UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 3 0 1990
OSWER Directive No. 9200.2-03
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Guidance on Addressing Immediate Threats at NPL Sites
(Superfund Management Review: Le commendation No. 22)
FROM:
TO:
/C _
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director. Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI
Director, Toxic and Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions I , VI , VII
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit Agency guidance on
addressing immediate threats at National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
BACKGROUND
As a result of the Superfund Management Review, the Administrator
committed that by September 30, 1990, all NPL sites would be free from
immediate threats. Subsequently, this commitment became a Presidential-level
"Management-By-Objective." The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) formed a workgroup to develop guidance to assist the Regions in taking
expedited approaches to site cleanups and in making NPL sites "safer." On
December 15, 1989, EPA issued the guidance "Accelerated Response at National
Priorities List Sites" (OSWER Directive #9200.2-02) to address expediting
cleanup. The question of making NPL sites "safer" is being addressed by the
following directive, which provides procedures to help the Regions identify,
document, and eliminate to the extent possible, immediate threats at proposed
and final NPL sites. This document on addressing immediate threats and the
previous OSWER Directive #9200.2-02 on accelerated response should be used
together as companion pieces.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
- 2 -
IMPLEMENTATION
Specifically, the attached OSWER directive requires that you:
o Establish Region-wide procedures to routinely review all NPL sites
(the guidance outlines examples of procedures);
o By September 30, 1990, review all final NPL sites for the presence of
immediate threats, document the findings of the review, and take
action at all NPL sites that have immediate threats (the guidance
provides documentation statements);
o Thereafter, review and document the status of every final NPL site at
least once every two years, at minimum reviewing half of the final
NPL sites one year, the other half the next. The documentation
memorandum will be due on January 1 of each year starting with
January 1, 1992;
o Conduct an initial removal site evaluation at each newly proposed NPL
site within three months of the date of proposal (the guidance
explains some exceptions);
o Take action at all proposed and final NPL sites that have immediate
threats; and
o Complete an environmental indicator form for all removal actions
completed at NPL sites this fiscal year.
This directive is effective immediately and Regions should begin
developing procedures and reviewing their sites. However, this is being issued
as interim guidance to consider any comments you may have. For example, you
may wish to suggest a due date different than January 1 (see third bullet
above). Please send your comments to: Hans Crump, Acting Director, Emergency
Response Division (OS-210), EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460 by
March 1, 1990.
If you have any questions Hans Crump may be reached at FTS 475-8720, or
you may call Scott Maid at FTS 382-4671.
Attachment
cc: Henry Longest II, OERR
Lloyd Guerci, OWPE
Lisa Friedman, OGC
Hans Crump, ERD
Clem Rastatter, 0PM
Larry Reed, HSED
Russ Wyer, HSCD
Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
OHM Coordinators, Regions I-X
Pre-Remedial Section Chiefs, Regions I-X
-------
Addressing Immediate Threats
At National Priorities List
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Two major recommendations of the study commissioned by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in June 1989, entitled "A Management Review of the
Superfund Program" (Superfund Management Review), were to expedite response at
National Priorities List (NPL) sites and to make these sites safer. On December
15, 1989, EPA issued the guidance "Accelerated Response at National Priorities
List Sites" (OSWER Directive #9200.2-02) to address the first recommendation.
The directive described removal, remedial, and enforcement procedures and
contract mechanisms for use by the Regions to accelerate CERCLA response actions
at NPL sites. The following directive addresses the recommendation to make NPL
sites safer. Because it refers to some sections of the accelerated response
guidance, it should be used as a companion piece to that guidance.
1.2 Purpose
This document provides detailed procedures and guidance for evaluating and
addressing immediate threats at NPL sites this year and in the following years.
It provides that proposed new additions to the NPL undergo a removal site
evaluation to identify the presence of immediate threats. It also provides that
final NPL sites be reviewed at least once every two years to ensure, to the
extent possible, that all NPL sites are free from immediate threats. This
guidance is intended for Regional site managers, including On-Scene Coordinators,
Site Assessment Managers, Remedial Project Managers, enforcement staff, and other
Regional and Headquarters Superfund personnel and managers.
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.
Federal agencies with facilities listed on the NPL are encouraged to
follow this guidance. Federal agencies with facilities on the NPL have
primary responsibility for evaluating and documenting threats at their
sites. (EPA may respond to emergencies at some Federal facilities; for
more information see E.O. 12580.)
-------
OSWER Directive #9200'. 2-03
1.3 Scope Of Guidance
Specifically, the guidance will discuss the following topics:
(1) Identifying and addressing immediate threats at NPL sites (Section
2.0); and
(2) Procedures for reviewing and documenting that NPL sites do not pose
immediate threats (Section 3.0).
2.0 IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING IMMEDIATE THREATS AT NPL SITES
The Agency's goal is to protect public health and the environment as much as
possible from the risks posed by NPL sites, both short-term and long-term.
Public health and the environment can be protected from short-term risks at NPL
sites by stabilizing or mitigating immediate threats. Immediate threats to
human health and the environment that result from deterioration of NPL site
conditions before the completion of remedial action must be addressed as soon as
possible.
The sections below discuss how the Agency will work to identify and address
immediate threats. Section 2.1 explains what we mean by immediate threat and
gives examples of problems that the Regions should be looking for. Sections 2.2
and 2.3 explain the evaluation and review process. Section 2.4 briefly discusses
the mechanisms available for addressing immediate threats identified at NPL
sites.
2.1 Considerations During The Review And Evaluation Process
The goal of the review and evaluation process discussed below (in sections
2.2 and 2.3) is to identify, document, and eliminate to the extent possible
immediate threats that may be posed by NPL sites. •* For example, the review and
evaluation process should attempt to identify threats of fire or explosion.,
direct contact threats, significant threats of near-term migration, and other
relatively predictable threats. Direct contact threats might include (but are
not limited to) situations such as uncontrolled waste piles, overflowing lagoons,
Documentation that there are no immediate threats at an NPL site is not
related to evidence of possible imminent and substantial endangerment.
An endangerment is a threatened or potential harm. An endangerment is
imminent if the conditions that give rise to it are present, even though
the harm might not be realized for years. An endangerment is
substantial if there is reasonable cause to believe that someone or
something may be exposed to a risk of harm from a release or threatened
release. The mere threat of harm or potential harm to public health,
public welfare, or the environment is sufficient. The endangerment need
not be immediate to be imminent.
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-03
contaminated drinking water, and uncontrolled access to sites where conditions on
the surface pose health threats. Significant threats of near-term migration
might include extensive contamination on the soil surface that would be spread by
a heavy rain or snow. Generally, these situations should be addressed as quickly
as possible to alleviate the threat. In addition, NPL sites should not have, on
the surface, tanks and drums containing hazardous substances. In most cases,
such waste on NPL sites should be addressed by a removal or remedial action (see
section 2.4 below on mechanisms for addressing immediate threats). The reviewer
should also consider whether conditions might have worsened at the site
subsequent to the initial site evaluation as a result of weather, physical plant
deterioration, vandalism, or other causes that would indicate the need for
additional evaluations or a response action.
It is important that all Superfund site managers (including remedial project
managers and site assessment managers), staff, and site contractors (such as the
Field Investigation Team) be knowledgeable about the capabilities of the removal
program, including the factors in §300.65 of the NCP (section 300.415 of the
proposed NCP).^* The removal criteria in the NCP should be considered whenever a
site is investigated at the Preliminary Assessment and/or Site Inspection (PA/SI)
stage and when NPL sites are reviewed or evaluated for immediate threats. In
addition, information collected as part of the PA/SI and removal site evaluations
at NPL sites should be used, as appropriate, to develop long-term plans for
remedial action for the sites.
The reviews and evaluations of NPL sites can generally be based on easily
obtainable information for each site, as judged by the Region. In past
discussions, Regions have asked to what extent they will be expected to sample
ground water as part of the review process. If sampling wells exist, it may be
appropriate to sample the water. However, drilling new sampling wells is
generally not appropriate (i.e., usually it should be done as part of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process, not during an NPL site
review or removal site evaluation).
2.2 Evaluating Newly Proposed NPL Sites
Because conditions at sites newly proposed for inclusion on the NPL may pose
immediate threats to human health or the environment, it is important that a
removal site evaluation be routinely conducted within a short period after a
site has been proposed (if the site has not been evaluated recently before
proposal). A removal site evaluation helps ascertain the current condition of
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 FR 51394), is expected to be finalized in 1990. The revised section
numbers will become effective on the effective date of the regulation.
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-03
the site and whether there are any immediate threats such as fire, explosion, or
direct contact (see section 2.1 above) that should be addressed.
Therefore, effective immediately, all Regions must complete a removal site
evaluation at each newly proposed NPL site within three months of the date the
site is officially proposed for inclusion on the NFL (unless it is not
appropriate; see next paragraph). The components of a removal site evaluation
are described in section 300.410 of the proposed NCP. This evaluation should
include review of any available PA/SI information and, except in extenuating
circumstances, a site visit. When the evaluation is completed, the information
should be entered into CERCLIS (see section 3.3 below) and a memorandum
containing the statements in section 3.3 below should be sent from the
appropriate Regional Division Director to the Regional Administrator, with a
copy to the Director of the Emergency Response Division, Headquarters (ERD).
Regions may choose to issue just one memorandum for all of the sites in the
Region listed in a proposed update or may issue a separate memorandum for each
site.
In some situations, Regional staff may believe that a removal site
evaluation is not appropriate or cannot be completed within three months of the
date of proposal. For example, if the Region has recently (e.g., in the twelve
month period before proposal) conducted a removal site evaluation or a removal
action and believes another site evaluation is not needed, it may not be
appropriate to conduct another one. As another example, if a particular proposed
NPL update includes a large number of sites in one Region, the Region may need
more than three months to complete all the evaluations. In such situations, the
Region should contact the Regional Coordinator in ERD. Then the appropriate
Regional Division Director should send a memorandum to the Regional Administrator
with a copy to the Director of ERD. The memo should briefly explain the reason
that a removal site evaluation is not being conducted or is being delayed. For
those that are delayed, the memo should explain when they will be completed.
2.3 Reviewing The Status Of Final NPL Sites
Because NPL sites can deteriorate while awaiting final remedial action, it
is important to review all NPL sites periodically to ensure that there are no
immediate threats. Such a periodic review also assists Regions in ensuring that
the worst sites are addressed first.
Therefore, in keeping with commitments made to implement the Superfund
Management Review, all Regions must, by September 30. 1990. document that there
are presently no immediate threats, or that they are taking action, at all sites
on the final NPL (see section 3.3 for information on documentation).
After this initial review and documentation, subsequent documentation
memoranda will be due on January 1 of each year starting with January 1. 1992.
Regions must review and document the status of every final NPL site at least once
every two years, reviewing half the final NPL sites each year (using the
procedures developed under section 3.1 and the statements in 3.3). This means
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-03
that after the initial review of all of the final NPL sites in 1990, Regions will
review and document the status of half the final NPL sites again by January 1,
1992, the other half by January 1, 1993, and so on. This requirement recognizes
that while sites must be reviewed routinely to achieve Agency goals, the reviews
should not be so frequent that they create an excessive resource burden for the
Regions. In addition, reviewing half of the sites one year and the other half
the next should assist Regions in planning their workload and budget cycle. In
keeping with the principle of addressing "worst sites first," Regions should
consider the results of the 1990 review in deciding which half of the final NPL
sites to review in 1991 (in order to document the results in 1992). If a
proposed site makes the final NPL, generally it should be reviewed two years
after the removal site evaluation (see section 2.2 above) or after it becomes
final, whichever is later (unless a problem is suspected or an earlier review is
deemed appropriate).
All documentation memoranda must be signed by a Regional Division Director
and sent to the Regional Administrator with a copy to the Director of ERD.
Section 3.0 describes procedures for accomplishing the review/documentation
process.
Note: The purpose of the review and documentation is not to mandate that
sites be visited but instead to ensure that site circumstances are considered at
least every two years. Thus, specific site circumstances should dictate how each
site will be reviewed for immediate threats. For example, some sites may be free
from surface contamination, known to be very stable, or have extensive existing
data. In these cases, there may be no concern in documenting the site as free
from immediate threats without a recent site visit because weather, vandalism,
etc., could not cause further harm. Regions may need to visit or use other
methods to review other sites more frequently.
2.4 Mechanisms For Addressing Immediate Threats
Once the immediate threats have been identified, they should be addressed in
a timely manner. The December 15, 1989, directive on accelerated response at NPL
sites (OSWER Directive #9200.2-02) describes the removal and remedial mechanisms
available for addressing NPL sites. Any of the mechanisms described there may be
used for addressing immediate threats as well as for accelerating response. The
type of threat found, the amount of time available before the threat must be
addressed, and the resources available (e.g., personnel and contractor) will
dictate whether remedial or removal authority should be used to address immediate
threats. Generally, the removal program will be used to respond to immediate
threats that must be addressed quickly (see the accelerated response directive
for more information on the removal and remedial programs; e.g., the guidance
explains the requirement for issuing an action memo for removal actions, etc.).
The remedial program may be used to respond to some threats identified during the
review process, especially when found during an on-going RI/FS and there is
sufficient time to complete a Record of Decision and conduct an accelerated
remedial action. As discussed in the directive on accelerated response, site
managers must take advantage of enforcement authorities whenever possible.
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-03
3.0 PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING AND DOCUMENTING THAT NFL SITES DO NOT POSE
IMMEDIATE THREATS
The following sections describe the types of procedures that Regions way use
to review their NPL sites and document the findings. Section 3.1 describes
optional procedures that the Regions may consider to review final NPL sites for
immediate threats (the procedures do not apply to proposed NPL sites because
Regions generally will conduct a formal removal site evaluation on proposed
sites). Section 3.2 discusses options for structuring the review. Section 3.3
presents statements which all Regions must use to document that final NPL sites
do not present an immediate threat or that action is being taken. Section 3.4
gives information on environmental indicators.
3.1 Review Procedures For Final NPL Sites
The Regions must develop internal procedures specifying how they will
accomplish the review/documentation process. The procedures must explain which
offices will be responsible for the initial review, how sites will be handled if
further evaluation is needed, and who will sign the documentation memorandum (in
some Regions, more than one Division Director may be involved). The Regions
should establish their procedures for review of NPL sites as soon as possible, in
order to allow sufficient time to complete the necessary work involved in meeting
the September 30, 1990, deadline.
The Regions have wide latitude in the formulation of a review/documentation
process. For example, some Regions may choose to have site managers (i.e., staff
responsible for NPL sites on a day-to-day basis) conduct the initial review,
referring questionable sites for further evaluation by the removal program, or
the Regions may choose to have the removal program perform the entire evaluation.
Alternatively, a Region may choose to establish a task force of staff from all
Superfund programs to coordinate Regional reviews of NPL sites.
The Regions may choose to adopt any of the abovementioned options, or use
any combination of approaches as appropriate, or may instead develop different
procedures to accomplish the review. Flexibility is necessary in order to
accommodate Regions with a small number of final NPL sites that may want to
organize the review process differently from Regions with a large number of final
NPL sites. In all cases, however, the final documentation consists of the
statements and CERCLIS report discussed in section 3.3.
3.2 Structuring The Review Of Final NPL Sites
Regardless of the approach chosen and depending on the number of final NPL
sites, the Regions may wish to conduct their reviews throughout the year. For
example, if a Region has 200 final NPL sites (not counting Federal facilities;
see footnote 2) the Region may wish to structure the review process so that 25
sites are reviewed each quarter (because the status of half of the sites will be
reviewed and documented each year). In this case, the Region may wish to issue a
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-03
documentation memo on a quarterly basis for each group of sites or may choose to
wait and document all of the site reviews once a year, noting that the actual
reviews were done on a quarterly basis and will continue on this basis in the;
coming year. Regional plans should also take into account the fact that
additional sites will be finalized and/or proposed for the NPL during the two-
year review period. Regions will have to conduct removal site evaluations at:
these sites within three months of proposal (see section 2.2). In any case, the
review (and findings if additional evaluation/action is needed) should be entered
into CERCLIS when the review is completed.
3.3 Documenting The Results Of The Reviews And Evaluations (Final and Proposed
NPL Sites)
Regions must use the following statements, as appropriate, to document that
they have reviewed all final NPL sites (except Federal facilities; see footnote
2). The statements should also be used to document findings of the removal site
evaluations conducted at newly proposed sites (see section 2.2).
Within the next several months Headquarters will add a new event type to
CERCLIS and write new reports to assist the Regions in tracking their reviews and
documenting the results. Headquarters will send guidance on the new event and
reports to Regional offices in the near future. The CERCLIS reports will be the
attachments indicated in the statements below.
Documentation for sites where a response (remedial or removal) is ongoing or
planned (for planned actions, statement generally should be used only where
response action is planned to be taken within twelve months of the date of the
memorandum):
"The following sites have response action ongoing or are scheduled for response
action to alleviate immediate threats at these sites. The attachment [CERCLIS
report] shows the quarter and year when the work is scheduled to begin (for
planned actions) or when work started (for ongoing actions)."
Documentation that sites do not have immediate threats:
"I have reviewed the available information on the sites listed in attachment
[CERCLIS report] and, based on this information, there are presently no
immediate threats at these sites. The Agency, at its discretion, may take
further action at these sites under CERCLA section 104, 106, or 122."
For final NPL sites, each Region is required to issue only one documentation
memorandum per year (but may issue more than one as described in section 3.2
above). The memo must contain the statements and attachments described above and
cover all of the final NPL sites in the Region that are being reviewed/documented
that year. For proposed NPL sites, a Region may issue one memo for each site or
-------
OSWER Directive #9200.2-03
may group the sites. A Regional Division Director must sign the memorandum
containing the appropriate statements and send it to the Regional Administrator
with a copy to the Director, Emergency Response Division. As mentioned earlier,
the first documentation memo (with the attachments) is due September 30, 1990,
for all final NPL sites (except Federal facilities). Subsequent memos are due
for half of the final NPL sites every year, starting on January 1, 1992.
Memoranda for proposed NPL sites are due 3 months after proposal.
3.4 Environmental Indicators
Regions must complete an environmental indicator form for all removal
actions completed at proposed or final NPL sites this fiscal year, i.e.. FY 90.
This will support the documentation and public explanation of what has been done
to fulfill the Administrator's commitment on this Presidential objective. The
environmental indicator forms and instructions will be sent to the Oil and
Hazardous Material Coordinator in each Region in the near future.
4.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Guidance
"A Management Review of the Superfund Program," Report from U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC (6/89)
OSWER Directive No. 9200.2-02, "Accelerated Response at National
Priorities List Sites" (12/15/89)
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,
Proposed Rule, 40 CFR Part 300, 53 Federal ReEister 51394-51520
(12/21/88)
------- |