vv EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9200.2-02
TITLE: Accelerated Response at NPL Sites Guidance
(Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation No. 2)
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
December 15, 1989
.December 15, 1989
Superfund
OSWER OSWER OSWER
fE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Di
-------
&EPA
United States environmental Protection Aaencv
~e._..r__ _ Washington.OC204W * ^
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Nu
9200.2-02
Mame of Contact Person
Betti VanEpps, SDC
2. Originator Information
I Mail Cod* [Office^
OS-240 OERR/OPM/MSDS
3. Title
Accelerated Response at NPL Sites Guidance
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation No. 22)
Telephone Cod*
475-8864
4. Summary of oVectwe (include brief statement of purpose)
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit Agency guidance on accelerating -
responses at National Priorities List (NPL) Sites.
i. Keywords
o«. uoes I nil uirtcuv* soptrs*a« rrtvious uirtcuvtisj t
b. Dots It Suppl*m«nt Previous Oir*ctlv*(s)?
I j No I Y*» Whtt dirtcthft (numbtr. WJ«)
o Yts What dfrtcUvt (number, tffl*)
7. Oftfl Ltvtl
A-Sgn«dbyAfi Doxtepment
8. Document to
be distributed to
States by Headquarters?
••^••M
YW | [NO
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature ot lead Office Directives Coordinator
Betti VanEpps, Superfund Documents Coordinator
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Date
December 15,
Date
December 15,
1989
1989
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-17) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER 0
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC I 5 1989 OSWER Directive No. 9200.2-02
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Accelerated Response a-. NPL Sites Guidance
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation No.
22,
FROM: . Don R. Clay
^Assistant Administrator
TO:' ^ Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions Hi, VI
Director, Toxic and Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Pegion X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions I, VI, VII
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit Agency guidance on
accelerating responses at National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Superfund Management Review, a workgroup was formed to
develop guidance to assist the Regions in taking expedited approaches to site
cleanups and in making NPL sites "safer." After evaluation of Regional
comments, the guidance was split into two separate documents. The attached
guidance, the first of the two documents, describes available procedures and
contract mechanisms to allow the Regions to take action at NPL sites more
quickly under both removal and remedial authority.
IMPLEMENTATION
Specifically, the attached guidance requires that you:
o -Ensure that all pre-remedial, removal, remedial, and enforcement staff
are familiar with the need to accelerate responses at NPL sitps;
Recycle*
-------
- 2 -
o Use Superfund removal and remedial authority, as appropriate, to take
accelerated actions at those NPL sites where feasible and prudent;
o Employ enforcement authority promptly at NPL sites to encourage
increased PRP involvement in site cleanup;
o Establish mechanisms to ensure proper coordination and funding of
accelerated responses within the Regions; and
o Promote the operation of Superfund as "one program" through use of
elements such as improved interoffice communication and cross-training
of Agency personnel.
If you have any questions on this guidance, please contact Hans Crump-
Wiesner, Acting Director, Emergency Response Division, at FTS 475-8720, or
Scott Maid at FTS 382-4671.
Attachment
cc: Henry Longest II, OERR
Lloyd Guerci, OWPE
Lisa Friedman, OGC
Hans Crump-Wiesner, ERD
Clem Rastatter, 0PM ..
Larry Reed, HSED
Russ Wyer, HSCD
Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
OHM Coordinators, Regions I-X
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-02
Accelerated Response at
National Priorities List Sites*
1.0 INTRODOCTION
1.1 ft fl Ti Kfff OUftd
In June 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a study
entitled "A Management Review of the Superfund Program" (Superfund Management
Review). This document outlined a new long-term strategy for management of
Superfund and described the need for EPA guidance on expediting response at
National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The report also emphasized elimination
of immediate risk to public health and safety and the minimization of long-term
risk from hazardous substances at NPL sites as new measures of program success.
The Superfund Management Review specifically recommended that EPA "take
expedited approaches to site cleanup whenever possible" (p. 3-13). The report
also emphasized the need for creative or alternative approaches for improving
the effectiveness and timeliness of remediation at NPL sites. Recommendations
from the Superfund Management Review were further discussed in a September 18,
1989, memorandum from F. Henry Habicht to the Regional Administrators,, entitled
"Immediate Actions to Implement the Superfund Management Review."
1.2 Purpose
This document focuses on accelerating responses at NPL sites and
coordinating available removal, remedial, and enforcement procedures and
contract mechanisms in order to accomplish this. This guidance is intended for
Regional site managers, including On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), Site Assessment
Managers (SAMs), and Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), enforcement staff, and
other Regional and Headquarters Superfund personnel. By implementing these
procedures, we may accelerate all types of response actions, and encourage
management of NPL sites under "one program."
1.3 Scope
Specifically, this guidance addresses the following areas:
o What ia an accelerated response? (Section 2.1)
The policies and procedures established in this document are
intended solely for the guidance of EPA personnel. They are not
intended, and cannot be relied upon to create any rights,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation
with the United States. EPA reserves the right to act at variance
with these policies and procedures and to change them at any time
without public notice.
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-02
o What are the available mechanisms to accelerate responses at NPL
sites? (Section 2.2)
o What are the enforcement aspects of accelerated response?
(Section 3.0)
o What additional factors should be considered in an accelerated
response? (Section 4.0)
o How may the various Superfund program offices wo:v. as "one program" to
accelerate responses? (Section 5.0)
2.0 ACCfrT-EKATED RESPONSE
Accelerated responses may be used in many situations where site managers
want to act on sites quickly. Site managers have access to a variety of
mechanisms for accelerating responses to threats at NPL sites. In most cases,
the tools are modifications of established response options that have been in
common use in the Superfund program. Regions should follow the provisions,
described below, whenever practicable to expedite cleanups at NPL sites.
2.1 What Is An Accelerated Response?
An accelerated response is an action taken at an NPL site using strean-
lined response mechanisms, with the purpose of acting quickly to reduce acute
risk to human health and the environment. Accelerated responses can help
Regions reduce risk from these sites, and can allow for more efficient use of
EPA resources.
If evaluation of a site indicates that an accelerated response is
warranted, then appropriate action should be taken, by:
o Conducting a removal action in accordance with section 300.65
of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP)2 (proposed NCP section 300.415); or
o Preparing and executing an early action operable unit Record of
Decision (ROD) based on existing data or a limited data gathering
effort; or
For ease of use, references to both the old (1985) NCP and the
proposed (1988) NCP sections are provided in the text. It is
important to note, however, that the 1985 NCP remains in full
effect until a revised NCP is promulgated. The revised NCP, which
was proposed on December 21, 1988 (53 F_£ 51394) is expected to be
finalized in 1990, at which point the revised section numbers will
become effective.
-------
OSWZR Directive #9200.2-02
o Implementing techniques to expedite the planning and design process
prior to remedial construction.
2.2 What Are The Avail^e.
Removal Actions
Removal actions are used to prevent, abate, minimize, stabilize, or
mitigate releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants that pose a threat to public health or the environment.
Section 300.65 of the NCP (proposed NCP section 300. 415) describes factors for
determining that a removal action is appropriate (e.g. T contamination, of
drinking water, threat of fire or explosion, potential for migration) and the
types of removal actions that are appropriate in certain situations. .Removal
actions are performed at NPL and non-NPL sites. Approximately ^0 removal
actions have been conducted annually at NPL sites.
A site manager may, in certain situations, choose to use removal
authorities and contracting methods to accelerate response at NPL sites.
Actions with a planning period of less than six months are generally (but not
always) performed prior to the development of the ROD. If a removal action is
indicated at an NPL site, and adequate planning time (i.e.. greater than six
months) is available before the start of the removal, an engineering
evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) should be conducted as part of the non-nire-
critical removal. Alternatively, a remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS) can be conducted. EE/CAs contain evaluations of possible alternative
technologies, selection of the response, and document the decisionmaking
process. The EE/CA must be made available for public comment as part of the
administrative record, in compliance with the public participation procedures
for non-time-critical removal actions described in §300.820 of the proposed
NCP.
For any category of removal action, the appropriateness of the action is
not limited to the factors explicitly described in section 300.65 of the NC?,
nor does the NCP limit the responses EPA may take to the examples given in the
NCP. Action Memoranda must be completed for all removal actions and must
include all information described in the "Superfund Removal Procedures Manual,'
Chapter III-C.8. Expedited enforcement activities, such as expedited PRP
searches and use of model administrative orders, are appropriate for these
actions.
Continuation Of Removal Action. As an acute threat at an NPL site is
being addressed by a removal action, it may be possible that an incremental
expansion in the scope of the removal action would help to further protect
human health and the environment and lead to expediting overall cleanup of the
site. Regions may determine on a case-by-case basis whether this is
appropriate at a site. The following factors should be considered in such
case-by-case evaluations:
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-02 - A -
Scope of Cor^tinugd Action
o After an acute threat at an NPL site is addressed by a removal action,
Regions should consider whether there is any appropriate action that
would allow further protection of human health and the environment.
This may require employing a removal or remedial action to complete an
operable unit. The aim of the accelerated response is to reduce risk
to human health and the environment at the site.
Concurrency
o The decision to accelerate response through use of removal authority
must be made in consultation with pre-remedial, remedial, removal, and
enforcement program .managers. The State should also be involved
whenever the State is expected to play a role in the action. If the
action does not meet removal criteria, however, the accelerated
response option chosen must be performed as a remedial action.
o The Region must weigh the loss of cost-share against the need for, and
efficiency of, accelerating the response at a site on a case-by-case
basis. Regions should attempt to obtain agreement from States on the
proposed course of action before proceeding with any accelerated
response option.
o If the cleanup will exceed the $2 million statutory limit for a
removal action, then Headquarters approval of an emergency or
consistency exemption is necessary. If no exemption applies, the
accelerated response option chosen must be performed as a remedial
action.
o If the removal response will be nationally significant (e.g..
involving dioxins or Indian lands), Headquarters concurrence will be
necessary. Headquarters concurrence will also be necessary if the
action employs innovative or emerging alternative technology.
o The public's interest and concern in the site should be taken into
account when deciding what the response should be.
Restrictions
o The State, remedial program, PRP, or other authority must be willing
to conduct post-removal site control (PRSC) where needed following a
Fund-financed removal action (see section 4.4). The Region may pursue
unilateral enforcement action, including judicial action if needed, to
obtain PRSC. If arrangements for PRSC cannot be made, the accelerated
response must be performed as a remedial action.
o If the action will require extensive, long-term response, such as
restoration of a contaminated aquifer, the response should be
performed as a remedial action.
-------
OSVER Directive «9200.2-02 - 5 -
Contract Resources
o Regional resources (including resources chat may be transferred from
the remedial program) must be adequate to meet the requirements for
an accelerated removal response at the site without compromising
emergency response capability in the Region. If resources for
accelerated responses at NPL sites cannot be provided without
compromising emergency and time-critical response capabilities in the
Region, the accelerated response must be performed and funded as a
remedial action.
o An assessment of removal and remedial contract capacity should be
performed in order to determine the capacity, availability, and
suitability of response contractors to the site in question. Regior.s
must evaluate relative contract capacity before an accelerated
response can be continued at the site.
Removal Approaches To Remedial Actions. Remedial action may be conducted
using removal contracting methods where the action complies with all removal
as well as remedial requirements. In these circumstances, re'medial funding is
used to implement a ROD at an accelerated rate. Guidance on this response
option was issued to the Regions on July 6, 1989 (see "Use of Removal
Approaches to Speed Up Remedial Action Projects," OSVER Directive «935 5.0-25.-.; .
These actions are remedial actions. The term "removial," which has been used
informally to characterize these actions, should not be used.
The response must meet both remedial and removal program requirements.
Time is saved by using removal contractors, and through the use of an abbre-
viated and less formal design procedure. Remedial funding is provided through
a ROD and a state cost-share is provided through a Superfund state contract.
For all purposes, including enforcement, these actions are remedial actions.
All agreements with PRPs must be embodied in a consent decree. Since this
response approach uses large amounts of limited Emergency Response Cleanup
Services (ERCS) capacity, it should only be used in unusual emergency or time-
critical circumstances. New and streamlined remedial alternatives should
obviate the need for this course of action in most cases.
Remedial Actions
The purpose of the remedial action process is to implement remedies that
reduce, control, or eliminate risks to human health and the environment. Oniv
those sites included on the NPL are eligible for Fund-financed remedial action
(NCP section 300.68). The remedial process generally includes an RI/FS, a
proposed plan, a ROD, engineering design, and implementation of the remedial
action. All remedial actions must comply with the requirements of §300.68 of
the NCP (§§300.430 and 300.435 of the proposed NCP).
A site manager may, in certain situations, choose to use remedial
authorities and contracting methods to accelerate response at an NPL site.
This may be accomplished through the implementation of an early action operable
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-02 - 6 -
unit ROD (for example, to remove drums) and the use of streamlined remedial
contracts. Early actions may make it possible to provide earlier protection of
public health and the environment, and the actions may also help provide
information, that may be used to improve the phasing and design of later
remedial stages.
Site managers can break actions into distinct portions, which are known as
"operable units," to achieve quicker response. An operable unit is "a discrete
part of the entire response action that decreases a release, threat of release,
or pathway of exposure" (NCP section 300.6; see also proposed NCP Subpart A).
Operable units can be designated to accelerate remediation for portions of the
site, but all operable units conducted as remedial actions must have RODs.
Separate enforcement agreements may be reached for individual operable units.
Expediting Remedial Actions. After signing a ROD, accelerated responses
may be implemented under remedial authority. The most obvious method to
accelerate remedial action is to initiate construction sooner, i.e., speed up
the planning and design process. Once this is achieved, contracting and
construction options can be explored to best enhance site remediation. This
section briefly describes techniques for expediting remedial construction.
(The techniques are covered in greater detail in OSWZR Directive #9355.5-02/FS,
"Expediting Remedial Construction.") These techniques are applicable to all
Superfund projects; however, they are geared toward small (less than $5
million), well defined projects using proven technologies.
Remedial Management Strategy. The remedial management strategy (RMS) is a
systematic approach used to identify and establish the preferred contracting
strategies to be used in the implementation of a remedial action. The
objective is to look at each of the operable units that are part of the remedy
described in the ROD and lay out a strategy for construction that meets all of
the constraints imposed on the project. The RMS establishes the overall course
of action for the project. It is at this point that decisions are made about
phasing portions of the project, fast-tracking design and construction,
employing limited designs for specific elements, or utilizing alternative
procurement methods.
Phasing Remedial Design and Construction. An analysis of remedial
design/remedial action (RD/RA) project elements results in the determination
that some can be effectively phased or time-sequenced to accelerate them
through th« design and remediation process. Phasing may achieve an overall
fast-track schedule and thereby mitigate the continuing threat of the site to
the environment and public safety. Large, complex projects (or operable units)
may be broken down into smaller, more manageable response elements. Elements
may be worked in unison, but each individual element has its own schedule and
moves at its own rate through the remediation process.
Past-Tracking RD/RA. Fast-tracking might be considered a subset of
phasing. Where phasing breaks large complex projects into smaller more
manageable units, fast-tracking is a method to accelerate the implementation of
those individual elements. There are several techniques that can be used to
fast-track RD/RA:
-------
GSVER Directive *9200.2-02 - 7 -
o Expedite "RD. Discretionary steps in the RD process may be eliminated
or shortened. Site managers must realize, however, chat short-
cutting the process involves some risk. For example, deciding to use
only data collected during the RI/FS for design is one method of
expediting. However, the design risks being delayed if the RI/FS
data turns out to be marginal or incomplete.
o Use of Removal Authority. As mentioned in the section on Removal
Approaches to Remedial Actions, removal contracting methods and
remedial funding can be used to implement RD/RA on an accelerated
basis.
o Optimize RD. Optimization is the rearrangement of the sequence in
which RD elerrer.ts are performed to enhance the overall schedule. For
example, the site access portion of a design could be completed and
construction initiated while the rest of the design is still on-
going.
o Fast-Track Construction. Many large projects can be divided into
separate stages of construction. This is generally accomplished by
awarding each stage of work for construction as soon as the design
effort on that particular stage of work has been completed. This
approach has the advantage that the project will be started and
completed sooner than would be possible if it were necessary to wait
until all design work had been completed. Another aspect of fast-
track construction is ordering items that require long lead-times in
advance of the time they will be needed on the job.
Preplaced and Pre-Qualified Contracts. One method to expedite initiatior.
of remedial construction is to use preplaced contracts or pre-qualified
contractors. There are several options currently available for use. These
methods require approximately 30-60 days to initiate construction activities by
eliminating the solicitation and audit requirements of site-specific, contracts,
thus reducing the time from design completion to construction initiation.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) has developed methods to
expedite the initiation of remedial action at Superfund sites by implementing
two innovative contracting strategies: Preplaced Remedial Action (PRA) and
Rapid Response (RR) contracts. Both may be used for projects when delaying the
remedial action for normal procurement actions may result in detrimental
effects on human health or the environment. PRA contracts are structured to
implement full-scale remedial actions. RR. contracts are for demolition
actions, closures, point source contamination control, and site stabilization.
They are limited to $2 million per.delivery order and may be used for projects
where it is necessary to abate, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate hazardous or
contaminated materials or structures.
The Pre-qualified Offerers Procurement Strategy (PQOPS), when completely
in place, will provide a list of prequalified contractors that have the
capability of performing a specified technology (i.e.. incineration, fixation).
All contractors on the list will have been technically evaluated and deemed
-------
OSWER Directive «9200.2-02
qualified Co perform the specified work. However, they are limited to
providing "Che equipment for a specific technology and do not include broad
response support (e_._g_... site access, excavation, site closure) to fully imple-
ment the remedy. The transportable incineration system (TIS) PQOP is in place
and the fixation/solidification system (FSS) PQOP will be in place during
FY 90.
3.0 WHAT ARE THE ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS OF ACCELERATED RESPONSE?
The Superfund Management Review placed great emphasis on the prompt use
of enforcement authority at NPL sites. At sites where there is accelerated
response, enforcement and program staff must anticipate each other's needs.
Good communications are essential. For example, those evaluating a NPL site,
who discover the probable need for accelerated action, need to contact
enforcement personnel promptly so that this change can be incorporated into the
enforcement strategy for the site. Conversely, enforcement staff must appre-
ciate how delays in performing enforcement activities may affect timing of sire
response.
Site managers, must take advantage of enforcement authorities whenever
possible. The enforcement authorities that are available to EPA include srrcr.g
liability provisions, administrative order authority, judicial enforcement
authority, and the authority and funding to take direct action to clear, up
sites and subsequently recover costs. When developing an accelerated response
action, the following enforcement activities should be taken into account::
Enforcement: Strategy
Enforcement personnel should take a site-specific approach when
developing enforcement strategy. The approach should generally cover the i:e.~s
discussed here (e.g. . PRP search, notice to PRPs and States). If enforcement
authority is not used, site managers must document why.
PRP Search
If the site is on the NPL, an expedited PRP search can be conducted by
focusing on owners and operators that are known and generators that are readily
identifiable. PRP searches are discussed in detail in the "Enforcement Projec:
Management Handbook," OSWER Directive *9837.2 (July 1989); see also the "PRP
Search Manual," OSVER Directive *9834.3-lA and the "PRP Search Supplemental
Guidance for Sites in the Remedial Program," OSWER Directive «9834.3-2A.
Notice to PRPs
Where possible, it is usually advantageous to notify PRPs of their
potential liability before transmitting to the PRPs a draft administrative
order on consent. Moreover, except for emergencies, PRPs should be notified
prior to issuance of a unilateral administrative order. If PRPs have not been
notified, a notice letter should be issued. For additional information on
enforcement activities, see Section 6.0, Bibliography, for a listing of
applicable OSWER Directives.
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-02 - 9 -
Notification of the State
Prior to issuing an administrative order, EPA must notify the State. In
situations where there is little time available before initiation of site
activity, the State may be notified by telephone, followed by written
confirmation.
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
If the response is an accelerated removal action and PRPs are willing to
perform the action, the PRPs' conduct of an accelerated response should be
pursuant to an AOC (CERCLA §106). If the accelerated response follows a ROD
and is a remedial action, PRP conduct of the action should be pursuant to a
consent decree (CERCLA §122.). Moreover, settlements that include owners must
include an agreement for access to the site. If, during negotiations, site
conditions dictate the need for immediate response, the site manager should
discontinue negotiations and initiate on-site response. Whenever appropriate,
a unilateral order should be issued to allow EPA to seek treble damages and/or
possibly convince the PRPs to take over the response effort.
Unilateral Administrative Order (AOU)
Generally, when negotiations become protracted or in critical situations
(including some emergencies where time allows), EPA policy is to proceed with a
CERCLA §106(a) AOU to viable PRPs before Fund activation. There are excep-
tions, such as: sites where there is an immediate need to respond; where PR?
liability is very uncertain; where there are unique technical problems; or
where there are problems with the technical capability of the PRP to .conduct
the removal action.
4.0 W*TAT ADDITIONAL FACTORS SHOULD BE CONSIDEPPn?
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) required
that on-site remedial actions comply with applicable or relevant and appro-
priate requirements (ARARs) of other federal and state environmental laws.
Although CERCLA only requires compliance with ARARs for remedial actions, the
current NCP requires removals to comply with Federal ARARs to the extent.
practicable. EPA policy under the proposed NCP (§300.415) requires removal
actions to comply with State and Federal ARARs to the extent practicable.
Until this policy is promulgated by regulation, compliance with State ARARs
during removal actions must be justified based upon protectiveness. Factors
used in determining whether removal compliance with ARARs is practicable
include: (1) the urgency of the situation, and (2) the scope of the removal
action to be conducted, which includes consideration of the statutory limits
for removals. Off-site actions must always comply with applicable require-
ments. (For a statement of EPA's off-site policy, see 50 Fg. 45933, November 5,
1985, as revised November 13, 1986 in OSWER Directive #9834.11.) Remedial
actions, including those discussed in the section on p. 5, Removal Approaches
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-02 - 10 -
to Remedial Actions, must comply with all ARARs identified in the ROD, unless
an ARAR is waived.
Waivers of ARARs (CERCLA section 121(d)(4» also may be used for removal
as well as remedial actions where they apply. See the document "CERCLA
Compliance With Other Laws Manual" (OSWER Directive #9234.1-01) for additional
information.
4.2 Public Participation
Informed public involvement in the decision-making process is a key
element in the Superfund program. The Superfund Management Review identified
that the public wants greater and earlier involvement in the process. As a
steward of the environment, EPA must be fully responsive to the concerns of the
public if it wishes to retain the public's confidence.
Before a ROD can be signed for an early remedial action, a proposed plan
must be circulated, and a 30-day public comment period must be held. An
opportunity for public hearing must also be provided. The current NCP
provides for a 21-day comment period. However, the proposed NCP provides for a
minimum of 30 days for public comment. Adequate information on the proposed
action and a limited number of alternatives must also be available to the
public along with the proposed plan. This information may, however, be
presented in any type of document, including but not limited to an RI/FS or a
focused feasibility study.
Public participation requirements for removal actions are set forth in the
proposed NCP sections 300.415 and 300.820, and the "Superfund Removal
Procedures Manual," Chapter III-F.6. Remedial action requirements are set
forth in the proposed NCP sections 300.430 and 300.435, and the Community
Relations Handbook.
4.3 Alternative Technologies
As noted in the Superfund Management Review, EPA should continue to
encourage the employment of alternative technologies to treat hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants at Superfund sites. It is important
that technologies selected for removal actions at NPL sites be consistent with
planned remedial work and contribute to permanent remedies. OSWER Directive
#9355.0-26 (February 1989) reaffirms the use of treatment technologies at
Superfund sites and summarizes guidance documents and activities that encourage
and support the use of innovative treatment technologies.
Also, OSWER Directive #9380.3-01 (July 12, 1989) describes a treatability
data base which is being developed by the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) to aid in expediting technology selection on a site-specific basis for
the removal and remedial programs.
4.4 Post-Removal Site Control (PRSC)
Provisions for PRSC must be made before removal action initiation. PRSC
may be a removal or remedial response under the statute. For remedial actions
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-02 - 11 -
a state contract or Superfund cooperative agreement must be in place prior to
remedial action initiation in order to assure any State operation and main-
tenance responsibilities. Information and guidelines on PRSC may be found in
the proposed NCP section 300.415 and the "Superfund Removal Procedures
Manual," Chapter III-H.2.
4 . 5
The various offices responsible for NPL sites in the Regions should work
together to ensure that documentation for sites is adequate to support
decision-making and, if appropriate, cost recovery. This is very important at
every Superfund site, but it will be especially important if a site is selected
for accelerated response. The response action must be sufficiently documented
in order to fully justify the rationale for the Region's actions; that is, to
explain why a certain activity at an NPL site is being conducted on an
accelerated basis and to specify the authority under which the response is
being conducted. See NCP section 300.69, and "Interim Guidance on Adminis-
trative Records for Selection of CERCLA Response Actions," OSWER Directive
#9833. 3A.
It is EPA's policy to develop decision documents for responses at sites in
order to support the decision and remedy selection and to completely document
costs to support cost recovery. Documentation of cleanups must also show that
human health and the environment have been protected along all possible path-
ways of exposure. If a removal response cannot provide sufficient documen-
tation to support the eventual deletion of the site from the NPL, then the site
may be completed as a remedial action. Every removal action must demonstrate
how it will contribute to any long-term remedial action to be taken at the
given site.
5.0 HOW MAY SDPERFDND WORK AS "ONE PROGRAM?"
5.1 ProootA'Vi CflTHnirfiCfltJQQ
In order to foster the development of Superfund as "one program," EPA must
encourage an increased level of cooperation among the various program offices
that administer and support Superfund. The Superfund Management Review states
that many of the difficulties Superfund has encountered in the past may be
traced to the lack of proper communication between programs. We must institute
procedures to improve coordination of site activities among the different:
Superfund program offices, i.e.. pre-remedial, remedial, removal, and enforce-
ment, to provide the internal support necessary for implementing Superfund as
"one program." It is also important to ensure that EPA coordination with.
appropriate authorities located outside the Superfund program (e.g.. Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR]) takes place in a consistent
manner.
Information on sites should be shared freely among programs, and changes
in site status likewise should be communicated to all affected offices. For
example, the removal staff may be asked by the remedial staff to conduct a
removal site evaluation whenever a new site is proposed for inclusion on the
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-02 - 12 -
NPL, and enforcement staff may work with pre-remedial staff on identification
of PRPs. Pre-remedial reviewers should share with remedial and removal staff
any PA/SI or Hazard Ranking System (HRS) information that would indicate a need
for early action. It is important for accelerated responses that technical and
professional concerns of all four program offices about NPL sites be identified
and addressed early in the response process.
5.2 Training
Superfund managers should encourage cross-training for pre-remedial,
remedial, enforcement, and removal staff to allow SAMs, RPMs, and OSCs to learn
how the entire Superfund response system works. It is important for site
personnel to have a working knowledge of all programs. For example, pre-
remedial and remedial staff should understand the capabilities of the removal
program so that they can help ensure that removal action is taken where
appropriate, and removal staff should know what remedial criteria will be
considered before sites can be deleted from the NPL. Regional managers should
encourage rotational assignments.
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-02 - 13 -
6.0
Guidance
"A Management Review of the Superfund Program," Report from U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C. (6/89)
"Immediate Actions to Implement the Superfund Management Review,"
Memorandum from F. Henry Habicht to Regional Administrators (9/J.8/89)
OSWER Directive No. 9200.2-01, "Unaddressed NPL Sites," Memorandum from
Henry L. Longest, II (7/6/89)
OSWER Directive No. 9355.0-25A, "Use of Removal Approaches to Speed Up
Remedial Action Projects," Memorandum from Jonathan 2. Cannon (7/6/89)
OSWER Directive No. 9355.0-26, "Advancing the Use of Treatment
Technologies for Superfund Remedies" (2/89)
OSWER Directive No. 9355.5-02/FS, "Expediting Remedial Construction"
(10/89)
OSWER Directive No. 9380.3-01, "Treatability Studies Contractor Work
Assignments," Memorandum from Henry L. Longest, II (7/12/89)
OSWER Directive No. 9833.0, "Guidance on the Use and Issuance of
Administrative Orders Under Section 106" (9/8/83)
OSWER Directive No. 9833.1, "Issuance of Administrative Orders for
Immediate Removal Actions" (2/21/84)
OSWER Directive No. 9833. 3A, "Interim Guidance on Administrative Records
for Selection of CERCLA Response Actions" (3/1/89)
OSWER Directive No. 9834.2, 'Timely Initiation of Responsible Party
Searches, Issuance of Notice Letters, and Release of Information"
(10/9/85)
OSWER Birective No. 9834. 3-2A, "PRP Search Supplemental Guidance for Sites
in th« lamedial Program" (6/16/89)
OSWER Directive No. 9834. 4-A, "Guidance on Use and Enforcement of CERCLA
Information Requests and Administrative Subpoenas" (8/25/88)
OSWER Directive No. 9834.10, "Interim Guidance on Notice Letters
Negotiations, and Information Exchange - 53 £B 5298, February 23, 1988"
(10/19/87)
OSWER Directive No. 9834.11, "Revised Procedures for Implementing Off-
Site Response Actions," Memorandum from J. Winston Porter to EPA Regional
Administrators (November 13, 1987)
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-02 - 14 -
OSWER Directive No. 9835.4, "Interim Guidance: Streamlining the CERCLA
Settlement Decision Process" (2/12/87)
Manuals
OSWER Directive No. 9230.0-03B, Community Relations Handbook (1988)
OSWER Directive No. 9234.1-01, CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual
(8/8/88)*
OSWER Directive No. 9360.0-03B, Superfund Removal Procedures Manualf
Revision No. 3 (2/88)
OSWER Directive No. 9834.-3-1A, PRP Search Manual (8/87)
OSWER Directive No. 9837.2, Enforcement Project Management Handbook (7/89]
Statutes and Regulations
The Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
40 CFR Part 300 (11/20/85)
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
40 CFR Part 300, 53 Federal Register 51394-51520 (12/21/88)*
* draft document
------- |