&EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response Washington DC 20460 EPA/ 9902.7 January 1992 Corrective Action Oversight Printed on Recycled Paper ------- 530R925O6 CORRECTIVE ACTION OVERSIGHT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . page 1 II. FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF OVERSIGHT page 1 A. What Oversight Involves B. Overall Level of Oversight/Influencing Factors 1. Severity of Risk 2. Facility/Agency Relationship/ Compliance History 3. Public Concern 4. Scope of Corrective Action 5. Site Complexity C. Oversight Activities 1. Corrective Action Activities a. Submittal Review b. Monitoring and Sampling c. Remedial Construction m. OVERSIGHT OPTIONS page 3 A. Surprise Audits B. Briefings by Owner/Operator (and Contractor) C. Certification of Corrective Action Activities D. Enhanced Community Relations Plan E. Reduced Oversight Based on Performance F. Time-Limited Review G. Immediate Approval of Submittals H. On-line Computer Hookups I. Submittal of Data on Disk J. Split Samples K. Performance Standards IV. IMPLEMENTATION page 7 A. Facility Oversight Plans B. Available Resources and Guidance 1. Guidance Documents 2. RCRA Implementation Plan 3. The RCRA Implementation Study 4. Environmental Priorities Initiative 5. RCRA Corrective Outyear Strategy C. State and Regional Resources D. • Reimbursement of Oversight Cost ------- I. INTRODUCTION The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend- ments of 1984 (HSWA) to the Resource Conser- vation and Recovery Act (RCRA) give EPA authority to require broad corrective action to address releases of hazardous waste or constitu- ents at treatment, storage, or disposal facilities subject to RCRA. Under Sections 3004(u) and (v) of RCRA, EPA is authorized to address corrective action through the permit process. In addition, EPA may require corrective action at unpermitted facilities subject to interim status requirements under Section 3008(h) of RCRA. . Agency oversight of corrective action activi- ties at a facility often is a multi-year commit- ment. Oversight activities include: interaction and negotiations with facility owner/operators; review of facility investigation workplans and reports; site visits; technical decisions; and public involvement. The Environmental Protec- tion Agency's (EPA's) RCRA Implementation Study, published in July 1990, recognized the need for the RCRA program to implement a tiered oversight approach based on the type of corrective action activity, site priority, compli- ance history, and facility status. This guidance expands upon this recommendation to promote the use of different oversight levels within the corrective action program. This guidance is intended to help project managers evaluate facilities and identify appro- priate levels of oversight and oversight mecha- nisms. In addition, guidance on how to tailor oversight levels to specific corrective action activities (submittal review, sampling and monitoring) is included. II. FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT A. What Oversight Involves The September 1989 RCRA Corrective Action Outyear Strategy (CAOS) describes oversight as "the management of all activities related to the corrective action process." The ~* appropriate level of oversight can be determined by considering influencing factors (such as risk and public concern) and specific activities (such as sampling events and construction activities). Influencing factors will govern the overall level (high, medium, low) of oversight required for the facility. Once the overall level of oversight is established, specific levels of oversight can be determined for the specific activities. Oversight levels will vary along a scale from low to high. General expectations for low, medium, and high levels of oversight are: • Low: For low levels of oversight, the regulatory agency's role is minimal and primarily consists of estab- lishing performance standards and verifying that these standards have been achieved, after notice or certification by either the owner/ operator or an independent engineer or geologist. • Medium: For medium levels of oversight, the regulatory agency's role increases to include more site visits, inspections, and more stringent review and verification of an increased number of submittals. Contractor support may be necessary. • High: For high levels of oversight, the regulatory agency directly manages an intensive effort during which all documents are thoroughly reviewed, and there is a high degree of interac- tion with the owner/operator. In addi- tion to performance specifications, many of the design and process aspects are also specified and re- viewed by independent parties under the regulatory agency's supervision. Contractor support is often necessary. The appropriate level of oversight for individual facilities will be decided by the EPA regions and states. Oversight functions may be performed by EPA, states, or contractors, depending on the influencing factors and types of activities. Contractors performing oversight functions do so under EPA or state oversight. (See Appendix E for more information on the use of contractors to perform oversight func- tions.) ------- B. Overall Level of Oversight/Influencing Factors The first step in the corrective action over- sight process is to determine an overall level (high, medium, low) of oversight for the facility and whether the oversight should be performed by EPA, the state, or a contractor. The overall level of oversight should be determined based on the following influencing factors: • Severity of Risk to Human Health or the Environment • Facility/Agency Relationship - Compliance History • Public Concern • Scope of Corrective Action Activities • Site Complexity Over time, the influencing factors should be re-evaluated by the regulatory agency to iden- tify and accomodate changing oversight needs. The influencing factors are discussed below. 1. Severity of Risk to Human Health or the Environment Risk to human health or the environment is the single largest issue to be considered in determining the level of oversight. Factors such as facility location and density and type of surrounding populations will affect the health and environmental risk. Information regarding risk generated during the corrective action prioritization process may be used to evaluate oversight requirements. This informa- tion can be supplemented with other informa- tion gathered during the corrective action process. In most cases, if the risk is significant, a high level of oversight will be appropriate. Some facilities already in the corrective action pipeline pose a low level of risk. These facilities may have moved into the corrective action pipeline for reasons other than risk (for example, permit determination deadlines). 2. Facility/Agency Relationship - Compliance History If a facility has a good compliance history, and the owner/operator has demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with the regulatory agency to implement and maintain environ- mental standards, a lower level of oversight may be appropriate. Facilities which have had numerous violations or are recalcitrant should receive a higher level of oversight. 3. Public Concern The degree of public concern and interest at a particular facility must be considered when determining the level of oversight. If there is a large amount of concern, even for a facility with low risk and a good compliance history, EPA or the state must ensure that an adequate level of oversight is provided to instill public confidence in the corrective action activities and results. 4. Scope of Corrective Action Activities The scope of corrective action activities at a facility should be considered when determining overall levels of oversight. Facilities that will engage in complex corrective action activities should be considered for higher levels of over- sight. When corrective action activities involve straightforward applications of known technolo- gies, oversight levels can be limited. 5. Site Complexity Key determinants of the level of oversight needed for remedial investigations or technolo- gies are: • How complex is the hydrogeology? • How many sources of contamination are there? • How detailed and explicit are the work plans? • What are the technical qualifications of the staff performing the work? • How reproducible are the data gathered? If the site hydrogeology is complex and multiple source areas are contributing to the release, a high degree of oversight may be appropriate. Small, homogeneous sites with limited source areas may be good candidates for low oversight. If workplans prepared by the owner/opera- tor are detailed and specific, the remedial or investigative staff are well-qualified technically and experienced, and the data are easily gath- ered and reproducible, then oversight can be low. Conversely, if workplans are general or vague, or the staff are inexperienced, or the data are difficult to reproduce, then a higher level of ------- oversight may be required. C. Oversight of Activities Different corrective action activities require different levels of oversight. For example, the installation of a perimeter fence to discourage direct contact with waste does not usually require oversight. There are minimal design or permit specifications and the actual installation or construction is not a difficult task. An example of a corrective action activity requiring a higher level of oversight is the construction of a ground-water pumping and treatment system. Many design specifications need to be reviewed, permits for air and water discharges may need to be obtained by the owner/operator, and significant coordination between state and local agencies is often required during corrective measures implementation. Generally, the Agency believes a higher level of oversight is required for site-characterization activities. The review of a CMS workplan is another example of an activity that often requires oversight. Under ideal circumstances, this activity may require limited oversight. How- ever, other influencing factors may alter the level of oversight required by the regulatory agency. For instance, if the owner/operator has previously submitted inadequate workplans, a higher level of oversight is necessary. Con- versely, if the owner/operator has already produced many high-quality submittals, lower oversight may be appropriate. Exhibit 1 presents suggested levels of oversight for specific activities at high-, me- dium-, and low-oversight facilities. 1. Corrective Action Activities The following are major components of the corrective action process for which oversight levels must be determined: a. Submittal Reviews • The objective of submittal reviews is to ensure compliance with all permit/order conditions, and to provide technical oversight of owner/operator performance. • RFI, CMS, Corrective Measures Implem- entation (CMI), and progress reports must be reviewed by the regulatory agency. Progress report reviews are not time intensive and allow the regulatory agency to maintain input throughout the corrective action process. Progress reports may alert the regulatory agency to any problems which may delay or affect the corrective action activities. Appendix A highlights some common submittal review oversight activities and oversight questions. b. Monitoring and Sampling • The type of monitoring activity or the types and frequency of sampling events may modify the level of oversight. For example, complex field activities, such as the installation of ground-water extrac- tion wells, are usually regarded as high- oversight activities. Similarly, initial site assessment typically requires careful agency attention. On the other hand, routine sampling events may receive limited oversight. In the latter case, the regulatory agency's oversight may be limited to reviewing owner/operator or contractor supplied data. Examples of monitoring and sampling activities that warrant oversight and suggested oversight questions are given in Appendix A. c. Remedial Construction/Implementation • Level of oversight is determined by the complexity of the work. In cases of complex remedy designs, the regulatory agency may establish design and opera- tions specifications before starting con- struction. In addition, the regulatory agency may wish to provide extensive field oversight during construction of the remedial technology. Low levels of oversight may be adequate for simple re- medial construction activities such as the installation of a fence as an interim measure. Appendix A gives some remedial construc- tion activities that may require oversight and suggested oversight questions. ------- EXHIBIT 1 SUGGESTED ACTIVITY OVERSIGHT LEVELS* ACTIVITY** Workplan review Report review Monitoring & sampling Construction/ Implementation overall facility oversight level LOW MEDIUM m(,H limited thorough thorough limited selected activities thorough limited selected reports most activities limited selected activities most activities * Oversight levels may be adjusted to meet regional/state needs. " These activities may occur throughout the corrective action process (e.g., workplan review could apply to RFI or remedial design workplans). Typically, initial characterization activities may require more oversight. III. OVERSIGHT OPTIONS Oversight generally involves the direct interaction of an "overseer" with an activity or product to ensure a desired outcome. Exhibit 2 provides examples of oversight tools that may be appropriate for the listed corrective action activities. Multiple tools will often be used to oversee a single activity. Not all tools are appropriate for all activities at various levels of oversight. For example, the automatic approval mechanism should not be used for construction or report review at high-oversight facilities. On the other hand, many of the tools can be used at all levels of oversight, but their intensity may vary. For example, owner/operator briefings may occur monthly at high-oversight facilities, quarterly at medium-oversight facilities, and semi-annually at low-oversight facilities. A. Surprise Audits RCRA Section 3007 authority can be used to enter a facility at all reasonable times and to inspect and obtain samples. The agency or its representatives are not obligated to give prior notice to the owner/operator before conducting these inspections or "surprise audits." EPA, states, or contractors can conduct surprise audits to determine compliance with corrective action workplans and to ensure that high quality work is performed. Surprise audits may be helpful oversight tools for activities such as sample collection, aquifer testing, and record keeping. Surprise audits are appropriate at high-, medium-, and low-oversight facilities. B. Briefings by Owner/Operator (and Contractor) EPA or states may require the owner/ operator or his or her contractor to brief the project manager periodically on specific correc- tive action activities or on the general investiga- tion/implementation process. Such briefings can take place at the regulatory agency office or at the facility, and can be scheduled to comple- ment written progress reports. These briefings would reduce the amount of time required for overseers to conduct detailed review of docu- ments such as reports, analytical data, and boring logs. Owner/operators should fully understand the regulatory agency's expecta- tions of the briefings and be able to provide all of the required information. The timing and subject matter of the briefings should be incor- porated into the owner/operator's project management plan. The regulatory agency may also wish to request a briefing at any time during the corrective action process, and should include that ability in the order, permit, or workplan. Briefings by owner/operators on project status can be used at low-, medium-, and high- oversight facilities. When this method is ------- employed at medium- and high-oversight facili- ties, it should be used in conjunction with other oversight methods. C. Certification of Corrective Action Activities The regulatory agency may require an owner/operator to employ an independent contractor to oversee corrective action activities and certify that work is conducted in accordance with the approved workplan. The certification of the activities should state that best profes- sional judgement was used, all work was performed according to applicable standards and the approved workplan, and EPA approved techniques were used. EXHIBIT 2 ACTIVITY OVERSIGHT TOOLS Workplan Review Monitoring & Sampling Report Review Construction > o/o briefings (with or without Individual review) ^time-limited review • conditional approval ^reduced oversight > on-line computer hookup • contractor support > enhanced community relations plan • certification > on-line computer hookup > submlttal of data on disk • time-limited review > conditional approval • surprise audits > reduced oversight ' spilt samples > performance standards 'contractor support • enhanced community relations plan • o/o briefings (with or without Individual review) • time-limited review • conditional approval • on-line computer hookup > reduced oversight • contractor support > enhanced community relations plan • o/o briefings (with or without Individual review) • certification • time-limited review • conditional approval • reduced oversight * surprise audits • performance standards «contractor support • split samples , • enhanced community relations plan ------- The regulatory agency can require that all activities be certified, or can limit certification to events such as ground-water monitoring well installation or remedy implementation. Certifi- cation of activities is applicable at high-, me- dium-, and low-oversight facilities. There are drawbacks to the use of contrac- tors for certification. Because the contractor is paid by the owner/operator, the regulatory agency must evaluate the potential for conflicts of interest D. Enhanced Community Relations Plan The regulatory agency may require the owner/operator to develop an enhanced commu- nity relations plan at facilities where public concern is high. The plan can specify that a local citizens group be allowed to participate in reviewing reports, analytical data, and other key documents. The owner/operator is respon- sible for supplying all documents related to corrective action activities to the local group. Where appropriate, the local group can be allowed limited site access to ongoing activities. All comments prepared by the local group should be supplied to the regulatory agency and the owner/operator. Where public concern is high, the establish- ment of a local review group may help defuse tension and increase communication between the community, the facility, and the regulatory agency. Such groups cannot replace the regula- tory agency's involvement with the corrective action activities, but may enhance the regula- tory agency's oversight. E. Reduced Oversight Based on Performance Reduced oversight may be appropriate at medium- and low-oversight facilities based on the owner/operator's performance. The regula- tory agency may curtail its oversight activities if, during the early stages of the corrective action process, the owner/operator conducted high quality work and the regulatory agency believes that high quality work will continue. F. Time-Limited Review EPA or the state may .limit their review time of reports and workplans to a specific number of days (for example, 45 days). If the owner/operator does not receive comments from the regulatory agency within this timeframe, the documents may be considered "approved." When using this oversight option, language should be included in an order or permit to allow EPA or the state to extend the review period if additional time is needed. The time-limited review should not be applied to all aspects of the corrective action process. The designation of constituents to be addressed during the corrective action process, remedy selection, and development of cleanup levels should not be included in the automatic approval provision. Time-limited review timeframes are appropriate at medium- and low-oversight facilities. G. Conditional Approval of Submittals Reviewing multiple drafts of reports or workplans often causes unnecessary delays in the corrective action process. Conditional approval by the regulatory agency of technically sound documents containing only minor gram- matical or typographical errors is appropriate. This approval mechanism will allow the correc- tive action process to proceed at a more rapid pace. Conditional approval is not appropriate for incomplete or inadequate reports/workplans. Major revisions to all documents must be made by the owner/operator. H. On-line Computer Hookups Computer modems may be used to enhance communication between the regulatory agency and owner/operator. Draft workplans, progress reports, site information, sampling data, and other documents transmitted by modem ensure rapid delivery, and enable the regulated agency to add comments directly into the document. Communication through modems may limit the number of drafts necessary prior to approval. Computer modems may also be used by the public to obtain access to facility information. Computer hookups to local libraries or other public access areas would increase the accessi- bility of facility information. This process would be most applicable where public concern is high. ------- I. Submittal of Data on Disk A. Facility Oversight Plans Several regions and states require owner/ operators to submit analytical data on a computer diskette in a specified format. This mechanism allows the regulatory agency to easily analyze the data using computer programs and limits the storage space required to store the data. J. Split Samples Split samples may be used to evaluate the accuracy of the laboratory analyses and adequacy of the sampling procedures. A comparison of analytical data generated by the regulatory agency and the owner/operator can help the agency determine the appropriate level of over- sight necessary for subsequent sampling events. K. Performance Standards The regulatory agency can develop perfor- mance standards to prescribe the scientific and technical requirements the owner/operator must abide by while conducting a facility investigation, and to establish facility-specific cleanup goals. The performance standards are considered mini- mum requirements that the owner/operator must meet during a remedial investigation, and to adequately cleanup a facility. Performance standards may be established for the entire corrective action process, or be limited to specific components of the process such as facility charac- terization and meeting media cleanup levels. Specific and enforceable performance stan- dards may reduce the amount of state or EPA oversight Most oversight efforts will be focussed on the end result to determine whether the performance standards have been met Perform- ance standards can be used at high-, medium-, and low-oversight facilities; the level of oversight should not be significantly reduced when used at high-oversight facilities. IV. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of corrective action oversight involves the need for a clear understanding on the part of the regulatory agency and the owner/ operator of expected responsibilities and out- comes. The following section identifies some activities and guidance that maybe helpful. Facility oversight plans for corrective action activities serve several purposes, including helping project officers determine extramural and internal resource needs, and assisting managers to efficiently allocate resources. The regulatory agency may consider making the Facility Over- sight Plan available to the public for comment at high visibility facilities. Before drafting a facility oversight plan, the overall level of oversight should be determined by evaluating the influencing factors. Once the level of oversight is determined, oversight levels for individual activities can be established and an oversight plan developed. Oversight plans should be re-evaluated periodically to identify changing oversight needs (e.g., after the RFI). The following should be included in corrective action oversight plans: Project Officer Name of Facility Owner/Operator Facility Location Corrective Action History and Anticipated Schedule of Activities and Deliverables Description of Overall Level of Oversight Required Description of Level of EPA or State Agency Oversight Activity Description of Level of EPA Representa- tive (State, Contractor) for each Over- sight Activity The more oversight that is required, the more detailed the plan should be. Many of the elements included in oversight plans may already be incorporated in Facility Management Plans (FMPs) or other facility-level plans. Where FMPs or other facility plans exist and contain similar elements, they can substitute for facility oversight plans. A sample work plan for contractor support to conduct corrective action oversight is in Appen- dix C. A sample oversight plan has been included as Appendix D. ------- 8 B. Available Resources and Guidance The following documents may be useful when preparing oversight plans or conducting oversight activities. 1. Guidance Documents • Numerous guidance documents exist for determining exposure risks, including the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volumes I and II (Interim Final) (EPA/ 540/1-89/002 and EPA/540/1-89/001). These documents, although oriented to the Superfund program, give a detailed account of how to perform a risk assess- ment. Many of the methods described are useful in evaluating RCRA facilities. • The RCRA Corrective Action Plan (EPA/ 530-SW-88-028) (the CAP) provides detailed scopes of work which can serve as model workplans for owner/operators. The CAP was developed to provide the regions with an overall model for a cor- rective action compliance schedule. The scopes of work contained in the CAP are intended as a menu of possible activities to be required on a site-specific basis. It is expected that only those tasks and reports necessary and appropriate to the specific site be imposed on the owner/op- erator. • Guidance on the use of contractors for these oversight tasks can be found in the April 17,1990 William Reilly memoran- dum "Contracting at EPA", which is con- tained in Appendix E. A list of useful guidance documents is in- cluded in Appendix B. 2. RCRA Implementation Plan Chapter 2 of the RCRA Implementation Plan discusses priority ranking of facilities for correc- tive action activities. Each facility in the RCRA universe will be evaluated separately for: (1) environmental significance, (2) environmental benefits, and (3) other considerations. Taken together, these will represent its environmental priority. Environmental significance reflects known or potential releases from waste manage- ment units at a facility. 3. The RCRA Implementation Study (RIS) Chapter 3 of the RIS provides guidance in setting up a working relationship between EPA and the states, especially in establishing priori- ties and aspects of planning. States' perceptions of EPA's oversight role are explained and can be used in crafting an overall oversight plan. These perceptions are important if EPA and the states are to work together to oversee corrective action activities. 4. Environmental Priorities Initiative The Environmental Priorities Initiative coordinates the RCRA and CERCLA programs to ensure that the most environmentally signifi- cant hazardous waste contamination problems are evaluated and addressed first. In support of this initiative, May 31, 1988 OSWER directive #9932.0, "Prioritizing CERCLA Preliminary Assessments at RCRA Facilities" outlines a method for prioritizing sites and risks. Exhibit 2 of the directive is a ranking matrix that helps score sites based on environmental sensitivity and the threat of potential releases. 5. RCRA Corrective Action Outyear Strategy (CAOS) CAOS provides summary information on the four-year plan for the RCRA program as well as a summary of recommendations for establishing priorities, managing facilities which perform corrective action, and maximizing state partici- pation. Pages 10 through 13 of CAOS provide examples of levels of oversight and factors to consider when deciding on the appropriate level of oversight C. State and Regional Resources Many of the state and EPA regional offices have developed oversight guidelines and guid- ance. Included in Appendix F is a sample Low Oversight Corrective Action Order developed in EPA Region V. Appendix G contains a RCRA Corrective Action Oversight Inspections Pre- liminary Draft Guidance developed in EPA Region III. ------- D. Reimbursement of Oversight Cost EPA believes that RCRA oversight costs are recoverable under Section 107 of CERCLA, Section 107 states that the government is entitled to recover "all costs of removal or remedial action...not inconsistent with the national contingency plan." Thus, so long as EPA is acting to clean up released hazardous substances from the environment, the Agency has the authority under Section 107 to recover the costs for actions taken that are not inconsis- tent with the national contingency plan. Section 107(a) specifically states that liability shall attach "notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law..." Thus, the application of RCRA to a particular facility does not preempt the government from exerting its CERCLA author- ity as well. In addition, several states have the statu- tory authority to cost recover oversight costs. Cost recovery language for corrective action oversight has been included in several RCRA Section 3008(h) consent orders. Region VI has incorporated such language into its regional model RCRA Section 3008(h) order. Additional guidance and reference material is provided in the appendices. The appendices include: A Significant Activity Examples & Oversight Questions B Technical Guidance Documents for Monitoring and Sampling C Sample Work Plan for Contractor Oversight D Region VII Sample Oversight Plan E OWPE Directive - Contracting in OWPE F Region V Low Oversight Corrective Action Order G Region III Corrective Action Oversight Inspections Preliminary Draft Guid- • ance ------- APPENDIX A ------- APPENDIX A-1 MONITORING & SAMPLING EVENTS Significant Activity Examples and Oversight Questions Activity Oversight Questions Monitoring Well Installation; Was well location properly determined? Were appropriate drilling methods used? Were wells Installed In accordance with an approved workplan? Were cutting fluids used during drilling? Was all equipment steam-cleaned prior to use?, Was the potentlometrfc surface documented? Were formation samples collected at appropriate Intervals? Were appropriate well construction materials used? Were pipe sections threaded? Was an appropriate screen slot size and filter pack used? How was the filter pack Installed? How was the annular space sealed? Is the well fitted with an above-ground protection device? How was the well developed? Was the purge water turbid? Sample Collection Has an adequate Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) been pre- pared? Did the field team follow the SAP? Were appropriate sample containers used? Were chemically unstable parameters preseved in the field (where applicable)? Were Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) procedures fol lowed? Were samples collected from the locations approved In the RFl workplan? Was a chain of custody established? Pumping Test Was all equipment steam-cleaned prior to use? Were pumping rates calculated? Was a constant pumping rate established? Was the purge water collected and disposed of properly? Were the ground-water levels In the pumping test observation wells monitored at the intervals specified in the approved pumping test workplan? ------- APPENDIX A-2 REMEDIAL CONSTRUCTION Significant Activity Examples and Oversight Questions Activity Oversight Questions Ground-Water Pump and Treat Using Air Stripping Is the approved CMI workplan being followed In the field? Do key personnel Involved in construction have appropriate training for the Job? Is the construction process being documented? Are the design criteria, plans, and specifications appropriate? Has the ground-water purge rate been established and main- tained? Have all necessary permits for the discharge of the treated ground water been obtained? Installation of Fence Will the fence prevent the public from entering the area of concern? Will the fence Integrity be maintained? Excavation of Contaminated Soil • Are activities being conducted In accordance with an approved workplan? ; • Will the contaminated soil be disposed of or treated In accor- dance with applicable regulations? • Have measures been taken to control dust emlslons? • Is the excavation process being documented? • Are samples being collected to verify soil contaminant concen- trations? ------- APPENDIX A-3 SUBMITTAL REVIEW Significant Activity Examples and Oversight Questions Activity Oversight Questions Workplan Review Is the worfcplan tailored to site-specific conditions? Are specific activities In the scope of work (Included In permit/ order) addressed by the workplan? Are the tlmeframes for completion of the corrective action activities appropriate? Is the workplan sufficiently detailed? Will the regulatory agency be able to enforce against noncom- pliance with the workplans? Are the workplans technically sound? Are required plans (project management plan, QA/QC plan, data management plan, health and safety plan) Included? Progress Report Review • Does the report clearly Identify activities completed to date? • Does the report highlight upcoming activities? • Have travel plans been made to observe upcoming field activities? • Have any problems been encountered, and If so, do they warrant further attention? • Has required analytical data been Included In the report? • Has all analytical data (If Included) undergone QA/QC review? ------- APPENDIX B ------- TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS FOR MONITORING AND SAMPLING Ground-Water Monitoring and sampling RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Guidance Document; (09/86) OSWER Directive #9950.1 Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force; Protocol for Ground-Water Evaluations; (09/86) OSWER Directive #9080.0-1 Handbook: Ground Water; (03/87) (EPA/625/6-87/016) • Permit Guidance Manual on Unsaturated Zone Monitoring (EPA/530-SW-86-040) Draft Final RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Evaluation (CME) Guidance Document; (12/19/86) OSWER Directive #9950.2 Ground-Water Monitoring Guidance for Owners and Operators of Interim Status Facilities; (3/15/89) SOW: SW-963; NTS PB83-209 Ground-Water Monitoring (40 CFR 265, Subpart F/40 CFR 264, Subpart F); Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Under RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3004; (5/20/80) NTS PB81-189-797 • Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water Monitoring Data at RCRA FAcilities; Interim Guidance; (4/15/89) SW:530-SW-89-026 Air Monitoring and Sampling Guidance on Applying the Data Quality Objectives Process for Ambient Air Monitoring Around Superfund sites, Stages 1 and 2; (8/89) EPA 450/4-89-015 Guidance on Applying the Date Quality Objectives Process for Ambient Air Monitoring Around Superfund Sites, Stage 3; EPA 450/4-90-005 Guidance for Air Quality Monitoring Network Design and Instrument Siting, Revised: (1979) NTS: PB80-223 696 Soil Sampling •• Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocol: Techniques and Strategies, EPA/EMSL; (05/83) NTS PB83-206979 ------- Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's Guide, EPA/EMSL (05/84) EPAX 8706-0055 Waste Sampling • Guidance Manual for the Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, Draft; Versar Inc. • Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods; Third Edition: Proposed Update Package (1/23/89) OSW: SW-846.3-1; GPO: 955- 001-00000-1; NTS: PB89-148-076 ------- APPENDIX C ------- WORK ASSIGNMENT #R090XX CONTRACT NO. XX-XX-XXXX TITLE: RCRA Corrective Action Technical Support and Oversight for Corporation XYZ LEVEL OF EFFORT AND ESTIMATE: IREAKDOWN Task Task Task Task Task Task Task 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: Contract Management: FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 90 90 90 90 90 91 90 91 91 90 91 = = = = = = = = = = = 8 40 140 40 64 128 12 24 160 56 64 Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Total Estimated FY 90 LOE =360 Hours FY 91 LOE = 376 Hours ESTIMATED PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: through September 30, 1991. For FY 90, date of issuance WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER: John Doe, FTS 454-XXXX, 415-974-XXXX, Toxics and Waste Management Division (T-2-4), EPA Region 9, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, California 94105. PROJECT OFFICE: Lucy Mlenar, FTS 454-8386, 415-974-8386, Toxics and Waste Management Division (T-2-8), EPA Region 9, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, California 94105. PURPOSE: The purpose of this project is to provide technical support to EPA Region 9 for determining Corporation XYZ compliance with a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 3008(h) consent order for corrective action, reviewing a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Workplan, RFI Report, and other related documents, and for overseeing the RFI Workplan implementation. BACKGROUND: Corporation XYZ (XYZ) owns and operates an inorganic chemical manufacturing facility located in XXXXXXXX, California. The facility, which occupies approximately 4 acres of land, manufactures inorganic solder strippers, brighteners, conditioners and etchants used in the aerospace and electronics industries. ------- . • Soils at the facility are contaminated with heavy metals including chromium and nickel. The thirteen facility monitoring wells have detected chromium, cadmium and organic compounds in the groundwater. The hydrogeologic setting is not fully characterized and the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring system is in question. On March 14, 1989, XYZ entered into a corrective action consent order (consent order with EPA under Section 3008(h) of RCRA. The consent order requires SYZ to conduct a RCRA Facility Investigation to characterize the site geology and groundwater flow patterns (including the installation of an adequate groundwater monitoring system) and to identify the sources and extent of contamination. XYZ will also prepare a corrective measures study that will evaluate alternatives for controlling and cleaning up the contamination. SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 - Project Plan The contractor shall submit a proposed project plan that responds to the purpose and tasks of this Work Assignment. The contractor shall propose hourly allocations and individual staff responsibilities (include names and P-Levels of staff) for the completion of this Work Assignment. For each manager or staff person proposed for this Work Assignment, the contractor shall submit a resume describing that person's educational background and professional experience. The resume shall describe in detail how the staff person's professional experience is relevant to his/her assigned area of responsibility for the Work Assignment. Task 2 - Review Background Information/Orientation The contractor will review the consent order, RCRA Facility Assessment report. Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation report, aerial photographic analysis, August 1987 Draft RCRA Facility Investigation Guidance and other pertinent information as directed by EPA. The contractor shall become familiar with the requirements of the consent order and with the facility's location and setting, layout, history, geology, hydrogeology, groundwater monitoring system, the known extent of contamination, potential receptor populations and the location of solid waste management units. The contractor will attend an orientation meeting with EPA to discuss the project and to obtain copies of background material. Task 3 - Review RFI Wdrkolan. Current Conditions Report and the Pre-Investigation Evaluation of Corrective Measure Technologies Report and ------- Document Deficiencies The contractor shall review the draft RFI Workplan, Current Conditions Report and the Pre-Investigation Evaluation of Corrective Measure Technologies Report and provide EPA with necessary information to determine whether these documents fulfill all requirements and comply with the consent order (including attached scopes of work). The contractor shall perform a rigorous technical review in order for EPA to assess whether the information and procedures presented in the RFI Workplan are technically sound, feasible and in accordance with accepted scientific and engineering practices. The contractor shall provide data which will allow EPA to determine if the RFI Workplan is technically adequate to: (1) determine the nature and extent of contamination, (2) characterize the geology and hydrogeology at the facility, (3) ensure that an acceptable groundwater monitoring system is established at the facility, (4) provide acceptable quality assurance and quality control during the investigation, (5) identify potential receptors and (6) generate a sufficient information base to develop appropriate further actions. The contractor shall review the adequacy of the public involvement, health and safety, data management, project management, data collection and quality assurance portions of the RFI Workplan. The contractor shall document any deficiencies that are found and make suggestions for correcting such deficiencies. The contractor shall prepare draft and final written reports specifying the deficiencies/correction suggestions in a format suitable for direct use as EPA comments to XYZ. The final written report must be contained on a word-processing floppy disk in Wordstar 2000 Plus format. After the written reports are submitted to EPA, the contractor shall be available to answer questions concerning the reports and, if requested, provide EPA with a briefing on the reports and/or attend meetings with EPA and XYZ to discuss the reports. Task 4 - Review Revised RFI Workplan XYZ will revise the RFI Workplan as a result of the initial evaluation and comments from EPA. The contractor shall review the revised RFI Workplan using the results from the initial evaluation and following the procedure given in Task 3. Task 5 - Field Oversight of RFI Activities The contractor will perform field oversight of XYZ's implementation of EPA approved RFI Workplan. This field oversight is intended to be a "spot check" of the field work which XYZ undertakes. The contractor shall develop a field oversight strategy and schedule with EPA prior to commencing ------- oversight activities. Field oversight activities may include observation of the drilling and installation of a representative monitoring well, well logging, well development, aquifer testing, groundwater sampling, soil coring and soil sampling. The contractor shall prepare a trip report for each field oversight visit that describes the visit and includes a discussion of the investigation activity's compliance with generally accepted engineering practices, the approved RFI Workplan, and applicable EPA procedures. Task 6 - Review of Monthly Progress Reports The contractor will review and critique monthly progress reports submitted by XYZ during the implementation of the RFI Workplan. The contractor will call the EPA Work Assignment Manager within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the progress report and discuss any problems with the RFI Workplan implementation and suggest solutions for these problems. Upon request, the contractor will document the comments in a letter. Task 7 - Review Preliminary and Final RFI Reports The contractor will review XYZ's preliminary and final RFI reports and in order to allow EPA to determine if they comply with the consent order. The contractor shall analyze the reliability and technical adequacy of all information and data in the RFI reports pertaining to data quality assurance/quality control (including data validation), sample analyses, contaminant migration pathways, contaminant identification, geological and hydrogeological data, potential receptors, proposed health protection standards, and document any deficiencies. The contractor will make specific suggestions for EPA's consideration on how to correct any deficiencies. The contractor shall prepare draft and final written reports specifying the deficiencies/correction suggestions in a format suitable for direct use as EPA comments to XYZ. The final written report must be contained on a work processing floppy disk in Wordstar 2000 Plus format. After the reports are submitted to EPA, the contractor will be available to answer questions concerning the written reports and if requested, provide EPA with a briefing on the reports and/or attend meetings with EPA and XYZ to discuss the reports. General The contractor shall furnish a copy of each section of the monthly technical and financial progress reports which relate to this work assignment directly to the Work Assignment Manager at the same time the reports are submitted to the Project Officer and Contracting Officer. If the contractor anticipates that within the next month it will exceed 75% of either the estimated ------- hours or the estimated cost for this Work Assignment, the contractor shall indicate this in the monthly progress report. Within thirty (30) days of project close-out, the contractor will return all original documents which have been borrowed for this Work Assignment to the locations from which the documents were obtained. If the contractor has copied any materials for this Work Assignment, within thirty (30) days of project close-out, the contractor will provide EPA with all such copies and with an annotated index of the copied materials. Staffing The contractor shall provide the same hydrogeologist for RFI Workplan evaluation, revised RFI Workplan evaluation, RFI report evaluation and for field oversight activities. DELIVERABLES The contractor will generate the following deliverables: Activity Deliverable 1. Task 1 - Project Plan for Work Assignment 2. Task 3 - Draft and final written reports on RFI Workplan, current conditions report and pre-investigation report - Floppy disk containing the final report (Wordstar 200 Plus word-processing format) 3. Task 4 - Draft and final written reports on the revised RFI Workplan - Floppy disk containing the final report (Wordstar 200 Plus word-processing format) 4. Task 5 - Trip reports for each site visit that in- clude a full assessment of XYZ's work. 5. Task 7 - Draft and final written reports for preliminary RFI report - Draft and final written reports for final RFI report. - Floppy disks containing final reports (Wordstar 2000 Plus word-processing format) ------- SCHEDULE FOR TASK COMPLETION Task 1 - Submit Project Plan for Work Assignment: Task 2 - Contractor Orientation Meeting: - Complete Background Review: Task 3 - Receive draft RFI Workplan for review: - Submit draft report: - Submit final report with word-processing floppy disk: Task 4 - Submit draft report: - Submit final report with word-processing floppy disk: Task 7 - Submit draft report for preliminary RFI report: report Submit final report for preliminary RFI report with word-processing floppy disk: Submit draft report for final RFI report: Submit final report for final RFI report with word- processing floppy disk: Early April 1990 Mid April 1990 Within 14 calendar days after orienta- tion meeting with EPA Upon completion of background review Within 30 calendar days after receiving documents for review Determined by EPA Within 30 calendar days after receiving documents for review Determined by EPA With 30 calendar days of receiving preliminary RFI Determined by EPA Within 30 calendar days of receiving final RFI report Determined by EPA ------- APPENDIX D ------- corrective Aation Resouree Needj PY-91 Name 2f Facility! Abbott Laboratories Location; 6765 South Ridge Road Wichita, Kansas 67277 Prelect officer; Alan K. Hancock Enforcement Action! July 16/ 1990 3008 (h) History? Management of aolid wastes and hazardous wastes from the production of industrial amines from 1960 to 1985 resulted in the release of cycloheylamine, dicyclohexylamine, pyridine, acrylonitrile, aniline, and benzene to ground water and potentially soils. Potential and actual impacts include soils, ground water, and residential drinking water wells 0.3 miles down-gradient of the facility. 3QQ8fhi Activity £0. Datat The facility continues to pump contaminated ground water and inject the ground water in their class l non-hazardous waste UIC well. The facility recently installed transducers in selected monitoring wells and is in the process of completing pump tests in coordination with Vulcan Chemical to determine if the subsurface hydraulics can be manipulated to reduce the impact of Vulcan constituents on ground water beneath and immediately adjacent to Abbott Laboratories. During July, 1990 samples of residential drinking water wells immediately down gradient of Abbott and Vulcan were collected by EPA to insure that drinking water wells had not been impacted. activity fV-9i! The facility will submit the Interim Measures Scope of Work (9/6/90) for review and approval. The facility will submit the Description of Current Conditions for review (10/11/90). The facility will submit the Draft RFI Work Plan for review and approval (12/1/90). Upon approval the facility will implement the RFI Work Plan. Additional work, possibly modification of the 7/16/90 3008 (h), may be required upon the effective date of the TCLP rule (9/25/90) , in order for the facility to continue pumping and injecting contaminated ground water. Work Performed, fey. EPA pjj EPA Representative In FY-91 a£ the Site; - Reviev of bimonthly progress reports (3 workdays) - Review of Description of current Conditions Report (5 workdays) - Review of Quarterly GWM Reports (4 workdays) - Reviev and approval of Draft RFI Work Plan (15 workdays) - Review and approval of CMS work Plan (5 workdays) - Approximately two (2) site visits to overview RFI Work Plan implementation ~( 4 workdays) - Additional work froa TCLP impact (? workdays) Eateiaated resource Naada FY-9H Intramural 36 workdays Extramural 0 workdays ------- APPENDIX E ------- f- ri I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY * • WASHINGTON. DC '20460 APR 1 7 1990 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Contracting at EPA THE ADMINISTRATOR TO: All Agency Personnel Since coming to EPA, I have been continually impressed with the broad range of work that we perform, it follows that the expertise required to successfully perform such an assortment of functions must be equally varied. EPA is fortunate to employ a multi-talented workforce. However, we are still not able to do •all of this work ourselves. We must get help from the outside, specifically by way of contractor support. Contract Management and Due to the extent of EPA's contracting, it is critical for us to effectively manage our contracts. In recent years, we have improved considerably by focussing on those individuals who perform the day-to-day contract management activities. However/ in a very real sense, we are all contract managers. Each one of us, including myself and senior management, bears responsibility. Agency accountability begins when we make a decision to use contractor support. And, once we accept a final product from a contractor, we become responsible for its content and for how it may be used in reaching Agency decisions. To assure accountability at senior management levels, I am requiring all EPA managers to include in their performance standards a requirement emphasizing contracting controls. The Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMO) has the lead in developing this language. Prohibited Contracting with increasing frequency, I an becoming aware of uses of contractor support that leave us open to criticism. In1 many cases, we have used contractors in areas of a policy and decision-making nature that should remain under the . sole authority of EPA. Although I aa certain that key decisions are being made internally by EPA managers, there is often the appearance that contractors make those decisions for us. This perception is highly damaging to EPA's credibility. And, it must be stopped. As a result, I aa instituting measures to maintain tighter control on the Agency's use of contracting support. Attachment A to* this memorandum comprises a -list of activities for which EPA will not contract. The prohibition of these activities will be ------- -2- incorporated into all future, contracts and current contractors will be alerted to this new policy. These prohibitions also extend to Agency subcontractors. Sensitive Areas Attachment B is a list of activities that often place the Agency in positions of vulnerability. They are not activities from which contractor involvement is precluded but are ones wherein we must exercise great control if we choose to contract for them. Over the next months, PCMD will be issuing direction regarding contracting for these types of activities. As a minimum, prior to procuring support in any of these areas, adequate control measures must be established to ensure a final Agency product that is unbiased and represents Agency thinking. Broadening Competition A high percentage of the tasks falling into the "sensitive" range are purchased by program offices under broad management consultant contracts. Having a limited number of contractors supporting us in so many of these areas creates great potential for conflict of interest. I ask senior management to help alleviate this situation by breaking requirements into smaller portions. Instead of Just one contract, a program might be supported by two or three. This would reduce the conflict of interest potential and provide for more involvement of small and minority-owned businesses. Conclusion Within the near future, I will be issuing an EPA Executive Order which will implement in greater detail the policies discussed in this memorandum. The use of contractor support at EPA is a very practical way to meet our obligations. However, each of us is responsible for this Agency's reputation and for the ideas and opinions ye express on behalf of it. Whenever a contract is used, we must ensure that we provide clear guidance to contractors on our thoughts, ideas, and positions and that we scrutinize contractor outputs to ensure they reflect this guidance. I am confident that each one of us will take ownership of this large responsibility and work to create an environment which is conducive to the accomplishment of our/^any tasks through the judicious use of contractual suppoi William K. Rei Attachments ------- Appendix A EXHIBIT A^l PROHIBITED CONTRACTING ACTIVITIES AT EPA Prohibited Contracting Activities at EPA (A* Spadfiad by Administrator Raillvl AJ • DeOvery Order Project Officer, you ire expected to avoid the following activities. Read each Hem and check a Yes or No to indicate whether your order allows for the activity. 1. The actual preparation of Congressional testimony Y«( > NX > 2. Trjelrrtervlewlr^ or hin^ of Individuals for employrnent at EPA v«( ) NX > 3. Developing and/or writing Position Descriptions and Performance v«( ) NB( ) Standards 4. The actual determination of Agency poOcy v«( ) NX > 5. PartJcfpating as a voting member on a Performance Evaluation Board; YM( j NX ) participation in and/or attending Award Fee meetings 6. Preparing Award Fee letters, even under typing services contracts Y«( ) NX ) 7. The actual preparation of Award Fee Plans Y«( ) NX ) 8. The preparation of documents on EPA letterhead other than routine v«( ) NX ) administrative correspondence 9. Reviewing vouchers and Invoices for the purposes of determining Y«( ) NX ) whether cost, hours, and work performed are reasonable 10. The development of Statements of Work, Work Assignments, Technical Y« ( ) NX ) Direction Documents, Delivery Orders, or any other work issuance document under a contract that the contractor Is performing or may perform 11. On behalf of EPA. actually preparing responses to audtt reports from the Y«( ) NX ) Inspector General, General Accounting Office, or other auditing entities 12. OnoehalfofEPA.aduanypi«paringraaporisestoCor«ressiorial YM< ) NX ) correspondence 13. The actual preparation of responses to Freedom of Information Act Y«< > NX > requests, other than routine, non-judgmental correspondence in all cases, EPA must sign* 14. Any coritrsct which euth(jnles a contractor to represertlts^ Y«< ) NX ) outside parts* 15. Conducting administrative hearings YM( ) NX ) 16. Reviewing findings concerning the eligibility of EPA employee for v«( ) ND{ ) security clearance 17. The actual preparation of an rtfk»-s ofWal bucket request v«( ) M>( ) A-4 August, 1991 TOSS User's Guide ------- Prohibited Use of-ConMact Services EXHIBIT A-2 ACITVmES OF POTENTIAL VULNERABILITY AetlvltlM of Potential Vulnerability bv Administrator Raflll * The following activities vary oftan raquira contractor Involvamant in programs that are dapandant upon contractor aupport to accomplish thair mission. Thasa activities may result in tha improper uaa of contractors if Intamal controls to ansura propar oversight hava not ba«n established. Thay may aiso laad to tha parcaption that inharant Government functions hava baan assigned to contractors. Whanavar contractors ara usad to parform thaaa tasks, Agancy amployaas must play an active rola in ovarsaaing tha affort and making all final dacisions. This raquiras doaa monitoring to ansura that final outputs reflect tha Agency's positions, thoughts and ideas. For each Ham. check a Yea or No to Indicate whether these activities win occur under your Delivery Order. If yes, please attach an explanation or Justification for each item. 1. Budget preparation aupport Including workload modeling, fact-finding, y«( ) NO( ) efficiency studies, should-cost analyses, etc. 2. Reorganization and planning support v«( ) NB< ) 3. Support services such as analyses, feasibility studies, etc. to be used VH( ) NB( ) by EPA personnel in developing policy 4. Regulation development support YM( ) NO( ) 5. Any support In tha in-house evaluation of another eontractor'a performance Yen ) NB( ) 6. Involvement in strategic acquisition planning YM( ) NO( > 7. Support on Improving contract management v«( ) NB( ) & Providing specialized expertise In tha contractor selections process Y«( ) Na( ) 9. Situations where contractors share office apace with EPA employees v«( ) NB( ) 10. Providing spedalized expertise in the development of Statements of Ye»( ) N»< j Work. Work Assignments, other contact-ordered tasks 11. Support in r>apan^raaponsa« to Freedom of Information Act requests Y«( ) NB( ) 12. Any sftuatton wherein aerxitractor has access to Confidential Y«K ) NB( ) Business Infaftnaflon and/or any other sensitive information 13. Any support awoMng EPA poOeyer regulatory Interpretation, auch as «•( ) r*( ) staffing hotfnaa. attandng conferences on behalf of EPA. community raiaHona affarta, conducting EPA training courses 14. Any smiationwriera It can be assumed that the contractor ia* PA. Y«( ) NO( ) wttnout apacMcafly Wamrfytag Itself aa a contractor 15. independently Interpreting EPA poOdea or regulations on EPA* . v«( } N»( } behalf to outside partea TOSS User's Guide August, 1991 A-5 ------- APPENDIX F ------- UNITED STATES ENVTCONMEt/IAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V IN THE JftTTER OF: UNITED MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS U.S.A. INC. 33999 CURTIS BCUIZVARD EASTLAKE, OHIO 44094 U.S. EPA I.D. «OHD 004 153 854 ACMINISTRAnVE ORDER ON CONSENT | •jri i,, .'<-.- ^rcT r "'' •'•• -'" U.S. EPA DOCKET NO. Proceeding under Section 300B5ftt)>i<»;. :-.•;•; of the Resouroe Conservation a -:;'J' ' Recovery Act, as amended, 42 §6928 (h) I. JURISDICTION v _ K, __ This Administrative Order on Consent (Consent Order) is issued pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) by Section 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. §6928(h). The authority vested in the Administrator has been delegated to the Regional Administrators by U.S. EPA Delegation Nos. 8-31 and 8-32 dated April 16, 1985. This Consent Order is issued to United Musical Instruments U.S.A. Inc., (Respondent), owner of a facility located at 33999 Curtis Blvd., Eastlake, Ohio (facility). Respondent consents to and agrees not to contest U.S. EPA's jurisdiction to issue this Order and enforce its terms, and waives any defense to the validity of this Order, or any right to a hearing pursuant to Section 3008 (b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928(b). o. ------- -2- II. APPLICABILITY 1. This Consent Order shall apply to and be binding upon the Respondent and its officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns, and upon all persons, independent contractors, contractors, and consultants acting under or for Respondent. 2. Ho change in ownership or corporate or partnership status relating to the facility will in any way alter Respondent's responsibility under this Consent'Order. 3. Respondent shall provide a copy of this Consent Order to all contractors, subcontractors, laboratories, and consultants retained to conduct or monitor any portion of the work performed pursuant to this * Consent Order within one (1) week of the effective data of this Consent Order, or date of such retention. 4. Respondent shall give notice of this Consent Order to any successor in interest prior to transfer of ownership or operation of the facility and shall notify U.S. EPA thirty (30) days prior to such transfer. 5. Ihe effective data of this Consent Order shall be the date on which it is signed by the Regional Administrator of U.S. EPA. HI* STATEMENT OF PURPOSE In entering into this Consent Order, the mutual objectives of U.S. EPA and Respondent are: (1) to perform Interim Measures (Di) at the facility to reduce threats to human health or the environment; (2) to perform a RCRA facility Investigation (RTT) to determine fully the nature and extent of any release or hazardous waste and hazardous constituents at or from the ------- -3- facility; (3) to perform a Corrective Measures Study (CMS) to identify and evaluate alternatives for the corrective action necessary to prevent or mitigate any migration of releases of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents at or fron the facility; and (4) to inplement the corrective measure or measures selected by U.S. EPA at the facility. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent is a ccrpany doing business in the State of Ohio and is a person as defined in Section 1004(15) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6903(15) and 40 CFR 260.10. 2. Respondent is a generator of hazardous waste and the owner of the facility located at 33999 Curtis Boulevard, Eastlake, Chio. Prior to • October 7, 1985, the facility was owned by King Musical Instruments, Inc. 3. Pursuant to Section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6930, Respondent notified U.S. EPA of its hazardous waste activity. In its notification dated August 18, 1980, Respondent identified itself as a generator of hazardous wasta. 4. Respondent operated its facility as a hazardous waste management facility on and after November 19, 1980, the applicable date which renders the facility subject to interim status requirements under Sections 3004 and 3005 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §§6924 and 6925. 5. Respondent submitted to U.S. EPA a Part A permit application on November 19, 1980. In a letter dated October 4, 1983, the Respondent requested that U.S. EPA withdraw the Part A permit application it had submitted, in order'to change the status of the facility from a ha ------- -4- waste treatment, storage, or disposed facility to a generator storing wastes for fewer than ninety (90) days, in accordance with 40 CTR 262.34. Pursuant to Respondent's request, U.S. EPA withdrew the Part A permit application and notified the Respondent of this action in a letter dated January 9, 1984. 6. In a letter dated March 4, 1983, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) questioned the RCRA status of two surface inpoundments at the facility, and on September 12, 1986, a Complaint, Findings of Violation and Compliance Order was issued to the Respondent by U.S. EPA for failure, in part, to meet Interim Status Standards for the two surface impoundments. 7. On May 7, 1987, the September 12, 1986, complaint was settled through a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAPO). The CAFO required the Respondent • to ijiplement a grcundwater monitoring program as part of the approved closure plan for the surface impoundments. 8. The monitoring program found evidence of organic constituent contamination, specifically trichlorcethylene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, in the grcundwater. The impoundments had been used for storage of F006 hazardous waste sludge from its plating operations. F006 is listed as a hazardous waste due to its metals content and not for any organic constituents. 9. Continuing grcundwater sampling and results of a soil gas survey discovered that the organic contamination was from a source other than the surface impoundments. Two product storage tanks, hydrologically upgradient from the surface impoundments, were the likely source of the organic contamination. - • ------- -5- 10. Based en present information, it appears that a routine and systematic release, from the refilling of these tanks, was the likely source of the contamination. No other source of the contamination could be found, and no records of any spill are known. 11. The Respondent has since instituted a program to assure no farther spillage occurs during filling of the tanks. 12. Respondent has requested that U.S. EPA enter into this Consent Order and U.S. EPA has determined that this order, and the terms herein, is consistent with its priorities under the RCRA Corrective Action Outyear Strategy. V. CONCUJSIONS OF LAW AND DETERMTNKTICKS Based on the Findings of Fact set out above, and,the administrative record, the Regional Administrator of U.S. EPA has made the following conclusions of lav and determinations: 1. Respondent is a "person" within the meaning of Section 1004(15) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6903(15). 2. Respondent is the owner or operator of a facility that has operated or is operating subject to Section 3005(e) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 56925(e). 3. Certain wastes and constituents thereof found at the facility are hazardous waste or hazardous constituents thereof as defined by Section 1004(5) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6903(5). These are also hazardous waste or hazardous constituents within the meaning of Section 3001 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. $6921, and 40 CFR Part 261. ------- -6- 4. There is or has been a release of hazardous waste and/or hazardous constituents into the environment from Respondent's facility. 5. The actions required by this Consent Order are necessary to protect human health or the environment. VI. VORK TO BE Pursuant to Section 3008(h) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928(h), Respondent agrees and is hereby ordered to perform the following acts by the dates specified herein. 1. In the event the Respondent identifies a current or potential threat to human health or the environment, the Respondent shall immediately notify U.S. EPA orally and in writing within seven (7) days summarizing the immediacy and magnitude of the threat to human health and the environment. within forty-five (45) days of notifying U.S. EPA, the Respondent shall submit to U.S. EPA for approval an Interim Measures (Hi) Horkplan that identifies interim measures which mitigate this threat and are consistent with and integrated into any long tern solution at the facility. The workplan shall be consistent with the U.S. EPA Interim Measures guidance (Attachment A) . 2. If U.S. EPA does not cament on any IM Workplan within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the workplan, the Respondent may implement interia measures in accordance with the workplan. 3. Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Consent Order the Respondent shall submit to U.S. EPA, RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Tasks I, II, and in of the Corrective Action Plan (CAP, Attachment 8). Task III, ------- -7- the RFI Workplan, shall incorporate the CAP'S Task VII facility submission summary, providing a schedule for all remaining tasks required under the RFI (Tasks IV through VI of the CAP, Attachment B). Task VII reporting requirements shall be followed throughout the RFI process. Respondent nay eliminate those specific portions of the CAP which are not applicable to the nature of the releases at the facility. 4. If the U.S. EPA does not comment, within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the RFI Workplan, the Respondent shall implement the RFI Tasks according to the schedule of inpleuentation contained in the RFI Workplan and shall submit a final RFI report within the tine period set forth in the schedule contained in the approved Workplan. 5. If U.S. EPA does not cottinent, within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the final RFI report, the Respondent shall submit, within forty-five (45) days, (90 days from the initial submittal of the final RFI report) a Corrective Measures Study (CMS) Scope of Work (SOW) based on Tasks VIII, DC, and X of the CAP (Attachment B). The SOW shall incorporate the CAP'S Task XI facility submission sunmary, providing a schedule for all remaining tasks required under the CMS (Tasks VIII through X of the CAP, Attachment B). Task XI reporting requirements shall be followed throughout the RFI process. Respondent may eliminate those specific portions of the CAP which are not applicable to the nature of the releases at the facility. 6. If U.S. ERA does not cement, within forth-five (45) days of receipt of the CM5/SCW, the Respondent shall inplenent the CHS Tasks according to the schedule of implementation contained in the CMS/SOW. ------- -8- 7. Upon coipletion of the CMS Tasks, in accordance with the schedule contained in the CMS/SOW, a draft CMS report must be submitted to U.S. EPA. The draft CMS report must include, at a minimum, Respondent's recamended corrective measure (s) and a justification for selection of the corrective measure (s), and a description of other corrective measures which paftfig^ through the initial screening of corrective measure technologies. U.S. EPA will make the draft CMS report available for public comments in accordance with Section IX of this Order. 8. U.S. EPA shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the draft CMS report after completion of the public cement period and will advise the Respondent of its determination in writing. Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of U.S. EPA's approval, or approval with modifications, of the proposed corrective measure (s), Respondent shall submit to U.S. EPA a final CMS report consistent with U.S. EPA's written notification. 9. Within forty-five (45) days of U.S. EPA's receipt of the final CMS report, the Respondent shall submit a Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) Draft Program Plan (Task XII of the CAP). The CMI Draft Program Plan shall incorporate the CAP'S Task XV facility submission sumnary, providing a schedule for all remaining tasks required 'order the CMI (Tasks XIII through XV of the CAP, Attachment B). Task XV reporting requirements shall bo followed throughout the CMI process. Respondent may eliminate those portions of the CAP which are not applicable to the nature of the releases at the facility. 10. If U.S. EPA does not comment, within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the CMI Draft Program Plan, the Respondent shall implement the CMI Tasks ------- -9- aooording to the schedule of implementation contained in the OC Program Plan. VII. SUBCSSIONS/ASENCY APPROVMyADOITICNAL WORK 1. Prior U.S. EPA written approval is needed for three portions of the Corrective Measures process: 1) The list(s) of constituents which will be addressed during the PJT and (XT; 2) the cleanup levels for each constituent of concern, in each media proposed in any IM WbrXplan and the OS report; and 3) the method(s) chosen to achieve the cleanup levels. 2. Beginning with the first complete calendar quarter following the effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall provide U.S. EPA with progress reports for every quarter by the fifteenth day of the following • quarter. This progress report shall conform to requirements in relevant Workplans. 3. Respondent shall provide draft and final RFI, CMS, and CKI (IM if implemented) reports to U.S. EPA in accordance with the schedules contained in the WorXplans and Program Plan. 4. A responsible official shall personally attest to the accuracy of the information contained in each of Respondent's reports, certificates of compliance, and documents evidencing the compliance. The written statement submitted pursuant to this request must be certified to be true and accurate to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief. 5. U.S. EPA reserves the right to review all draft or final reports within forty-five (45) days of submittal, exclusive of the CMS Draft report. In the event of any disapproval, U.S. EPA shall specify in writing the deficiencies ------- -10- and reasons for such disapproval and any required modifications to the schedule. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of U.S. EPA'a disapproval of any report, Respondent shall amend and submit a revised report. The U.S. EPA reserves the right to extend the forty-five (45) day review timeframe if additional tine is necessary to complete a proper review of submitted documents. The U.S. EPA will notify the Respondent of such an extension first by telephone and then with a written statement. Accordingly, the schedules of implementation will be adjusted to reflect such modifications. 6. Three (3) copies of all documents, including workplans, program plans, draft and final reports, progress reports, and other correspondences to be submitted pursuant to this Consent Order shall be hand delivered or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Project Coordinator • designated pursuant to Section XIII of this Consent Order. 7. All work performed pursuant to this Consent Order shall be under the direction and supervision of a professional engineer or geologist with expertise in hazardous waste site cleanup. On or before the effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall notify U.S. EPA in writing of the name, title, and qualifications of the engineer or geologist, and of any contractors or subcontractors and their personnel to be used in carrying out the terms of this Consent Order. 8. U.S. EPA may determine that certain tasks, including investigatory work or engineering evaluations, are necessary in addition to the tasks and deliverables included in the IM, RFI, CMS Wbrkplans, and the Off Program Plan when new findings indicate that such additional work is necessary. U.S. EPA shall notify Respondent in'writing of the additional work to be performed and ------- -11- shall specify the basis and reasons for U.S. EPA's determination that the additional work is necessary, within thirty (30) days after receipt of such request, Respondent shall have the opportunity to meet with the U.S. EPA to discuss the additional work U.S. EPA has requested. Thereafter, Respondent shall perform the additional work determined to be necessary by U.S. EPA according to a Scope of Work developed by the Respondent and submitted to the U.S. EPA in accordance with a schedule established by U.S. EPA. All additional work performed by Respondent under this paragraph shall be performed in a manner consistent with this Consent Order. VIII. fflftT-^Ty ASSURANCE Throughout all sanple collection and analysis activities, Respondent shall use U.S. EPA approved quality assurance, quality control, and chain-of- custody procedures. In addition Respondent shall: 1. Follow U.S. EPA guidance for sampling and analysis contained in the Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (TEED) September 1986. 2. Inform the U.S. EPA Project Coordinator in advance which laboratories will be used by Respondent and ensure that U.S. EPA personnel and U.S. EPA- authorized representatives have reasonable access to the laboratories used for analyses. 3. Ensure that laboratories used by Respondent for analyses perform such analyses only according to U.S. EPA methods (i.e., U.S. EPA SW-846, November, 1986) 4. Ensure that laboratories used by Respondent for analyses participate in a quality assurance/quality control program equivalent to that which is followed by U.S. EPA; As part of such a program, and upon request by ------- -12- U.S. EPA, such laboratories shall perform analyses of a reasonable number of known samples provided by U.S. EPA to denonstrate the quality of the analytical data. 5. Use appropriate U.S. EPA guidance to evaluate all data developed in carpi iance with this Consent Order. IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. Respondent shall develop a public relations program to ensure that local residents are aware of activities conducted pursuant to this Consent Order, including the results of grourdwater monitoring. 2. The quarterly progress reports shall contain the specific activities conducted pursuant to this requirement. • 3. U.S. EPA shall make both the RCRA Facility investigation Final Report (or summary report) and the CMS Draft Report (or summary report) and a summary of U.S. EPA's proposed corrective measures and U.S. EPA's justification for proposing selection of those corrective measures available to the public for review and comment for at least twenty-one (21) days. 4. Following the public review and comment period, U.S. EPA shall notify Respondent of the correct measures selected by U.S. EPA. If the corrective measures recommended in the CMS Draft Report are not the corrective measures selected by U.S. EPA after consideration of public comments, U.S. EPA shall inform Respondent in writing of the reasons for such decision, and the Respondent shall modify the RFI/CMS based upon public comment if directed to do so by U.S. EPA. ------- -13- X. ON-SITE AND OFT-SITC ACCESS 1. U.S. EPA ancVor any U.S. EPA representative, including U.S. EPA contractors, are authorized to enter and freely move about all property at the facility for the purpose of, inter alia: interviewing facility personnel and contractors; inspecting records, operating logs, and contracts related to the facility; reviewing the progress of the Respondent in carrying out the terns of this Consent Order; conducting such sampling and tests as U.S. EPA or its representative deem necessary; using a camera, sound recording or other documentary type equipment; and verifying the reports and data submitted to U.S. EPA by the Respondent. The Respondent shall permit such persons to inspect and copy all records, files, photographs, documents, and other writings, including all sampling and monitoring data that pertain to work undertaken pursuant to this paragraph, and shall comply with all approved health and safety plans. 2. To the extent that work required must be done on property not owned or controlled by Respondent, Respondent will use its best efforts to obtain site • access agreements from the present owner(s) of such property within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Consent Order. "Best efforts" as used in this Section shall include, at a minimum, a certified letter frcn Respondent to the present owners of such property requesting access agreements to permit Respondent and U.S. EPA and its authorized representatives to access such property. Any such access agreement shall be incorporated by reference into this Consent Order. In the event that agreements for site access are not obtained within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall notify U.S. EPA regarding both the lack of, and Its failure to obtain such agreements within ten (10) days thereafter. In the event that ' ------- -14- U.S. EPA obtains access, Respondent shall undertake the originally proposed work on such property. Nothing in this section limits or otherwise affects U.S. EPA's right of access and entry pursuant to applicable lav, including RCRA and the Corprehensive Environmental Response, Carpensation and Liability Act XI. SAMPTTf*? AND DATVPXUMP/r AVMIABIUTY 1. Respondent shall make available to U.S. EPA all results of sampling, tests, or other data generated by Respondent, or on its behalf, with respect to the implementation of this Consent Order. Respondent shall submit these results in the progress reports described in Section VI of this Consent Order. Similarly, upon request, U.S. EPA will make available to Respondent the results of sampling or tests generated pursuant to this Order by U.S. EPA within thirty (30) days after any such results or data pass U.S. EPA quality assurance review. 2. At the request of U.S. EPA, Respondent shall allow U.S. EPA or its authorized representative to take split samples of all samples collected by Respondent pursuant to this Consent Order. Similarly, at the request of Respondent, U.S. EPA shall allow Respondent or its authorized representatives to take split or duplicate sanples of all sanples collected by U.S. EPA under this Consent Order. U.S. EPA shall notify Respondent at least twenty (20) days before conducting any sanpling under this Consent Order. 3. Respondent nay assert a business confidentiality claia covering all or part of any information submitted to U.S. EPA pursuant to this Consent Order. Any assertion of confidentiality shall be adequately substantiated by Respondent when such assertion is made. Information determined to b* confidential by U.S. EPA shall be disclosed only to the extent permitted by ------- -15- 40 CFR Part 2. If no such confident ial ity claim acccnpanies the information when it is submitted to U.S. EPA, it may be made available to the public by U.S. EPA without further notice to the Respondent. Respondent agrees not to assert any confidentiality claijn with regard to any physical or analytical data. 4. The Respondent shall not withhold as privileged any factual information or documents that are created, generated, or collected pursuant to the requirements of this Consent Order, regardless of whether the documents or information have been generated in the form of an attorney-client communication of other generally privileged manner. By entering into this Consent Order, however, the Respondent does not waive or abridge its rights to claim that non- factual information generated pursuant to this Consent Order may be privileged from disclosure to U.S. EPA as either attorney work product or attorney-client privileged information. XII. REODRD Respondent agrees that it shall preserve, during the pendency of this Consent Order and for a minimum of six (6) years after its termination, all records and documents in its possession or in the possession of its divisions, enployees, agents, consultants, or contractors which relate in any way to this Consent Order or to hazardous waste management and disposal at the facility. At the conclusion of six (6) years, Respondent shall then make such records available to U.S. EPA for inspection or U.S. EPA's retention or shall provide copies of any such records to U.S. EPA. Respondent shall notify U.S. EPA thirty (30) days prior to the destruction of any such records and shall provide U.S. EPA with the opportunity to take possession of any such records. ------- -16- XIII. PROJECT ODORDPJATOR 1. On or before the effective data of this Consent Order, U.S. EPA and Respondent shall each designate a Project Coordinator. Each Project Coordinator shall be responsible for overseeing the urplementation of this Consent Order. The U.S. EPA Project Coordinator will be U.S. EPA's designated representative at the facility. To the maxinum extent possible, all camunications between Respondent and U.S. EPA, and all documents, reports, approvals, and other correspondence concerning the activities performed ^ pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Consent Order, shall be directed through the Project Coordinators. 2. The parties agree to provide at least ten (10) days written notice prior to changing Project Coordinators. • 3. If U.S. EPA determines that activities in carpiiance or non compliance with this Consent Order, have caused or may cause a release of hazardous waste, hazardous constituents, or a pollutant or contaminant, or a threat to the public health or to the environment, U.S. EPA nay order Respondent to stop further implementation of this Consent Order for .such period of time as may be needed to abate any such release or threat and/or undertake any actions which U.S. EPA determines is necessary to abate such release or threat. 4. The absence of the U.S. EPA Project Coordinator frca the facility shall not be cause for stoppage of work. ------- -17- XIV. NOTIFICATION Unless otherwise specified, reports, notices or other submissions required under this Consent Order shall be in writing and shall be distributed as follows: All documents to be submitted to U.S. EPA shall be sent to: Kevin J. Moss PCPA Deforcement Branch, 5HR-12 Waste Management Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 All documents to be submitted to the Respondent shall 6e sent to: John J. Haynes Corporace Director of Human Resources United Musical Instruments USA., Inc. 33999 Curcis Blvd. East lake, OH 44095 XV. DPT AY IN 1. Unless there has been a written modification of a compliance date by U.S. EPA or excusable delay as defined by Section XVII, "Force Kajeure and Excusable Delay, " for each day that sane activity or work product called for in the Consent Order is overdue or unsatisfactory, or for which Respondent fails to submit a report or document or otherwise fails to achieve the requirements of this Consent Order, Respondent shall pay the suns set forth below as stipulated penalties, except as provided in paragraph 5 of this Section. Stipulated penalties shall accrue in the following amounts: For failure to comply with any provision of this Consent Order after notice by U.S. EPA of noncoipliance, $1000 per day for the first one (1) to seven (7) days, .and $2000 per day for each day of delay, or part thereof thereafter. ------- -18- 2. Any stipulated penalties paid pursuant to this Consent Order shall be payable by certified or cashier's check within ten (10) days after Respondent's receipt of written demand by U.S. EPA, to the Treasurer of the United States of America, and shall be remitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V P.O. Box 70753 Chicago, Illinois 60673 A letter describing the basis for the penalties shall accompany the check. Copies of the transmittal of payment shall be sent to the U.S. EPA Project Coordiretor listed in Section XIV. 3. The stipulated penalties set forth in this Section do not preclude U.S. EPA fron pursing any other remedies or sanctions which nay be available to U.S. EPA by reason of Respondent's failure to comply with any of the requirements of this Consent Order, nor shall payment of said penalties relieve Respondent of the responsibility to comply with this Consent Order. 4. Should Respondent fail to corply with a time requirement of any task required by this Consent Order, the period of ncncompliance shall terminate upon Respondent's performance of said requirement. 5. If Respondent disputes the basis for imposition of stipulated penalties, the issue shall be resolved under the Dispute Resolution procedures of Section XVI of this Consent Order. XVI. DISPUTE 1. The parties shall use their best efforts to resolve informally and in good faith, all rtjqpitps or differences of opinion relating to the conduct of ------- -19- activities under this Consent Order. If, however, disputes arise concerning this Consent Order, including but not limited to, the implementation of the RFI/CMS Work Plan, approval of documents, scheduling of any work, or any other obligations assumed hereunder, which the parties are unable to resolve informally, the Respondent shall present a written notice of such dispute to the U.S. EPA, within twenty (20) calendar days of its knowledge of the dispute. Tne written notice of dispute shall set forth the specific points of dispute, the position of the Respondent and the basis therefore, and any actions which the Respondent considers necessary to resolve the dispute. 2. Within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of a written notice frora the Respondent pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this Section, U.S. EPA shall provide a written response to the Respondent setting forth its position and the basis therefore. During the time period between receipt of the written notice from the Respondent and issuance of U.S. EPA's written response, the parties shall attempt to negotiate in good faith a resolution of the differences. 3. Following expiration of the tine period described in Paragraph 2 above, if the U.S. EPA concurs with the position of the Respondent, the dispute shall be deemed resolved in favor of the Respondent. The Respondent shall be provided with written notification of such dispute resolution, and this Consent Order will be modified to include any necessary extension of tine or variances of work. No stipulated penalties will be due under these circumstances. 4. Following expiration of the tine period described in Paragraph 2 above, if the U.S. EPA does not concur with the position of the Respondent, U.S. EPA shall resolve the dispute, based upon and consistent with the terns and ------- -20- objectives of this Consent Order, and shall provide a written statement of the dispute resolution which shall be incorporated into this Consent Order. 5. During the pendency of the dispute resolution procedures set forth in this Section, the time period for carpi et ion of work and/or obligations to be performed under this Consent Order, which are affected by such dispute, may be extended, upon written agreement of the U.S. EPA and Respondent, for a period of time not to exceed the actual time taken to resolve the dispute. Elements of the work and/or obligations not affected by the dispute shall be completed in accordance with the schedule contained in the RFI/CJB Work Plan or CMI Program Plan. 6. Upon resolution of any dispute, whether informally or using the procedures in this Section, the Respondent shall proceed with the work according to the statement of resolution which shall be incorporated into this Consent Order. XVII. FORCE MfrJEURE AND EXCUSABIZ 1. Respondent shall perform the requirements under this Consent Order within the time limits set forth or approved or established herein, unless the performance is prevented or delayed solely by events which constitute a force majeure. A force maieure is defined as any event arising from causes beyond the control of Respondent, including its consultants and contractors, which could not be overcome by due diligence and which delays or prevents performance by a date required by this Consent Order, or interrupts performance of any activity which requires continuous operation. Such events do not include unanticipated or increased costs of performance, changed economic circumstances, normal precipitation events, or failure to obtain federal, state, or local permits. . ------- -21- 2. Respondent aust notify U.S. EPA in writing ten (10) days after it aware of events which it knows or should know constitute a force ra*i?irg Such notice shall estimate the anticipated length of delay, including necessary demobilization and remobilization, its cause, measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay, and an estimated timetable for implementation of these measures. Respondent shall adopt all reasonable measures to avoid and minimize the delay. Failure to ocnply with the notice provision of this Section shall be grounds for U.S. EPA to deny Respondent an extension of time for performance. 3. If Respondent demonstrates to U.S. EPA that the delay has been or will be caused entirely by circumstances beyond Respondents control, which could not have been overcone by due diligence, the time for. performance for that element shall be extended for a period equal to the delay resulting from such circumstances. This shall be acconplished through written amendment to this Consent Order pursuant to Section XXII. Such an extension does not alter the schedule for performance or completion of other tasks required by the Consent Order unless these are also specifically altered by amendment of the Consent Order or underlying plan. In the event that U.S. EPA and Respondent cannot agree that any delay or failure has been or will be caused entirely by circumstance not reasonable, foreseeable, and beyond the control of Respondent, which could not have been overcome by due diligence, or if there is no agreement on the length of the extension, the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the Dispute Resolution provisions of Section XVI of this Consent Order. ------- -22- XVIII. RESERVATION OF RIQfTS 1. U.S. EPA expressly reserves all rights and defenses that it may have, including the right both to disapprove of work performed by Respondent pursuant to this Consent Order and to request that Respondent perform tasks in addition to those stated in the Workplans and Program Plans. 2. U.S. EPA hereby reserves all of its statutory and regulatory powers, authorities, rights, remedies, both legal and equitable, which nay pertain to Respondent's failure to comply with any of the requirements of this Consent Order, including without limitation the assessment of penalties under Section 3008(h)(2) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928(h)(2). The Consent Order shall not be construed as a covenant not to sue, release, waiver, or limitation of any rights, remedies, powers, and/or authorities, civil or criminal, which U.S. EPA has under RCRA, CERCLA, or any other statutory, regulatory, or OJIIIUM law enforcement authority of the United States. 3. Compliance by Respondent with the terms of this Consent Order shall not relieve Respondent of its obligations to ccnply with RCRA or any other applicable local, State, or Federal laws and regulations. 4. The entry of this Consent Order and Respondent's consent to comply shall not limit or otherwise preclude the Agency from taking additional enforcement action pursuant to Section 3008 (h) of RCRA should the Agency determine that such actions are warranted. 5. This Consent Order is not intended to be nor shall it be construed to be a permit. The Consent Order does not relieve Respondent of any obligation to obtain and comply with any local, State, or Federal permits. ------- -23- 6. U.S. EPA reserves the right to perform any portion of the work consented to herein or any additional site characterization, feasibility study, and response/corrective actions as it deems necessary to protect human health and the environment. U.S. EPA nay exercise its authority under CERCLA to undertake removal actions or remedial actions at any time. U.S. EPA reserves its right to seek reimbursement fron Respondent for such additional costs incurred by the United States. Notwithstanding compliance with the terms of this Consent Order, Respondent is not released fron liability, if any, for the costs of any response actions taken by U.S. EPA. . OTHER CLAIMS AND PARTIES Nothing in this Consent Order shall constitute or be construed as a release fron any claim, cause of action, or demand in lav or equity against any person, firm, partnership, or corporation not a signatory to this Consent Order for any liability it may have arising out of or relating in any way to the generation, storage, treatment, handling, transportation, release, or disposal of any hazardous constituents, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, pollutants, or contaminants found at, taken to, or taken from the facility. XX. OTHER APPLICABLE IAHS, All actions required to be taken pursuant to this Consent Order shall be undertaken in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of all applicable local, state, and Federal laws and regulations. Respondent shall obtain or cause its representatives to obtain all permits and approvals necessary under such laws and regulations. ------- -24- XXI. INDEMNIFICATION OF THE UNl'IW) Respondent agrees to indemnify and save and hold harmless the United States Government, its agencies, departonents, agents, and employees, frcn any and all claims or causes of acting arising fron or on account of acts or emissions of Respondent or its agents, independent contractors, receivers, trustees, and assigns in carrying out activities as required by this Consent Order. This indemnification shall not be construed in any way as affecting or limiting the rights or obligations of Respondent or the United States under their various contracts. XXII. SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION 1. The Consent Order may only be amended by mutual agreement of U.S. EPA and Respondent. Such amendments shall be in writing, shall have as their effective date the date on which they are signed by U.S. EPA, and shall be incorporated into this Consent Order. 2. Any reports, plans, specifications, schedules, and attachments required by this Consent Order, shall be incorporated into this Consent Order. Any noncompliance with such reports, plans, specifications, schedules, and attachments shall be considered a failure to achieve the requirements of this Consent Order and shall subject Respondent to the penalty provisions included in Section XV of this Consent Order and/or other sanctions. 3. No informal advice, guidance, suggestions, or coments by U.S. EPA regarding reports, plans, specifications, schedules, and any other writing submitted by Respondent will be construed as relieving Respondent of its obligation to obtain written approval, if and when required by this Consent . • Order. ------- •25- XXIII. TERMINATION AND SATISFACTION The provisions of this Consent Order shall be deemed satisfied upon Respondent's receipt of written notice from U.S. EPA that Respondent has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of U.S. EPA, that the terns of this Consent Order, including any additional tasks which, subject to the limitations set forth herein, Respondent has agreed to undertake, have been satisfactorily ccnpleted. U.S. EPA shall issue such notice after receipt of notice by Respondent that it has completed the requirements of the Consent Order. IT IS SO AGREED:, BY: United Musical Instruments U.S.A. Inc. (Respondent) Date BY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Date IT BEDJG SO AGREED, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THIS U 1990 DAY OF Valdas V. Adarakias Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Reg/en V Administrative Order On Consent UNITED MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS U.S.A. INC. OHD 004 153 854 ------- APPENDIX G ------- RCSA Corrective Action Oversight Inspections Preliminary Draft diidance EPA, Region III ------- I. Introduction The purpose of this guidance is to delineate oversite inspection activities which are critical for the successful completion of corrective action. The importance of corrective action oversite should not be underestimated as oversite is the vehicle by which EPA "guarantees" that the requirements of the corrective action order are being attained in the field and not just on paper. This guidance does not address the methodology by which formal review of both major and minor corrective action order deliverables should be conducted. However, let it suffice to say that the critical review of deliverables is absolutely essential to the successful completion of corrective action. It is the union of oversite inspections and critical review of deliverables which "guarantee" a fully successful corrective action. There are four major components to a corrective action order. These components are: 1) Interim Measure(s) (IM), 2) RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI), 3) Corrective Measure Study (CMS) and 4) Corrective Measure Implementation (CMI). The IM, RFI, and CMI will require oversite inspection. However, the CMS should not require oversite inspection since the sole purpose of a CMS is to develop and evaluate a corrective action alternative(s) and to recommend a corrective measure(s) to be taken at the facility. That is, no physical or chemical investigations should be occuring at a facility during the development of a CMS. II. Interim Measure Oversight The purpose of an IM is to identify and correct any actual or potential releases of hazardous waste or constituents from regulated units, solid waste management units, and/or other source areas at a facility which may present an endangerment to hunan health and/or the environment. All oversite inspections should be conducted to determine the "degree" oi compliance with the EEA approved IM Vbrkplan or the 4Jfcjtu»»d Of Report, the following bullets identify oversight activities necessary to ensure the Facility success- fully impiemits and completes an IM. It should be recognized that some of these activities may not be applicabale to a given facility and that the degree of oversight for a particular activity will vary depending on the facility and its complexity. ------- A. m Oversight Inspections: 1. Vhile the IM is being implemented the following activities should be observed: a.- soil, subsoil, sludge, groundwater and/or vadose sampling activities; b. soil, subsoil and/or sludge removal activities; c. installation of ground water monitoring/extraction systems, i.e., piezometers and/or wells; d. installation of air stripping towers, carbon filtration units, chemical treatment tanks, incineration units, soil vapor extraction units, etc.; 5. installation of interceptor trenches, slurry walls, leachate collection systems, subsurface gas collection systems, etc.; 6. installation of covers or caps to prevent infil- tration of percipitation; 7. development of stabilization or treatment tech- niques, e.g., in-situ sludge/soil stabilization, incineration techniques/ injection of microbes into groundwater for bioranediation, soil vapor extraction techniques, soil flushing techniques/ etc. 8. installation of air suevellance monitoring systems/ in particular/ for lagoons or SHMUs containing volatiles, removal of volatile contaminated soils/ subsoils/ sludges/ etc. B. If an IM ha* been implemented prior to the effective date of • corrective action order EPA should conduct a site visit to determine/ in part/ if the implemented corrective measure *m effective in controlling the migration of con- taminants or the remediation of contamination. ------- II. RFI O/ersight Inspection The purpose of a RFI is to determine the nature and extent of releases of hazardous waste or constituents from regulated units, SWMUs, and other source areas at the facility and to gather all necessary data to support the CMS. All oversight inspections should be conducted to determine the "degree" of compliance with the EPA approved RFI Vbrkplan. It should be recognized that some of these activities may not be applicable to a given facility and that the degree of oversight for a particular activity will vary depending on the facility and its complexity. The following bullets identify oversight activities necessary to ensure the Facility successfully implements and completes an RFI. A. soil borings and/or bedrock corings, installation of piezometers and/or monitoring wells, especially "critical downgradient wells or piezometers", punp, slug, and/or packer tests, etc.; B. "critical" sampling events: 1. sludge/soil - are the QAPP procedures being followed and are samples collected from the locations approved in the RFI Vbrkplan? 2. ground water - are the QAPP procedures being followed? 3. sampling of surface waters and/or sediments and 4. collection of flora/fauna fora surface waters and/or sediments. C. "critical" geophysical surveys: 1. magnetics for buried druns, pipes, etc.; 2. EM for locating buried SWMUs, old spill I, etc.; 3. other geophysical techniques as applicable. 0. Investigative techniques other than geophysics: 1. tracer tests such as dye, pollen, etc.; 2. non traditional or "state-of-the-art" tech- niques for determining ground water flow paths. ------- IV. CMI Oversite Inspections The purpose of a CMI progran is to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the performance of the corrective measure or measures selected to protect human health and the environment. The implementation of a Corrective Measure progran is essentially identical to the implementation of an Interim Measure. Therefore, the guidance provided for an IM should also be followed, where applicable, for the implementation of a corrective measure(s). However, there are some critical events which may be unique to the CMI process. These events require strict oversight inspection and are discussed as follows: A. Once soil, subsoil, and/or sludge has been removed it is important to determine if these removal events have been effective, i.e., the "hew clean is clean* arguement. Regardless of the criteria used to determine the point at which the removal of soil, subsoil, sludge may cease, e.g., MCL, ACL, 10~6 risk, etc., sampling most be conducted to "prove" that the desired level of contaminant reduction has been achieved. Therefore, these final sampling events are very critical and oversite inspection is absolutely mandatory. B. Abatement of ground water contamination in the context of an IM is very often confined to a particular ±agoon, SWMU, etc. However, the implementation of a corrective "measure may not only address on-site ground water abatement but also may involve off-site ground water abatement. Therefore, it is extremely critical to observe the drilling and placement of all on-site and off-site ground water extraction wells. The sane arguement applies to the installation of any on-site or off-site monitoring wells or piezometers used to monitor the "effectiveness* of the ground water extraction program. These wells are very important and their proper location and installation should be closely monitored. C. Contaminant reduction and/or abatement measures taken at • facility may require the construction of air stripping.tCMwrs, incineration units, biodegradation units, chemical treatment tanks, or other "unique* construction activities bated on the best available technology for remed- iating a particular contaminant(s) in a particular geologic/ hydrogeologic setting. Therefore the oversight inspection of any construction activity is critical. All construction activity should be fully described in the EPA aproved construction quality assurance (COA) plan and the inspection should be conducted to determine the "degree* of compliance with the approved CQA. The following oversight inspections should be performed: ------- 1. Preoonstruction inspection in which one conducts a site waUc-around to verify that the design criteria, plans, and specifications are understood by all involved parties and to review material and equipment storage locations. 2. Prefinal inspection which consists of a walk-through inspection of the entire project site. The inspection is to determine whether the project is complete and consistent with the contract documents and the EPA approved Corrective measure(s). Any outstanding construction items discovered during the inspection will be identified and noted by you. Additionally, treatment equipment will be operationally tested by the Respondent. The Respondent will certify that'the equipnent has performed to meet the puropse and intent of the specifications, ftetesting wil be completed where dificiencies are revealed. The prefinal inspection report you generate should outline the outstanding construction items, actions required to resolve items, completion date for these items, and date for final inspection. 3. Final inspection which consists of a walk-through inspection of the project site. The prefinal inspection report you generate will be uused as a checklist with the final inspection focusing on the outstanding construction items identified in the prefinal inspection. Confirmation shall be make that outstanding items have been resolved. ------- Supplement The purpose of this supplementary guidance is to provide a condensation of the RCRA Corrective Action Oversight Inspection Guidance - the preceeding document. .The reason for the supplementary guidance is straightforward in that our section lacks adequate funding to pursue the "degree" of oversight as delineated in the preceeding document. Therefore, I am recommending that the following oversight inspections be considered as an absolute mimimum: I. IM Oversight Inspection a. soil and/or subsoil sampling to determine if hazardous wastes and/or hazardous constituents have been removed/remediated to a concentration acceptable to EPA; b. Sampling of monitoring wells and/or piezometers. This inspection should be conducted at least once and preferably* daring the early phase of the IM; and c. Inspection of both the prefinal and final construction activities as delineated in the preceeding document. II. RFI Oversight Inspection a. sampling of monitoring wells and/or piezometers. This should be done at least once and the inspection should occur in the early phase of the RPI. III. CMI Oversight Inspections All construction activity should be fully described in the EPA approved construction quality assurance plan and the inspection should be conducted to determine the "degree* of compliance- with the approved CQA. The following Oversight Inspection* should b«- performed: a* preconatruction inspection; b. prefinal construction inspection; and c. final construction inspection. The details of this guidance are provided in the preceeding document. ------- CORRECTIVE ACTION OVERSIGHT Project Officer 1 Facility • Oversight Activity Code Desciption Time S S M T W aent on Oversi T F S S ght M Pay Perio : (hours) T W T F , S Peri o*. F_ S_ J - P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 h 24 25 26 j > r e v i 09/25 10/09 10/23 1 1/06 1 1/20 12/04 12/18 01/01 01/15 01/29 02/1 2 02/26 03/12 03/26 04/09 04/23 05/07 05/21 06/04 06/18 07/02 07/16 07/30 08/13 08/27 0 9/ 1 0 ous n/uti 0/22 I/O') 1 / 1 '» - 2/1 / - :>/ j i - 0 1 / 1 -1 - 0 1 / 2 U - 02/ 1 1 - 02/2'-) - 03/1 1 -'04/OH - 04/2 2 - 05/OC, - 05/20 - 06/0 J - Of,/ 17 - 07/UI - 07/1 'i - 07/2'J - OH/ 1 2 - OH/2t. - 09/09 - ,1)9/2 1 OVERSIGHT ACTIVITY CODES IM toP - IM Workplan development and IM IMP - IM implementation oversight review (ie. QAPP, negotiations) (ie. progress reports and site visits) RFI WP - RFI Workplan development and review (same as above) RFI IMP - RFI implementation oversight (same as above) RFI REP - RFI Report review (ie. draft, final) CMS IMP - CMS implementation oversight (same as above) CMS REP - CMS Report review (same as above) ------- |