-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-Q3B
Developing contractual arrangements
Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
environmental statutes.
b. Removal Response Records
During the course of a Fund-financed removal, the OSC is
responsible for generating and maintaining site-specific documents
such as action memoranda and daily and periodic cost control
reports. It is critical in emergency situations that the OSC
maintain a log of on-site activities and record all communications
with the contractor and participating Federal, State and local
agencies. The Removal Cost Management Manual outlines the OSC's
cost control recordkeeping responsibilities. The ERCS Contract
User's Manual and the TAT Contract User's Manual prescribe guidance
for contractor-related recordkeeping. Any necessary cost control
recordkeeping requirements in conjunction with Federal, State and
local agencies may be prescribed in an MOU, IAG procedures (Federal
Agencies), CA or Superfund State Contract.
G. RESPONSE REPORTING
The OSC is responsible for documenting and reporting all response
activities taken at a site. Reporting requirements include preparing and
submitting to ERD a series of POLREPs and a final OSC report. POLREPs
consist of initial, progress, special and'final reports. Preparation of
incremental POLREPs is no longer required. This section provides guidance
on when the various reports should be submitted and the type of information
each report should contain. Sample POLREPs are provided in Appendix 15.
I. POLREPs
POLREPs provide factual operational data surrounding the incident
and a current accounting of the total funds allocated in an incident.
POLREPs should also detail measures to ensure that the affected
community is properly and fully informed of all response activities, in
accordance with community relations requirements referenced in Section
III.P.6 of this chapter. The Regions should bear in mind that POLREPs
are a method of alerting HQ that critical events may be pending and that
requests/action are about to be initiated. However, all requests for HQ
decisions must be formally submitted in accordance with Section C of
this chapter. To properly assist HQ management, routine POLREPs are
sent to ERD at (202) 755-2155 (telefax, Dex 4100), 710-822-9269 (TWX)*,
892786 (TELEX for USCG POLREPs) or E-Mail and should contain the
following pertinent information:
ERD has made available to EPA response personnel the use of Western
Union's Datagram Service, which allows POLREPs to be sent from any phone
to designated TWX equipment. Datagram access codes and instructions
have been provided to all Regions.
111-57
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
a. Initial POLREPs
The OSC should prepare and send to HQ an initial POLREP on
each new removal action. This report should describe the incident
(including the outcome of the preliminary assessment); indicate
whether the removal has been requested or approved by the RA; give
the status of actions (including enforcement); describe the next
step(s); and indicate when a signed Action Memorandum will be
transmitted to HQ.
b. Progress POLREPs
Routine progress reports should be submitted to ERD a minimum
of once every week for sites, and daily where practicable for
classic spills. Progress POLREPs should identify the following:
Situation — Present status of ongoing response activities
Actions Taken — Activities undertaken since last POLREP
Next Steps — Planned actions by the OSC
Project Costs — Estimate of funds obligated thus far,
(including a breakdown of cost categories as shown in
Appendix 15) and anticipated future funding needed
Any other- pertinent information such as status of efforts
to obtain cleanup by responsible parties.
•c. Special POLREPs
POLREPs should be provided to ERD on inland and coastal
incidents of interest even where no Fund-financed removal was taken
by EPA (e.g., 311(k), UST).. Also, POLREPs should be provided to
ERD on all major unanticipated developments of interest at approved
removal actions, (e.g., fires, explosions, and all accidents even
if no damage or injury has been caused) not covered by other
progress reports. In addition to reporting accidents to ERD via
POLREP, a removal action accident report (see Appendix 16) should
also be completed and submitted to ERD. This form was developed to
provide more detailed documentation of circumstances surrounding
accidents during the course of removal actions.
d. Final POLREPs
When a removal action has been completed, a final POLREP
(e.g., POLREP #15 AND FINAL) should be submitted-that describes the
final actions taken at the release, results achieved, detailed
final costs and dates of completion and demobilization.
2. Final OSC* Reports
' Within 60 days after the conclusion of a removal action, the OSC
must prepare and submit to the RRT and NRT a final OSC report. The OSC
111-58
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
shall, at the same time, submit a copy of the report to ERD. It is
necessary that ERD have these final OSC reports on hand to respond to
inquiries from the public, Congress, Office of the Inspector General and
the General Accounting Office.
The final OSC report is a complete report on the response operation
and the action taken. It should include a summary of events, an
analysis of the effectiveness of removal actions, a list of problems
affecting the response, if applicable, and OSC recommendations. Details
on the format of the report can be found in section 300.40 of the NCP.
H. CLOSING OUT PROJECTS
All completed projects must follow closeout procedures. These
procedures include preparing and submitting the final OSC report, completing
all contract management requirements (e.g., certification of invoices,
receipt of off-site disposal report), conducting cost calculations for
planned removals initiated prior to the 1985 revision of the NCP (see
Appendix 17), and ensuring appropriate operation and maintenance
arrangements with the State, as necessary. Below is a brief summary of the
requirements and procedures.
1. Definition of Action Completion
At the conclusion of the removal action, the OSC must determine
when the project is complete. The completion date signifies that all
approved actions have been completed and that the removal action has
abated or mitigated the threats that prompted the action. Completion
dates should be twelve months or less from the date of initial response,
unless the OSC has obtained an exemption in accordance with the
provisions of section 104(c)(l) of CERCLA, as amended, and the
procedures in Section E.2 of this Chapter.
For purposes of tracking the twelve-month limit, the completion
date is defined as the date on which all approved response actions are
completed and the contractor and OSC have completely demobilized. As
noted previously in Section E.2 of this chapter, temporary
demobilization and temporary storage onsite are not considered
completions, unless temporary storage is the only action identified in
the Action Memorandum to mitigate threats to public health, welfare and
the environment. Likewise, temporary off-site storage of hazardous
substances at a treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facility other
than the facility of ultimate disposal is a continuation of the removal
action, not a completion.
In limited situations, a completed removal action at an NPL site
may effectively remedy all threats at the site, without implementing
remedial action, thus rendering the site eligible for deletion from the
NPL. HSCD is currently developing procedures for clos-ing out projects
and deleting sites from the NPL under these situations.
111-59
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
2. Post Removal Site Control
CERCIA section 104{c), as amended, places a twelve-month limit- on
removal actions and provides stringent criteria for extending the
limitation. Unless these criteria are met, the State or local
government must assume responsibility for post removal site
control (PRSC) costs no later than twelve months after the removal
begins. Examples of PRSC at a removal include running pumps and
operating a ventilation system.
If the OSC knows that PRSC will be necessary after the removal
action is completed, the OSC should obtain an agreement from the State
(e.g., a letter agreement or MOU) for State or local assumption of
responsibility for PRSC costs prior to Initiating the removal. If such
an agreement cannot be obtained, the OSC should avoid recommending any
removal option that involves continuing PRSC where other options exist
that may be implemented at once.
Some situations may require PRSC as part of all removal options.
If no State or local government agrees to assume responsibility for PRSC
costs, the OSC will be required to justify to the RA any continuation of
funding from Superfund beyond the twelve-month limit. Such a
justification must meet one of the two statutory exemptions to exceed
the twelve-month statutory limits, otherwise, funding for the removal
will be terminated.
111-60
-------
February 1983
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-Q3B
IV. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Chapter IV sets forth the supplemental procedures and technical criteria
that OSCs must follow in a variety of special complex cases. The procedures
discussed in this chapter are in addition to the general operational
procedures described in Chapter III, Program Operations.
-------
c
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
IV. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Chapter III described the general operational procedures that apply to all
releases under consideration for Fund-financed removal action. In addition to
those procedures, EPA has issued policies that establish supplemental
procedures, as well as technical criteria, that the OSC must follow in a
variety of special, complex cases such as those involving:
Off-site storage, treatment and disposal
Provision of alternate water supply
Removals in floodplains/wetlands
Responses on Native American lands
Radioactive wastes
Naturally occurring substances
Evacuation and temporary relocation.
This Chapter summarizes these requirements and describes how they relate to
the procedures discussed in Chapter III.
A. OFF-SITE STORAGE, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCEDURES
In order to ensure proper treatment and disposal of hazardous substances
removed from CERCLA sites, section 300.65 of the NCP requires that all
Fund-financed removal- actions or removals under section 106 of CERCLA
involving off-site transport of hazardous substances only use facilities
operating under appropriate Federal or State permits or authorization. Under
section 121(d)(3) of CERCLA, as amended, hazardous substances removed from
CERCLA sites may only be transferred to facilities that are operating in
compliance with RCRA, TSCA, and all applicable State requirements. In
addition, CERCLA, as amended, precludes the use of disposal units that have
releases of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents, and of disposal
facilities that have releases which have not been addressed by corrective
action.
In 1985, OSWER developed an off-site disposal policy entitled "Procedures
for Planning and Implementing Off-site Response Actions" (memorandum from AA,
OSWER to RAs, May 6, 1985). This policy detailed how EPA would undertake
Superfund response when these actions involved off-site management of
hazardous substances. The Off-site Policy was revised in 1987 to incorporate
the provisions in SARA for hazardous waste disposal. The Revised Off-site
Policy is entitled "Revised Procedures for Implementing Off-site Response
Actions" (OSWER directive #9834.11, November 13, 1987).
This section of the Superfund Removal Procedures manual defines the
specific roles and responsibilities of OSCs, the criteria and procedures they
should use to make and document off-site disposal decisions, and the
activities they should undertake to ensure compliance with the Off-site Policy
IV-1
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
throughout the response action. The Off-site Policy requirements are
explained in greater detail in this section, and include:
Selection of an off-site option
Selection of an off-site facility
Permit status
Acceptability status
Additional requirements for PCB, dioxin, and land disposal
Waivers
Recordkeeping, manifests, and reporting requirements.
Throughout each of these processes, the OSC should coordinate closely with
RCRA personnel (and TSCA personnel when appropriate) and the State as
appropriate. This coordination is necessary because the Regional RCRA
Off-site Coordinator (RROC) is responsible for tracking the acceptability
status of commercial facilities. In addition. States are responsible for
obtaining other permits and, should States have RCRA authorization, they may
have additional disposal requirements.
1. Off-Site Policy Requirements
The Revised Off-site Policy includes the following key requirements,
which are consistent with the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:
Preference for and mandatory consideration of treatment,
recycling, and reuse over land disposal
Facilities under consideration for off-site storage, treatment,
or disposing of wastes from any response action under CERCLA,
section 7003 of RCRA, section 311 of the Clean Water Act or any
removal actions at Federal facilities under section 120 of
CERCLA, as amended, must have a permit or interim status under
RCRA or other applicable Federal or State law
Facilities must have had a compliance inspection within six
months prior to receiving wastes from a response action
RCRA Subtitle C facilities where releases of hazardous wastes,
hazardous constituents or hazardous substances have not been
identified must have a RCRA Facility Assessment or equivalent
investigation to determine if there are potential or existing
releases of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents from
solid water management units
Where land disposal is used at a RCRA facility, the RCRA minimum
technology requirements of §3004(o) must be met
IV-2
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 936C.O-03B
A manifest that is in compliance with RCRA for the
transportation of hazardous wastes is obtained
PCS and dioxin disposal requirements must be met.
For removal and remedial actions, compliance with the Revised Off-site
Policy is mandatory except in cases where the OSC or other appropriate
Regional official determines that the exigencies of the situation do not
allow for full compliance without endangering public health, welfare or
the environment. In such'cases, OSCs should contact ERD's Response
Operations Branch for guidance on determining if site conditions meet this
exemption and should consider temporary solutions (e.g., interim storage)
to allow time to locate an acceptable facility and to secure the wastes
off-site during the evaluation of permanent disposal options. In
accordance with the Revised Off-site Policy, OSCs must provide the RA (or
the RA's designee) with a written explanation of his/her decision to use
the emergency exemption within 60 days of taking the action.
2. Selection of an Off-Site Option
In designing the response action and estimating a total project cost,
the OSC must determine the need to transport hazardous substances off site
and must select the most suitable type of storage, treatment, or
disposal. Historically, land disposal has been the method of choice
because of its lower cost. The Off-site Policy states that, for
Fund-financed removals in response to immediate and significant threats,
treatment, reuse, or recycling must be considered, unless the OSC
determines that treatment, reuse, or recycling are not reasonably
available given the exigencies of the situation and that interim storage
is not feasible, or that these methods pose a significant environmental
hazard.
As time permits in a removal situation, OSCs should conduct a
proportionally more detailed comparison of all technically feasible
disposal options prior to drafting and obtaining approval of the removal
action. This comparison and recommendation should be fully discussed in
the removal Action Memorandum (or subsequent removal action documentation,
as more information becomes available). Factors the OSC should consider
in this analysis include, but are not limited to:
Type(s) of hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants —
Hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants may be
compatible or incompatible, affecting their preparation for
off-site transport as well as the available types of treatment
or storage (e.g., PCS storage has specific requirements).
Hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant quantities —
The amount of hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants
to be disposed of limits options based on available facilities
and transportation needs.
Transportation — The distance and method of transport to the
treatment/disposal facility affects cost as well as the
potential safety of population and environment along the
t ranspo rt rout e.
IV-3
-------
February 1988
QSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
Cost — As with other response activities, cost should be
reasonable; EPA policy, however, is that response personnel
should not simply select the least costly off-site o>ption.
Rather, cost must be balanced against the threat involved and
the Agency's preference for alternatives to land disposal.
Potential for threat to public health — Disposal of Superfund
hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants in
landfills has the potential to simply transfer the threat to
health and the environment to another location. OSWER's
Off-site Policy is designed to prevent this transfer and to
ensure a net benefit to the public health and environment by
seeking alternatives to landfilling.
Based on this analysis, the OSC should make a preliminary determination
of the need for off-site disposal and the preferred off-site disposal
option. More detailed information on this analysis will be presented in
OSWER guidance on Engineering Evaluations and Cost Analyses (EE/CAs) now
under development. Procedures for documenting this decision are
detailed in Section A.5, Recordkeeping, Manifests, and Reporting
Requirements, of this Chapter.
3. Selection of an Off-Site Facility
Once the OSC has ascertained the-need for off-site transport of
wastes and has made a preliminary determination of the most appropriate
off-site option, the next step is to locate an acceptable facility and
unit within the facility that will receive the wastes in a timely
manner. The OSC should coordinate with the Regional RCRA staff when
deciding to dispose of materials off site. The RROC is the focal point
of implementing the Off-site Policy. CERCLA personnel making disposal
decisions must request facility eligibility status information from the
RROC by phone for the most current status information. The Off-site
Policy requires that facilities meet specific criteria in order to
receive Superfund wastes.
a. Permit Status
The OSC first must determine that the candidate facility has
RCRA interim status or a Part B permit to receive the specific
type* and quantity of waste to be removed from the site. The OSC
should obtain permit status information during his or her initial
Not all CERCLA hazardous substances are hazardous wastes under RCRA.
Therefore, it is possible that a particular facility permit may not
cover a hazardous substance that must be disposed of. Moreover, in some
situations, a hazardous substance under CERCLA may trigger disposal
requirements under other laws (for example, TSCA for PCBs and the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act for some radioactive
substances). In such cases, applicable requirements, including State
requirements, must be observed.
IV-4
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
contact with the RROC. Headquarters plans to make available a copy
of each Region's quarterly off-site facility updates for use in
planning and procurement. OSCs may call the RRCC staff to get .
current facility-specific status.
b. Acceptability Status
If the candidate facility has appropriate permit status, the OSC
must next confirm its acceptability status with the RROC. The
responsible government official in the Region or the State in which
the hazardous waste facility is located determines whether the
facility is acceptable for hazardous waste disposal or has relevant
violations or releases that may preclude its use for off-site
transfer of CERCLA wastes. The Revised Off-site Policy requires that
facilities designated to receive CERCLA wastes must be inspected to
determine compliance status and to identify any existing and
potential releases from the facility within six months of the planned
receipt of the waste. In addition, land disposal facilities must
have received a comprehensive ground-water monitoring inspection or
an operation and maintenance inspection within the last year.
If the appropriate inspections were conducted, the OSC must
verify through the RROC that the facility has no relevant violations
or that relevant violations have been corrected. The RROC determines
and maintains information on the acceptability status of hazardous
waste facilities. The RRCC verifies for each facility that the
appropriate inspections have been completed and that there are no
relevant releases, conditions or violations that would make the
facility unacceptable. If an inspection is scheduled, but delay
would pose a substantial public health or environmental threat, or if
an inspection has not yet been scheduled, the OSC should attempt to
identify cost-effective alternative facilities that are in
compliance. To obtain this information, the OSC should consult with
the RROC who will confirm facility acceptability. RROCs should
maintain a working list of applicable facilities currently in
compliance that could be used in emergency situations.
If none of the candidate facilities has had the appropriate
compliance inspection or is scheduled to have one within the time
frame of the response and if sufficient time is available, the OSC
may request that the Regional RCRA staff arrange for contractor
support (TES, FIT, or TAT) to conduct one. The EPA Regional Contract
Project Officer would direct the inspection with support from
Regional RCRA personnel. Using data collected from the on-site
inspection, EPA staff will make the final determination regarding
facility acceptability. OWPE is currently developing guidance on the
conduct of facility compliance inspections.
Facilities found to be in non-compliance have 60 days in which
to demonstrate compliance or request a reconsideration of the
determination before they are precluded from accepting Superfund
wastes. After the 60 days, staff may permit use of such a facility
when: 1) the facility is under a consent agreement or decree to
IV-5
-------
February 1983
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
correct the release, and/or 2) disposal of the CERCLA wastes will
occur in a unit that is in compliance with RCRA and will not
contribute to adverse conditions at the facility.
c. Use of Department of Defense facilities
OSWER has developed a draft outline of guidance to the Regions
on procedures for obtaining access to DOD facilities to store, treat
or dispose of non-DOD-owned explosives or other hazardous substances
(memorandum from Director, ERD to NRT Representatives, October 20,
1986). OSCs should examine all available options prior to requesting
the use of DOD property, since the circumstances under which DOD
property may be used to store, treat or dispose of non-DOD owned
explosives or other hazardous substances are limited. If the OSC
determines that other alternatives are not satisfactory, the OSC
should contact ERD/HQ regarding the need to use a DOD facility. ERD
will then forward the request to OERR, who transmits the request to
DOD.
4. Additional Requirements for PCS, Dioxin, and Land Disposal
Wastes containing PCBs and/or dioxins are hazardous and require
special treatment prior to land disposal. If a candidate off-site
facility does not have such treatment capacity or technology, alternative
facilities should be considered. Regulations for the treatment, storage
and disposal of these hazardous wastes are described below.
a. Land Disposal Requirements
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act imposed strict requirements on the
treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. In November 1986, EPA
promulgated the first set of land disposal restrictions (LDR) for
certain solvent and dioxin wastes. The effective date of these
regulations for Superfund response action wastes, however, was
extended until November 1988. On July 8, 1987, EPA published the
second set of LDR regulations, which define and set treatment
standards for the wastes on the "California list." The California
list wastes include liquid and non-liquid wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) and liquid wastes contained
PCBs, acid corrosives, free cyanides and certain metals. As of
July 8, 1987, land disposal prohibitions took effect for Superfund
for the following California list wastes: dilute HOC wastewaters,
PCBs, corrosives, free cyanides and metals. An extension of the
effective date has been granted for the remaining HOC wastes.
Additional land disposal restrictions for all other-
characteristic and listed RCRA hazardous wastes are scheduled to be
issued in August 1988, June 1989 and May 1990. A memorandum from the
Director, OERR (August 11, 1987) provides a summary of major LDR
provisions and California list prohibitions. OSCs should refer to
this memorandum for more detailed information on the RCRA land
disposal restrictions.'
IV-6
€
-------
February 1988
QSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-Q3B
In addition to establishing waste treatment standards, RCRA
3008{o) requires that all new landfills or surface impoundment units
and lateral extensions of or replacements for existing units of
interim status landfill or surface impoundment units must have at
least two liners and a leachate collection system above, and in the
case of landfills, between the liners. RCRA permit and interim
status facilities must have an adequate ground-water monitoring
system and demonstrate that the facility poses no threat to ground
water. The RCRA compliance inspection, discussed above, will verify
these requirements so that OSCs need not conduct an independent
assessment.
b. PCS Disposal Requirements
OSCs shall ensure that PCB disposal requirements for selecting
off-site management options are followed in accordance with 40 CFR
761.60. Liquid hazardous wastes that at any time contained PCBs at
concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm are prohibited from
land disposal unless 1) they are treated in accordance with 40 CFR
268.42, 2) are subject of a successful "no migration" petition under
40 CFR 268.6, or 3) are granted a case-by-case extension or national
capacity variance.
c. Dioxin Disposal Requirements
Removals involving dioxin-containing wastes are of national
significance and require concurrence by the AA, OSWER and the
HQ Dioxin Disposal Advisory Group (DDAG). These types of removals
must be performed in compliance with EPA's final dioxin listing
(effective July 15, 1985) and by November 8, 1988, must comply with
the "land ban," which is included in the land disposal restrictions
regulation (40 CFR 268, July 8, 1987). Under section 300.65(f) of
the NCP, OSCs are not required to obtain a permit for on-site
treatment of dioxin-containing wastes. However, OSCs should use the
technical requirements set forth in the final dioxin listing and the
land ban for treating dioxin-containing wastes.
The final dioxin listing defines certain chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans and phenols as acute hazardous
wastes and specifies treatment and disposal standards for these
wastes. Waste management standards include operating regulations for
all waste management facilities which handle listed wastes. The
listing provides permitting criteria for tank and container storage
facilities, land disposal facilities, and incinerators and thermal
treatment facilities. In addition to establishing waste management
procedures for dioxin-containing wastes, the final dioxin listing
also sets forth requirements for treating the residues of hazardous
waste in empty containers. Residues in containers that contain
listed wastes are regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA unless the
container has been triple-rinsed using a solvent capable of removing
the waste, or the container has been otherwise cleaned by a method
that has been shown to achieve equivalent removal. Additional
guidance on treatment standards for hazardous waste residues is
contained in 40 CFR 261.7.
IV-7
-------
February 1988
QSWER DIRECTIVE 936o'.0-Q3B
The land disposal restrictions regulation prohibits further land
disposal ("except by deep well injection) of the dioxin-containing
hazardous wastes identified as F020, F021, F022 and F023 in the final
dioxin listing (40 CFR 261.31). When RCRA-listed dioxin-containing
wastes are suspected at a removal site, emergency removal actions may
be warranted per an ATSDR health advisory that states the appropriate
action level site-specifically.
Dioxin-containing hazardous wastes must be disposed of at waste
management facilities that are fully in compliance with RCRA
requirements for treating, storing or disposing of these wastes.
Between November 8, 1986 and November 8, 1988, these wastes may be
disposed of in a landfill or surface impoundment only if the facility
is in compliance with the requirements specified in
40 CFR 268.5(h)(2) and special requirements for dioxin wastes under
40 CFR 264.B17. In emergency situations, if disposal at a full
compliance facility is not possible, wastes may be temporarily
drummed and stored on site.
When developing site-specific response plans, OSCs should
contact the Regional Dioxin Coordinator (if. one-has been assigned)
and the DDAG to: 1) identify authorized facilities and 2) obtain
required technical assistance. The DDAG issues guidance and provides
technical assistance in determining appropriate response options for
interim storage and/or off-site disposal.
5. Recordkeeping, Manifests, and Reporting
The Action Memorandum approving the removal should be as specific as
possible about the need for off-site disposal and the disposal option and
facility selected. In many cases, however, the OSC may not know the
amount or type of waste requiring off-site treatment or disposal until
on-site action begins. In such cases, the Action Memorandum should state
the OSC's intent to comply with all requirements of the Off-site Policy.
Once the OSC has identified the hazardous substances, estimated the amount
of each waste type and selected the disposal option, he/she should report
this information in a POLREP to Headquarters. In addition to documenting
the decision in an Action Memorandum or POLREP, the OSC should include in
the site file any documentation of the Regional RCRA staff's determination
that the facility selected is in compliance with RCRA.
OSCs are responsible for ensuring that off-site transport of the
wastes is in compliance with RCRA requirements and DOT requirements in 49
CFR 171. They must ensure that the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest is
completed correctly in compliance with 40 CFR 262 and accompanies the
waste. In addition, OSCs must ensure that when contractors complete the
manifest, it is properly filed. Finally, response personnel also must
ensure that the transporter gives proper notification under section 3001
of RCRA. OSCs are required to send to the RROC a copy of the first and
last manifest completed for shipment to a given facility.
IV-8
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 936Q.O-03B
Modifications and amendments have been made to Cooperative
Agreements, ERGS, TAT, REM, FIT, and TES contracts, and Interagency
Agreements relating to the Off-site Policy. These require that all
contractors and assistance recipients be cognizant of the Off-site Policy
requirements, comply with these requirements, track and maintain records
of CERCLA waste management, and describe and. certify in all final reports
the means by which the requirements were followed. These requirements
also will be specified in all delivery orders or work orders.
B. PROVISION OF ALTERNATE WATER SUPPLY
Contamination of drinking water is one of the many types of threats the
removal program is designed to address. Response actions typically consist of
provision of bottled water and/or replacement of individual wells with
municipal service (e.g., installation of water lines). Longer term responses
such as aquifer restoration generally fall under remedial action.
Procedures for assessing releases that threaten drinking water,
determining the need for a Fund-financed removal and approving and initiating
the removal are the same as for other releases and are described fully in
Chapter III. The purpose of this Section is to provide OSCs with some
supplemental technical guidance on how to evaluate the extent of the threat
and select a specific response action. The guidance provided below originates
from the guidance document entitled "Interim Final Guidance on Removal Action
Levels at Contaminated Drinking Water Sites" (OSWER directive #9360.1-10,
10/6/87).
1. Action Level for Initiating a Removal Action
With regard to initiating a removal action, a site (NPL or non-MPL)
may qualify for response if either: 1) the numeric action level is
exceeded at the tap, or 2) site-specific factors otherwise indicate that a
significant health threat exists. The action level for initiating a
removal action should not be used as the cleanup standard for the
contaminated water. Cleanup standards are discussed in Section B.2 of
this Chapter.
a. Action Level Based on Numeric Trigger
The numeric action level for a particular contaminant will
depend on whether the substance is also a potential human carcinogen
and/or volatile. For purposes of this guidance, a substance is a
carcinogen if it falls into categories A, B or C of EPA's carcinogen
classification guidelines. Volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are
generally of low molecular weight, high vapor pressure, and low
solubility. For additional information on the chemicals that
comprise VOCs, OSCs should refer to the interim final guidance on
drinking water action levels, noted above. The action levels for
different types of contaminants are identified in the followi-ng
decision model:
Non-volatile non-carcinogens — Action level equals the
Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL)
IV-9
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 936Q.Q-Q3B
Volatile non-carcinogens — Action level equals 50 percent
of the DWEL
Non-volatile carcinogens — Action level is determined by
comparing the DWEL to the 10~^ Lifetime Upperbound Cancer
Risk Level, and choosing the lower of the two
Volatile carcinogens — Action level is determined by
comparing 50 percent of the DWEL to the 10~"* Lifetime
Upperbound Cancer Risk Level, and choosing the lower of the
two.
This model requires modification in two situations. The first
is where the calculated action level is lower than or equal to the
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. The second is where the calculated action level is based
on the DWEL, but the 10-day Health Advisory for that substance is
lower than the DWEL. Refer to the interim final guidance for
information on the appropriate procedures in these two situations.
b. Action Level Based.on Site-Specific Factors
A significant health threat may exist even though the numeric
action level has not been exceeded. A removal action may be
initiated if the health risk at a site has been analyzed in detail
and the analysis indicates that a serious health risk is present due
to site-specific factors. Examples of such factors include the
presence of sensitive members in the population, evidence that a
contaminated ground-water plume is moving, evidence that contaminant
levels will increase (e.g., increased pumping from an aquifer
anticipated during summer months), the presence of additive effects
resulting from multiple contaminants, or the presence of
non-carcinogenic substances above the reference dose (RfD). When
such conditions are present, the site may qualify for removal action
even though the numeric indicator has not been exceeded. Decisions
will be made on a case-by-case basis. Headquarters concurrence must
be obtained before approving Action Memoranda that are based on
site-specific factors, even where the action will not exceed the
statutory removal limits.
c. Obtaining an Exemption to the Statutory Limits
To obtain an exemption to the $2 million/12 month limits on
removal actions based on a continuing emergency, it will generally not
be adequate to show that contaminant levels exceed the numeric action
level by some minimal amount. An•exemption may be justified if
contaminant levels exceed the 10-Day Health Advisory, significantly
exceed the numeric action level, or an emergency exists based on
site-specific factors. A finding that contaminant levels exceed the
numeric action level by a minimal amount may be appropriate, however,
in "non-emergency" situations where an exemption is based on the new
consistency waiver.
IV-10
c
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
2. Implementing the Removal/Action — Cleanup Standards
With regard to selecting a removal action to clean up a drinking
water contamination site, under EPA's policy on compliance with other
environmental statutes and regulations, the OSC should consider all
applicable and relevant Federal and promulgated State standards, criteria,
guidelines and advisories, where practicable. EPA is currently developing
guidance on compliance with the SDWA and CWA. OSCs should consider the
following standards, criteria, and guidance for cleaning up drinking water
contamination sites:
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - Under SDWA, EPA has set
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for contaminants in finished
drinking water provided by public water supply systems serving
25 or more people or having 15 or more service connections. As
of September 1986, EPA had set MCLs for 26 contaminants: two
microbiological contaminants, four radionuclides, 10 organic
chemicals and 10 inorganic chemicals. EPA has also set
parameters for turbidity, total dissolved solids and pH and has
established Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for each
MCL. OSCs should consider MCLs when addressing ground-water
contamination. However, cleanup goals more stringent than the
MCL may be set considering the MCLG if the MCL is not adeguately
protective at the site due to site-specific circumstances. The
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 (SDWAA) set mandatory
deadlines for the regulation of additional key contaminants and
require monitoring of other unregulated contaminants. SDWAA
also establish benchmarks for treatment technologies and
bolsters enforcement powers.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) - Under the CWA, EPA has developed
National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC) to protect
surface waters. The NAWQC provide guidelines for types and
levels of chemical, physical and biological pollutants that
affect the human and natural environment. They are not specific
to drinking water, however.
The Ground-Water Protection Strategy (G-WPS) - This Strategy
establishes a policy framework for EPA programs that delineates
three classes of ground water and suggests the extent to which
each should be protected. The differing levels of protection
are accorded to each class of ground water based on its use,
value to society and vulnerability to contamination. For
example, the cleanup requirements and protection strategy for
current-and potential sources of drinking water (Class I and II)
exceed the objectives established for waters determined to be of
limited beneficial use (Class III). EPA recommends cleanup of
Class I and Class II waters to current drinking water standards
or background levels that protect human health,
State Water Quality Standards - Many States have established
ambient water quality standards for surface water and various
classifications of ground water; however, such standards are not
IV-11
-------
February 1988'
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
necessarily specifically geared toward removal activities.
State standards generally take into account human health and
'environmental considerations and may be more stringent than
Federal standards. In addition. State water quality standards
may exist for pollutants not presently covered at the Federal
level.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Health
Advice - CERCLA, as amended by SARA, greatly expands the role of
the ATSDR in performing health assessments at Superfund sites as
well as preparing lists of hazardous substances, performing
health effects research and preparing toxicological profiles.
The ATSDR continues to issue health advice on a case-by-case
basis. The OSC may reques-t health advice from ATSDR by
contacting the Region's designated ATSDR or CDC representatives.
The Policy Analysis staff of OERR's Office of Program Management is
currently developing a manual on compliance with the SDWA and CWA to be
entitled CSRCLA Compliance with Other Laws.
C. REMOVALS IN .FLOODPLAINS/WETLANDS
Fund-financed removal actions should be consistent to the extent
practicable with Federal policy and procedures for the protection of
floodplains and wetlands. Thus, OSC decisions should take into account the
provision of three primary Federal policy documents on the subject: Executive
Order 11988, Floodplain Management; Executive Order 11990, Protection of
Wetlands; and Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 6, Procedures on Floodplain Management
and Wetland Protection. OERR policy contained in an August 6, 1985 Memorandum
from the Director, OERR to Regional Superfund Coordinators specifies how the
above policies apply to Superfund responses.
Under the OERR policy, OSCs must undertake three specific actions. First,
as part of the preliminary assessment, the OSC must determine whether the
release is in, near or affecting a floodplain or wetland. Definitions of
floodplains and wetlands are contained in the Executive Orders and Appendix A
of 40 CFR Part 6. In general, floodplains are a temporary, partial or
complete inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow of inland
and/or tidal waters and/or the usual and rapid accumulation of runoff or
drainage. Wetlands generally include, but are not limited to, swamps,
marshes, bogs and similar areas such as sloughs, wet meadows, mud flats and
natural ponds.
Once the OSC has determined that the release is in proximity to or has the
potential to affect a floodplain or wetland, the remainder of the preliminary
assessment should include an evaluation of the following factors:
Possible impact of proposed response actions on the floodplain/wetland
Alternate response actions (including the no-action alternative)
IV-12
-------
February 1988
CSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-Q3B
Measures to minimize potential adverse impacts including, but not
limited to, the following options:
Minimum use of grading
Protecting and maintaining the vegetation to reduce sedimentation
Regulating soil removal and filling to reduce sedimentation
Protecting topsoil
Raising the site above the floodplain/wetland
Returning the site to natural contours.
Second, the OSC must document the results of this evaluation in the Action
Memorandum. Finally, the OSC must ensure that the implementation of approved
response actions minimizes adverse impacts on the floodplain/wetland.
In making any of the determinations or in implementing appropriate
response measures in floodplain/wetland areas, the OSC may wish to consult
with other government officials who have appropriate expertise. These may
include staff from EPA's Regional 404 Clean Water Program, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State and local agencies. Response
personnel also should include, in community relations activities, any
pertinent information regarding the potential impact of removal actions on
affected floodplains/wetlands and any measures to be taken to minimize
floodplain/wetland damage.
D. RESPONSES ON NATIVE AMERICAN LANDS
On Native American lands, OSCs should use the procedures outlined in
Section III.C of this document to initiate removals for any releases that meet
the NCP criteria. Pursuant to the current NCP> no cost-sharing is required
for any removal responses on Native American lands.
E. RADIOACTIVE WASTES
When an OSC becomes aware of the release of a radioactive substance,
his/her first steps should be to determine whether 1) EPA has authority to
respond and 2) the release meets the removal criteria set forth in the NCP.
Under CERCLA, EPA can respond to releases of radioactive wastes except those
excluded by CERCLA section 101(22)(C), as amended by SARA, including:
Release of source, by-product or special nuclear materials that are
subject to the financial protection requirements of section 170 of
the Atomic Energy Act
Release of source, by-product or special nuclear materials from
certain processing sites designated under sections 102(a)(l) or
302(a) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
and those excluded by CERCLA section 101(10)(K):
Release of source, special nuclear, or by-product material, as those
terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, in compliance
with a legally enforceable license, permit, regulation, or order
issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
IV-13
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
To ascertain the existence of an emergency situation, OSCs will need to
consult with the Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) in EPA and, through the
RRT, with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (MRC) and Department of Energy (DOE)
Regional staff. Through these consultations, OSCs can obtain guidance on how
to conduct testing and monitoring and on whether the test results indicate
that an emergency situation exists. OSCs should be aware, however, that the
definition of "emergency" under the Atomic Energy Act differs from that under
the NCP. The OSC must use the NCP definition and should seek assistance from
the Removal Operations Branch in applying the NCP criteria.
OSCs should determine whether the release is from a facility with a
previous or current NRC license. For releases from those facilities, EPA's
policy is that the NRC should take responsibility. (NOTE: In accordance with
Executive Order 12580, all Federal agencies have been delegated the
responsibility for responding to non-emergency removal actions at Federal
facilities under their jurisdiction; DOD and DOE also have the authority to
respond to emergency removal actions at their own facilities.) However, OSCs
may seek approval for a Fund-financed removal if they determine the NRC cannot
issue a court order expeditiously or if the release is not from a previous or
current NRC licensee. Section 300.22(g) of the NCP stipulates that, where
appropriate, discharges of radioactive materials shall be handled pursuant to
the Federal Emergency Radiological Plan (FERP) 49 FR 35896, November 8, 1985.
Therefore, prior to undertaking response action, the OSC should consult with
the ORP, to the extent practicable, to ensure the response takes place
pursuant to the FERP. In undertaking response actions, OSCs should utilize
the RRT to obtain technical advice on conducting the removal activities and
may enter into an IAG with DOE or the NRC.
F. NATURALLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCES
In accordance with section 104(a)(3) of CERCLA, as amended, removal
actions generally will not be authorized in situations involving a release, or
threat of release, of a naturally occurring substance in its unaltered form,
or one that is altered solely through natural processes or phenomena. CERCLA
response may be authorized, however, provided two criteria are satisfied as
set forth in CERCLA section 104(a)(4), as amended:
1) The release or threat of release constitutes a "public health or
environmental emergency"
2) "No other person with the authority and capability to respond to the
emergency will do so in a timely manner."
When a readiest is received for response where naturally occurring substances
are suspected to be involved, the OSC should take the following steps in
addition to the procedures discussed in Chapter III:
The OSC should attempt to determine the source of contamination.
If the source of contamination appears to be a naturally occurring
substance, the OSC must ascertain that the threat represents a
"public health or environmental emergency." In order to do so, the
OSC should obtain support from ATSDR, ORP and State authorities. In
IV-14
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-Q3B
addition, the OSC can contact the ERD Regional Coordinator to assist
in identifying and arranging for the assistance of appropriate HQ
staff.
Once it has been determined that a public health or environmental
emergency does exist or is imminent, the OSC must contact "other
persons" (e.g., State and local authorities, PRPs) to determine their
willingness or capability to respond to the threat. CERCLA response
should be considered only after all other avenues of response have
been exhausted.
If this is a site of national significance, the OSC must get AA,
OSWER approval in accordance with Delegation 14-1-A (Appendix 8).
OSCs should document all analyses, determinations and response plans
in the Action Memorandum and/or subsequent POLREPs.
In addition to these procedures, EPA has issued policy on conducting removals
involving naturally occurring substances.
OSWER has issued policy in a January 23, 1986 memorandum from the
Director, OERR to Regional Waste Management Division Directors on the
appropriateness of removal actions at methane gas release sites. Naturally
occurring methane gas found near or associated with petroleum deposits is a
type of natural gas and is therefore exempt from CERCLA coverage. However,
methane gas emanating from a landfill is not considered to be a "natural gas"
and such releases may therefore be eligible for response under CERCLA section
104(a)(l), as amended, if methane gas otherwise meets the definition of
pollutant or contaminant under section 104(a)(2)of CERCLA, as amended by SARA.
G. EVACUATION AND TEMPORARY RELOCATION PROCEDURES
In the event of a major disaster or an environmental or public health
emergency, the OSC, in coordination with Federal, State and local authorities,
may need to undertake immediate public safety measures deemed necessary to
protect the health and welfare of local populations. The removal authority of
CERCLA provides for two types of measures when the threat warrants removing
local residents from the affected area:
Evacuation refers to immediate and emergency efforts by State and
local officials to remove residents from the affected area typically
following a classic emergency (e.g., spill, fire or explosion).
Emergency evacuations usually have a short duration (several hours to
a few days) and continue until the immediate threat of exposure has
subsided. Residents living on the site or in adjacent homes or an
entire community may be evacuated when necessary.
Temporary Relocation is the provision of temporary housing for
populations at risk from a release of hazardous substances. The
temporary relocation may be from a few days to several months, until
the threat is eliminated or is reduced to safe levels so that
individuals may return to their homes. Temporary relocations that
IV-15
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
will continue more than twelve months are subject to the twelve month
statutory limitation and require the OSC to submit a twelve month
exemption request.
Responsibilities and procedures regarding evacuations and temporary
relocations are outlined below.
1. Evacuation
Pursuant to section 3Q0.24(e) of the NCP, because State and local
agencies are usually the first to respond to an emergency, these agencies
have the authority to initiate and direct any public safety measures
deemed necessary to protect public health and welfare. They are expected
to direct evacuations pursuant to existing State and local procedures.
Following the initial discovery of the release of a hazardous substance
and prior to arrival of the OSC and the start of Fund-financed response.
State and local authorities (police and fire) are responsible for
coordinating all evacuation measures. Once Fund-financed response is
underway, if a major emergency arises, the OSC should determine if
evacuation is required and contact appropriate local authorities to
initiate an evacuation.
2. Temporary Relocation
Executive Order 12580 delegates responsibilities under CERCLA section
104(a), as amended by SARA, to FEMA to provide for:
1) permanent relocation of residents, businesses and community
facilities
2) temporary relocation of threatened individuals.
When FEMA assistance is required, the OSC should contact his/her
appropriate Regional FEMA counterpart. Once Fund-financed response is
underway, FEMA can provide assistance to the OSC in determining the need
for a temporary relocation and planning response measures. Pursuant to
the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (PL 93-288), the OSC is required to advise
FEMA of potential major disaster situations, when relocation is identified
as an option at the site.
The OSC must notify FEMA in writing of the need for temporary
relocation as part of the removal. In making such determinations, the OSC
should consult with ATSDR and appropriate State agencies regarding
potential health risks that may affect the need for relocation. The OSC
must determine the boundaries of the affected area targeted for relocation
and the need for FEMA to provide site security and/or pay for the
decontamination of personal property.
In the course of CERCLA response, FEMA shall:
Provide technical assistance to the OSC in planning for
relocation, e.g., estimating the cost of relocation
IV-16
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
Implement temporary relocation including negotiation of leases
and rent reimbursements and provision of essential utility costs
at the original residence and other miscellaneous relocation
expenses
Provide site security at sites when requested by the OSC
Pay individuals for decontamination of household items and/or
acquisition of contaminated personal property, when requested by
EPA
Support EPA in developing and carrying out community relations
activities with regard to relocation activity.
Other FEMA responsibilities are further detailed in the EPA-FEMA MOU.
All costs for site-specific relocation activities, except for
assistance provided to determine the need for relocation, are funded via a
site-specific IAG, which is executed by the Region. FEMA receives an
annual budget that covers all costs of assistance in determining the need
for relocation.
IV-17
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
V. POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
This chapter sets forth the standard sequence of steps that should be
followed to secure and oversee potentially responsible party removal actions
and discusses the types of situations that OSCs are likely to encounter during
a private party removal action. A brief discussion of the relationship
between enforcement, OSC and other Regional personnel (e.g., Office of
Regional Counsel, program managers, community relations staff)
responsibilities is also provided.
-------
-------
February 1983
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
V. POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
The intent of CERCLA and EPA policy is that private parties causing or
contributing to a release should take responsibility for response actions.
Where responsible parties are known, but do not take appropriate or timely
actions, EPA will issue CERCLA section 106 Administrative Orders (AOs) where
appropriate. If orders are not complied with, EPA will initiate a
Fund-financed removal action and pursue opportunities to recover, under
section 107 of CERCLA, all costs incurred under the Trust Fund. Where
immediate response is necessary, it may not be appropriate to issue AOs prior
to initiating response actions. In these cases, EPA will conduct a
Fund-financed response and seek to recover costs from potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) later. To carry out this policy, OSCs and Regional enforcement
personnel must coordinate efforts to identify and compel PRPs to perform
removal actions.
A, OSC ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Although OSC enforcement responsibilities may vary from Region to Region,
generally, OSCs work with the Regional enforcement staff and the Office of
Regional Counsel (ORC) to identify and compel potentially responsible parties
to respond (NOTE: for removals at NPL sites, the PRP search may have been
performed by the remedial enforcement program). Regional technical
enforcement staff is available to assist OSCs in conducting the PRP search,
PRP notification and negotiation. Generally, each Region has a technical
enforcement office and an Office of Regional Counsel consisting of personnel
with scientific and legal expertise who work together to ensure that
Fund-financed responses meet both program objectives and legal requirements.
In some Regions, the OSC is a part of the technical enforcement staff. In
other Regions, the OSC is part of a separate office, but the CERCLA
enforcement program provides legal and technical support.
OSCs generally work with the Regional enforcement staff and ORC in
conducting initial investigations and in initiating contact with PRPs (e.g.,
issuance of notice letters or oral notice in the event of an emergency
situation to be followed by written notice). PRP searches should be conducted
at all NPL and non-NPL sites in support of any future cost recovery actions.
Additionally, OSCs should support the efforts of Regional enforcement in
conducting PRP negotiations and, if appropriate, prepare an AO. The extent of
PRP search and negotiation activities will depend upon the exigencies of the
situation. A responsible party (RP) action may begin at any phase of a
removal response.
B. SECURING POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY ACTION
Exhibit V-l depicts the typical sequence of actions taken to secure PRP
responses. This chart is intended to identify the steps involved in securing
a PRP response and the Regional staff/offices that are generally responsible
for taking those steps. Actual Regional practices may vary.
V-l
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
1. Potentially Responsible Party Search
Before seeking CERCLA funding, OSCs should make a reasonable effort
to identify PRPs and compel -them to perform cleanup activities. A PRP
investigation is generally part of the preliminary assessment that an OSC
conducts under section 300.64 of the NCP. In consultation with Regional
Counsel and technical enforcement staff, OSCs must make an effort to
identify PRPs. The level of effort of the PRP search depends upon the
immediacy and seriousness of the release situation. In extremely urgent
situations, the OSC can follow streamlined procedures, consisting of oral
inquiries of reasonably available on-site sources who may be knowledgeable
of the situation, as well as reviews of readily available site records.
Oral inquiries should be documented as soon as practicable. Less urgent
situations require the OSC to take additional steps, such as further
questioning of persons on or near the site (e.g., residents, adjacent
property owners, nearby homeowners) and on-site investigation for
responsible party clues (e.g., company identification on drums, materials
and containers). OSCs are encouraged to take pictures of, look for, and
secure PRP evidence.
It is extremely important that OSCs fully document all findings at
the site in anticipation of litigation. After the OSC has made a
reasonable effort to identify PRPs, he/she may request Regional
enforcement personnel to conduct a responsible party search using
Technical Enforcement Services (TES) contract support. Other support may
be available through the use of 8(a) Contractors. The Regional
enforcement office will then conduct a thorough PRP search. Where there
are time limitations, the PRP search may prioritize and expedite certain
search activities to support the notice, negotiation and order process
before the removal begins. In any event, OSCs should be prepared to
obtain the necessary approval to conduct the response.
If no PRPs can be located prior to the initiation of an EPA-lead
removal action, efforts to locate PRPs should continue throughout the
removal action. If PRPs are located before or during an EPA-lead removal,
enforcement staff or the OSC, if appropriate, should initiate negotiations
with the PRP to determine the extent of PRP involvement in the response
action. A complete PRP search should be conducted to support cost
recovery efforts. In addition, OSCs must maintain complete documentation
of decisions made (and the basis for them), action taken and all
site-specific. Fund-financed expenditures in the event that cost recovery
action is taken against the PRP. OSCs should work closely with cost
recovery staff in the' Regions and Headquarters to document Fund-financed
expenditures. OSCs should refer to Chapter III, Section F.3 of this
manual for additional information on cost documentation. EPA guidance on
cost recovery is currently under development. For further information on
PRP searches, see OSWER directive #9834.6, "Potentially Responsible Party
Search Manual" (August 27, 1987).
V-2
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
EXHIBIT V-1
SECURING POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY ACTION
OSC/ORC/REGION*
IDENTIFIES POTENTIALLY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
OSC/ORC/REGION
VERBALLY
REQUESTS
RESPONSE
REGIONAL PROGRAM
OFFICE/REGION
CONFIRMS REQUEST
WITH
NOTICE LETTER
I
OSC/ORC/REGION
NEGOTIATIONS
WFTHPRP
RA
ISSUES UNILATERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER
NEGOTIATIONS
SUCCESSFUL
RA
ISSUES
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER ON CONSENT
REGION
HOLDS
CONFERENCE
wrmpRp
DOES
PRP AGREE TO
TERMS OF AO
•7
PRP/REGION
ENTER INTO CONSENT
ORDER OR PERFORM
REMOVAL BASED ON
UNILATERAL AGREEMENT")
FUND-FINANCED
RESPONSE FOLLOWED
BY COST RECOVERY OR
106 JUDICIAL ACTION TO
ENFORCE ORDER
PRP
INITIATES
CLEANUP
"Regional Technical Enforcement Personnel
"The unilateral AO does not have to be
converted to a Consent Order in order for a
PRP to initiate response actions.
OSC/REGION
MONITORS RP
CLEANUP
NOTE: Any Step in this Process
May be Abbreviated Due to the
Urgency of the Release Situation.
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000005PP\tiff\2000KNH3.tif): Unspecified error
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360*. 0-03B
2. Notification and Request for Response
Following identification of PRPs, the OSC must initiate actions to
obtain PRP response. Thus, the OSC, in consultation/coordination with
Regional enforcement staff, must:
Notify the PRP that -EPA is planning to perform emergency action
at the site
Request a removal action by the PRP
Inform the PRP of the potential liability under CERCLA section
107 if he/she is determined to be a responsible party and either
fails to respond or responds improperly.
The specific timing of the procedure for notification will depend upon the
urgency of the situation. Notification should give the PRPs a reasonable
amount of time to respond; however, what is reasonable is clearly related
to the exigencies of the situation. In all situations,, however, the OSC
should ensure that Regional enforcement personnel are informed of any PRP
response.
In urgent situations, the OSC may notify the PRP verbally. The
Regional program office then should prepare and send a "notice letter" to
the PRP confirming the verbal request for response and notification of
liability. While a notice letter typically precedes the initiation of an
Administrative Order (described in V.A.3 below), this is not necessary in
emergencies, given the limited time available. The Regional program
office should send the notice letter as soon as possible following the
verbal notification.
For less urgent situations, procedures for obtaining PRP response
should be essentially the same as those for remedial actions. Notice
letters should be issued to PRPs and, depending upon the response, an
Agency team of Regional technical and legal personnel should quickly
schedule negotiations aimed at securing PRP cleanup within an established
period of time. In the typical scenario, the Regional program office
should send notice letters to all known PRPs prior to the initiation of
the removal action. EPA issued guidance on the use of notice letters and
the conduct of negotiations in "Interim Guidance on Notice Letters,
Negotiations, and Information Exchange" (October 19, 1987). This document
includes guidance on the circumstances in which removal notice letters
(including "special" notices under section 122(e)) should be issued, the
timing and content of such notices as well as information on the conduct
and conclusion of negotiations. In general, the guidance indicates that
the Regions should provide some type of written notice to PRPs, but the
use of "special notices" should only be considered for long-term removal
actions because the issuance of a special notice triggers a temporary
moratorium on EPA action and a specific time frame for negotiations. The
guidance recommends using the 122(e) special notice procedures only for
those removals where it is not necessary to initiate an action for at
least six months.
V-3
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECT EVE 9360.0-Q3B
3. Potentially Responsible Party Negotiations
Where PRPs respond with an interest in undertaking the removal
action. Regional staff should arrange for negotiations to take place.
OSCs, in conjunction with CERCLA enforcement staff, should establish a
time frame for conducting negotiations (NOTE: for time-critical removals,
Regional staff may bybass negotiations and immediately issue a unilateral
Administrative Order). The time period for negotiations should be
reasonable considering the nature of the work being discussed and the
exigencies of site conditions. The product of negotiations should be an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), which embodies the technical
workplan for the response action. Drafts of both documents should be
available to the PRPs early in the negotiations. Enforcement staff will
take the following steps when preparing for and conducting negotiations
with PRPs:
Obtain PRP information from State files
Obtain PRP financial information to the extent available
Prepare draft AO
Develop workplan for PRP response
Meet with PRPs
Begin assembly of the Administrative Record File
Negotiate language in AO or technical points in workplan
Coordinate with Headquarters, State and PRPs to obtain signatures
• Issue AO.
Due to the time sensitive nature of removal incidents, the negotiation
process is often accelerated and certain steps described above may be
eliminated.
a. Administrative Orders
Section 106 of CERCLA empowers EPA to issue AOs to compel
cleanup by PRPs. EPA policy is to proceed' with a CERCLA 106
unilateral Administrative Order if PRPs fail to respond appropriately
to the oral/written notification and negotiation process described
above, provided the following criteria are met:
Finding of an actual or threatened release of a hazardous
substance from a facility
Site conditions that may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment (Note: courts have interpreted
this standard very broadly and have not required a finding
of immediate threat}
Notification to the affected State.
If possible, the draft AO should be prepared by Regional personnel
prior to the initial negotiations. Current policy is -for Regional
enforcement staff to issue a unilateral AO whenever there is a known
PRP before Fund activation, provided the delay in initiating response
does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the public health-.
V-4
-------
February L988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
welfare or the environment. The OSC and other Regional personnel
should continue the process of preparing the Action Memorandum and
obtaining approval for a Fund-financed action. Action Memoranda
should contain an "Enforcement Sensitive" section that includes
information on the enforcement strategy, PRP response and previous
enforcement actions (see Chapter III, Section C.8, of this manual for
additional information on the preparation of Action Memoranda).
If site conditions deteriorate, creating a corresponding
increase in threat, the OSC should immediately initiate on-site
response activities while the AO process continues. In such cases, •
the AO should be revised to require the PRP to commence cleanup
activities at the next convenient break in the response. Assembly of
the Administrative Record should commence simultaneously.
The recipient of the AO may agree to comply with the terms of
the unilateral Order. In some cases, EPA may withdraw the unilateral
AO where it is simultaneously replaced by an Administrative Order on
Consent. EPA generally does not devote a significant amount of time
to a second round of negotiations. If the recipient does not agree
to the terms, EPA generally will proceed with a Fund-financed
response and will sue for cost recovery, including punitive damages
in appropriate cases (see Exhibit V-l). In some cases, it may be
appropriate to enforce the terms of the Order and compel P-RP response
through a judicial enforcement action. Guidance on the issuance of
AOs for removals is contained in the memoranda "Use and Issuance of
Administrative Orders under Section 106(a) of CERCLA" (Courtney-
Price, Lee Thomas, September 8, 1983) and "Issuance of Administrative
Orders for Immediate Removal Actions" (Lee Thomas, February 21,
1984). Appendix 18 contains copies of these.memoranda.
b. Oversight of Responsible Party Responses
An AO must prescribe the activities the responsible party must
undertake as well as the completion date for the entire response and
its discrete components, including oversight provisions and
associated, costs. Where the terms of the Order are not being met,
the OSC should coordinate with technical enforcement staff and ORC as
to appropriate action.
Regional personnel responsible for monitoring RP compliance
should either remain on site or visit the site periodically,
whichever is appropriate given the circumstances of the release and
the nature of cleanup activities. Oversight may be supplemented
through use of contract resources (TES) and, in addition to oversight
of field activities, should include technical review of workplans,
protocols, site data and reports.
Costs associated with oversight of PRP response actions,
including removal actions, are fully recoverable. Oversight costs
may vary considerably among removal actions depending upon the extent
and duration of removal activities. To facilitate the preparation of
potential future cost recovery actions, against either'PRPs conducting
the removal or other non-participating PRPs, OSCs should comply with
V-5
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-Q3B
the cost documentation procedures described in Chapter III.
Recoverable costs include both intramural (e.g., EPA payroll and
travel) and extramural (Agency contractors' costs) oversight costs.
The "Superfund Indirect Cost Manual for Cost Recovery Purposes FY 33
through FY 86" (March 1986) developed by the Superfund Accounting
Branch, Financial Management Division provides an explanation of how
EPA's extramural cost rates are developed and how those rates should
be used to calculate extramural oversight costs for individual
Superfund sites.
In the instance where the Agency is negotiating an
Administrative Order on consent for a PRP removal action, the Region
should attempt to secure an agreement within the administrative order
for reimbursement of oversight costs by the PRP. Such an agreement
is highly desirable in removal actions that may require a long period
of time to implement and extensive oversight by the Agency and/or its
representatives. In the alternative, the reservation of rights
clause should explicitly perserve the Agency, ability to seek these
oversight costs in potential future actions. Full documentation of
oversight costs should be done in either instance.
In summary, the following procedures are required to coordinate
attempts to obtain PRP response with approval of Fund financing:
The OSC should inform appropriate Regional staff, as well as HQ
OERR and OWPE, of a potential Fund-financed removal
The OSC, Regional enforcement staff or Regional Counsel should
attempt oral notification of the PRP, followed by written
notification
The OSC should make a recommendation on the issuance of an AO
Regional enforcement personnel should draft the AO using
information provided in the Action Memorandum (i.e., site
visits. State enforcement files, preliminary PRP search
information)
EPA officials should schedule a conference with the PRP, and the
OSC and Regional enforcement should agree upon a deadline for
the conclusion of PRP negotiations
Assembly of the Administrative Record file should commence
If the deadline passes and/or the AO is not issued, or if site _
conditions deteriorate, the OSC may initiate Fund-financed
removal action.
4. Criminal Investigation
If at any time during removal actions criminal activity is suspected,
the Special-Agent-In-Charge (SAIC) of NEIC should be immediately notified
to begin criminal investigative activities. In situations where a
V-6
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
criminal investigation has been initiated by the NEIC, cooperation and
coordination among the OSC, Regional Counsel and the NEIC will be
necessary. Regional enforcement and program office staff may therefore be
requested to provide legal and technical support for an investigation
through consultation -or actual field work. Also, in those cases that are
prosecuted and go to trial, it may be necessary for the Regional technical
staff (i.e., the OSC, Regional enforcement personnel) to testify.
Additional information on criminal investigations and the role of the NEIC
and Regional personnel is provided in the memorandum "Functions and
General Operating Procedures for the Criminal Enforcement Program"
(Courtney M. Price, AA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring,
January 7, 1985).
C. TYPES OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY RESPONSES
As noted earlier, responsible party action may begin at any phase of a
removal response. Responsible parties may either agree to perform all
required work on a site prior to initiation of Fund-financed removal
activities or take over a response action initiated by EPA and perform all
remaining work. In any case, EPA will monitor RP site activities. If the
Agency determines that the RP is not properly conducting the response and is
thereby violating the terms of the AO, EPA should take action to correct the
violations. If uncorrected, EPA may take over the removal action. Close
coordination with technical enforcement staff and Regional Counsel is critical
in such instances. The following describes different circumstances that OSCs
may encounter surrounding RP responses:
Responsible party cleanup — The RP assumes responsibility from the
outset, precluding the need to initiate a Fund-financed response.
The mechanism for obtaining .responsible party action is an AO as
described above in Section V.B.3.a. OSCs or CERCLA enforcement
personnel must monitor the responsible party removal to ensure
compliance with the Order.
Responsible party takeover — The exigencies of the situation
necessitate commencement of Fund-financed activities prior to the
completion of negotiations with the responsible party. Processing of
an AO continues, however, and at a convenient break in the response
activities, EPA demobilizes its contractor and the RP assumes
responsibility for the remaining activities required. OSCs or CERCLA
enforcement personnel monitor the response to ensure compliance with
the AO.
EPA takeover — The RP agrees to undertake response action, but OSC
or CERCLA enforcement personnel monitoring shows that the actions are
not timely or appropriate. EPA either takes action to enforce the AO
by 106 judicial action or takes over the response and pursues cost
recovery.
In addition, an RP may challenge the AO. While this situation is possible, it
rarely occurs in the removal program. Appendix 19 contains examples of each
of the situations described above.
V-7
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
VI. REMOVALS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES
This chapter briefly discusses the roles and responsibilities of Federal
agencies and EPA for removal actions at Federal facilities, as set forth in
E.O. 12580. The first part discusses Federal agency lead removals and the
second part addresses EPA-lead actions at Federal facilities.
-------
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
VI. REMOVALS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES
Under E.O. 12580, Federal facilities have been delegated the authority
to conduct "non-emergency" removal .actions at facilities under their
jurisdiction. DOD and DOE have also been delegated the authority to conduct
emergency removal actions at facilities under their jurisdiction.
Responsibility for responding to all other emergency situations rests with
EPA. In accordance with E.O. 12580, Federal agencies are responsible for
funding response actions taken at facilities under their jurisdiction. In
limited circumstances, EPA may lead "non-emergency" removal actions at'
Federal facilities.
A. FEDERAL AGENCY LEAD
When conducting a "non-emergency" removal action. Federal agencies must
comply with all of the substantive and procedural requirements under
sections 107(g) and 120 of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and the NCP. Thus,
they must:
Report releases of hazardous substances, contaminants or pollutants
Evaluate releases and threats of releases
Determine and select an appropriate response action
Conduct the response.
Even in instances where NCP requirements are not strictly applicable, such
as the statutory time and dollar limits for removal actions. Federal
agencies should consider the intent of, and reasoning behind, the NCP
provisions when conducting response actions at their own facilities.
Regarding the removal statutory limits. Congress intended that removal
actions continue to be limited in scope. Federal agencies generally should
comply with the removal statutory limits or meet the requirements for one of
the two statutory exemptions from the limits, as described in the NCP. The
agencies should use the same types of considerations in determining how
other NCP provisions apply to them when conducting removal actions at
facilities under their jurisdiction.
EPA OSCs have substantial, valuable expertise in conducting removals and
may be called on to help Federal agencies select and plan their responses.
The types of technical assistance that OSCs may provide include:
Reviewing preliminary assessment data to ascertain whether they
support the need for removal response
Reviewing proposed cleanup strategies with respect to technical
feasibility, accuracy of cost estimates and compliance with other
environmental statutes and policies (e.g., OSWER's "Off-site
Policy")
VI-1
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.Q-03B
Providing input to worker and visitor health and safety plans and
community relations plans
Facilitating the processing of requests for TAT or NCLP resources
Coordinating other Federal agency assistance, preferably through
the RRT:
To assist Federal agencies in responding to releases, OERR is developing a
Federal facilities program manual that will provide guidance to Federal
agencies in implementing their CERCLA responsibilities.
B. EPA-LEAD REMOVALS
As noted earlier, under E.G. 12580 EPA is responsible for performing all
emergency removal actions, including such actions at Federal facilities,
with the exception of emergency removal actions at DOD or DOE facilities.
At the request of a responsible Federal agency, if that agency does not have
the technical capability or cannot respond in a timely manner, EPA may lead
a "non-emergency" removal action at a Federal facility. In any case, the
responsible Federal agency must fund the response. To initiate an EPA-lead
removal action at a Federal facility, the responsible Federal agency should
transfer money to EPA via an IAG. Only for those EPA-lead emergency removal
actions where time does not permit transfer of funds may EPA utilize the
Trust Fund and seek Federal agency reimbursement. Trust Fund monies are not
to be used for conducting non-emergency removals at Federal facilities.
EPA-lead removals at Federal facilities must comply with all procedures
and requirements set forth in this manual pertaining to other EPA-lead,
CERCLA-financed removals. If EPA uses Trust Fund monies, the statutory
limitations on cost and duration apply.
VI-2
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
VII. CLAIMS AGAINST THE FUND
This chapter describes the circumstances under which a private party may
choose to perform response actions and seek reimbursement from the Fund for
response costs. The first section describes those situations which may
precipitate other party response and sets forth the requirements for prior
approval (preauthorization) by EPA so that other parties can be reimbursed
by the Fund. The second section sets forth Regional responsibilities in the
response claims process.
-------
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-Q3B
VII. CLAIMS AGAINST THE FUND
Section 111 of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, authorizes the President to
use the Fund for the payment of necessary response costs incurred by other
parties in carrying out the National Contingency Plan. Claims procedures
are set forth in section 112 of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. The mechanism
for reimbursement of these costs is the filing of a response claim.
Executive Order 12580 delegates to the Administrator of EPA the functions
vested in the President by sections 111 and 112 of CERCLA, as amended by
SARA, to administer a claims program. Section 111 also authorizes certain
parties to file claims for the assessment and restoration of natural
resources; however section 517 of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, explicitly
prohibits the use of any Trust Fund money foe the payment of natural
resource damage claims until 1991, when the current five year taxing
authority expires.
A. RESPONSE CLAIMS
Most cleanup activities responses will be undertaken by 1) a responsible
party under an AO or consent agreement with EPA, 2) a State under a duly
authorized Superfund Cooperative Agreement or Superfund State Contract or
3) a Federal-lead agency and its contractors. Parties may respond and
potentially receive CERCLA reimbursement under section lll(a)(2) of CERCLA.
Before responding, these parties must seek and receive preauthorization in
accordance with section 300.25(d) of the NCP. Preauthorization ensures that
only those sites that are in EPA's priority scheme will receive funding,
that the party has sufficient technical capability to conduct a response
action, and that scarce Fund resources will be utilized only for those sites
posing the greatest threat to human health or the environment. EPA's
forthcoming claims regulation and guidance will stress that the
preauthorization of a claim should only be considered in those circumstances
where the threat of fire, explosion or direct human contact does not exist
and there is sufficient time to evaluate a request for preauthorization.
Other parties may perform a response action when: 1) a threat posed by
a particular release is not deemed by EPA to be serious and/or immediate
enough to warrant an emergency Federal-lead response, or 2) due to cost
limitations. Federal response does not remedy a threat to the extent desired
by the party. In addition, under section 122(b) of CERCLA, as amended, the
Federal government may agree (via mixed funding settlements) to partially
reimburse responsible parties that fund or perform response actions where
other responsible parties are unknown, are insolvent or refuse to respond.
EPA issued mixed funding guidance on October 20, 1987 ("Evaluating Mixed
Funding Settlements under CERCLA"), The guidance indicates that mixed
funding arrangements involving preauthorization are generally only available
for remedial actions. Exceptions to this general rule may be considered
only in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., a large, extensive removal of
greater than $2 million).
VII-1
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-Q3B
In all circumstances, responsibility for processing the preauthorization
request rests with HSCD. HSCD will coordinate the HQ review and approval
process and verify that each preauthorization request contains information
about the release, the proposed cleanup actions and the applicant's
capabilities to perform the proposed response. HSCD also will consult the
Regions on whether to grant preauthorization. HSCD is responsible for
administering the claims program; however, the AA, OSWER determines who will
receive preauthorization for reimbursement.
B. REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Regions have four primary responsibilities related to the claims
procedure. First, the Region may serve as the first point of contaict
between a potential claimant and EPA. The Region.must be prepared to advise
the claimant regarding the appropriate procedures and often whether there is
sufficient time to consider preauthorizations. During the preauthorization
process, the Regions should be prepared to serve as a technical resource to
OERR and assist in providing needed information and evaluations. Second,
once preauthorization has been granted, the Regions must monitor other party
response actions in accordance with procedures found in Chapter V,
Potentially Responsible Parties. Third, Regions may be asked by HSCD to
assist in evaluating any requests by the other party for modifications to
the approved preauthorization request. Finally, after the other party has
completed the response action and submitted a response claim to HQ, OERR may
consult with the Regions to confirm that activities were consistent with the
preauthorization request and that response costs were reasonable.
Procedures for handling response claims, and criteria for approving
preauthorization are currently being developed, and will appear in 40 CFR
Part 307. Until these regulations are promulgated, all requests for
preauthorization and response claims will be handled by HSCD on a
case-by-case basis.
In addition, ERD has developed-procedures to reimburse local governments
for temporary emergency measures as provided for in section 123 of CERCLA,
as amended by SARA. An interim final regulation was published in FR 39386
(40 CFR Part 310) on October 21, 1987.
VII-2
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
LIST OF APPENDICES
1. Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS) Report
2. Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) Reports
3. Removal Program Cost Categories
4. Types of Removal Incidents (Examples)
5. Decision Rationale
6. Initial Action Memorandum for Removals Less than Twelve Months
and $2 Million (Model)
7. Initial Action Memorandum and $2 Million Exemption Request (Model)
8. Removal Delegation 14-1-A, September 13, 1987
9. Exemption From Twelve-Month Limit Action Memorandum (Model)
10. Ceiling Increase Action Memorandum (Model)
11. Removal Delegations 14-2-A and 14-2-B, September 21, 1987
12. Exemption from $2 Million Limit Action Memorandum (Model)
13. Request for Change in the Scope of Work Action Memorandum (Model)
14. Summary of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) for USCG, ATSDR and FEMA
15. Sample POLREPs
16. Removal Action Accident Report
17. Procedures for Cost Calculation
18. "Use and Issuance of Administrative Orders Under §106(a) of CERCLA" and
"Issuance of Administrative Orders for Immediate Removal Actions"
19. Responsible Party Actions (Examples)
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
APPENDIX 1
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
(SPMS) REPORT
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360".0-03B
APPENDIX 1
SAMPLE STRATEGIC PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
(SPMS) REPORT
The following are portions of a SPMS report, used by the Office of Management Systems Evaluation
to monitor and evaluate Regional performance under the removal program. The report shows actual Regional
quarterly performance (P) (i.e., the number of NPL starts and stabilizations) against the quarterly targets (T).
SUMMARY REPORT
HQ-REPORTED PERFORMANCE
REMOVAL FIRST START
AT AN NPL SITE (FUND AND PRP FINANCED)
4/8/87
(S/C-3(a»*
ORGN
R 1
R 2
R 3
R 4
R 5
R 6
R 7
R 8
R 9
RIO
Natl
NO Ql
TARGET
Q1P
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
NO Q2
TARGET
Q2P
NO Q3
TARGET
Q3P
Q4T
Q4P
4
7
6
7
6
2
3
3
2
1
41
SUMMARY REPORT
HQ-REPORTED PERFORMANCE
REMOVAL RESTARTS AT NPL SITES (FUND AND
PRP FINANCED) (S/C-3(b))*
ORGN
R 1
R 2
R 3
R 4
R 5
R 6
R 7
Q1P
Q2P
R 8
R 9
Rl 0
Natl
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Q3P
Q4P
*SPMS Reporting Measure only; there are no annual targets
APPENDIX 1
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
4/8/87
NPL STABILIZED
VIA A REMOVAL ACTION (FUND AND PRP) (S/C-4)*
ORGN NO Ql Q1P NO Q2 Q2P NO Q3 Q3P Q4T Q4P
TARGET ——— TARGET ———— TARGET
" ' I
n o ;
R 5 ° 5
II 1. 1C
0 2
R 7
R 9 0
0 3
Natl 6 43
-2- APPENDIX 1
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
APPENDIX 2
SUPERFUND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS PLAN
(SCAP) REPORTS
-------
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL REMOVAL TARGETS
SAMPLE REPORT
tiff.
(Mfear at <
•aoiat
X
XX
III
IV
V
vt
VXI
Vtll
XX
X
local*
Mortar of (
aagion
X
IX
IXX
rv
V
vt
VXI
vxxx
IX
X
21
0
1
0
0
3
1
1
2
0
I
9
zaoA-eu
21
i
i
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
noad raaow
22
i
i
2
2
0
1
i
0
1
0
9
ndad raaow
21
2
0
1
2
1
1
I
2
I
0
•1 action*
21
0
i
2
'2
1
1
0
1
1
1
10
•1 action*
21
0
2
2
1
0
I
1
0
1
I
w b* •tanad tor Nfft sitaa.
21
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
S
eo ba coaplcead
21
i
i
2
1
1
I
0
I
1
0
•agicn's
4£Bi
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.0-03B
QUARTERLY REGIONAL SITE-SPECIFIC ACTUAL STARTS
SAMPLE REPORT
s/ a/8* ' p/Nci
FV8* 3UA*TE1»LV HEMOVAL PLANS AMD ACCOHPL 15MKNT3
WEWJVAL 3TAHT3 FON (MAMIE* 3
FOR HEOIOM 04
SITE MM
NES8IT «
«
KALE HOU1
•
•AMKM CO. DMUM SITE
•eiMEN t
U 8. Ml«
wun
f 1 TRUCK
SITE
CAUL ALLXM CHEMICAL SITES
CLAVTOM
BALLF1EU) PEBTICl
•EMVALS
STANTEO
IT
m
OA
sc
NC
SC
NC
THIS
Mn
M
M
M
N
M
N
PLAN
. 3TWT
O/O
O/O
0/0
O/O
O/O
0/0
ACTUAL
3TAHT
I/2V/8*
1/31/8*
3/13/8*
3/13/8*
3/24/8*
3/31/8*
OUAdTEH FOH NEOIOM
PLAN
cor*
O/O
O/O
O/O
0/0
0/0
0/0
04
ACTUAL
COUPLETS
2/13/8*
2/13/8*
/ /
3/18/8*
/ >
4/ 4/8*
•> 4
2O PLANNED
OBLIGATION
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
FVB*
am. i c A r N canr* NTS
8. OOO
3. OOO
23.000 1
0
20.000
0 PESTICIDES DISCOVERED DUNINC *
98. OOO
QUARTERLY REGIONAL SITE-SPECIFIC PLANNED STARTS
SAMPLE REPORT
3/ 9/8*
FY9* OUANTEMLV KCFIOVAL PLAMS AMQ AC C OMPL I SHK N T S SUnnA>V
PLA*MED STAMTS FOR QtMMtTEN 3
FOK neetOM o«
PLAN ACTUAL PtAM ACTUAL 3O PLANNED
SITC M«MK 3T KM. 3THT STANT COnP COnPlETC OOLICATION OBLICATN
BUHMCTT CVUNOCR 31 Tt SC M B*/3 ' ' 87/1 / / IOO. OOO O
LES KOAO ACID omjHS OA N 9*/3 / / b7/i / / 23.000 o
PLANNED STAHTS THI3 OUAHTEW F0«» WECION 04 . Z 123. OOO 0
APPENDIX 2
-------
February 1988
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9360.Q-Q3B
APPENDIX 3
REMOVAL PROGRAM COST CATEGORIES
-------
-------
CO
*
T3 U3
CJ
u
oi
M
Q
OS
U
2
en
O
o
o
LU
CO
O
CL
CO
LU
CC
O
LJJ
DC
O
DC
LJJ
O
«
"