United States
Environmental Protection
Office of Solid Waste &
Emergency Response
Washington DC 20460
 EPA/ 9902.7
January 1992
           Corrective Action
                                               Printed on Recycled Paper

                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.     INTRODUCTION	.	page 1

      A. What Oversight Involves
      B.     Overall Level of Oversight/Influencing
            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

      A.     Surprise Audits
      B.     Briefings by Owner/Operator (and
      C.     Certification of Corrective Action
      D.     Enhanced Community Relations Plan
      E.     Reduced Oversight Based on
      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

      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

   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.


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-

B.  Overall Level of Oversight/Influencing

    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
    •  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
    • How detailed and explicit are the work
    • 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

   Appendix A gives some remedial construc-
tion activities that may require oversight and
suggested oversight questions.

                                           EXHIBIT 1
Workplan review
Report review
Monitoring & sampling
overall facility oversight level
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.

    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

     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

    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

   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
                                                OVERSIGHT TOOLS
   Workplan Review
   Monitoring & Sampling
   Report Review
> 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

    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

    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.


    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
     Facility Location
     Corrective Action History and Anticipated
     Schedule of Activities and Deliverables
     Description of Overall Level of Oversight
     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.

B. Available Resources and Guidance

   The following documents may be useful when
preparing oversight plans or conducting oversight

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-
   • 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

   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

    A  Significant Activity Examples &
       Oversight Questions
    B  Technical Guidance Documents for
       Monitoring and Sampling
    C  Sample Work Plan for Contractor
    D  Region VII Sample Oversight Plan
    E  OWPE Directive - Contracting in
    F  Region V Low Oversight Corrective
       Action Order
    G  Region III Corrective Action Oversight
       Inspections Preliminary Draft Guid-
      • ance


                                   APPENDIX A-1
                     MONITORING & SAMPLING EVENTS
             Significant Activity Examples and Oversight Questions
       Oversight Questions
Monitoring Well
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-
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
Were samples collected from the locations approved In the RFl
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
         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-
  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
  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-

                                     APPENDIX A-3
                               SUBMITTAL REVIEW
              Significant Activity Examples and Oversight Questions
          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
• 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?


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

     Handbook: Ground Water; (03/87) (EPA/625/6-87/016)

•    Permit Guidance  Manual on Unsaturated  Zone Monitoring

     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)
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


                     WORK ASSIGNMENT #R090XX
                     CONTRACT NO. XX-XX-XXXX
TITLE:    RCRA Corrective Action Technical Support and
          Oversight for Corporation XYZ




Contract Management:

                  Total Estimated FY 90 LOE =360 Hours
                                  FY 91 LOE = 376 Hours
through September 30, 1991.
For FY 90, date of issuance
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.


     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.


     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

   . • 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.


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.


     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.


     The contractor shall provide the same hydrogeologist for RFI
Workplan evaluation, revised RFI Workplan evaluation, RFI report
evaluation and for field oversight activities.


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)

Task 1  - Submit Project Plan for
          Work Assignment:

Task 2  - Contractor Orientation Meeting:

        - Complete Background Review:
Task 3  - Receive draft RFI Workplan for
        - Submit draft report:
        - Submit final report
          with word-processing floppy

Task 4  - Submit draft report:
        - Submit final report
          with word-processing floppy

Task 7  - Submit draft report
          for preliminary RFI 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
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


 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
    - 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


*                 • WASHINGTON. DC '20460
                         APR 1 7 1990

 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


 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.


     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


Appendix A

                            EXHIBIT A^l
                    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(  )
 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 )
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

                       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


                                   REGION V
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).

                           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
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


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


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


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

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

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. -                             •

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.

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.

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

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,

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.

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

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

aooording to the schedule of implementation contained in the OC Program

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

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

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

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

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

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.

                       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 '

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
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

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

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.


                       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.

                           XIV.  NOTIFICATION
Unless otherwise specified, reports, notices or other submissions required
under this Consent Order shall be  in writing and shall be  distributed as

        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.

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

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

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.
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.           .

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

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.

                      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.

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
                     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.

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
                        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 .



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.
     United Musical Instruments U.S.A. Inc.  (Respondent)    Date
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

     Valdas V. Adarakias
     Regional Administrator
     U.S. EPA, Reg/en V

Administrative Order
On Consent

OHD 004  153 854


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

      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,

         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/

         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

             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.


     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

     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

                              CORRECTIVE ACTION OVERSIGHT
Project Officer 1


Oversight Activity


Time S





aent on Oversi





Pay Perio
: (hours)






Peri o*.

F_ S_





h 24
j > r e v i
1 1/06
1 1/20
02/1 2
0 9/ 1 0
1 / 1 '»
- 2/1 /
- :>/ j i
- 0 1 / 1 -1
- 0 1 / 2 U
- 02/ 1 1
- 02/2'-)
- 03/1 1
- 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

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)