United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington, O.C. 20460
EPA/540/R-95/062
OSWER Directive 9320.2-09
PB 95-963241
August 1995
Superfund
Close Out Procedures for
National Priorities List Sites
Interim Final
f
I ^
";Ci "•' i -u':
.: • , i . -'••'_-'"'
EPA
540/R-
95-062
EPA Report<3ollection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19107
-------
EPA/540/R-95/062
OSWER Directive 9320.2-09
PB 95-963241
August 1995
Close Out Procedures for
National Priorities List Sites
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington D.C. 20460
-------
Table of Contents
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Background 1-1
B. RPM's Role 1-2
H. OPERABLE UNIT COMPLETION II-l
A. Operable Unit Completion Criteria II-l
B. Operaole Unit Completion Initiation II-l
1. Inspection Requirements of Fund-Financed RAs EI-1
2. Inspection Requirements of PRP-Financed RAs II-3
C. Remedial Action Report II-4
D. Final Operable Unit Completion II-6
IE. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION EI-1
A. Construction Completion Criteria DI-1
B. Construction Completion Initiation III-2
1. Removal Authority III-2
2. Remedial Authority DI-2
a. Sites Requiring Remedial Construction in the Final OU . UI-2
b. Special Cases ffl-6
1. Long-Term Response Actions flI-6
2. Bioremediation and In-situ Soil Vapor
Extraction Remedies ffl-7
3. Monitoring and Institutional Controls IH-8
c. Sites Requiring No Remedial Construction in the Final
OU IH-8
3. Non Fund-Lead Actions IH-10
a. PRPLead ffl-10
b. Federal Facilities ffl-10
c. State Lead ffl-10
d. Other Statutes (e.g., RCRA) ffl-11
C. Construction Completion Checklist 01-12
-------
IV. SITE COMPLETION IV-1
A. Site Completion Criteria IV-1
B. Site Completion Initiation IV-1
2. Removal Authority FV-3
2. Remedial Authority IV-3
a. Sites Requiring Remedial Construction in the Final OU . IV-3
b. Sites Requiring No Remedial Construction in the Final
OU ~ IV-4
c. Sites Where No Response Action Was Required IV-4
C. Final Close Out Report IV-4
D. Site Completion Checklist IV-6
V. SITE DELETION V-l
A. NPL Deletion Criteria V-l
B. The Deletion Process V-2
I. Process Initiation V-2
2. Publication of the Notice of Intent to Delete and a Local Notice V-7
3. Responsiveness Summary and Notice of Deletion V-7
C. Site Deletion Checklist V-8
-------
List of Exhibits
Page
1 Superfund Process 1-4
2 Remedial Action Report Summary Q-5
3 Construction Completion Process IH-3
4 Representative Minor "Punch List" Items HI-4
5 Preliminary Close Out Report Summary III-6
6 Site Completion and Site Deletion Processes (Site Completion Focus) . . . FV-2
7 Final COR Summary IV-5
8 Site Completion and Site Deletion Processes (Site Deletion Focus) V-4
9 Notice of Intent to Delete Summary V-6
111
-------
List of Appendices
Page
A Sample Remedial Action Report A-l
B Sample Preliminary Close Out Report B-l
C Sample Final Close Out Report C-l
D Sample Notice of Intent to Delete D-l
E Sample Local Notice of Intent to Delete E-l
F Sample Notice of Deletion F-l
G Superfund Acronyms List G-l
H Glossary H-l
IV
-------
SECTION I.
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
INTRODUCTION
-------
Section I - Introduction
I. INTRODUCTION
This guidance document is designed primarily for use by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Remedial Project Managers (RPMs). It provides
procedural information on accomplishing operable unit completion, construction
completion, site completion, and site deletion. This guidance applies only to those
sites that are or were final on the National Priorities List It supersedes the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.2-3A, "Procedures for
Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites," April 1989, and its
amendments, including OSWFR Directive 9320.2-3B, December 29. 1989, and
9320.2-3C, February 19, 1992.
A. Background
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 EPA to maintain a National Priorities
List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that have released or pose a threat
of release of hazardous substances into the environment. Pursuant to the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal
Regulations [C.FR] Part 300), sites on the NPL are eligible for Superfund-financed
remedial actions (RA).
Superfund addresses NPL sites through early and long-term actions using removal
and/or remedial authority. Early actions are cleanup activities that take less than
five years to complete. They achieve prompt risk reduction and are performed under
either removal or remedial authority. Cleanup actions that take more than five years
to implement are called long-term actions. Long-term actions are conducted under
remedial authority and achieve risk reduction through more extensive remediation
activities.
Cleanup activities under remedial authority are called remedial actions (RA). An RA
typically begins at an NPL site after completion of the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS). The RI/FS determines the nature and extent
of contamination, and identifies alternatives for the remedy. EPA's Record of
Decision (ROD) documents the remedia' activities selected to achieve pro^ectiveness.
(For pre-SARA sites, detailed remedial activities sometimes may be described in other
EPA reports such as a consent decree or an administrative order.) RAs are designed
to protect human health and the environment, and they include treating, containing,
and removing contaminated material; providing alternate water supplies; and/or
imposing institutional controls that address site use. Treatment that reduces waste
I-l
-------
Section I - Introduction
toxicity, mobility, or volume is a preferred cleanup action. However, not all the waste
needs to be treated or removed as long as protectiveness is achieved.
A Superfund site may require several RAs to address all the site hazards. In that
case, the site is divided into distinct segments known as operable units. Completion
of an operable unit (OU) can be achieved through early actions, long-term actions,
or a combination of both. The operable unit completion milestone, however, applies
only to cleanup activities under remedial authority.
Once physical construction is complete at the entire site (through removal and/or
xemedial authority), the site may achieve the construction completion milestone.
EPA introduced the construction completion milestone to better communicate the
successful completion of site cleanup activities. Construction at an NPL site is
considered complete when physical construction is complete for the entire site, or a
decision is made that no physical construction is necessary.
Site completion occurs when no further response is required at the site, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and the site is deemed protective of human health and the
environment. Once site completion is achieved, the site becomes a candidate for
NPL deletion.
When no further response is appropriate, the site is eligible for deletion from the
NPL. This stage, as dictated by the NCP, is known as site deletion. Essentially, this
process entails documenting the response activities for the site, verifying that
activities have been conducted and documented, and offering the public an
opportunity for notice and comment before the site is formally deleted from the NPL.
Construction completion marks the end of an important phase in the Superfund
completion process. However, the site completion and site deletion milestones
remain independent from the construction completion concept. EPA Headquarters
monitors and reports site progress towards NPL deletion including the construction
completion milestone. This guidance provides detailed information on achieving the
various milestones of the NPL site close out process, highlighting specific activities
and the related reports that indicate each activity's completion. Appendices A
through F provide examples of the reports discussed. Appendices G and H are
reference materials to be used with this guidance.
B. RPM's Role
The RPM has overall responsibility for overseeing the successful completion of
cleanup activities at an NPL site and for guiding a site through each successive phase
1-2
-------
Section I - Introduction
of the Superfund process, as illustrated in Exhibit 1. This guidance document
emphasizes the role of the RPM during the final stages of site remediation. The RPM
is responsible for Applying EPA's criteria to a site to determine its eligibility for
achieving each milestone. He/she ensures that all statutory, regulatory, and policy
requirements are met, both technically and procedurally. Each milestone is
documented by a specific report. The RPM should carefully document all site
activities for future reporting needs.
1-3
-------
Section I - Introduction
EXHIBIT 1
Superfund Process
T
Continuous
Operation
and
Maintenance
L
Site Discovery 1
\
i
Site Screening 1 •"•"
and Assessment 1
>
A
Hazard Ranking System (HRS)/ 1
National Prionties List (NPL) |
>
r
Remedial Investigation (El)/ 1
Feasibility Study (FS) |
>
' AtAn
Remedy Selection/ 1
Record of Decision (ROD) |
>
i
Remedial Design (ED)/ 1
Remedial Action (RA) |
>
f
Site Construction Completion 1
^
f
Site Completion I
J
f
Closeout /NPL Deletion 1 "••
1
arly
turn
y Point
cesaary
1-4
-------
SECTION II.
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
OPERABLE UNIT
COMPLETION
-------
Section Q - Operable Unit Completion
II. OPERABLE UNIT COMPLETION
Remedial work conducted at a site is often divided into distinct segments known as
operable units. Completion of an operable unit (OU) can be achieved through early
actions, long-term actions, or a combination of both. The operable unit completion
milestone, however, applies only to cleanup activities under remedial authority.
A. Operable Unit Completion Criteria
Operable unit completion is achieved when:
• All construction activities within the OU are complete
• A final inspection has been conducted
• The remedy is operational and functional, and
• The designated Regional or State official signs a letter accepting the
Remedial Action Report (see section DLC for RA report requirements).
Under 40 CFR Section 300.435, a remedy becomes operational and functional
either one year after construction is complete or when the remedy is determined
(concurrently by EPA and the State) to be functioning properly and is
performing as design, whichever occurs first.
B. Operable Unit Completion Initiation
As all cleanup activities within the OU near completion, the Remedial Project
Manager (RPM) must understand his/her role and responsibility to ensure proper
close out procedures. The following sections illustrate activities specific to
Fund-financed and potentially responsible party (PRP)-financed remedial actions
(RAs).
1. Inspection Requirements of Fund-Financed RAs
Contractual Inspections: PreFinal/Final
Pre-final and final inspections are standard construction practices for closing ovt a
contract, and are intended to determine whether the construction was complete in
accordance with the contract's design and specifications.
n-1
-------
Section n - Operable Unit Completion
The pre-final inspection is generally held between the contracting party and the
construction contractor. EPA's primary contracting/oversight parties are the State,
Alternative Remedial Contract Strategy/Response Action Contract (ARCC XRAC)
Contractors, and US Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE).
During the pre-final inspection, the contracting parry's construction manager and the
construction contractor look at each element of work to see if it is complete and
ready for acceptance under the terms of the contract. Quite frequently, a few
elements of work will still be in progress at this time. Some minor defects will come
to light as the inspection proceeds. The construction manager develops a "punch list"
of all items that need correction or completion before the work can be accepted. A
pre-final inspection report is prepared then, including the "punch list," completion
dates for outstanding items, and a date for a final inspection (if one is to be held). A
copy of this report is sent to the RPM.
A final inspection may be required before final acceptance. All parties should attend
the final inspection. The construction manager, however, determines the degree to
which work is complete. Work is considered complete when all "punch list" tasks
have been performed, the remedy is operational and functional, and all the terms of
the contract have been met. If a few minor work elements remain outstanding, the
work may still be accepted.
During the final inspection the RPM needs to determine if the work has been
completed following the contracting party's work plan. For that purpose, he/she
should review the work plan thoroughly before the inspection takes place. In
addition, the RPM may request technical advisors to assist in the inspection.
Completion of construction activities at a OU does not mean that the work
assignment is complete. There are additional contractual requirements that do not
affect the operable unit completion milestone. For information on those requirements
refer to the June 1995 OSWER Directive 9355.0-04B: "Remedial Design/Remedial
Action Handbook."
Statutory Inspections
The NCP requires a.i additional set of inspections at fund lead sites. This requirement
applies mostly to sites requiring operation and maintenance. During these
inspections, EPA and the State determine concurrently the beginning of the O&F
period. Except for long term response actions (LTRAs), the State becomes responsible
for the remedy's operation and maintenance (O&M) once it has been declared
operational and functional. LTRAs are response actions undertaken for restoring
ground or surface water quality. Joint EPA/State inspections are required to satisfy
n-2
-------
Section II - Operable Unit Completion
the operable unit completion milestone criteria. They are not required nor do they
relate to the construction completion milestone.
Operation and maintenance activities are performed to protect the integrity of the remedy at the
site. At hand-lead sites, the state performs O&M when the remedy is operational and functional.
An exception to this are LTRAs where EPA operates the system for up to 10 years after it has
been declared operational and functional.
The inspection is con-' acted jointly ',y EPA and the State at the end of all
construction activities. It can be conducted in conjunction with the contractual pre-
final or final inspection. Then, EPA and the State (if granted) concur that the remedy
has been constructed in accordance with the ROD and the remedial design. A
memorandum documents the EPA/State concurrent determination and indicates the
beginning of the shake down period. The shake down period enables minor
modifications in the remedy to ensure the remedy is operating as designed.
At the end of the shake down period the remedy becomes operational and functional.
For O&M transfer purposes, the remedy becomes operational and functional either
one year after the construction is accepted or when EPA and the State concur that is
performing as design, whichever occurs first. In the latter case, the NCP requires an
additional EPA/State joint inspection to declare the remedy Operational and
Functional.
2. Inspection Requirements of PRP-Financed RAs
Contractual Inspections: PreFinal/Final
The PRPs will normally conduct a pre-final and final inspection with their
construction contractor. Through these inspections, the PRPs ensure that work is
complete and that all requirements of their contract have been fulfilled. EPA may or
may not be invited to attend these inspections.
Enforcement Inspections
A separate inspection between the PRP, EPA, the oversight contractor, and other
agencies with a jurisdictional interest (i.e., the State) is required. The purpose of
these inspections is to determine if all aspects of the plans and specifications have
been implemented according to apolicable erforcement documents. If any items have
not been completed, the PRP should develop a "punch list" detailing the outstanding
items still requiring completion or correction before the work is accepted.
n-3
-------
Section U. - Operable Unit Completion
The RPM and the oversight contractor should take careful notes of all remaining
activities necessary to meet the requirements of the enforcement agreement. These
notes should be carefully compared to the punch list developed by the PRP.
A final inspection may be conducted when all items on the punch list have been
completed. All items shown as requiring correction on the "punch list" should be
reinspected, and all tests that were originally unsatisfactory should be conducted
again. A final "punch list" should be developed for any outstanding deficiencies still
requiring correction. Final Remedial Action (RA) acceptance at PRP lead sites should
be in accordance with applicable enforcement documents.
C Remedial Action Report
The RA Report documents the cleanup activities that took place at a single operable
unit under remedial authority. It includes information of aU early and long-term
actions within the OU. In addition, it documents that the cleanup standards specified
in the Record of Decision (ROD) have been met. At PRP-lead sites, the RA report
also certifies that the requirements in all applicable enforcement documents have
been satisfied.
For LTRAs, an interim RA Report is prepared when the physical construction-of the
system is complete and the unit is operating as designed, the report is amended and
completed when the LTRA cleanup standards specified in the ROD are achieved.
The RA Report should be prepared by someone familiar with both the design and
construction efforts associated with the RA. This familiarity with the project provides
the best background to discuss the successes and difficulties of the project. This
knowledge is often limited to three parties- the RPM, the RA contracting/oversight
party, and the PRP. In either case, the contracting/oversight party has the major role
in the project implementation. Therefore, is recommended that the contracting/
oversight party be tasked with preparing the RA report. In that case, the
development of the RA report should be included in the work assignment,
Interagency Agreement (IAG), or settlement agreement (at PRP sites).
After signing and dating the RA Report, the preparer sends it to the RPM for review
and comments. Once the RPM's commeats are incorporated, the designated regional
official signs a letter accepting the final RA Report.
Although RA Reports may vary slightly to meet unique site conditions, they should
follow a format similar to Exhibit 2. Appendix A presents a sample RA Report. For
further information regarding this subject, refer to EPA's quick reference fact sheet,
Directive 9355.0-39FS, June 1992, "Remedial Action Report, Documentation for
Operable Unit Completion."
n-4
-------
Section II - Operable Unit Completion
EXHIBIT 2
Remedial Action Report Summary
I. Introduction
• Include a brief description of the site and the selected remedy (e.g.. site
location, site description, site history, components of the selected
remedy, and specific contaminants addressed).
II. Chronology of Events
• Provide a chronology of events associated with the remedial action,
starting with the Assistant Administrator or Regional Administrator's
signature on the ROD.
ill. Performance Standards and
Construction Quality Control
• Include the criteria or requirements that t*e remedial action contractor
had to meet to complete the project (e.g., cleanup levels, quality criteria,
and other substantive requirements or limitations found in the ROD).
• Provide the standard, the maximum level permissible, the results of field
sampling, the basis for the determination that the standard was met
(except for long-term actions), and the location and frequency of these
tests for each performance standard.
• Explain the construction quality control plan operations and provide an
assurance that the remedial action is complete.
• Include a table that lists the types of samples taken and provide a
comparison of test results with the specified standards to be achieved by
the remedial action.
IV. Construction Activities
Describe the construction activities undertaken for the remedial action
(e.g., quantities excavated, cleanup levels achieved, and materials and/or
equipment used).
Provide the name and specific role of the major design and remedial
action contractors.
Discuss participation by other Federal agencies.
Provide a lessons teamed section, if .applicable, highlighting successes
and problems. Include the options considered, process used to select a
solution, and causes of any delays encountered.
V. Final Inspection
Report the pre-flnal and final inspections conducted by the contracting
party and the contractor after completion of construction of the operable
unrt(s) anr* identify the deficient items (i.e., 'punch list*).
VI. Certification that Remedy Is
Operational and Functional
• Include a certification that the remedy meets the performance standards.
VII. Operation and Maintenance Plan
• Indicate the Key aspects of the operation and maintenance plan.
• Provide insight into potential problems/concerns.
VIII. Summary of Project Costs
• Provide the final costs for the project and compare them to the original
remedial action estimate. This is required for Fund-lead projects and
provided whenever possible for PRP-lead projects.
• Include the need for and cost of any modifications during construction. If
the project is performed by PRP. an appendix should contain a summary
of EPA oversight costs.
n-s
-------
Section II - Operable Unit Completion
D. Final Operable Unit Completion
Completion of the final operable unit frequently means the site is eligible for
construction completion and eventually site completion. Initiation of the operable
unit completion and construction completion process can be simultaneous. However,
while documentation of construction completion and site completion requkes the
preparation of reports other than the RA Report, the RPM must ensure that a RA
Report is prepared for the final operable unit.
n-6
-------
SECTION III.
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
CONSTRUCTION
COMPLETION
-------
Section HI - Construction Completion
III. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION
For many years, the traditional measure of Superfund's success was the number of
sites deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL). However, Superfund sites may
remain in the NPL for a long time after actual: construction is completed due to the
stringent regulatory criteria for site deletion or for the long duration of an operation
phase. The number of NPL deletions is not an accurate measure of the work
completed at Superfund sites and the resulting reduction on threats to the human
health and the environment.
EPA established the Construction Completion List to capture a milestone in site
remediation prior to site deletion and communicate more accurately progress toward
NPL site cleanups. The ust indicates completed construction at sites presently or
formerly on the NPL. First published March 2, 1993 (58 FR 12142), the Construction
Completion List is updated periodically in the Federal Register.
Determination o! construction completion at a site has no legal or financial
significance^as it does net relate to satisfying contractual or other requirements (e.g.,
cleanup contract, consent decree, cooperative or interagency agreement), nor to the
eligibility of cost reimbursement from the fund.
Construction at an NPL site is considered complete when physical construction is
complete for the entire site, or a decision is made that no physical construction is
necessary. Completion of physical construction means that the final remedy or
remedies have been constructed at the site in accordance with design plan and
specifications and that no further construction is expected.
This section explains the documentation necessary to demonstrate the end of physical
construction activities at the site and the administrative requirements to achieve the
construction completion milestone.
A. Construction Completion Criteria
The Construction Completion List is composed of sites presently or formerly on the
NPL that meet or have met completion or deletion requirements. Most sites satisfy
construction completion criteria when:
• Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final
clear up levels have been achieved
m-l
-------
Section HI - Construction Completion
• EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to
measures that do not involve construction (e.g., passive remedies)
• The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL.
B. Construction Completion Initiation
The selected remedy at a site dictates when it becomes eligible for construction
completion and the type of documentation required to achieve this milestone. A site
may be a construction completion candidate even when no physical construction is
required or a long operation phase follows physical construction. If the activities
remaining at the site may be perceived as construction-related, the site should not be
considered for inclusion in the Construction Completion list. The following sections
provide more detail on the most common candidates for the construction completion
milestone and their reporting requirements.
1. Removal Authority
NPL sites that are fully addressed by early actions under removal authority can meet
the construction completion and site completion criteria simultaneously. Refer to
Section W.l, Site Completion, for documentation requirements.
2. Remedial Authority
Many Superfund sites cannot be fully addressed under removal authority. EPA
addresses the risks presented by these sites under its remedial authority through
early and long-term actions. Early and long-term actions under remedial authority
have identical closeout documentation requirements. This section addresses the
following cases:
• Sites requiring remedial construction in the final OU
• Special Cases
• Sites requiring no remedial construction in the final OU.
a. Sites Requiring Remedial Construction in the Final OU
This section presents the construction completion criteria for sites requiring physical
construction on the final operable unit. At these sites the construction completion
milestone is achieved when a pre-final inspection has been conducted and a
Preliminary Close Out Report has been signed.
ra-2
-------
Section in - Construction Completion
EXHIBIT 3
Construction Completion Process
DoesRA
at final Operable
Unit Require
Construction'
Complete Construction I
at Final Operable Unit j
^^ Remedial Action^*
^^atSUe?^j^
No Action ROD with
Final COR Certification
\
No Action ROD with final|
COR Certification and 1
COR Informati~i; or final |
CC
Send SigTMd ROD
toEPAHQ
COR
i final!
iRnaJ
Rnai I
Draft Preliminary COR;
ObtamCoouwnairom
EPAHQ
Send Signed ROD
to EPAHQ
I
i
Incorporate EPA HQ
Comment* Obtain
Regional Division
m-3
-------
Section E - Construction Completion
Pre-Final Inspection
A pre-final inspec^on should be conducted at the site's final OU following the
procedures outlined in Section n, "Operable Unit Completion initiation."
Construction completion criteria are satisfied when only minor "punch list" items are
identified in the inspection to finish the work in accordance with design plans and
specifications. Minor "punch list" items are described as activities that are part of the
contract specifications but do not affect the functioning of the remedy. These items
must be addressed by the construction contractor before the final inspection. Exhibit
4 lists typical "punch '"..t" items tb- allow a construction completion determination.
Because Exhibit 4 is only a representative list, each site must be evaluated
individually. The RPM must carefully evaluate the status of the selected remedy and
anticipate the need for additional construction activities. If the RPM believes that
additional construction might be required upon completion of the ROD remedy, the
site should not be placed on the Construction Completion List.
EXHIBIT 4
Representative Minor "Punch List" Items
Revegetating
Removing construction debris
Installing support equipment, such as fire extinguisher
Repairing poorly installed flashing on pump house roof
Repairing other minor defects in workmanship or construction
Demobilizing activities
Installing Monitoring Wells
Making final connection of water supply (if support piping is akeady
installed)
Preliminary Close Out Report
A Preliminary Close Out Report (PCOR) demonstrates and documents that physical
construction at a site has been completed. The PCOR must contain a schedule for the
site to satisfy the NCP and other procedural requirements necessary to issue a Final
Close Out Report (s.e section IV). It focuses on construction at a site, including the
release at the site, site conditions, construction activities, response action, completion
of construction, and a detailed schedule of steps remaining for site completion. The
PCOR should contain the information shown in Exhibit 5. Appendix B presents an
example of a PCOR.
The RPM may prepare the PCOR before the RA Report for the final operable unit is
complete and the remedy has been determined operational and functional. The
m-4
-------
Section HI - Construction Completion
PCOR generally should be three to five pages and it should address Five-year review
requirements even though this milestone is independent from site completion and
site deletion. For more information on Five-year reviews see OSWER Directive 9355.7-
02, "Structure and Components of Five Year Reviews" dated May 23, 1991, and its
July 26, 1994 supplement, OSWER Directive 9355.7-02-A.
The RPM sends the PCOR to EPA Headquarcers for comments. After incorporating
Headquarters' comments and obtaining the signature of the delegated regional
official, a copy of the signed report is forwarded to EPA Headquarters. The
construction completion milestone is achieved on the actual signature date of the
PCOR.
Sometimes a PCOR may not be needed because the site meets both construction
completion and site completion criteria (see Section ffl. 2. c). In these cases, the
RPM can prepare a Final Close Out Report (COR) or No Action ROD to satisfy
documentation requirements for both events. Section IV presents additional
information on preparing a Final COR.
m-5
-------
Section HI - Construction Completion
EXHIBIT 5
Preliminary Close Out Report Summary
SECTIONS-
1. Introduction
II. Summary Of Site Conditions
III. Demonstration Of Cleanup Activity
QA/QC
IV. Activities And Schedule For Site
Completion
V. Five-Year Review
pr • ..;,... -vi^t^qoKpffap^?^^^; >i:S.-f'
* *• "v\ ~*v~ ' " -tn..1^ %_ — *"•%£*'•• -•* »*- - * ' ^j*\
• Include general statement indicating date of pre-ffnal inspection and a
statement that contractors or agencies have constructed the remedy in
accordance with remedial design plans and specifications.
• Provide background summary of site location, site descnption, and NPL
listing information.
• Include remedy selected, date RA initiated method used to implement
RA (e.g., consent decree, contract cooperative or other Agreement),
and date and description of pre-final inspection used to determine mat
construction is complete.
• Certify that the construction quality assurancs/"uality control plan was.
implemented and that construction completion is consistent with the
ROD and remedial design plans and specifications.
• Identify activities remaining in order to:
Assure effectiveness of the remedy (e.g., institutional controls, work
plan for operation and maintenance)
Assure consistency with the NCP (e.g., joint EPA/State inspection,
EPA/State memorandum on operational and functional phase
startup and duration)
- Satisfy requirements for site completion (e.g., final Remedial Action
Report EPA's approval).
• Specify the organization responsible for implementation of each activity.
• Set dates for completion of the activities and elements required to
satisfy NCP and procedural requirements for issuing a Final COR and
reaching site completion.
• State whether a five-year review is required, what type of review is
required (statutory or policy), and schedule. The first Five-year review is
required 5 years after the contractor mobilization date for the first
remedial action.
b. Special Cases
This section includes special requirements for LTRAs, bioremediation, soil vapor
extraction, monitoring, and institutional controls.
I. Long-Term Response Actions
Long-term response actions (LTRAs) are undertaken to restore groundwater or
surface water quality. These actions require a continuous operation phase to achieve
the cleanup levels specified in the ROD. Construction completion criteria at LTRAs
sites is met when physical construction of the remedy (e.g., construction of the
treatment plant, pumps, and initial extraction wells) is complete and the pre-final
inspection has been conducted. The RPM should prepare then a PCOR to document
construction completion. In this case the PCOR's "Schedule for Site Completion"
m-6
-------
Section HI - Construction Completion
should include the determination of the Operational and Functional period and the
date when the remedy is expected to achieve the clean-up standards.
2. Bioremediation and In-situ Soil Vapor Extraction Remedies
The process of achieving construction completion for final operable units with
bioremediation and in-situ soil vapor extraction remedies is similar to that for LTRAs.
As indicated in OSWER Directive 9320.2-06, "NPL Construction Completion
Definition at Bioremediation and Soil Vapor Extraction Sites," June 1993, if the
remedy is constructed, and no further construction is anticipated, these sites may
qualify for inclusion on the Construction Completion list. The key criterion is whether
the follow-on work necessary to operate the remedy is minor. The RPM must
consider the nature and extent of anticipated post-construction activity, which
includes actions during the treatment phase, as well as any final site closure activities
beyond typical demobilization activities. If significant post construction activity is
likely, the site is not a candidate for construction completion.
The many variations in applying these technologies to sites make the establishment of
specific criteria for determining construction completion difficult RPMs may only
declare construction completion at these sites when the treatment unit has been
constructed, data show that the remedy is operating as designed, and no additional
response is anticipated. RPMs should be conservative at bioremediation sites where
performance evaluation is particularly difficult to measure.
Additional consideration should be given to ensuring protection against direct contact
with contaminated soils during the treatment process. Safeguarding measures should
be taken, such as stockpiling contaminated soils in an enclosed storage area, to ensure
all pathways of exposure are eliminated.
Since bioremediatiori~and in-siru soil vapor extraction remedies are generally
constructed and operated by the same contractor, a pre-final inspection is not usually
performed after construction of the treatment unit is completed. However, a
thorough inspection, analogous to the pre-final inspection, must be conducted and
documented before the RPM prepares the PCOR.
Even though the site may be declared construction complete, the operable unit
involving bioremediation or in-situ soil vapor extraction remains classified as an
ongoing remedial action. The operable unit completion milestone cannot be achieved
until the cleanup goals specified in the ROD are achieved and an Remedial Action
Report is approved by EPA.
m-7
-------
Section HI - Construction Completion
3. Monitoring and Institutional Controls
A site can be included in the Construction Completion List before monitoring
activities begin or institutional controls are in place if those activities are included in
the PCOR's "Schedule for Site Completion."
Monitoring results provide information about an RA's performance and the need for
future actions. Monitoring may be appropriate at any stage of an RA including
operation and maintenance (O&M). Although future RAs may or may not result from
such monitoring, the need for monitoring does not prohibit listing a site as a
construction completion if the site qualifies otherwise. Actual installation of
monitoring wells may also be included in the "Schedule of Site Completion" if the
number of monitoring wells is not significant or is considered part of O&M ac.ivities.
Institutional controls are legal and administrative measures that prevent exposure to
contaminants at concentrations above health-based risk levels that may remain at a
site. Usually institutional controls limit activities at or near sites. Examples are: land
and natural resource use restrictions, deed restrictions (i.e., controlling future land
use), prohibitions on well drilling, building permits, well use advisories, and deed
notices. Institutional controls may constitute a remedy by themselves or supplement
containment and treatment remedies to reduce potential threats to human health and
the environment.
c. Sites Requiring No Remedial Construction in the Final OU
At some NPL sites, EPA determines through the remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS) (or other means) that no remedial construction will be necessary to
achieve protection of human health and the environment. Such a determination is
usually documented in a No Action ROD. Construction completion may also be
documented through the ROD. This section presents the construction completion
requirements for:
• No Action RODs with no previous RAs
• No Action RODs with previous RAs
• RODs requiring passive remediation or monitoring only.
Headquarters does not review No Action RODs to determine compliance with the
construction completion criteria. However, the RPM should assure that the criteria
is met and forward a copy to Headquarters once the proper signatures are obtained.
ffl-8
-------
Section E - Construction Completion
No Action RODs With No Previous RAs
A No Action ROD results when the lead agency determines that no remedial action is
necessary to protect human health and the environment. If the site is a No Action
ROD site where EPA has not previously undertaken an RA, the construction
completion and site completion milestones may be achieved when the ROD is
signed. The RPM does not need to prepare a Preliminary or Final COR and should
instead place the following certification of completion in the declaration section of the
No Action ROD:
"EPA has determined that its response at this site is complete and no
action/no further action is necessary at this site. Therefore, the site now
qualifies for incluoion on the Construction Completion List."
No Action RODs With Previous RAs
A No Action ROD where EPA has previously conducted RAs triggers statutory
documentation requirements. At those sites, the RPM may choose to either prepare a
Final COR or a No Action ROD that: 1) incorporates the information normally
included in the Final COR and 2) includes the certification of completion discussed in
the previous section. The construction completion and site completion milestone are
achieved upon signature of either the No Action ROD or the Final COR.
RODs Requiring Passive Remediation or Monitoring Only
A site with a final operable unit ROD requiring passive remediation only may
achieve construction completion when the delegated regional official approves the
ROD. Implementation of institutional controls and natural attenuation are examples
of passive remedies. No Action RODs requiring monitoring only (for other than
O&M purposes) fall "within this category. These No Action RODs do not meet the
construction completion and site completion criteria simultaneously (see section VI).
As in the previous cases, the RPM does not need to prepare a POOR to meet the
construction completion criteria. Instead, He/She can place the following certification
of completion in the declaration section of the ROD:
"EPA has determined that its future response at this site does not
require physical construction. Therefore, the site now qualifies for
inclusion on the Construction Completion List."
ffl-9
-------
Section HI - Construction Completion
3. Non Fund-Lead Actions
Some NPL site cleanups are addressed by parties other than EPA. Close out
procedures for these sites are discussed below.
a. PRP Lead
The preamble to 40 CFR Part 300 states that inclusion of a site in the Construction
Completion List does not have any legal significance. As explained in Section in,
"Construction Completion Criteria," the construction completion milestone does not
affect any enforcement agreement with the PRPs. Construction completion criteria
for PRP sites are identical to those for fund lead. The RPM, however, should
carefully determine whether the activities performed by the PRP are in accordance
with any applicable enforcement documents.
b. Federal Facilities
Construction completion procedures for Federal sites are identical to those for
PRP-financed remedial actions. Construction completion is generally documented by
a signed PCOR or No Action ROD (if applicable).
c. State Lead
State-lead sites with no ROD and sites where the State assumes all responsibility for
overseeing PRP response actions require additional documentation. In these
situations, EPA relies heavily on the State to determine the appropriate response. In
some cases, the PRP conducts a response action in the absence of a ROD. EPA
includes these sites on the Construction Completion List based on a determination by
the State that all response action is complete. To initiate the construction completion
process, EPA must receive a letter from the State's Division Director (or equivalent)
certifying completion as follows:
"The State of has determined this site is protective of human
health and the environment. Therefore, all response action at this site is
complete and no further construction is anticipated."
In most instances, the State prepares the PCOR and EPA concurs with this decision
by signing the PCOR and by including the site in the Construction Completion List.
The PCOR must include EPA's concurrence of the State's determination tha* nc
further response action is appropriate. If the State does not prepare the PCOR, then
the State's certification letter mentioned above must include a detailed summary of
all actions 'aken at the site.
01-10
-------
Section ffl - Construction Completion
d. Other Statutes (e.g., RCRA)
In some cases, EPA may determine that it does not have the authority un-'er
CERCLA to perform a site cleanup and may delete the site from the NPL. Although
these sites meet the qualifications for site deletion, they will not be counted as
construction completion until physical construction is completed under the proper
authority — for example, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Sites
actually deleted from the NPL when transferred to another authority are not
eligible for inclusion in the Construction Completion List after physical
construction is complete under the appropriate authority.
m-ii
-------
Section HI - Construction Completion
C. Construction Completion Checklist
Construction comr-'etion activities vary according to site circumstances. For typical
sites, however, achieving construction completion requires the RPM to:
completion criteria
Ir Conduct PI£"final insDection fot fina
operable unit
• Complete pre-final inspection report
• Document "punch-list" items
Preliminary C1ns«» Out Rpnnrt
Submit draft to Headoua
Revise Preliminary COR
Submit to Regional Division Di
for signature
f reiiai
Headauarters
m-iz
-------
SECTION IV.
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
SITE
COMPLETION
-------
Section IV - Site Completion
IV. SITE COMPLETION
Site completion signifies the end of all response actions at NPL sites. Site
completion means that the response actions at the site were successful; all cleanup
levels and other requirements specified in the Record of Decision (ROD) have been
achieved for all pathways of exposure, and no further Superfund response is required
to protect human health and the environment.
The Remedial Project Manager (RPM) applies EPA's site completion criteria to a site
to verify that it is eligible for site completion status, then prepares a Final Close Out
Report (COR). In some cases, however, sites may achieve this milestone by preparing
a No Action ROD (see previous section). The Final COR covers the entire site,
including all operable units. This Section explains the documentation required to
demonstrate that site completion criteria have been met and site completion has
been achieved.
A. Site Completion Criteria
A site must meet all four criteria below to be eligible for site completion:
• Cleanup levels specified in the RODs are met, and all cleanup actions
and other measures identified in the RODs are successfully
implemented
• The constructed remedies are operational and performing according to
engineering design specifications
• The site is protective of human health and the environment, and
• The only remaining activities, if any, at the site are operation and
maintenance activities that are performed or controlled by the State or
responsible parties.
B. Site Completion Initiation
A site is eligible for site completion following successful implementation of the final
operable unit RA. Approval of the Final COR signifies that all cleanup levels
specified in the RODs have been achieved and the site has entered O&M. An
Remedial Action (RA) Report for the each operable unit, including the final, is
required to document that the work was performed according to design
specifications. A RA report, however, cannot document site completion. Only the
Final COR, and in some cases a No Action ROD, satisfies completion requirements.
The following section presents NPL site completion requirements for cleanup
activities under removal and remedial authority.
IV-i
-------
Section IV - Site Completion
EXHIBIT 6
Site Completion and Site Deletion Processes (Site Completion Focus)
uetain if A mj (.oauncnn and upon*
AdmouMracor Apmoval Comptte Deletion Doctet S4alvrlai
rUa Odraon Dodw «i lUpontl PuCUc Dockrt and Local lUpmurr
Publoh NCKD m Fidml b«iMr
Pnrvid* 3»Oiy Public Cofnuwnt Pvnod. Pmun
and Pbc» in Reinonal Docktt and Local RcooMtonr
IV-2
-------
Section IV - Site Completion
2. Removal Authority
Early action under removal authority achieve prompt risk reduction through
emergency, rime-critical, and non-time critical actions. In general, cleanup actions
under removal authority will not have a Record of Decision (ROD) as is normally the
case for sites addressed under remedial authority. NPL sites addressed entirely by
early actions under removal authority reach the construction completion and site
completion milestones simultaneously when:
• The RPM documents in the final Pollution Report (POLREP) that the
contractor is demobilized and has left the site, or (in the case of a
potentially responsible party (PRP)-lead site, that the PRP's contractor
has completed the early action specified in the Action Memorandum
and fully met the terms of the applicable enforcement document, and
• A No Action ROD or a Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) states that all
necessary remediation is complete (see Section V for information on
NOIDs).
In some instances, it will be appropriate to document the removal action with an On-
Scene Coordinator Report. For information regarding POLREP and OSC Reports refer
to Directive 9360.3-03, "Superfund Removal Procedures, Removal Response
Reporting: POLREP and OSC Reports," June 1994.
2. Remedial Authority
This section presents the site completion requirements for
• Sites requiring remedial construction in the final OU
• Sites requiring no remedial construction in the final OU
• Sites where no response action was required.
a. Sites Requiring Remedial Construction in the Final OU
The site is eligible for site completion when all early and long-term actions have
been implemented and all four site completion criteria are met. When site
completion requirements are achieved the RPM prepares a draft Final COR. The
Final COR consolidates the results of all previous site activities and ensures that all
issues regarding sile completion have been addressed (e.g., O&M assurances,
cleanup concentrations, and implementation of institutional controls). The RPM send
the draft report to EPA Headquarters for comments, and requests the Regional
Administrator's signature after incorporating Headquarters comments.
IV-3
-------
Section IV - Site Completion
b. Sites Requiring No Remedial Construction in the Final OU
This category includes sites where remedial activities have been performed and the
ROD for the final operable requires no additional cleanup activities. In these cases
site completion can be documented through a Final COR or A No Action Rod. The
No Action ROD, however, should address all the components of a final COR
including information on previous site activities.
RODs requiring passive remediation or monitoring for other than O&M purposes do
not meet the site completion criteria immediately following the ROD signature. Once
the institutional controls are in place, natural attenuation has reached the clean-up
concentrations, or all monitoring requirements specified in the ROD are met, the site
is eligible for site completion and site deletion. Publication of a Notice of Intent to
Delete will satisfy the site completion milestone.
c. Sites Where No Response Action Was Required
For no action sites the RPM prepares either a No Action ROD or a Final COR (in an
abbreviated form because there were no cleanup activities). The ROD documentation
is preferable since the ROD would address many of the components of the Final COR
as part of the justification for no action.
C. Final Close Out Report
The Final Close Out Report (COR) documents compliance with statutory
requirements and provides a consolidated record of all remedial activities for all
operable units at the site. Since it is the final record, the Final COR must be complete
and able to stand alone. It should briefly describe how the entire cleanup was
accomplished. Tha-report dociknot signify that the terms ofcooperative agreements,
consent decrees, or admaraMntttvordi^^lUivr been satisfied nor does it signify
resolution of contractuafco* o*h» admmistratiVe issues for Superfund activities^
The Final COR provides the overall technical justification for site completion. It
demonstrates how site activities satisfy this milestone requirements. The content and
format of the report may vary depending on site circumstances. However, it should
include the information presented in Exhibit 7. This information should be readily
available from previous documents such as the remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS), the RODs, the remedial design, and the RA reports. The Final COR
should also identify issues that might be of continuing concern to EPA or the
community (if any) and explain why these issues do not preclude the site from
achieving site completion.
IV-4
-------
Section IV - Site Completion
Usually the RPM prepares the Final COR, but he/she may task the State to prepare it
at State-lead sites. The report should not exceed 10 to 15 pages, but may be longer for
large sites with multiple operable units. To keep the report brief, detailed technical or
cost information and data may be referenced or appended to the report. As Exhibit 5
shows, EPA Headquarters and the State should have an opportunity to review and
comment on the report prior to final approval.
EPA Headquarters has Regional Coordinators assigned to act as primary reviewers of
the Final COR. These individuals will work closely with the RPM in performing
completion activities and will review the Final COR. A copy of the approved Final
COR should be sent to EPA Headquarters following signature by the Regional
Administrator. Appendix C presents a sample Final COR.
EXHIBIT 7
Final COR Summary
I. Introduction
II. Summary Of Sits Condition*
III. Demonstration Of Cleanup
Activity QA/QC
IV. Monitoring Results
V. Sumrrary Of Operation And
Maintenance
VI. Protectivenessv
VII. Five-Year Roview
VIII. Bibliography
Genera) statement indicating that the RA had been successfully performed.
Site background
Earty actions performed
Remedial investigation/feasibility study results
ROD findings I
Design criteria
Cleanup activities performed
Community involvement activities performed.
QA/QC protocol followed
Sampling and analysis protocol followed
Results of on-site inspections.
• Sufficient data to demonstrate cleanup levels specified in the ROD or Action
Memoranda are achieved and implemented and remedies are performing to
• Monitoring required at no action sites after the ROD is signed should be
briefly documented in the Final COR.
• Assurance that 0AM plans are in place and are sufficient to maintain the
protectlveness of the remedy
• Assurance that all necessary institutional controls are in place
• Assurance that O4M activities specified for the site will be performed by the
State or the responsible party.
• Assurance that the implemented remedy (or no action decision, achieves the
degree of cleanup or protection specified in the ROO(s) for all pathways of
exposure and that no further Superfund response Is needed to protect
human hearth and the environment
• Assurance that all areas of concern described in the NPL listing have been
adequately addressed.
• Statement explaining whether a five-year review is appropriate, and if so, the
type of review (statutory or policy) and the schadule for the review.
• Complete citations of all relevant reports.
rv-5
-------
Section IV - Site Completion
D. Site Completion Checklist
Site completion activities vary according to site circumstances. For typic?' sites,
however, achieving site completion requires the RPM to:
• Classify site
Verify site completion criteria
• Cleanup, activities are successfully
implemented ana cleanup teveis are
mpf
• Remedy is operational and functioning
ertified as protective n* human
health and the environment
• All remedial activities are complete
• Produce Final Close Out Report (COR)
. Reeion.
and the State for review
• Submit to Regional Administrator for
• Submit signed copy to Headquarters
IV-6
-------
SECTION V.
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
SITE DELETION
-------
Section V - Site Deletion
V. SITE DELETION
The National Priorities List (NPL) deletion process begins at most sites once the site
completion milestone has been achieved. Site deletion requirements ensure that 1.)
the documentation of activities and decision making at the site is complete, 2.) the
activities conducted and documented are verified, and 3.) the public has an
opportunity for notice and comment before a site is formally deleted from the NPL.
The deletion process is dictated by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Deletion of a site from the NPL, however, does
not preclude eligibility for subsequent Fund-financed or responsible party actions. If
future conditions warrant, the NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)(3)) provides that
Fund-financed remedial actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL. When
there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the site may be
restored to the NPL without rescoring the site. Additional enforcement actions also
may be taken, depending on liability releases in the consent decree or administrative
order. Deletion of a site does not affect cost recovery efforts under CERCLA section
107.
This section focuses on the site deletion criteria, process, and documentation
required to achieve this milestone.
A. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from, or recategorized
on, the NPL when no response/no further response is appropriate. EPA must consult
with the State in making this determination. To delete a site from the NPL, EPA must
determine, in consultation with the State, that one of the following criteria has been
met:
• Responsible or other parties have implemented all response actions
v" required
• All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
"""' implemented, and no further, response action by_responsible parties is
appropriate
• The remedial investigation (RI) has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and, therefore, it
is not appropriate to take remedial measures.
If monitoring to determine the need for a future response action is ongoing at a site,
deletion is premature. In this situation, it is impossible to know whether a site
V-l
-------
Section V - Site Deletion
satisfies the NCFs deletion standard - "no further response is appropriate."
Operation and maintenance (O&M) of the remedy is not considered "further action"
and does not bar deletion.
Operation and Maintenance activities are performed to protect the integrity of the
remedy at the site. At fund-lead sites, the state performs O&M after the site is
transferred from the Federal Government to the State upon State and federal
agreement that the remedy is operational and functional. An exemption to this
are LTRAs where EPA operates the system for up to 10 years after it has been
declared operational and functional
Site deletion from the NPL has been separated from the Five-Year Review Program
(56 FR 66601, December 24, 1991). EPA has prepared separate guidance addressing
Five-Year Review requirements. For more information on Five-Year Reviews see
OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, "Structure and Components of Five-Year Reviews" dated
May 23, 1991.
B. The Deletion Process
Most of the time the deletion process begins once the site achieves the site
completion milestone. In some instances, a site can be deleted from the NCP without
meeting the construction completion or site completion criteria (see section HI.3.
Construction Completion; Non-fund Lead Actions: Other Statutes). In general, the
Region initiates the deletion process. A State or an individual may also initiate the
process by specifically requesting the deletion of a site. Exhibit 8 shows the main
steps in the typical deletion process.
The deletion process is divided in thr*»e steps: process initiation, publication of Notice
of Intention to Delete, and preparation of a responsiveness summary.
1. Process Initiation
The Region initiates the deletion process by:
• Obtaining a letter of concurrence from the State,
• Compiling the deletion docket, and
• Preparing a Notice of Intent to delete.
V-2
-------
Section V - Site Deletion
State Concurrence
Early in the deletion process the Region consults with the State and request their
concurrence on the agency's intent to delete the site. A site can not be deleted from
the NPL without the State concurrence.
Deletion Docket
The Region prepares a deletion docket containing all pertinent information
supporting the deletion recommendation. The deletion docket is not a continuation
of the Administrative Record for the site. Documents in the Administrative Record
can be referenced and do not have to be duplicated in the deletion docket (provided
the Administrative Record is still available to the public). The deletion docket shonld
be available to the public at the EPA Regional office public docket and a local
repository. The documents contained in the deletion docket will vary depending on
the type of response (e.g., remedial action, removal action, no action) and the lead
agency (e.g., Federal, State, or responsible party).
These documents can be included in the deletion docket as applicable:
• Remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) Report
• ROD (or equivalent) for each operable unit, including any ROD
amendments or Explanations of Significant Differences
• Consent Decree(s)
• Action Memoranda
• Community Relations Plans
• Superfund State Contract
• Cooperative agreements
• Agreements with potentially responsible parties
• Design plans and specifications
• Construction inspection reports
• On-Scene Coordinator report
V-3
-------
Section V - Site Deletion
EXHIBIT 8
Site Completion and Site Deletion Processes (Site Deletion Focus)
No Action ROD wMft
CgnfloBon of Caaataan
udFiiulCO*
Informidorv or Finil COX
FAHQindStml
iixOtui biponl
tPt«rCoamna |
CbtM.II> A HQindS
Cununatac Otan bgnil
indSttur -
I
llKUIpOTM CdlMMI
MM foul CCA
±
Adnunmralor'j Sinum
uidSmlFinilCOtlD
EPAHQ
takMl Pubic DocfcH ml tool braMofy
Prondt »On PubUe Cornown f«no«t P
V-4
-------
Section V - Site Deletion
• Documentation of state concurrence on deletion
• Operation and Maintenance Plan
• Close Out Report(s)
• Transcripts from public meetings
• Responsiveness Summary for Notice of Intent to Delete
• Bibliography of Reports.
Regional program offices should work- with their Superfund community involvement
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 Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID). Public meetings are optional.
Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID)
The NOID informs the public of EPA's intention to delete a site from the NPL. The
deletion docket must be complete before the Region publishes the NOID in the
Federal Register. The NOID contains general information about the site, EPA
Regional staff and other contacts, and deletion criteria and procedures. It provides
for a 30-day public comment period. Site-specific information needed to prepare the
NOID should be available from the Final COR; the NOID should contain the sections
illustrated in Exhibit 9. Appendix D presents an example of a NOID.
V-5
-------
Section V - Site Deletion
EXHIBIT 9
Notice of Intent to Delete Summary
1. Summary
II. Dates
III. Addresses
IV. Further Information Contact
V. Supplementary Information
VI. Information
VII. NPl Deletion Criteria
VIII. Deletion Procedures
IX. Basis For Intended Site Oeletkxi(s)
Announcement of intent to delete (NOID). II
Dates for 30-day public comment period and submission of comments.
Name, address, and phone number of a Regional contact where comments
may be sent and location of the Regional Docket and local repository.
Name, address, and phone number of a Regional contact for further
information or questions.
Identification of site(s) to be deleted, and summary of ^formation in NOID. II
List of applicable NCP criteria (40 CFR 300.425(e)) and a statement indicating
that EPA retains the ability to use Superfund authority at a deleted site if future
conditions warrant such actions (40 CFR 300.425(e)(3)).
Brief description of procedures followed to delete sites from the NPL |
Brief description of the following items:
• Site history (location, former use, type of contaminants, Federal Register
citation of proposed and final NPL listing, and site conditions resulting in
listing)
• All response actions taken including scope of Rl, if applicable, general
results, and conclusions regarding future performance of these actions
• Specific cleanup standards and criteria and results of all confirmatory
sampling and analysis
• O&M procedures and sit* monitoring program
• Reasons for the need for future five-year reviews, when appropriate, and
plans for performance of such reviews.
• Major community involvement activities
• How site meets, deletion criteria
• Evidence of State concurrence to delete the site.
V-6
-------
Section V - Site Deletion
2. Publication of the Notice of Intent to Delete and a Local Notice
The Region prepares and publishes the MOID in strict accordance with the Federal
Register publication requirements. Headquarters staff can help review these notices
to ensure national consistency and completeness.
The Regional Superfund Community Involvement Coordinator should also prepare
and distribute a local MOID. The local MOID should be published in a local
newspaper of general circulation. It should announce the Agency's intent to delete
the site from the NPL and the 30-day public comment period. The local MOID should
also provide an address and telephone number for submission of comments, and
identify the location of the local repository. Appendix E presents a sample local
notice.
The coordinator should also prepare a press release and distribute it to community,
State, and local officials; all PRPs; appropriate Federal agencies (including the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the National Response Team);
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 of a site.
3. Responsiveness Summary and Notice of Deletion
The Region is responsible for preparing a responsiveness summary for all local and
national comments received. The responsiveness summary should present all
comments received during the public comment period paired with detailed responses
to the comments. Headquarters will assist the Region in preparing responses where
appropriate. The Region must include a copy of the responsiveness summary,
approved by the Regional Administrator, in the Regional docket and local repository.
The Region then will publish the Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. This
notice states that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented and that no further response is appropriate. The Notice of Deletion
includes an effective date, a Regional contact, and supplemental site information. All
NPL rulemakings after publication of this notice will reflect the deletion. Appendix F
presents a sample Notice of Deletion.
V-7
-------
Section V - Site Deletion
C. Site Deletion Checklist
For a site to achieve deletion, the RPM must:
Obtain State concurrence for site deletion
Compile deletion docket
Complete Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) proced
Prepare NOID
• Submit for Headquarters review and approval
Publish in Federal Register
Provide a 30-day comment period
Complete Responsiveness Summary
Prepare Responsiveness Summary
Obtain Regional Administrator approval
Submit to Regional Docket and Local Repository
Submit to Headquarters
Draft Notice of Deletion
Publish Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register
V-8
-------
APPENDIX A
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
SAMPLE
REMEDIAL
ACTION REPORT
-------
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report
I. INTRODUCTION
The Sunshine County's California-Sunshine Water and Sewer Department (WSD)
prepared this Remedial Action Report. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), where necessary, provided additional information.
The remedial action included the construction operations and maintenance of sixty-
three (63) 14-foot diameter air stripping towers at the Orange and Hibiscus Water
Treatment Plants in Hopesville, California (see Figures 1 and 2) [Attach figures
providing this infcn mation]. The two plants are located in the City of Hopesville and
are owned and maintained by WSD.
•
The primary purpose1 of the air stripping towers is to treat and restore ground water
in the sole source of Hopesville's drinking water, the San Francisco Aquifer. Portions
of the aquifer have been contaminated over a period of years from several nearby
National Priority List (NPL) sites, including the Solvar spill at the Hopesville
International Airport, the Hopesville Drum site, and the 42nd Street Landfill.
The air stripping towers provide for the removal of a variety of contaminants
referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Through tower operations VOCs
are discharged to the atmosphere in a concentration below Federal air quality
standards. After the water is treated through the towers, it is discharged to WSD's
water distribution system (for uses including drinking water).
EPA also initiated specific site source control measures at two of the three NPL sites
where hazardous materials were identified. The two sites have been cleaned by
separate remedial actions; the third was addressed by county agencies.
II. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
1983-1985 EPA's consultant constructed a comprehensive study of the San
Francisco Aquifer and prepared a report of the findings.
9/16/85 EPA's Region 4 Administrator signed the Record of Decision (ROD)
selecting air stripping towers as the recommended alternative.
EPA maintains that the primary purpose of the remedy, according to the 1985 Record of Decision,
is to provide drinking water.
A-l
-------
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report
1985 WSD staff began to design air stripping towers. Separate construction
contracts to be prepared for each plant.
8/88 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed WSD's plans and specifications
on behalf of EPA.
9/30/88 EPA executed a Cooperative Agreement
3/16/89 Bid opening for Contract W-484B (Key).
3/30/89 Bid opening for Contract W-484C (Hopesville).
7/11/89 Notice to Proceed issued to The Poole and Kent Company for Contract
W-484B (Key).
8/7/89 Notice to Proceed issued to The Poole and Kent Company for Contract
W-484C (Hopesville).
1989-1992 Construction underway.
9/1/92 Initiation of operation of all air stripping towers.
10/29/92 Pre-Final/Final Inspection.
12/08/92 WSD confirms Construction Completion.
III. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND CONSTRUCTION QUALITY
CONTROL
The capacity of the air stripping system is 152 million gallons per day (mgd). This
capacity was based on 70 mgd of water supplied by the contaminated "in town"
wellfields (Key, Hopesville, and California Springs) and the remaining water supplied
by the Northwest Wellfield. WSD's motive for treating finished water, including a
blend of Northwest Wellfield water and in town wellfield water, was to reduce the
level of trihalomethaues (resulting mainly from chlorination of the water at the
WTPs) and color in the water. The additional treatment for this purpose was
unrelated to the hazardous waste contamination of the ground water in the study
.area, and thus the added costs were not eligible for Federal funding.
The treatment standards for the system included reducing VOC concentrations in
A-2
-------
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report
drinking water to acceptable levels such as:
Vinyl Chlorije 1 ppb
trans-l,2-dichlorethane 270 ppb
Throughout the construction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corp of Engineers)
provided oversight of the remedial action on behalf of EPA. The Corp of Engineers
conducted frequent inspections at both water treatment plants and submitted written
monthly reports that described the results of their inspections. These inspection
reports are included ; Appendix "* Attach appendix providing this information].
All water sample collection activities at the site were conducted in accordance with
EPA protocols and/or State permit requirements. The laboratories responsible for
analysis of treatment system performance data and groundwater quality are the
laboratories at the Key and Banner Water Treatment Plants, operated by Sunshine
County, or contracting laboratories.
Laboratory results indicate that the system is achieving performance standards and
the effluent is meeting the cleanup levels established in the ROD. A review of the
analytical data indicated that the treatment system has been constructed in
accordance with the RD plans and specifications and is achieving the primary
purpose of providing clean drinking water to the public.
In March 1993, WSD collected a series of samples of influent and effluent water at the
plants and water from several individual air stripping towers at both of the water
treatment plants. The samples were analyzed for VOCs, but several samples were
also analyzed for the complete Target Compound/Target Analyte List. Contaminants
were either not detected or were well below Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
in all samples of treated water. These analytical results are included in Appendix 2
[Attach appendix providing this information]. A summary of these results is presented
in Tables 1-3 [Attach tables providing this information],
WSD will continue to monitor VOC concentrations in treated water by analyzing
samples of treated water from each plant three times per week. The appropriate
Federal and State agencies will be notified should levels exceed MCLs.
IV. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
The engineering staff of WSD prepared the engineering plans and specifications for
the air stripping facilities. The Corps of Engineers reviewed these plans on behalf of
A-3
-------
Appendix A - Sample Remedied Close Out Report
EPA prior to the award of the Cooperative Agreement.
Table 1
Sampling Locations
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Hialeah before air stripping
(morning)
Hialeah raw water
Hialeah after air stripping
(morning) - treated
Hialeah No. 5 tower effluent
Hialeah No. 17 tower effluent
Preston after air stripping
(morning) - treated
Preston after air stripping
(morning)
Preston No. 1 tower effluent
Preston raw water
Preston before air stripping
(afternoon)
Preston No. 13 tower effluent
Preston No. 26 tower effluent
Preston No. 40 tower effluent
Preston after air stripping
(afternoon) - treated
Hialeah before air stripping
(afternoon)
Hialeah after air stripping
(afternoon) - treated
VOA
VOA, extract, pest/PCB, metals
VOA, extract, pest/PCB, metals
VOA
VOA
VOA, extract, pest/PCB, metals
VOA
VOA
VOA, extract, pest/PCB, metals
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA, extract, pest/PCB, metals
VOA
VOA, extract, pest/PCB, metals
A-4
-------
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report
Poole & Kent, a mechanical contracting firm selected by the competitive bid process,
performed the construction. The contractor had performed similar types of heavy
construction activit^s in the past and was well-equipped to administer this project.
WSD has had previous experience with many construction contracts in which the
construction activity occurs in restricted and confined areas while also having to
maintain major treatment facilities in operation. This experience, combined with the
contractor's similar knowledge, proved invaluable during the course of construction.
Change orders issued on both projects were no more than what is typical for
construction of this magnitude.
V. FINAL INSPECTION
A Pre-Final Inspection was conducted on October 29, 1992 at the site. A list of
attendees is provided in Table 5 [Attach table providing this information]. Tours of the
treatment units were conducted at both plants. A list of incomplete construction
items was provided to the attendees at that time. A revised punch list of items is
included in Appendix 32 [Attach appendix providing this information]. As-built
drawings are being finalized.
After the Pre-Final Inspection, EPA, with the concurrence of the State of California's
Department of Environmental Regulation, determined that a Final Inspection was not
necessary, since the basic construction activity had been completed at the time of the
Pre-Final Inspection.
VI. CERTIFICATION THAT REMEDY IS OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL
(SUPPLIED BY EPA)
EPA determined that the system is operational and functional. The system began
full-capacity operation on September 1,1992, treating approximately 152 mgd. Since
that time, no significant problems affecting the system have occurred. Furthermore,
in March 1993, EPA collected a series of split samples of influent and effluent water
and water from several individual air stripping towers at both of the water treatment
The punch list items did not have any significant impact on the operation of the system, which
has been in continuous operation since September 1992.
A-5
-------
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report
plants. Most of the samples were analyzed for VOCs, but several of the samples were
also analyzed for the complete Target Compound/Target Analyte List. Contaminants
were either not deleted or were well below Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
in all samples of treated water. These results confirm the results submitted by WSD
(see Tables 1-3).
VII. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
The air stripping facilities will be operated and maintained by the WSD's plant
personnel and maintenance staff. The operation and maintenance manual provides
general information and overview of the air stripping system. In addition, the
following topics are addressed: system operations, auxiliary systems, emergency
operations, utilities, electrical power, water quality control, maintenance, buildings,
personnel, plant security and employee safety, use and disposal of hazardous
materials, and summary of reference material. The revised manuals (one for each
plant) were submitted to EPA on December 22, 1992. Each manual was subsequently
revised in response to EPA's comments and resubmitted to EPA in March 1993. EPA
ultimately approved the manuals.
VIII. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
A summary of project costs through October 1992, including substantially all
construction costs, is provided in Table 4 [Attach table providing this information]. The
actual construction costs do not differ significantly from the cost estimate provided
by Poole & Kent However, the construction costs do differ from the estimates
provided in the ROD. Various factors contributed to the increased costs including:
1) an almost 50% increase in the designed capacity of the system, 2) a "historical"
facade required later during the design process, and 3) complexities associated with
unknown underground conditions, including unlisted utilities.
The estimated capital costs were: $5,268,000
The actual capital costs were: $36,505,000
EPA and Sunshine County jointly funded this remedial action through a Cooperative
Agreement issued by EPA in September 1988. EPA's share of the costs v/as
approximately 41% of the total project costs, or $19,129,388. Total project costs
A-6
-------
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report
include capital costs, administrative costs, and up to one year of an "operational and
functional" period.
The funding ratio recognizes that WSD desired additional capacity beyond that
suggested in the ROD. The approved design called for a system capacity of 152 mgd,
with 70 mgd supplied by the contaminated wellfields. The funding ratio is 70/152
mgd or 46% or the total project capacity. Since the contamination resulted from
privately owned and operated sites, EPA's share is calculated as 90% of the eligible
total project or 41% of the total project costs.
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
SAMPLE
PRELIMINARY
CLOSE OUT
REPORT
-------
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report
Waste-Be-Gone Disposal Corp.
Dumpsburg, Iowa
I. INTRODUCTION
This Preliminary Close Out Report documents that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) completed construction activities for the final operable unit (OU2) at
the Waste-Be-Gone Disposal Corp. site in accordance with Procedures for Completion
and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites and Update (OSWER Directive 9320.2-3C).
EPA and the Iowa Department of Environmental Protection (State) conducted a pre-
final inspection on June 2, 1999, and determined that the contractors have constructed
the remedy in accordance with remedial design (RD) plans and specifications, and no
further response is anticipated. EPA and the State have initiated the activities
necessary to achieve performance standards and site completion.
II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS
Background
The Waste-Be-Gone Disposal Corp. site is a 40-acre facility located in Dumpsburg,
Refuse County, Iowa. The site is in a rural area in the south central portion of the
State, near the Missouri border. Approximately 180 persons live and work within
one mile of the site. The majority of this population lives to the east of the site and
obtains drinking water from a public supply. The nearest residential area, a small
subdivision of 28 persons, is approximately one-half mile to the east.
Waste-Be-Gone Disposal has operated the site as a disposal facility since 1965.
Originally, the facility accepted only solid waste from residential sources. However,
the facility accepted small quantities of pesticides and other organic wastes generated
by the local agricultural industry from 1969 to 1971. Site records indicate that the
majority of pesticides and organic wastes were disposed of in the southeastern
portion of the site. Additionally, site operators occasionally sprayed waste oil on the
dirt access roads as a dust suppressant.
Through initial investigations of the site, EPA determined that the following
contaminants of concern were present in surface soil, with lower concentrations of
these contaminants found in underlying soil areas:
B-l
-------
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report
Pesticides (including aldrin, 0.35 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg);
chlordane, 70 mg/kg; dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT), 211
mg/kg; and toxaphene, 712 mg/kg);
Solvents (including acetone, 100 mg/kg, and toluene, 75 mg/kg); and
Metals (including arsenic, 537 mg/kg).
These soil contaminants posed the greatest risk to human health through dermal
contact. Concentrations of contaminants in the ground water beneath the site have
been, and continue to be, below health-based levels, and therefore, do not pose a
threat.
EPA proposed the site to the National Priorities List (NPL) on December 30, 1987 (47
FR 58476), and added it to the final list on September 8, 1988 (48 FR 40674).
Remedial Construction Activities
•
On June 28, 1991, the Regional Administrator signed a Record of Decision (ROD)
documenting the remedial action (RA) for Operable Unit 1 (OU1), which included
implementing institutional controls and ground water monitoring as an interim
remedy. A second ROD on November 9,1995, selected the following remedy to
address OU2:
Sampling and analysis of soil to define the estimated lateral and vertical
extent of contamination;
Excavating highly contaminated surface soil, primarily from the
southeastern portion of the site, which exceeds health-based
performance standards specified in the ROD;
Treating the contaminated soil on-site using soil washing followed by
solidification/stabilization technologies and consolidating treatment
residuals in the main landfill area;
Backfilling the excavated areas with clean impermeable fill, regrading,
and revegetating;
Placing a. multi-media Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
cap on the landfill with subsequent revegetation;
Implementing site access and groundwater use restrictions; and
Continuing groundwater monitoring.
B-2
-------
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report
Health-based performance standards specified in the ROD are: aldrin, .25 mg/kg;
chlordane, 5 mg/kg; DDT, 10 mg/kg; toxaphene, 3 mg/kg; acetone, 10 mg/kg;
toluene, 1 mg/kg; ^-id arsenic, 50 mg/kg. The selected remedy eliminates the
principal threat posed by the site by reducing the toxicity and mobility of the highly
contaminated materials, thereby reducing the potential for exposure to pesticides,
solvents, and metals detected in surficial soils.
Before beginning the RD, EPA sampled and analyzed surface and subsurface soil
primarily in ihe southeastern portion of the site and along site access roads. The
analytical results indir-ted that apt* jximately 1,375 cubic yards of highly
contaminated sc:; from the southeastern portion of the site and 800 cubic yards from
the site access roads would require excavation, treatment, and consolidation within
the main landfill area.
On August 21, 1996, EPA processed a work assignment to the Remedial Action
Contractor (RAC) to develop a work plan for the RD. The RAC responded with the
final work plan on September 4, 1996. The RAC completed the RD on February 10,
1997.
EPA formally awarded the RA contract on March 23,1998, thereby initiating the RA. .
EPA and the State conducted remedial activities as planned, and no additional areas
of contamination were identified. Next, EPA conducted a pre-final inspection on
June 2, 1999, in conjunction with the State, and developed a list of outstanding
construction items. The RA activities were performed according to design
specifications set forth in the 1997 RD package, including:
Sampling and analyzing soils to define the area of contamination;
Constructing on-site treatment systems for soil washing followed by
solidification/stabilization;
Excavating and treating contaminated soils and backfilling the excavated
area;
Consolidating treatment residues in the landfill;
Regrading, capping, and revegetating the landfill; and
Constructing a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the site with a
locked gate to restrict the access of unauthorized persons and
equipment, and posting appropriate warning signs.
During pilot-scale treatability tests, EPA monitored air quality and took dust.
suppression measures to ensure that contaminated materials did not become an
airborne threat. EPA also continued to monitor the groundwater. Contaminant
B-3
-------
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report
concentrations analyzed within these media did not exceed health-based or regulatory
standards.
Remaining activities to be completed by the EPA contractor include periodic
adjustments and/or modifications to the constructed remedy to maintain optimum
performance, as well as demobilization of on-site facilities no longer required to
conduct the remedial action. EPA and the Str.te have not yet concurred on the
operational and functional (O&F) period.
III. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE
AND QUALITY CONTROL
Activities at the site were consistent with the ROD and the RD/RA statement of work
issued to contractors for design and construction. The RD Report, including a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), incorporated all EPA and State quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures and protocol. EPA analytical
methods were used for all validation and monitoring samples during RA activities.
All procedures and protocol followed for soil and air sample analysis during the RA
are documented in the RD Report and were conducted through a participating
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) in accordance with the statement of work. The
Pre-Final Inspection Report contains documentation of the sampling results to date.
The QA/QC program used throughout the RA was rigorous and in conformance
with EPA and state standards; therefore, EPA and the State determined that all
analytical results are accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of
the RA, and consistent with the ROD and RD plans and specifications.
IV. ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE FOR SITE COMPLETION
The RA activities that remain to be completed for the Waste-Be-Gone Disposal site
include conducting validation sampling and analysis in the excavated area, approving
the operations and maintenance (O&M) plan, determining the O&F period,
demobilizing facilities, conducting a final inspection, preparing the RA Report,
conducting a five-year review and preparing the Five-Year Review Report, and
preparing the Final Close Out Report. These activities will be completed according to
' the following schedule.
B-4
-------
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report
Approve O&M Plan
Determine O&F Period
Complete Facility Demobilization
Complete Final Inspection
Approve RA Report
Approve Final Close Out Report
Deletion From NPL
06/30/00
12/31/02
02/28/03
03/31/03
04/28/03
04/01/04
04/01/04
EPA/State
EPA/State
EPA Contractor
EPA/State
EPA/State
EPA
EPA
The Final Close Out Report will contain a risk assessment based upon validation
sampling and analysis, which EPA conducted to determine that the RA has achieved
EPA's excavation levels. This assessment will provide adequate documentation to
support deleting the site from the NPL.
V. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Hazardous substances will remain at the site above health-based levels after the
completion of the remedial action. Pursuant to CERCLA section 121 (c) and as
provided in OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, Structure and Components of Five-Year
Reviews, May 23, 1991, and OSWER Directive 9355.702A, Supplemental Five-Year Review
Guidance, July 26, 1994, EPA must conduct a statutory five-year review. The Five-
Year Review Report "will be completed prior to March 2003 (five years after RA onsite
mobilization).
Director, Waste Management Division
Date
B-5
-------
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report
Miller's Metal Smelting Corp.
Meltstown, Colorado
I. INTRODUCTION
This Preliminary Close Chit Report documents that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) completed all construction activities for the Miller's Metal Smelting
Corp. site in accordance with Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National
Priorities List Sites and Update (OSWER Directive 9320.2-3C). EPA and the Colorado
Department of Health (State) conducted a pre-final inspection on May 16, 1995, and
determined that the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) constructed the remedy in
accordance with remedial design (RD) plans and specifications. The PRPs have
initiated activities necessary to achieve performance standards and site completion.
II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS
Background
The Miller's Metal Smelting Corp. site is a 75-acre lead smelter in Meltstown, Slag
County, Colorado. This site is just south of Midcounty Road and east of Evergreen
Street. Approximately 230 persons live and work within a one-mile radius of the site.
The majority of this population lives to the west of the site near Meltstown, and most
obtain drinking water from a public supply. Six private wells are located within one
mile of the site.
Miller's Metal Smelting acquired the facility in 1956 from Carpenter Refining Corp.
and operated it until 1981. The facility had served as a primary lead smelter since
the turn of the century. Throughout this time, ore typically, was brought to the
smelter via rail cars and stored in several on-site facilities. Waste generated from the
smelting process included: a hot speiss from the dross plant which was pumped into
the unlined speiss pond, process waste water that was sent to Simpson Pond, and
fugitive air emissions from the smelter stack.
Contaminants of concern at the Miller's Metal Smelting site include arsenic,
cadmium, and lead. The site posed potential threats to human health and the
environment through dermal contact or ingestion of contaminated soil, sediment,
groundwater, and surface water, as well as inhalation of airborne contaminated-
B-6
-------
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report
participate matter.
EPA proposed the site to the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 8, 1988 (53
FR 40674), and added it to the final list on September 21, 1989 (54 FR 37070).
Remedial Construction Activities
On December 31,1992, the Regional Administrator signed a Record of Decision
(ROD) selecting the following- remedy:
replacing the process ponds with steel tanks; installing secondary
containment for the tanks; and treating the process waste water via co-
precipitation prior to storage in the steel tanks;
Excavating and disposing off-site approximately 150,000 cubic ya. ds of
contaminated soil and sediments, followed by sampling/-
Pumping and treating contaminated groundwater via co-precipitation
for approximately 10 years, with groundwater monitoring; and
Conducting surface water monitoring for 10 years after completion of
the remedial action (RA).
The ROD specified cleanup levels for soils and sediments, wastewater, and
groundwater. For soils and sediments contaminated with arsenic, cadmium, and
lead, the ROD specified excavation to a depth of 18 inches or until the 10"6 risk level
is achieved. The cleanup levels for wastewater, containing arsenic, cadmium, and
lead, were 0.02 milligrams per liter (mg/1) for arsenic; 0.01 mg/1 for cadmium; and
0.004 mg/1 for lead. Lastly, the ROD specified cleanup levels for groundwater,
reducing levels of arsenic, cadmium, and lead to maximum contaminant levels of 0.05
mg/1, 0.01 mg/1, and 0.05 mg/1, respectively.
In a consent decree signed with EPA, the PRPs agreed to perform the remedial
design/remedial action (RD/RA). The RD was conducted in conformance with the
approved ROD. The RA was formally initiated on November 2, 1993, when the PRP
awarded the RA contract. The contractor conducted remedial activities as planned,
and no additional areas of contamination were identified. EPA and the State
conducted a pre-final inspection on May 16,1995, which included a description and
schedule for correcting minor construction items by the contractor. EPA and the
State determined that the following RA activities were completed according to the
ROD design specifications:
Removing and treating process waste waters via co-precipitation, as well
B-7
-------
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report
as installing storage tanks and containment systems;
Excavating and disposing off-site contaminated soil and sediments,
followed by sampling to characterize the excavated area; and
Backfilling the excavated area with clean soil.
The contractor began pumping and treating the contaminated groundwater via co-
precipitation and will continue this process for an estimated 10 years. Remaining
activities to be completed by the contractor include any periodic adjustments and/or
modifications to the constructed remedy to maintain optimum perform- \nce. EPA
and the State have approved the operations and maintenance (O&M) plan.
III. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE
AND QUALITY CONTROL
Activities at the site were consistent with the ROD, and all work plans were issued to
contractors for design and construction of the RA, including sampling and analysis. .
The RD Report, including a Quality Assurance Project Plan, incorporated all EPA and
State quality assurance and quality control (QA/QQ procedures and protocol. EPA
analytical methods were used for all validation and monitoring samples during RA
activities. Sampling of soil, sediments, and water followed the EPA protocol Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemkal Methods. The Pre-Final
Inspection Report contains documentation of sampling results to date.
The QA/QC program used throughout the RA was rigorous in conformance with
EPA and state standards; therefore, EPA and the State determined that all analytical
results are accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA
and are consistent with the ROD and the RD plans and specifications.
B-8
-------
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report
IV. ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE FOR SITE COMPLETION
The following activities will be completed according to the following schedule:
Complete Punch List Items
Complete Final Inspection
Approve RA Close Out Report
Implement O&M Plan
Complete Surface Water Monitoring
Complete Ground Water Pump &
Treat
Approve Final Close Out Report
09/15/95
11/16/96
01/15/97
09/15/03
09/15/05
10/01/05
12/31/05
PRP Contractor
EPA/State
EPA/State/PRPs
EPA/State
PRP Contractor
PRP Contractor
EPA
V. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Upon completion of this remedy, no hazardous substances will remain on-site above
levels that prevent unlimited use an dunrestricted exposure. However, because this
remedy will require greater than five years to achieve these levies, pursuant to
CERCLA section 121 (c) and as provided in OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, Structure an
dcomponents of Five-Year Reviews, May 23, 1991, and OSWER Directive 9355.702A,
Supplemental Five-Year Review Guidance, July 26,1994, EPA must conduct a five-year
review. Therefore, the Five-Year review will be completed prior to November 1998
(five years after the award of the RA contract).
Director, Waste Management Division
Date
B-9
-------
APPENDIX C
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
SAMPLE
FINAL
CLOSE OUT
REPORT
-------
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report
Metal Waste Products, Inc.
Wasteville, California
I. INTRODUCTION
This Final Close Out Report documents that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) compl* .d all constr .don activities for the Metal Waste Products, Inc.
site in accordance with Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List
Sites and Update (OSWER Directive 9320.2-3C). EPA and the California Department of
Health Services (DHS) conducted a final inspection on July 26, 1987, and determined
that the remedial action had been successfully executed.
II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS
Background
The Metal Waste Products, Inc. site covers 9 acres in Wasteville, Hazard County,
California. The site is situated in an industrial area of town, approximately 2,000 feet
downstream from the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers.
Approximately 400 feet northwest and upstream of the site, is the surface water
intake supplying water for up to 145,000 people in Wasteville. Concern for impact on
this water supply was the primary reason the site was proposed for the National
Priorities List (NPL) on December 30, 1982.
Between 1950 and 1965, the company salvaged ail grades and types of metal,
including railroad cars, army tanks, batteries, and some electrical transformers. The
total quantities of hazardous or non-hazardous materials handled or disposed of at
this site are unknown. In 1965, the State of California purchased the site as easement
for the pending construction of Interstate 5 (1-5). By 1967,1-5 and the realigned Main
Street covered 6.7 acres of the original 9-acre site.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Between 1981, when the site first ca*ne 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. EPA performed a remedial
C-l
-------
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report
investigation (RI) between June 1983 and June 1984. Lead, copper, and zinc were
detected in the top foot of soil throughout the 2.3 acres at levels significantly higher
than State criteria. Specifically, the maximum concentrations detected in the 27
surface samples from the 2.3 acres were 13,600 parts per million (ppm) lead, 3,450
ppm copper, and 19,700 ppm zinc. Of 48 subsurface samples from the 2.3-acre area,
contamination was detected at only four locations at depths ranging from 3 to 10 feet
below ground level. The final RI report summarized all site analyses results.
On February 14, 1985, EPA released a draft of the Feasibility Study (FS) 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 dermal contact with soil contaminated with lead.
The FS then provided a detailed analysis of capping, excavation and off-site removal,
encapsulation, and no action remedial alternatives.
ROD Findings
On May 9, 1985, consistent with the 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, based on recent
guidance allowing clean site closure action levels to exceed background levels 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 U.S. Centers for Disease
Control, the 500-ppm lead cleanup level was determined to be protective of health
and the environment at the site.
Design Criteria
On June 10, 1985, EPA submitted an Interagency Agreement for $72,500 to the
US ACE to perform the remedial design. The RD was completed on August 28, 1985.
Between April 1985 and September 1985, 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 of the operation and
maintenance (O&M) requirements, as required by CERCLA.
C-2
-------
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report
Between October 1985 and March 1986, USAGE held three open bid periods on the
remedial action construction contract. The contract award was delayed primarily
because of difficulties in implementing the previously untested EPA Off-Site Disposal
Policy (Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions, EPA
Memorandum, May 6, 1985). EPA awarded a contract on July 17,1986, to U.S.
Cleanup Contractors for $1.95 million. The contractor identified an off-site disposal
facility in compliance with the Superfund off-site policy.
Remedial Construction Activities
On August 18, 1986, EPA held a public meeting and gave a presentation to the City
of Wasteville Toxics Commission on pending cleanup activities. EPA issued a Notice
to Proceed 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, EPA held a well-attended on-site press conference.
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 of 1986, the contractor discovered
the first of many unanticipated subsurface objects. These items included concrete
foundations and footings, gas cylinders, drums, and sewer lines.
The contractor sampled all material discovered to identify any hazardous materials,
except for concrete which was taken directly to the approved disposal facility. Any
material found to contain lead at levels greater than 500 ppm or any RCRA priority
pollutant at levels higher than de minimus levels was also removed to the approved
facility. In all, the contractor remover5 approximately 11,000 tons of contaminated
material, 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.
The contractor completed remedial construction in early May 1987 and EPA, USACE,
and DHS held a pre-final inspection on May 27, 1987. Establishing vegetation
required an additional 60 days before the construction contract could be termed
completed. On July 26, 1987, USACE 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, USACE submitted a Remedial Action Report signifying successful
completion of construction activities. The report documents and discusses the 21
C-3
-------
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report
change orders issued throughout the project. Due to change orders and a growth in
the quantities removed, the total remedial action contract cost ($3,991,315) exceeded
the original $1.95 r.dllion contract.
Community Relations Activities
The water supply was the object of considerable public interest in Wasteville. As a
result, the Regions community relations staff conducted an active campaign to ensure
that the residents were well-informed about the activities at the site. Community
relations activities included: public meetings, an on-site press conference, routine
publication of progress fact sheets, and a final close-out meeting and site tour when
site construction activities were completed.
III. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE
AND QUALITY CONTROL
EPA and USACE carefully reviewed the remedial action contract for compliance with
all EPA and USACE quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures and
protocol. 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 methods for the analysis of airborne contaminants).
All procedures and protocol followed for soil and air sample analysis during the
remedial action are well documented. The EPA Field Investigation Team (FIT) and
the EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory sampled and analyzed
ground water. Only EPA procedures and protocol were employed. The summary
reports comprehensively document the ground-water sampling and analytical results.
The QA/QC program used throughout the remedial action was rigorous and in
conformance with federal and state standards; therefore, EPA and USACE
determined that all analytical results are accurate to the degree needed to assure
satisfactory execution of the remedial action consistent with the ROD and the RD
plans and specifications. All equipment used for sampling met the criteria
established for accuracy and were calibrated to assure the accuracy of the results.
IV. MONITORING RESULTS
C-4
-------
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report
The contract for the remedial action detailed a rigorous sampling and analysis
program for the remedial action. Specifically, sampling was required and
implemented to: 1) protect the off-site public, 2) protect on-site workers, and 3)
confirm compliance with RA objectives. The sampling program included:
Daily perimeter air monitoring for total participates, respirable
particulates, total lead;
Daily personnel air sampling of exclusion-zone workers for copper, lead,
and zinc;
Random instantaneous on-site and perimeter air sampling for total
particulates;
Confirmatory soil sample(s) for all EPA priority pollutants wherever
additional contamination was suspected or known to occur;
Complete sampling of backfill soil for all EPA priority pollutants; and
Ground-water samples to confirm all EPA priority pollutants.
The contractor excavated and removed additional soil to the approved disposal
facility wherever load was detected at a level above 500 ppm or any priority
pollutant was detected at a level higher than acceptable risk standards. Overall,
contaminated soil was excavated to depths greater than one foot from over 50 percent
of the 2.3-acre site, resulting in the removal of 11,000 cubic yards of material.
Subsequent sampling confirmed that this 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.
The Final Technical Report and Contractor Quality Control Summary Report contains
documentation of the complete results and accuracy of the confirmatory sampling
program.
V. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The cleanup of the site complies with the "clean closure" requirements, consistent
with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, 40 CFR
section 264.111. Site operation and maintenance (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. Per the SSC, the State has
assumed all responsibility for O&M.
C-5
-------
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report
VI. PROTECTIVENESS
This site meets all the site completion requirements as specified in OSWER Directive
9320.2-3C, Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites and
Update. Specifically, confirmatory sampling verifies that the site has achieved the
ROD cleanup objective, that all lead has been removed to levels below 500 ppm, and
that all cleanup actions specified in the ROD have been implemented. Furthermore,
EPA has removed all other contamination detected to acceptable risk levels.
Confirmatory ground-water sampling and backfilling the site with clean soil provide
further assurance that the site no longer poses any threats to human health or the
environment. The only r maining activity to be performed is O&M that the State has
guaranteed. A bibliography of all reports relevant to the completion of this site
under the Superfund pro jram is attached. These documents are available by calling
the Regional Office at (415) 555-1111.
VII. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Because no hazardous substances remain at the site above health-based levels, EPA
will not conduct a five-year review.
Approved By Disapproved By:
Regional Administrator Date Regional Administrator Date
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[Include complete citations of all documents relevant to the cleanup of the site.]
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
SAMPLE
NOTICE OF
INTENT TO
DELETE
-------
Appendix D - Sample Notice of Intent to Delete
United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5
Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Washington
SUMMARY:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 announces its intent to delete
the United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No 5 from the National Priorities List
(NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is 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) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) have determined that the Site poses no significant threat to public
health or the environment and, therefore, further remedial measures pursuant to
CERCLA are not appropriate.
DATES:
Comments concerning this Site may be submitted on or before April 26, 1995.
ADDRESSES:
Comments may be mailed to: Mary Jane Nearman, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop: HW-124, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Comprehensive information on this Site is available through the public docket which
is available for viewing at the Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 site information repositories
at the following locations:
Tillicum Library, 14916 Washington Avenue SW., Tacoma, WA 98498.
Lakewood Library, 6300 Wildaire Road, Tacoma, WA 98499.
Fort Lewis Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Attn: Paula
Wofford, Fort t-ewis, WA 98433-5000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Jane Nearman, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop: HW-124,
D-l
-------
Appendix D - Sample Notice of Intent to Delete
Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-6642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria.
III. Deletion Procedures.
IV. Basis of In' :nded Site Deletion.
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 announces its intent to delete
the United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 Site at the Fort Lewis Military
Reservation, Washington 98433-5000 from the National Priorities List (NPL),
Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, and requests comments on this deletion. EPA identifies.
sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or *he
environment and maintains the NPL as the list of these sites. As described in §
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial
actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action.
EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for thirty days after
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Section El of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section
III discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses
the Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 Site and explains how the Site meets the deletion
criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted from, or
recategorized on the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a
determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation
with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met
(i) Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate
response actions required;
D-2
-------
Appendix D - Sample Notice of Intent to Delete
(ii) All appropriate response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no
further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remain at the sita above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a subsequent review of the site will be
conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the remedial action at the
site to ensure that the site remains protective of public health and the environment.
In the case of this Site, the selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. Consistent with Section XIX of the Fort Lewis Federal Facility
Agreement, the Department of the Army will conduct a five-year review of this final
remedy. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further
action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release
from a site deleted from the NPL, the site may be restored to the NPL without the
application of the Hazard Ranking System.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of this Site: (1) EPA
Region 10 and the United States Army issued a Record of Decision which
documented that no further remedial action is necessary at Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5
to ensure protection of human health and the environment; (2) Ecology concurred
with the proposed deletion decision; (3) A notice has been published in the local
newspaper and has been distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local officials
and other interested parties announcing the commencement of a 30-day public
comment period on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete; and, (4) All relevant documents
have been made available for public review in the local Site information repositories.
Deletion of the Site from the NPL does lot itself create, alter, or revoke any
individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed primarily for informational
purposes and to assist Agency management. As mentioned in Section n of this
Notice, § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does
not preclude eligibility for future response actions.
D-3
-------
Appendix D - Sample Notice of Intent to Delete
For deletion of this Site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and evaluate public
comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before making a final decision to
delete. If necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summar) to address
any significant public comments received.
A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final notice in the
Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect deletions in the final update
following the Notice. Public notices and copies of the Responsiveness Summary will
be made available to local residents by the Regional office.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The following site suinmary provides the Agency's rational for the proposal to
deleted this Site from the NPL.
A. Site Background
The Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 NPL site is a 60-acre landfill located adjacent to the
Dupont-Steilacoom Highway on the west side of the Fort Lewis Military Reservation
in Pierce County, Washington. It is approximately 1.5 miles north of Dupont and 3.5
miles south of Steilacoom.
B. History
The Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 NPL site operated from 1967 through July 1990. It
accepted mixed municipal solid waste (industrial, commercial, and residential)
demolition waste (concrete, asphalt, wood, steel, and other building debris) from the
Fort Lewis Military Reservation, VA Medical Center, and McChord Air Force Base.
As a result of iron and manganese contamination found in nearby groundwater,
Landfill No. 5 was added to the NPL in 1987. In 1988, the Army, with oversight
provided by EPA and the State of Washington Department of Ecology, began a
Remedial Investigation (RI) to characterize the nature and extent of contamination
and to assess potential risks to human health and the environment.
Based on the results of the RI and risk assessment, a Record of Decision (ROD) for
the Site was signed on July 24,1992. The ROD documented the decision that no
further remedial action was necessary at Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 because the
conditions at the site pose no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment.
The Army will continue to implement the operating and closure requirements of
Landfill No. 5 under a permit administered by the Tacoma-Pierce County Health
-------
Appendix D - Sample Notice of Intent to Delete
Department. The closure complies with State Minimum Functional Standards for
Solid Waste Handling, pursuant to Washington Administrative Code (WAS) 173304.
C. Characterization of Risk
The RI included an investigation of the surface water, sediments, air, and
groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill. The investigation included a wide range
of analyses to detect volatile organic compounds, base/neutral and acid extractable
compounds, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls, and inorganic compounds
(including metals). Concentrations found were below state and federal regulatory
levels and risks for both current and future use were within acceptable levels as
defined by the NCP.
The results of the ecological risk assessment indicate that Landfill No. 5 does not
pose a threat to ecological receptors or habitats. No endangered or sensitive resident
species or critical habitats were identified in the study areas.
Confirmational monitoring of groundwater demonstrate that no significant risk to
public health or the environment is posed by residual materials remaining at the Site.
EPA and Ecology believe that conditions at the site pose no unacceptable risks to
human health or the environment.
One of the three criteria for deletion specifies that EPA may delete a site from the
NPL if "the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant
threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial
measures is not appropriate." EPA, with concurrence of Ecology, believes that this
criterion for deletion has been met. Subsequently, EPA is proposing deletion of this
Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available from the docket.
Date Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 10
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
SAMPLE
LOCAL NOTICE
OF INTENT TO
DELETE
-------
Appendix E - Sample Local Notice of Intent to Delete
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of the ABC
Recycling Co. site in Wasteland, Idaho, from the National Priorities List (NPL), which
is Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). EPA requests comments on this deletion. EPA and the State have
determined that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended,
have been implemented and that no further cleanup by responsible parties is
appropriate. Moreover, EPA and the State have determined that remedial actions
conducted at the site to date have been protective of public health, welfare, and the
environment. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.
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:
Name: Jane Doe
Address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Region 10 Docket Office
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Oral comments will also be received through this date and should be directed to
Susan Johnson at (206) 555-1111.
A local repository has been established to provide detailed information concerning
this site at the following address:
Name: John Doe
Address: Local Superfund Information Repository
111 Main Street
Wasteland, ID 84601
E-l
-------
APPENDIX F
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
SAMPLE
NOTICE OF
DELETION
-------
Appendix F - Sample Notice of Deletion
United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5
Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Washington
SUMMARY:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of the
United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 site located Pierce County, Washington,
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 Washington Department of Ecology have determined the Site poses no significant
threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, no further remedial
measures pursuant to CERCLA are appropriate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22,1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Jane Nearman, Site Manager, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop: HW-124, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-6642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The site to be deleted from the NPL is: United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No.
5, Pierce County, Washington.
A Notice of Intent to Delete for this s^e was published on March 27, 1995, (60 FR
15737). The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was April
26, 1995. EPA received no comments.
EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare,
or the environment and it maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. 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 in the future, NCP
section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP. 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
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous Waste,
F-l
-------
Appendix F - Sample Notice of Deletion
Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, and Water supply.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
Part 300 -[Amended]
The authority citation for Part 300 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C 1321(c)(2); E.G. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
3 CFR 1991 Comp., p "ol; E.G. 12r J, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Appendix B [Amended]
2. Table 2 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the site United States
Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5, Pierce County, Washington.
Date Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 10
F-2
-------
APPENDIX G
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
SUPERFUND
ACRONYMS LIST
-------
Appendix G - Superfund Acronyms List
SUPERFUND ACRONYMS LIST
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
COR: Close Out Report
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
FR: Federal Register
HQ: EPA Headquarters
HRS: Hazard Ranking System
LIRA: Long-Term Remedial Action
MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level
NCP: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NOD: Notice of Deletion
NOID: Notice of Intent to Delete
NPL: National Priorities List
O&M: Operations and Maintenance
ORC: Office of Regional Counsel
OSWER: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU: Operable Unit
PA: Preliminary Assessment
POLREP: Pollution Report
PRP: Potentially Responsible Party
QA/QC: Quality Assurance /Quality Control
RA: Remedial Action
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
RD: Remedial Design
G-l
-------
Appendix G - Superfund Acronyms List
RI: Remedial Investigation
RI/FS: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD: Record of Decision
RP: Responsible Party
RPM: Remedial Project Manager
SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SI: Site Inspection
USAGE: United States Army Corps of Engineers
G-2
-------
APPENDIX H
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST SITES
GLOSSARY
-------
Appendix G - Glossary
GLOSSARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERMS
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Document that codifies final regulations having
general applicability and legal effect that have previously appeared in the Federal
Register.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): A Federal law passed in 1980 that established Federal authority for
responding to the release of hazardous substances into the environment including
creating a Federal fund to finance responses and imposing liability for releases on the
responsible parties. CERCLA was amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act.
Final Close Out Report A 'stand alone' report documenting compliance with the
statutory requirements of CERCLA and providing a consolidated record of all
remedial activities at all of a site's operable units.
Final Pollution Report (POLREP): The document that signifies that a removal has
been completed (i.e., when all objectives outlined in the Action Memorandum and
any addenda, such as removal and transport of wastes off site, waste disposal, and
demobilization have been accomplished).
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): A scoring system developed as part of the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) used to evaluate
potential relative risks to public health and the environment from releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances. EPA and States use the HRS to
calculate a site score based on an actual or potential release of hazardous substances
from a site through air migration, surface water migration, groundwater migration, or
soil exposure pathways. This score is used to decide if a hazardous waste site should
be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Hazardous Substance: Under CERCLA section 101(14), any element, compound,
mixture, solution, or substance that, when released to the environment, may present
substantial danger to public health/welfare or the environment. The term also
includes substances designated as hazardous or toxic under the Clean Air Act, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1986, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended and the Toxic Substances
Control Act. The term does not encompass petroleum, including crude oil, natural
gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel.
Local Notice of Intent to Delete: A notice published in a local newspaper of general
circulation, announcing the Agency's intent to delete a site from the NPL. It also
announces a 30-day public comment period, among other things, and identifies the
G-l
-------
Appendix G - Glossary
location of the local repository.
Long-Term Response Action (LTRA): A site that requires a long/ continuous period
of on-site activity before the cleanup levels specified in the ROD are achieved.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP): The
regulation for Federal response actions under CERCLA, commonly referred to as the
National Contingency Plan, or NCP. The NCP sets forth the Hazard Ranking System
and establishes procedures and standards for responding to releases of hazardous
substances. The plan has been codified in Title 40 CFR Part 300.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled hazardc'-is
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial response. This list is based
primarily on the score a site receives on the Hazard Ranking System. EPA is
required to update the NPL at least once a year.
Notice of Deletion (NOD): A notice published in the Federal Register announcing a
site's deletion from the NPL.
Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID): A notice published in the Federal Register
announcing the Agency's intent to delete a site from the NPL. This notice provides
information about the site and associated cleanup activities, and provides the public
with a 30-day public comment period.
Operable Unit (OU): A term for each of a number of discrete activities undertaken
as part of a Superfund site cleanup. An example of an operable unit would be
removing drums and tanks from a surface of a site.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M): Activities conducted at a site after a Superfund
site action is completed to ensure that the action is effective and operating properly.
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): Any individual(s) or company(s) (such as
owner, operator, transporter, or generator) potentially responsible for, or contributing
to, contamination at*a CERCLA site. Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPs, through
administrative and legal actions, to clean up hazardous waste sites that they have
contaminated.
Preliminary Assessment (PA): The process of collecting and reviewing existing
information about a known or suspected hazardous waste site or release.' EPA uses
this information to determine if the site requires further study. If further study is
needed, a site inspection is performed.
Preliminary Close Out Report: A report, documenting the completion of the
physical remedy construction at a site, that is prepared after work at the final
G-2
-------
Appendix G - Glossary
operable unit is complete. To name a few, it summarizes the release at the site, site
conditions, construction activities, and any response actions.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC): A system of procedures, checks,
audits, and corrective actions to ensure that all EPA research design and
performance, environmental monitoring and sampling, and other technical reporting
activities are of the highest achievable quality.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that explains which cleanup
altemative(s) will be used at National Priorities List sites. The ROD is based on
information and technical analysis generated during the remedial
investigation/feasibility study and consideration of public comments.
Remedial Action (RA): Taken instead of or in addition to a removal action, a
remedial response is the permanent remedy taken at a site; it seeks to prevent or
minimize the release of hazardous substances and to prevent further migration.
Remedial actions may include storage, confinement, perimeter protection,
neutralization, cleanup, recycling, repair of leaking containers, bioremediation, and
incineration.
Remedial Action Report: The Remedial Action Report documents the activities that
occur under each specific remedial action operable unit at a site. It also provides
documentation that a particular operable unit has met its objectives, and certifies that
all items in the settlement agreement and any incorporated documents have been
met.
Remedial Design (RD): A phase of remedial action that follows the remedial
investigation/feasibility study and includes development of engineering drawings
and specifications for a site cleanup.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS): Two distinct but related studies.
They are usually performed at the same time, and together are referred to as the
RI/FS. They are intended to: (1) gather the data necessary to determine the type
and extent of contamination at a CERCLA site listed on the National Priorities List
(2) establish criteria for cleaning up the site; (3) identify and screen cleanup
alternatives for remedial action; and (4) analyze in detail the technology and costs of
the alternatives.
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The EPA or state official responsible for
overseeing remedial action at a site.
Removal Action (RA): The cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances
from the environment or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to prevent,
G-3
-------
Appendix G - Glossary
minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare when immediate action
is considered to be necessary. In addition to physically removing hazardous
substances from the site, removal actions may include measures to limit access to the
site and the provision of alternative water supplies and temporary housing.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): An amendment to the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, addressing the safe management of the hazardous and non-
hazardous municipal and industrial waste generated nationwide. This act governs
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, and was amended in 1984
by the Hazardous ar Solid Wast Amendments.
Site Inspection (SI): An investigatory phase following a preliminary assessment in
which more extensive information is collected through site sampling. The collected
information is used to score a site under the Hazard Ranking System to determine
whether the site will be placed on the National Priorities List.
Superfund: The common name used for the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended in 1986 and the EPA
activities implementing the Act.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA): Amendments to
CERCLA enacted on October 17,1986, that expanded the size of the cleanup fund,
established cleanup standards and deadlines for response actions, and addressed
cleanup of Federal facilities.
Trust Fund: Commonly referred to as "Superfund," this is a fund established by
CERCLA to pay for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and for the costs of legal
action necessary to force those responsible for creating the sites to clean them up or
pay for clean up costs.
G-4
------- |