropriate; or
(iii) Based on a remedial investigation, EPA, in
consultation with the State, has determined that the release
poses no significant threat to public health and the
environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not
appropriate.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility
for subsequent Fund-financed or RP actions. Section 300.66(c)(8)
of the NCP states that Fund-financed response actions may be taken
at sites that have been deleted from the NPL if future conditions
warrant such actions without returning the site to the NPL. If it
is determined that the site should be returned to the NPL due to a
threat to human health or the environment, it may be reinstated
without rescoring on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). Future
enforcement actions may also be taken depending on liability
releases contained in the consent decree or administrative order.
Deletion of a site also does not affect cost recovery efforts under
CERCLA Section 107.
5.0 THE DELETION PROCESS
The deletion process may begin upon approval of the Close Out
Report by the RA. No site may be deleted from the NPL without an
approved Close Out Report. In some cases, the State may initiate
this process by specifically requesting the deletion of a site.
The deletion process is divided into three steps as follows:
1) initiation of the process in which the Region obtains a letter
of concurrence from the State, compiles the deletion docket, and
prepares the Notice of Intent to Delete for Headquarters review and
RA approval; 2) Regional publication of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the local notice, and 30-day public comment period; and
3) Regional preparation of the responsiveness summary and
publication of the Notice of Deletion. Exhibit 3 illustrates the
steps in the deletion process.
The Region will initiate the deletion process by consulting
with the State and requesting their concurrence on the Agency's
intent to delete a site. No site may be deleted from the NPL
without state concurrence. Regions will prepare a deletion docket
containing all pertinent information supporting the Region's
deletion recommendation. The deletion docket is not a continuation
of the administrative record for the site; however, documents that
are contained in the administrative record can be referenced and do
not have to be duplicated in the deletion docket (provided the
10
-------
Exhibit 3. The Deletion Process
APPROVED CLOSE OUT REPORT
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
PREPARE NOTICE OF INTENT TO
DELETE (HQ REVIEW) AND COMPILE
DELETION DOCKET MATERIAL
PLACE DELETION DOCKET
IN REGIONAL PUBLIC DOCKET
AND LOCAL REPOSITORY
PUBLISH NATIONAL NOTICE
OF INTENT TO DELETE IN
FEDERAL REGISTER:
PUBLISH LOCAL NOTICE OF
INTENT TO DELETE IN PAPER
OF GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
30 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
PREPARE RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY; PLACE IN REGIONAL
DOCKET AND LOCAL REPOSITORY
PUBLISH FINAL DELETION NOTICE
IN FEDERAL REGISTER
11
-------
administrative record is still available to the public). The
deletion docket should be made available to the public at the
Regional public docket and a local repository. The documents to be
placed in the deletion docket will vary depending on the type of
response (remedial action, removal action, no action) and the lead
organization (Federal, State, or RP). A suggested list of
documents to include in the deletion docket is as follows:
RI Report
FS Report
ROD (or equivalent) for each operable unit (including any
ROD amendments or Explanation of Significant Differences)
Consent Decree
Action Memorandum
Community Relations Plans
Superfund State Contract
Cooperative Agreements
Agreements with RPs
Design Plans and Specifications
Construction Inspection Reports
Construction Final Report
OSC Report
Documentation of State Concurrence on Deletion
Operation and Maintenance Plan
Close Out Report
Transcripts from any public meetings
Responsiveness Summary for Notice of Intent to Delete
Bibliography of Documents.
Before the Region publishes the Notice of Intent to Delete in
the Federal Register or the local notice, the deletion docket must
be complete. Regional program offices should work with their
Superfund community relations staff to ensure that complete copies
of the deletion docket are placed in the appropriate Regional and
local repositories. The public will have an opportunity to review
this docket during the 30 day public comment period that follows
publication of the Notices of Intent to Delete. Public meetings
are optional.
Site-specific information contained in the Notice of Intent to
Delete should be largely available from the Close Out Report. The
Notice of Intent to Delete will contain the following Sections:
SUMMARY: Announcement of intent to delete.
DATES: Announces 30 day public .comment period and provides
dates for submittal of comments.
12
-------
ADDRESSES: Name, address, and phone number of a Regional
contact where comments may be sent and location of the Regional
Docket and local repository.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Name, address, and phone
number of a Regional contact for further information or
questions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction: identification of site(s) to be deleted,
and summary of information contained in the Notice of
Intent to Delete.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria;: listing of the NCP criteria and a
statement indicating that EPA retains the ability to use
Superfund authority at a deleted site if future conditions
warrant such actions (Section 300.66(c)(8) of the NCP).
III. Deletion Procedures: brief description of the procedures
followed to delete sites from the NPL.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion(s): includes a brief
description of the following items:
Summary of site history, including location, former
use, type of contaminants, date of promulgation on the
NPL, and nature of site conditions resulting in
inclusion on the NPL
Description of all response actions taken at the site,
including scope of RI if applicable, general results,
and conclusions regarding future performance of these
actions
Specification of clean up standards and criteria and
results of all confirmatory sampling
Description of the operation and maintenance procedures
and the site monitoring program
Summary of major Superfund community relations
activities
Summary of how the site meets the deletion criteria
Acknowledgement of State concurrence to delete the
site.
13
-------
An example of a National Notice of Intent to Delete is presented in
Appendix C. The Region should prepare the notice in strict
accordance with Federal Register requirements. Headquarters will
be available to assist in the preparation and publication of these
notices. The Region should allow time for headquarters review of
the Notice of Intent to Delete prior to publication in the Federal
Register in order to ensure consistency of notices.
The Regional Superfund Community Relations Coordinator should
prepare and distribute the local Notice of Intent to Delete. This
statement should be published in a local newspaper of general
circulation. A press release should also be prepared and
distributed to community, State, and local officials, all RPs,
appropriate Federal agencies (including the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, National Response Team, and the
U.S. Coast Guard), Superfund enforcement personnel, the Office of
Regional Counsel (ORC), and any local repositories. In addition,
the ORC should inform the State Attorney General and other
interested agencies (State or Federal Courts and the U.S.
Department of Justice) of the intended deletion.
The local notice should announce the Agency's intent to delete
the site from the NPL. It should also announce the 30 day public
comment period, provide an address and telephone number for
submission of comments, and identify the location of the local
repository. A sample local notice is provided in Appendix D.
The Region is responsible for preparing a responsiveness
summary of local and national comments. The responsiveness summary
should provide a summary of all comments received during the public
comment period along with detailed responses. Headquarters will
assist the Region in preparing responses where appropriate.
The Region must include a copy of the responsiveness summary,
approved by the RA, in the Regional public docket and local
repository. The RA will then publish the Notice of Deletion in the
Federal Register. Final NPL rulemakings subsequent to the
publication of this notice will reflect the deletion. A sample
Notice of Deletion is presented in Appendix E.
14
-------
Completion Process Diagrams
-------
-------
Completion Scenario for Remedial Sites
Preliminary Assessment, Site Investigation,
Hazard Ranking Score, NPL Listing
J
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
Record(s) of Decision
Multiple Operable Unit
Remedial Actions
Implemented; Remedial
Action Reports Prepared
Site Operational and Functional
I
Site Completion: Approved Superfund Site Close Out Report
State or RP Takes Over Site O&M
NPL Deletion
Continued State or RP O&M Activities;
Section 121(c) Five Year Review
A-1
-------
Completion Scenario for LTRA Sites
Preliminary Assessment, Site Investigation,
Hazard Ranking Score, NPL Listing
J
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
Record(s) of Decision
Multiple Operable Unit Remedial Actions
(Including an LTRA) Implemented; Remedial
Action Reports Prepared
LTRA Operating According to Design
Specifications; Interim Close Out Report
Prepared; State Takes Over Operation
LTRA Cleanup Levels Achieved
Site Completion: Amended Close Out Report
1
State or RP Takes Over Site O&M
NPL Deletion
1
Continued State or RP O&M Activities;
Section 121(c) Five Year Review
A-2
-------
Completion Scenario for No Action Sites
Preliminary Assessment, Site Investigation, fe
Hazard Ranking Score, NPL Listing |
*
Removal Actions or I
Expedited Response Actions |
+
"
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study |
1
Multiple Operable Unit
RODs; Remedial Actions
Implemented; Remedial
Action Reports Prepared
1
"
No (or No Further) Action Record of Decision |
i
Site Operational and Functional |
1
Site Completion: Approved Superfund Site Close Out Report
I
I
State or RP Takes Over Site O&M I
I
NPL Deletion
1
I
Continued State or RP O&M Activities; I
Section 121(c) Five Year Review |
A-3
-------
Completion Scenario for Removal Sites
Preliminary Assessment, Site Investigation,
Hazard Ranking Score, NPL Listing
1
EE/CA, Action Memorandum
J
Implemented Removal
Action Achieves
Total Site Cleanup
OSC Report Prepared; Site Operational and Functional I
Site Completion: Approved Superfund Site Close Out Report
State or RP Takes Over Site O&M
1
NPL Deletion
i
Continued State or RP O&M Activities;
Section 121(c)Five Year Review
i
A-4
-------
Sample Close Oitt Report
-------
-------
SUPERFUND SITE CLOSE OUT REPORT
Hazwaste Landfill Superfund Site
Wasteville, California
I. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS
Background
The Hazwaste Landfill is a nine acre site located in
Wasteville, California. The site is situated in an industrial
part of town, approximately 2000 feet downstream from the
confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers. Approximately
400 feet northwest, and upstream of the site, is the water intake
structure which supplies water for up to 145,000 people in
Wasteville. Concern for impact on this water supply is the
reason that the site was proposed for inclusion on the original
National Priorities List (NPL) on December 30, 1982.
The site is the former location of the Waste Products
salvage yard. Between 1950 and 1965 the site was used for
salvaging of all grades and types of metal, including railroad
cars, army tanks, batteries, and possibly some transformers. The
total quantities of hazardous or non-hazardous materials handled
or disposed of at this site are unknown. The entire site was
purchased in 1965 by the State of California as easement for the
pending construction of Interstate 5 (1-5). By 1967, 1-5 and the
realigned Wasteville Street had covered 6.7 acres of the original
9 acre site.
Remedial Planning Activities
Between 1981, when the site first came to the attention of
the California Department of Health Services (DHS), and 1985, the
2.3 acres not covered by roadway structures and adjacent areas
were sampled seven times. The EPA Remedial Investigation (RI)
was performed between June 1983 and June 1984. Lead, copper, and
zinc were detected in the top foot of soil throughout the site at
levels significantly higher than the state criteria for
definition of a hazardous substance. Specifically, the maximum
concentrations detected in the 27 surface samples from the 2.3
acre on-site area were 13,600 parts per million (ppm) lead, 3,450
ppm copper, and 19,700 ppm zinc. Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's) were also found in the top foot of soil throughout the
site, but never at concentrations which exceed the Federal or
State definition of a hazardous waste, 50 ppm. Of 48 subsurface
samples from the 2.3 acre oil-site area, contamination was only
detected at four locations at depths ranging from 3 to 10 feet
B-l
-------
below ground surface. A complete summary of the results of site
analysis can be found in the final RI report.
On February 14, 1985, a draft of the Feasibility Study (FS)
was released for a three week public comment period. The FS
provided an in depth summary and discussion of site sampling
activities, a public health assessment, and an analysis of
remedial alternatives. The FS concluded that no action at the
site could result in a potential health threat to the public
through direct contact with soils contaminated with lead and
PCB's. The FS then performed a detailed analysis of capping,
excavation and off-site removal, encapsulation, and no action
remedial alternatives.
Many comments were received on the report, a majority of
which expressed a preference for the removal alternative. A
public meeting was held on the FS and a transcript was prepared.
All comments were addressed by the EPA in a responsiveness
summary released in May, 1985.
On May 9, 1985, consistent with the Initial Remedy
Delegation Report of March 8, 1985, the Regional Administrator
approved a Record of Decision (ROD) which selected excavation and
off-site disposal of all soil contaminated with lead above
background levels (200 ppm). This ROD was amended on October 4,
1985. The amendment was developed in consideration of recent
guidance which allows clean site closure action levels to exceed
background where EPA can demonstrate that the residual
contamination would pose no threat to human health or the
environment. Based on cleanup objectives at other Federal and
state hazardous waste sites, as well as recommendations from the
Centers for Disease Control, the 500 ppm lead cleanup level was
determined to be fully protective of human health and the
environment at this site. It was determined that removal at this
level would also eliminate all known exposure to PCB's.
On May 10, 1985, EPA submitted an Interagency Agreement for
$72,500 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) to perform
the remedial design. The design was completed on August 28,
Between July 1985 and March 1986, EPA and the State
negotiated a State Superfund Contract (SSC). The SSC was
reviewed and revised five times before a final contract was
signed on April 1, 1986. The SSC provided that the state pay 10%
of the^remedial action costs and assume responsibility for all
operation and maintenance requirements, as required by CERCLA.
Between September 1985, and March 1986, three open bid
periods on the remedial action construction contract were held by
USAGE. The contract award delay was primarily caused by
difficulties in implementing the previously untested EPA Off-Site
B-2
-------
Disposal Policy (Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-
Site Response Actions, EPA Memorandum, May 6, 1985). A contract
was finally awarded on July 17, 1986, to U.S. Cleanup Contractors
for $1.95 million. The contractor identified the off-site
disposal facility to be used. It was determined that this
facility was in compliance with the Superfund off-site policy.
Remedial Construction Activities
On August 18, 1986, a public meeting was held and a
presentation given to the City of Wasteville Toxics Commission on
the pending cleanup activities. The Notice to Proceed was issued
to the contractor on August 20, 1986. After thorough review, the
final work plan was approved November 10, 1986. On-site
activities (specifically, background air monitoring and site
mobilization) began on October 17, 1986. On November 20, 1986, a
well attended on-site press conference was held.
On-site excavation of contaminated soil began in October,
1986, and the first off-site shipment of contaminated soil
occurred December 2, 1986. During the on-site stockpiling of
material in October and November 1986, the first of many unknown
subsurface objects was discovered. These items included concrete
foundations and footings, gas cylinders, drums, and sewer lines.
All material discovered was sampled to determine the
presence of hazardous materials, except for concrete which was
taken directly to the approved hazardous waste landfill due to
cost-effectiveness. Any material found to contain lead at
greater than 500 ppm or any RCRA priority pollutant at levels
higher than de minimus levels, were also removed to the approved
hazardous waste landfill. By the end of the project
approximately 11,000 tons of contaminated material had been
removed, over twice the amount originally estimated in the ROD.
Following the removal of all contaminated soil and debris, the
site was covered with three feet of clean fill material, regraded
to ensure proper drainage and hydroseeded to prevent soil
erosion.
Remedial construction was completed in May 1987, and a Pre-
Final Inspection was held May 27, 1987 by EPA, USAGE, and DRS.
Sixty additional days were required for revegetation
establishment before the construction contract could be termed
completed. On July 26, 1987, USAGE conducted the Final
Inspection in conjunction with State and EPA representatives and
determined that the remedial action had been successfully
executed.
On March 30, 1988, USAGE submitted a Remedial Action Report
signifying successful completion of construction activities. The
report documents and discusses the 21 change orders which were
B-3
-------
issued throughout the project. Including the change orders and
overrun in quantities removed, the total remedial action contract
cost was $3,991,315.
Community Relations Activities
Since this site posed a threat to the Wasteville community
water supply and was the object of considerable public interest,
the Region's community relations staff conducted an active
campaign to ensure that the local residents were well informed
about the activities at the site. Community relations activities
included public meetings, routine publication of progress fact
sheets, and a final closeout meeting and site tour upon the
completion of site construction activities.
II. DEMONSTRATION OF OA/OC FROM CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The remedial action contract was carefully reviewed by EPA
and USAGE for compliance with all EPA and USAGE quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures and protocol.
Accordingly, only EPA analytical methods or, where no EPA methods
existed, other Federally approved methods were used (such as
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health for analysis
of airborne contaminants).
All procedures and protocol followed for soil and air sample
analysis during the remedial action are documented in the
aforementioned Final Technical Report, Appendix F, Final Summary
Chemical QC Report, and in the Contractor Quality Control Summary
Report, November 2, 1987.
Ground water sampling and analysis was performed by the EPA
Field Investigation Team (FIT) and the EPA Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, respectively. Only EPA procedures
and protocol were employed. Comprehensive documentation of the
ground water sampling program is contained in the EPA FIT summary
reports.
The QA/QC program utilized throughout the remedial action
was sufficiently rigorous and was adequately complied with to
enable the determination by EPA and USAGE that all analytical
results reported are accurate to the degree needed to assure
satisfactory execution of the remedial action consistent with the
ROD.
B-4
-------
III. MONITORING RESULTS
The contract for the remedial action (Specifications for
Construction Contract, Request for Proposal dated January, 1986
(IFB), Section IJ, Safety, Health and Emergency Response
Requirements) detailed a rigorous sampling and analytical program
for the remedial action. Specifically, the.following sampling
program was required and implemented for 1) protection of the
off-site public, 2) protection of on-site workers, and 3)
confirmation of compliance with remedial action objectives:
o Daily perimeter air monitoring for total particulates,
respirable particulates, total lead, and PCB's.
o Daily personnel air sampling of exclusion-zone workers
for copper, lead, zinc, and PCB's.
o Random instantaneous on-site and perimeter air sampling
for total particulates.
o Confirmatory soil sampling based on a 40 foot by 40
foot grid for copper, lead, zinc, and PCB's.
o Confirmatory soil sample(s) for all EPA priority
pollutants at any location where additional
contamination was suspected or known to occur.
o Complete EPA priority pollutant soil sampling backfill.
o Confirmatory ground water samples for all EPA priority
pollutants.
At any location where lead above 500 ppm or any priority
pollutant was detected at a level higher than de minimus.
additional soil was excavated and removed to the approved off-
site landfill. Overall, contaminated soil was excavated to
depths greater than one foot from over 50% of the 2.3 acre site,
resulting in the removal of a total of 11,000 cubic yards.
Subsequent confirmatory sampling confirmed that this removal
quantity was sufficient to ensure that all contamination was
removed from the site, and that the cleanup level for lead of 500
ppm specified in the ROD was achieved.
Documentation of the complete results and accuracy of the
confirmatory sampling program is contained in the Final Technical
Report and Contractor Quality Control Summary Report.
B-5
-------
IV. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Consistent with the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act
of 1976, as amended, 40 CFR Part 264.111, the cleanup of the site
was in compliance with "clean closure" requirements. Site O&M
activities to be performed include annual inspections of the site
to ensure erosion control measures are effective, routine mowing,
and maintenance of the perimeter fence. The State, as stated in
the SSC, has assumed all responsibility for O&M at this site. No
hazardous substances were left on site and therefore the review
requirement of Section 121(c) of SARA is not applicable.
V. PROTECTIVENESS
All the completion requirements for this site have been
met as specified in OSWER Directive 9320.2-3A. Specifically,
confirmatory sampling has verified that the ROD cleanup
objective, removal of all lead to below 500 ppm, has been
achieved and all cleanup actions specified in the ROD have been
implemented. Furthermore, EPA has removed all other
contamination detected to de minimus levels. Confirmatory ground
water sampling and backfilling the site with clean soil provides
further assurance that the site no longer poses any threats to
human health or the environment. The only remaining activity to
be performed is minor O&M that has been guaranteed by the State.
A bibliography of all reports relevant to the completion of this
site under the Superfund program is attached. These documents
are available by calling the Regional office at (101) 555-1212.
Approved By: Disapproved By:
Regional Administrator Date Regional Administrator Date
COMMENTS:
B-6
-------
Appendix <2 ^ -\
Sample Notice of latent to Dtelefe
-------
-
-------
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete Krysowaty Farm site from the
National Priorities List: Request for Comments.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II
announces its intent to delete the Krysowaty Farm site from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on
this action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B to the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which
EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as amended. EPA and the State of New Jersey have determined that
all appropriate CERCLA have been implemented and that no further
cleanup by responsible parties is appropriate. Moreover, EPA and
the State have determined that remedial activities conducted at
the site to date have been protective-of public health, welfare,
and the environment.
DATES: Comments concerning this site may be submitted on or
before .
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to:
Stephen D. Luftig, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Comprehensive information on this site is available through
the EPA Region II public docket, which is located at EPA's Region
II office and is available for viewing by appointment only from
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
holidays. Requests for appointments or copies of the background
information from the Regional public docket should be directed to
the EPA Region II docket office.
The address for the Regional docket office is:
Mr. Richard Wice
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 711
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1870
Background information from the Regional public docket is
also available for viewing at the Krysowaty Farm site information
repository located with:
C-l
-------
Mr. Glenn Belnay, Health Officer
Hillsborough Township Health Department
330 Amwell Road
Neshanic, NJ 08853
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Richard Wice
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 711
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1870
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents:
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletions
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II
announces its intent to delete the Krysowaty Farm site,
Hillsborough Township, New Jersey, from the National Priorities
List (NPL), which constitutes Appendix B of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), and
requests comments on this deletion. The EPA identifies sites
that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of
those sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial
actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund Response
Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to Section 300.66(c)(8) of the NCP,
any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed
remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such action.
The EPA will accept comments concerning this site for thirty
days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is
using for this action. Section IV discusses how the site meets
the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that the Agency uses to
delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR Section
300.66 (c) (7), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no
further response is appropriate. In making this determination,
EPA will consider whether any of the following criteria have been
met:
C-2
-------
(i) EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined
that responsible or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required; or
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA
have been implemented and EPA, in consultation with the State,
has determined that no further cleanup by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
(iii) Based on a remedial investigation, EPA, in
consultation with the State, has determined that the release
poses no significant threat to public health or the environment
and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
III. Deletion Procedures
In the NPL rulemaking published on October 15, 1984 (49 FR
40320), the Agency solicited and received comments on whether the
notice of comment procedures followed for adding sites to the NPL
should also be used before sites are deleted. Comments were also
received in response to the amendments to the NCP proposed on
February 12, 1985 (50 FR 5862). Deletion of sites from the NPL
does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights
or obligations. The NPL is designed primarily for informational
purposes and to assist Agency management.
EPA Region II will accept and evaluate public comments
before making a final decision to delete. The Agency believes
that deletion procedures should focus on notice and comment at
the local level. Comments from the local community may be the
most pertinent to deletion decisions. The following procedures
were used for the intended deletion of this state:
1. EPA Region II has recommended deletion and has prepared
the relevant documents.
2. The State of New Jersey has concurred with the deletion
decision.
3. Concurrent with this National Notice of Intent to Delete,
a local notice has been published in local newspapers and
has been distributed to appropriate federal, state and
local officials, and other interested parties. This
local notice announces a thirty (30) day public comment
period on the deletion package, which starts two weeks
from the date of the notice, , and will
conclude on .
4. The Region has made all relevant documents available in
the Regional Office and local site information
repository.
C-3
-------
The comments received during the notice and comment period
will be evaluated before the final decision to delete. The
Region will prepare a Responsiveness Summary, which will address
the comments received during the public comment period.
A deletion will occur after the EPA Regional Administrator
places a notice in the Federal Register. The NPL will reflect
any deletions in the next final update. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to
local residents by Region II.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The Krysowaty Farm site is located on a 42-acre tract of
land in Hillsborough Township, Somerset County, New Jersey, near
the Village of Three Bridges. The site consisted of a waste
disposal area approximately one acre in size.
An estimated 500 drums of paint and dye waste sludges, waste
oils, and various other waste materials were allegedly dumped,
crushed, and buried at the site from 1965 to 1970. Complaints
from local resident of health problems and odors in their well
water, coupled with an eyewitness account of the alleged waste
disposal, brought the site to the attention of the local health
department. The New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) became aware of the site in October 1979.
5:^106^979, local, state, and federal officials have conducted
site_investigations and sampling. In 1982, the Township began to
provide bottled water to nearby residents. Due to potential
ground water contamination the site was proposed for inclusion on
the NPL on July 23, 1982 and appeared on the final NPL on
December 30, 1982.
In 1984, the EPA completed a remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS). The RI/FS studied the soil, sediment,
surface water, a leachate seep, and ground water. Volatile
organics, pesticides, base/neutral compounds and trace PCB
contamination were found in the waste disposal area. On June 20,
1984, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting a remedy
for the Krysowaty Farm site.
The ROD called for the following remedial activities at the
site: excavation and removal of the waste disposal area;
transport and disposal of wastes to an approved hazardous waste
disposal facility; provision of a permanent alternate water
supply for potentially affected residences; monitoring of on-site
wells, semi-annually, for a five-year period.
The EPA community relations activities at the site included *
a public meeting in May 1983 to present the work plan for
performing the RI/FS, and a meeting in March, 1984, to present
findings of the RI/FS and the preferred alternative. Public
comments were received and addressed. A major concern of the
C-4
-------
public and local officials was the need for an alternate water
supply. In July, 1984, EPA held another public meeting to
discuss the selected remedial alternative, which included the
alternate water supply. EPA conducted a public meeting in
November 1985 to present an overview of the remedial actions,
focusing on the excavation of wastes.
The remedial actions at the site began in August 1985, and
were completed in January, 1986. The Elizabethtown Water Company
main was extended to the affected residences and 13,763 cubic
yards of contaminated soils and debris were excavated and
disposed of off-site in an approved hazardous waste disposal
facility. The site was backfilled with clean fill, covered with
six inches of top soil, and seeded in the spring of 1986.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
completed a health assessment for the site in September, 1986.
ATSDR reviewed the residual soil data and determined that the
concentrations of contaminants measured did not pose an imminent
health threat via either ingestion or inhalation pathways. To
ensure that the remediated area is left undisturbed, ATSDR
recommended institutional controls and ground water monitoring.
The institutional controls for the site include a zoning
ordinance by Hillsborough Township, which precludes land
development due to the slope of the remediated area, and the
mandatory water connection ordinance,.which prohibits private
well installation and use at the site. Both institutional
controls have been implemented. A five year ground water,
surface water and soil monitoring program has been implemented by
the State of New Jersey to ensure that no future threats to the
public health or environment exist. That program commenced in
May, 1987.
EPA, with concurrence of the State of New Jersey, has
determined that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under
CERCLA at the Krysowaty Farm site have been completed, and that
no further cleanup by responsible parties is appropriate.
Date Regional Administrator
USEPA Region II
C-5
-------
-------
- * - ^ Sample Local Hplke
^ > . f jt H vv^
-f ~ jy.-^.-A-Av.v.;: % if^, -V J. ""
«t Intent to Delete
-------
-------
Appendix D. Sample Local Notice of Intent to Delete
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Requests Comments on the Deletion
of the ABC Site, Wasteville, USA
from the National Priorities List
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces its intent to
delete the ABC Site from the National Priorities List (NPL), Appendix B
of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan and requests
comments on this deletion. The EPA has completed cleanup activities at
the site and is proposing that it be taken off the NPL. This deletion does
not preclude future actions under Superfund.
The EPA, in conjunction with the state of USA, has determined that all
appropriate response measures have been implemented and that no further
cleanup action is required. The EPA has determined that the remedy
implemented is protective of public health, welfare, and the environment.
The public is invited to comment on the proposed decision to delete this
site from,the NPL. The public comment period will begin on January 1,
1999 and extend for 30 days. Written comments must be postmarked no
later than January 30, 1999, and should be addressed to:
R. P. Manager, Site Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Office
Oral comments will also be received through this date and should be
directed to R. P. Manager at (101) 555-1212.
A local repository has been established to provide detailed information
concerning this site at the following address:
Local Town Hall
Main Street
Wasteville, USA
D-1
-------
-------
-------
-------
40 CFR Part 300
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List Update
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Notice of Deletion of a site from the National
Priorities List
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
deletion of the ABC Superfund site in Wasteville USA from the
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP),
which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the State of USA have
determined that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under
CERCLA have been implemented and that no further cleanup by
responsible parties is appropriate. Moreover, EPA and the State
of USA have determined that remedial actions conducted at the
site to date have been protective of public health, welfare, and
the environment.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
R. P. Manager, Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Office
(101) 555-1212
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
is:
The site to be deleted from the NPL
ABC Site, Wasteville, USA
A Notice of Intent to Delete for this site was published
August 12, 1988 (53 CFR 30452). The closing date for comments on
the Notice of Intent to Delete was September 12, 1988. EPA
received no comments.
The EPA identifies sites which appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment
and it maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Sites on
the NPL may be the subject of Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund (Fund-) financed remedial actions. Any site deleted from
the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions in
the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such
action. Section 300.66(c)(8) of the NCP states that Fund-
financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL.
E-l
-------
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party
liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated
with, response efforts.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 300
Hazardous Waste
Part 300[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 105, Pub. L. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2764, 42
U.S.C. 9605 and sec. 311(c)(2), Pub. L. 92-500 as amended, 86
Stat. 865, 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); E.G. 12316, 46 FR 42237; E.G.
11735, 38 FR 21243.
Appendix B [AMENDED]
2. The NPL Part 300; Appendix B. is amended as follows
Remove:
ABC Site, Wasteville, USA
Date Regional Administrator
USEPA Region 1
E-2
tr U.S.G.P.O.: 1989-648-163/87095
------- |