United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9355.7-02A
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
H. Fleischmann
MaH Code
Office
OERR/HSCD
Telephone Code
3. Title
Supplemental Five-Year Review Guidance
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose) \
Guidance provides necessary clarifications as well as new direction to streamline
the five-year review process and ensure the effective and efficient use of
program resources.
5. Keywords
Five-Year Review
6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)?
b. Does It Supplement Previous Direclive(s)?
No
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
X Yes What directive (number, title)
9355.7-02
7. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA
B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
X
Yes
No
This Request Me«ts OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
10. Name and Title of Approvin (^Official
Henry Longest/ II
Date
n *' *^"
Date
8/25/94
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWE^ O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VH
Information Resource Center
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
-------
&EPA
State*
Environmental Protection
Aflency
Offic* of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9.355.7-02A
TITLE: Supplemental Five-Yfear Review Guidance
APPROVAL DATE: July 26, 1994
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1994
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OERR/HSCD
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
[ ] A- Pending OMB approval
[ ]. B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
[ ] C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other documents): headquarters
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE L
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
XL 2 6 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9355.7-02A
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Supplemental Five-Year Review Guid.
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and RemediaJ^tfeiJJbnse
TO: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, and VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, and IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to amend OSWER Directive
9355.7-02 (May 23, 1991), "Structure and Components of Five-Year
Reviews," by providing supplemental guidance on five-year
reviews. The supplemental guidance provides necessary
clarifications as well as new direction to streamline the five-
year review process and ensure the effective and efficient use of
program resources. Specifically, this supplemental guidance:
changes the trigger date for policy reviews to construction
completion; provides a prioritization plan for conducting five-
year reviews when Regions cannot conduct all required reviews;
clarifies responsibility for conduct of five-year reviews at
Federal facilities; restates that the five-year review covers all
operable units (OUs) at a site; and, introduces a streamlined
Type la review at sites where construction is ongoing, and
provides model language.
The policies set forth in this Directive are intended
solely as guidance. They are not intended, nor can they be
relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. EPA officials may decide to
follow the guidance provided in this Directive, or to act at
variance with the Directive, on the basis of an analysis of
specific circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to
change this Directive at any time without public notice.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCUSSION
A. Timing of Five-Year Reviews
Statutory Reviews. Regions should complete statutory
reviews within five years of the initiation of the first remedial
action (or operable unit) at a site. The date of "initiation of
remedial action" is the date the PRP or contractor mobilizes to
start construction. This date is a Comprehensive Environmental
Response and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) subevent, "RA
On-Site Construction."
Trigger dates - Statutory Reviews. Headquarters determines,
based on CERCLIS data that Regions enter, the trigger date for
statutory five-year reviews. Should the Region disagree with
that date, it should notify the State and Local Coordination
Branch (SLCB) that it believes a date change is appropriate and
update CERCLIS as necessary. When no planned or actual
mobilization (or RA On-Site Construction) date for statutory
sites is listed in CERCLIS, SLCB will use the following hierarchy
of dates listed in CERCLIS to determine five-year review trigger
dates: the (planned or actual) contract award date, the (planned
or actual) remedial action start date, or the appropriate ROD
date. In no event will SLCB use a date before the first
appropriate ROD. A ROD is "appropriate" only if it triggers a
five-year review. Removal dates are never triggers. At an
enforcement site, a remedial action start date is generally not
available because of the absence of Fund money. Therefore, the
trigger date at an enforcement site will be the (planned or
actual) RA On-Site Construction date, the contract award date, or
the ROD date, as appropriate.
Trigger dates - Policy Reviews. Effective with the issuance
of this directive, except for sites at which five-year reviews
have already been conducted, Regions should initiate policy
reviews within five years of the completion of physical
construction at a site. EPA is making this change to accord with
a proposed statutory change which would establish completion of
physical construction as the trigger date for all five-year
reviews. For purposes of triggering five-year reviews at policy
sites, "completion of physical construction" means the date a
site qualifies for listing on the Construction Completion List
(CCL). A site qualifies for listing on the CCL at the time of
signature of the preliminary or final Close Out Report (COR), the
final no action ROD, or deletion notice. Completion of physical
construction is also documented as a CERCLIS event.
Early or Late Reviews. A Region may choose to conduct a
five-year review before the time it is due. In that case, the
next five-year review will be due within five years of the
completion of the early review. When a Region conducts a five-
year after the time it is due, the next five-year review is due
within five years of the time when it was originally required.
For example, a review due in 1993, but conducted in 1992, will be
-------
- 3 -
due again by 1997. A review due in 1993, but conducted in 1995,
will be due again by 1998.
B. Federal Facilities
EPA conducts the five-year review. EPA is responsible for
conduct of the five-year review at Federal facilities on the
National Priorities List (NPL) where EPA where EPA and the
pertinent agency have not entered into an agreement specifying
which agency should perform the review.
Federal agencies conduct the five-year review. Executive
Order 12580 delegates responsibility for five-year reviews of
other Federal facilities where either the release is on or the
sole source of the release is from any facility or vessel under
the jurisdiction, custody or control of the department, including
vessels bare-boat chartered and operated, as follows: 1) the
departments of Energy and Defense (whether or not the site is on
the NPL); 2) other Federal agencies or departments for non-NPL
Federal facilities; and, 3) the Coast Guard for NPL and non-NPL
sites where the release or threatened release involves the
coastal zone, Great Lakes waters, ports, and harbors.
When EPA guidance applies. EPA general requirements with
respect to five-year reviews are applicable to all Federal
facilities on the NPL. See CERCLA section 120(a)(2). Other
Federal agencies should submit to the EPA Regional office draft
certifications of protectiveness along with supporting
information collected during the review. They should obtain
EPA's concurrence in accordance with existing interagency
agreements.
Who should pay for the review. Federal agencies are
responsible for the costs of all five-year reviews at their
facilities. When EPA incurs substantial expenses (e.g., for data
review and analysis, or oversight) in connection with a five-year
review being conducted pursuant to an interagency agreement, that
agreement should require the other agency to reimburse EPA for
those expenses.
NPL sites - copy distribution of five-year reviews. Annual
Reports. Regions should send copies of final reviews conducted
by Federal agencies at NPL sites to SLCB. Also, Federal agencies
are responsible for annually reporting to Congress the reviews
conducted at their own facilities, and actions recommended as a
result of such reviews.
C. Prioritizing Five-Year Reviews
Approach. There is a growing backlog of unconducted five-
year reviews and Regional resources are finite. Therefore, this
-------
- 4 -
guidance provides Regions with a plan to prioritize five-year
reviews in any year in which a Region cannot conduct all required
reviews. The approach is based on the premise that statutory
reviews must be completed first. After completing statutory
reviews, Regions should conduct policy reviews at sites where the
potential for an unseen release is greatest, i.e., those sites
with little or no on-site lead agency presence. The plan is as
follows:
The first priority should be all statutory five-year
reviews; the second priority should be policy five-year reviews
at sites where the lead agency has completed remedial action and
is no longer on-site (e.g., sites with no long-term remedial
action); the third priority should be all remaining policy sites
(e.g., sites with an ongoing long-term remedial action).
Completion of remedial action for prioritization purposes occurs
at signature of the preliminary COR for most sites. However,
long-term remedial actions sites (i.e., sites at which
remediation takes five years or more to complete) are considered
third priority sites for purposes of prioritization until the
cleanup levels are met and the final COR is signed. Long-term
remedial action sites generally involve ground or surface water
restoration, but may include other remedies taking five years or
longer to complete, e.g., certain soil remediation technologies.
D. One Review covers All Operable Units.
Sites subject to five-year reviews with multiple remedies or
operable units should conduct a five-year review for the entire
site, and not separate five-year reviews for each remedy or
operable unit. Because some operable units may be active and
some inactive, Regions should cover each operable unit in the
review as appropriate to its progress in remediation. The five-
year review, however, will be triggered by the first operable
unit giving rise to a five-year review. Discussion of subsequent
remedies or operable units should be incorporated into the first
five-year review conducted or in future reviews, as appropriate.
E. Five-Year Reviews at sites Where Remedial Action is Ongoing -
Type la Reviews
EPA has heretofore developed three types of review. See
OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, May 23, 1991, for a more detailed
explanation of those types. All types stress a review of the
protectiveness of the remedy. A Type I review is the most basic
type of evaluation of protectiveness, and is appropriate for most
completed sites. A Type II review contemplates recalculation of
the risk, and is appropriate only if warranted by site-specific
circumstances. A Type III review involves a new risk assessment,
and should be utilized only when site-specific circumstances show
-------
- 5 -
it to be necessary.
This memorandum introduces the Type la review to streamline
the five-year review process at sites where remedial action is
ongoing and to reduce resource needs for such reviews. A Type la
review is a modified version of a Type I review. The Type la
emphasizes only relevant protectiveness factors, analyzed at a
standard of review appropriate for sites where response is
ongoing. Sites generally qualify for a Type la review until
construction is completed and the site qualifies for listing on
tbe CCL.
However, a Type la review should not be used when site-
specific circumstances indicate the appropriateness of a higher
level of review. Examples include sites where: an operable unit
has long been completed and work on the final operable unit may
not be finished for a long time; or the Region knows that an
applicable, or relevant and appropriate standard (ARAR) for a
specific chemical (e.g., dioxin) fails to meet new health
standards; planned response costs or operation and maintenance
costs may have dramatically increased, indicating potential
failure of one or more components of the remedy; or any other
circumstances indicate that the site may no longer be protective
of human health and the environment, and therefore that a higher
level of review is warranted.
The chart below illustrates steps Regions should take during
a Type la review at an ongoing site contrasted with the more
extensive' requirements at Type I completed sites.
-------
- 6 -
Information
TYPE I
Completed Sites
TYPE la
Active Sites
Task
Hours
Task
Hours
Document Review
ROD
ROD Summary
Settlement Agreement
O&M Information
Monitoring Information
Standards fARARs) Review
Changing Standards
Risk Evaluation
Site Visit
Visual Inspection
o site
o Institutional
Controls
Interviews
o Neighbors
o Contractors
o Local Govern.
Report - Contents:
Introduction
Remedial Objectives
ARARs Review
Summary Of Site Visit
Areas of Noncompliance
Recommendations
Statement of
Protectiveness
Next Review
TOTALS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
35-40
25-30
25-35
30-35
160-170
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X*
X*
10-15
0
0
...
20-25
30-40
Standard language provided in model.
-------
- 7 -
Document Review. Document review for a Type la review is
designed to acquaint the reviewer with the ongoing remedial
action and should be less extensive than for a Type I review. A
Type la review should only require the reviewer to refer to the
ROD Declaration for information describing the site and remedial
action. The reviewer should conduct more extensive document
reviews, e.g., of the ROD itself, O&M plans, any Preliminary or
Interim Close Out Report, or of the underlying settlement
agreement, only as site-specific circumstances show to be
necessary. The reviewer may summarize monitoring plans and data,
if available, but should not attach voluminous monitoring reports
to any five-year review.
Standards or ARARs Review. Standards review in a five-year
review context means the review of ARARs, and of risk
considerations. For an ongoing remedial action, it is not
necessary to review ARARs, nor in most circumstances to
recalculate the risk or perform a new risk assessment. When
changes in ARARs necessitate further action, EPA may at any time
implement such action through an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD), ROD amendment, amendment to a consent decree
or order, or other enforceable document, as appropriate.
Site Visits/ Institutional Controls, Community Relations. A
site visit is normally an integral part of a five-year review.
However, special site visits at sites where remedial action is
ongoing are unnecessary, since visual inspection is ongoing at
such sites. Regions may summarize current conditions at the site
based on other regular visits to the site. For example, because
institutional controls may not be in place at ongoing remedial
actions, Regions may document implementation and analysis of
institutional controls through future annual site reports. It is
not necessary to document community relations activities in the
report because those activities are documented elsewhere in the
site file.
Report. The final report should contain an introduction; a
discussion of remedial objectives, areas of noncompliance with
those objectives; recommendations; a statement on whether the
remedy remains protective; and notice of the next five-year
review, if applicable.
IMPLEMENTATION
Effective with the issuance of this directive, Regional
offices should implement the following actions:
(1) review the attached list of sites that require review in
FY 94 and FY 95 (including reviews not completed in FY 92
and FY 93), and notify SLCB of appropriate changes;
(2) enter into CERCLIS the mobilization date for sites
-------
- 8 -
requiring statutory review;
(3) enter into CERCLIS revised trigger dates for policy
? review sites;
(4) prioritize reviews of sites when it is not possible to
conduct all required reviews;
(5) use the Type la review at appropriate sites; and
(6) notify SLCB of trigger dates or other data incorrectly
listed.
In addition, Regions should continue to insert statements in new
RODs declaring whether a site is subject to five-year reviews,
update CERCLIS trigger dates in a timely manner, provide to SLCB
copies of approved five-year reviews documenting your performance
of such reviews, and request assistance from SLCB or your
Regional Five-Year Review Coordinators when you have questions.
If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please
contact Hugo Fleischman of my staff at (703) 603-8769.
cc: Chris Sebastian, Region 2 Five-Year Review Coordinator
Walter Graham, Region 3 Five-Year Review Coordinator
Jennifer Wendell, Region 5 Five-Year Review Coordinator
Norval Schoenhals, Region 8 Five-Year Review Coordinator
Attachments
-------
- 9 -
Attachment I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region XI
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Five-Year Review (Type la)
Primrose Landfill (New Suffolk/ East Carolina)
I. Introduction
Authority Statement. Purpose. EPA Region XI conducted this
review pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c), NCP section
300.400(f)(4)(ii), and OSWER Directives 9355.7-02 (May 23r 1991),
and 9355.7-02A (— , 1994). It is a fstatutory!'/(policy)
review. The purpose of a five-year review is to ensure that a
remedial action remains protective of public health and the
environment and is functioning as designed. This document will
become a part of the Site File. This review (Type la) is
applicable to a site at which response is ongoing.
Site Characteristics. [Insert brief description of the
physical characteristics of the site and the site history, or
refer to the ROD summary. Attach the ROD summary as an appendix
if referenced.]
II. Discussion of Remedial Objectives; Areas of Noncompliance.
[Insert highlights of important facts from the ROD Summary
concerning the objectives of the remedial action. Note any
substantial aspect of the remedial action which fails to conform
to remedial objectives. Note the progress of the work and
discuss activities not yet implemented. Refer to the HOD for a
discussion of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs). It is not necessary to reevaluate ARARs for a Type la
review. Include summaries of monitoring information, if
available, and if appropriate. Do not attach monitoring reports
or other voluminous data summaries to the five-year review.]
III. Recommendations.
[Note any recommendations for future response action brought
to light by the five-year review (e.g., recording institutional
controls, repairing fences, or correcting soil erosion). Identify
corrective actions required as a result of the review (e.g.,
initiation of monitoring, operation and maintenance, etc.)]
IV. statement on Protectiveness.
I certify that the remedy(ies) selected for this site
-------
- 10 -
remains protective of human health and the environment.
Alternative. The remedy is not at this time protective of
human health and the environment. EPA is taking steps to
' make the remedy protective. (Summarize steps to be taken or
refer to Recommendations.)
V. Next Five-Year Review.
The next five-year review will be conducted by (generally
five years from date of this review). Based on (if the
Region is delaying or skipping a future review, explain the
rationale here).
Alternative. Because the site affords unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, I conclude that no further five-year
reviews are necessary. The site is protective of human
health and the environment and likely to remain so.
Robert Nordegiaccomo, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region XI
-------
- 11 -
Attachment II
Sites Requiring Five-Year Reviews *
• FY 1992 - PY 1995
Region I
FY 1992
Policy
1. Davis Liquid Waste (RI)
2. Kellogg-Deering Wellfield (CT)
Five-year review completed 12/29/92.
3. Western Sand & Gravel (ME)
Five-year review completed 12/23/92.
4. Winthrop Landfill (ME)
Five-year review completed 10/09/92.
FY 1993
Statutory
1. Beacon Heights Landfill - (CT)
2. Charles-George Reclamation Trust Landfill (MA)'
3. Keefe Environmental Services (NH)
Five-year review completed 02/23/93.
4. Piccillo Farm (RI)
Five-year review completed 05/19/93.
5. Re-Solve, Inc. (MA)
Policy
1. McKin Co. (ME)
Five-year review completed 9/22/92.
2. Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Engineering Corp. (MA)
Five-year review completed 12/04/92.
3. Sylvester (NH)
-------
- 12 -
FY 1994
Statutory
/
1. Baird & McGuire (MA)
2. Laurel Park, Inc. (CT)
3. Nyanza Chemical' Waste Dump (MA)
Five-year review completed 11/10/93.
4. Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum (NH)
Policy
1. Homonco Pond (MA)
FY 1995
Statutory
1. Cannon Engineering Corp. (CEC) (MA)
2. Yaworski Waste Lagoon (CT)
-------
- 13 -
Region II
PY 1992
statutory
1. South Brunswick Landfill (NJ)
Policy
1. Suffern Village Well Field (NY)
PY 1993
Statutory
1. GE Moreau (NY)
Five-year review completed 02/17/94.
2. Lipari Landfill (NJ)
Policy
1. Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services (NJ)
2. Combe Fill North Landfill '(NJ)
3. D'Imperio Property (NJ)
4. Friedman Property (NJ)
5. Hooker (Hyde Park) (NY)
6. Olean Well Field (NY)
7. Pollution Abatement Services (NY)
8. Renora, Inc. (NJ)
9. Rockaway Borough Well Field (NJ)
FY 1994
Statutory
1. Bog Creek Farm (NJ)
2. Ciba-Geigy Corp. (NJ)
-------
- 14 -
3. Endicott Village Well Field (NY)
4. Sealand Restoration, Inc. (NY)
5. Swope Oil & Chemical Co. (NJ)
6. Upjohn Facility (PR)
7. Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 (NY)
Policy
1. GEMS Landfill (NJ)
2. Goose Farm (NJ)
3. Hudson River PCBs (NY)
4. Vineland State School (NJ)
FY 1995
Statutory
1. De Reval Chemical Co. (NJ)
2. Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision (NY)
3. Glen Ridge Radium Site (NJ)
4. Higgins Farm (NJ)
5. Montclair/West Orange Radium Site (NJ)
6. Old Bethpage Landfill (NY)
7. Sinclair Refinery (NY)
Policy
1. Brewster Well Field (NY)
2. Haviland Complex (NY)
3. Helen Kramer Landfill (NJ)
4. Williams Property (NJ)
5. Woodland Route 72 Dump (NJ)
6. Woodland Route 532 Dump (NJ)
-------
- 15 -
-------
- 16 -
Region III
FY 1992
Statutory
1. Chisman Creek (VA)
Policy
1. Biosenski Landfill (PA)
2. Lackawanna Refuse (PA)
3. Presque Isle (PA)
Five-year review completed 03/03/93.
FY 1993
Statutory
1. Douglassville Disposal (PA)
2. Heleva Landfill (PA)
3. Tysons Dump (PA)
4. West Virginia Ordnance (WV) (US Army responsible for
performing the review.)
Policy
1. Bruin Lagoon (PA)
2. Delaware City PVC Plant (DE)
3. Drake Chemical (PA)
4. Fischer & Porter Co. (PA)
5. Leetown Pesticide (WV)
6. Middletown Road Dump (MD)
Five-year review completed 10/15/93.
7. Taylor Borough Dump (PA)
8. Wade (ABM) (PA)
Five-Year Review completed 02/03/93.
9. Westline (PA)
-------
- 17 -
FY 1994
Statutory
1. L.A. Clarke & Son (VA)
2. Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill (DE)
3. Fike Chemical, Inc. (WV)
4. Henderson Road (PA)
5. Kane & Lombard Street Drums (MD)
Five-year review completed 4/14/94.
6. New Castle Spill (DE)
7. Strasburg Landfill (PA)
Policy
1. Harvey & Knott Drum, Inc. (DE)
Five-year review completed 8/25/93.
2. Kimberton site (PA)
3. HcAdoo Associates (PA)
4. Mill Creek Dump (PA)
5. Sand, Gravel & Stone (MD)
FY 1995
Statutory
1. Havertown PCP (PA)
2. Wildcat Landfill (DE)
Policy
1. Berks Sand Pit (PA)
2. Moyers Landfill (PA)
-------
- 18 -
Region IV
PY 1992
Statutory
1. Newport Dump (KY)
Five-Year review completed 7/30/93.
Policy
1. Gallaway Pits (TN)
2. Mowbray Engineering (AL)
Five-year review completed 3/04/93.
FY 1993
Statutory
1. Independent Nail (SC)
Policy
1. Distler Brickyard (KY)
2. Distler Farm (KY)
Five-year review completed 9/2B/93.
3. Lee's Lane Landfill (KY)
4. Palmetto Wood Preserving (SC)
5. Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc. (FL)
6. A.L. Taylor (Valley of Drums) (KY)
7. Triana/Tennessee River (AL)
Five-year review completed 06/14/93.
FY 1994
Statutory
1. Alpha Chemical Corp. (FL)
2. American Creosote Works, Inc. (Jackson Plant) (TN)
3. Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber Operations) (NC)
-------
- 19 -
4. Gold Coast Oil Corp. (FL)
5. Martin Marietta, Sodyeco Inc. (NC)
6. Northwest 58th Street Landfill (FL)
Five-year review completed 03/02/94.
7. Stauffer Chemical Co. (Le Moyne Plant) (AL)
8. Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant) (AL)
Policy
1. Davie Landfill (FL)
Five-year review completed 03/02/94.
2. Hipps Road Landfill (FL)
3. Miami Drum Services (FL)
4. Sapp Battery Salvage (FL)
5. Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds (FL)
6. Tower Chemical Co. (FL)
FY 1995
Policy
1. Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) (FL)
2. Pioneer Sand Co. (FL)
-------
- 20 -
Region V
FY 1992
statutory
1. Schmalz Dump (WI)
2. Seymour Recycling Corp. (IN)
3. Wauconda Sand & Gravel (IL)
Policy
1. FMC Corp. (Fridley Plant) (MN)
Five-year review completed 9/30/92.
FY 1993
Statutory
1. Berlin & Farro (MI)
2. IMC (Terre Haute East Plant) (IN)
3. Forest Waste Products (MI)
4. Laskin/Poplar Oil Co. (OH)
5. Metamora Landfill (MI)
Five-year review completed 8/24/93.
6. Northern Engraving (WI)
7. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (St. Louis Park) (MN)
Policy
1. A&F Material Reclaiming, Inc. (IL)
2. Arcanum Iron & Metal (OH)
3. Burlington Northern (Brainerd/Baxter Plant) (MN)
Review completed 01/27/93.
4. Charlevoix Municipal Well (MI)
5. Chem-Dyne (OH)
6. Lehillier/Mankato Site (MN)
-------
- 21 -
7. New Lyme Landfill (OH)
8. Oakdale Dump (MN)
• Five-year review completed 03/31/93.
9. Old Mill (OH)
10. Verona Well Field (MI)
11. Whittaker Corp. (MN) - 9/21/84.
Five-year review completed 9/16/93.
FY 1994
Statutory
1. Johns-Manville Corp. (IL)
2. Velsicol Chemical (IL)
3. Waite Park Wells (MN)
4. Washington County Landfill (MN)
Five-year review completed 01/06/94.
5. Windom Dump (MN)
Policy
1. Burrows Sanitation (MI)
2. Eau Claire Municipal Well Field (WI)
3. Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill) (IN)
FY 1995
Statutory
1. Marion Bragg Dump (IN)
2. Belvidere Municipal Landfill (IL)
3. Fort Wayne Reduction Dump (IN)
4. Republic Steel Corp. Quarry (OH)
-------
- 22 -
Policy
1. Arrowhead Refinery Co. (UN)
r • .
2. Clare Water Supply (MI)
3. LaSalle Electric Utilities (IL)
4. Wausau Ground Water Contamination (WI)
-------
- 23 -
Region VI
FY 1992
Policy
1. Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc. (TX)
FY 1993
Statutory
1. Mid-South Wood Products (AR)
2. Petro-Cheraical Systems, Inc. (Turtle Bayou) (TX)
Policy
1. Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy (TX)
2. Tar Creek (Ottawa County) (OK)
3. Triangle Chemical Co.(TX)
PY 1994
Statutory
1. AT&SF (Clovis) (NM)
2. Bayou Sorrel Site (LA)
3. Brio Refining (TX)
4. Compass Industries (Avery Drive) (OK)
5. French, Ltd. (TX)
6. United Creosoting Co. (TX)
7. United Nuclear Corp. (NM)
-------
- 24 -
PY 1995
statutory
/
1. Bayou Bonfouca (LA)
2. Crystal City Airport (TX)
3. Industrial Waste Control (AR)
Policy
1. Old Inger Oil Refinery (LA)
-------
- 25 -
Region VIZ
FY 1992
FY 1993
Statutory
1. John Deere (Dubugue Works) (IA)
2. Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (MO)
3. Syntex Facility (MO)
Policy
1. Aidex Corp. (IA)
Five-Year Review completed 6/25/93.
2. Big River Sand Co. (KS)
3. LaBounty Site (IA)
Five-year review completed 1/08/93,
4. Times Beach Site (MO)
FY 1994
Statutory
1. Lawrence Todtz Farm (IA)
FY 1995
Statutory
1. Conservation Chemical Co. (MO)
2. Findett Corp. (MO)
3. Fulbright Landfill (MO)
-------
- 26 -
Region VIZI
FY 1992
Statutory
1. Rocky Mountain Arsenal (CO) - Federal facility. EPA
conducted the first review at this U.S. Army site. EPA has
committed to doing the next review.
Five-year review completed May 1992.
Policy
1. Rose Park Sludge Pit (UT)
Five-year review completed June I/ 1992.
FY 1993
statutory
1. Anaconda Co. Smelter (MT)
2. California Gulch (CO)
3. Denver Radium Site (CO)
4. Libby Ground Water Contamination (MT)
Policy
1. Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating (WY)
FY 1994
Statutory
1. Monticello Radioactively Contaminated Properties (UT) USDOE
is responsible for the five-year review.
Policy
1. Arsenic Trioxide Site (ND)
FY 1995
Statutory
1. Broderick Wood Products (CO)
2. Martin-Marietta (Denver Aerospace) (CO)
-------
- 27
3. Sand Creek Industrial (CO)
-------
- 28 -
Region IX
PY 1992
Statutory
1. Operating Industries, Inc., Landfill #2 (CA)
PY 1993
Statutory
1. Iron Mountain Mine (CA)
2. Stringfellow (CA)
Policy
1. Mountain View Mobile Home Estates (AZ)
2. San Fernando Valley (Area 1) (CA)
3. San Gabriel Valley (Area 1) (CA)
FY 1994
statutory
1. Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. (South San Jose Plant) (CA)
2. IBM (South San Jose Plant) (CA)
Policy
1. Litchfield Airport Area (AZ)
PY 1995
Statutory
1. Atlas Asbestos Mine (CA)
2. Coalinga Asbestos Mine (CA)
3. Coast Wood Preserving (CA)
4. Motorola, Inc. (52nd street Plant) (AZ)
5. Sacramento Army Depot (CA) U.S. Army is responsible for
this review.
-------
- 29 -
Policy
1. Applied Materials (CA)
/
2. Del Norte Pesticide Storage (CA)
3. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Salinas Plant) (CA)
4. Intel Corp. (Santa Clara III) (CA)
5. Intersil Inc./Siemens Components (CA)
6. Solvent Service, Inc. (CA)
-------
- 30 -
Region X
FY 1992
¥
Statutory
1. Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel (WA)
FY 1993
Statutory
1. Queen City Farms (WA)
Policy
1. Lakewood Site (WA)
2. United Chrome Products, Inc. (OR)
Five-year review completed 11/30/92.
3. Western Processing Company, Inc. (WA)
Five-year review completed 01/04/93.
FY 1994
Statutory
1. Colbert Landfill (WA)
2. Martin-Marietta Aluminum Co. (OR)
3. Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling Co. (ID)
FY 1995
* The list is of sites requiring five-year reviews as of
5/19/94. The list employs the classification scheme in effect at
that time. It is subject to change due to new RODs, changed
trigger dates, and changes in classification (e.g., policy to
statutory). The list is composed of sites which are Federal
facilities and non-Federal facilities. At Federal facility
sites, responsibility for the conduct of the review is indicated.
EPA is responsible for all non-Federal facility reviews.
------- |