x> EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9320.2-3B
TITLE: Update to the "Procedures for Completion and
Deletion of National Priorities List Sites"
Guidance Document Regarding the Performance of
Five-Year Reviews.
APPROVAL DATE: December 29, 1989
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
(2 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
December 29, 1989
Superfund
OS WER OS WER OS WER
/£ DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE D
-------
Washington. DC 20460
QSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9320.2-3B
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Betti VanEpps, SDC
Mail Coda
OS-240
Office
OERR/OPM/MSDS
Telepftone Coda
475-8864
3. Tale
Update to the "Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List
Sites" Guidance Document Regarding the Performance of Five-Year Reviews
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation No. 2)
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
This memorandum: (1) implements Recommendation No. 2 contained in the Administrator1.
Management Review? (2) is a necessary follow-up to the October 30, 11989
Jonathan Cannon, Acting Assistant Administrator/ policy directive to EPA Regional
Administrators which explains which sites will require five-year reviews, and how the
policy wil affect deletions.
5. Keywords
UNO [_
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive^)? 1 I |~~
\ |No
j Yes What directive (number, tide)
MM
Yes What directive (number. We)
7. Draft Level ^_
|[ A-SlgnedbyAA/DAA [v | B- Signed by Offlca Director [ | C- For Review & Co
fTVTIaWlt 1 1 ft _• *"" f*i — — i _- ^_ .
IIIIIVK I i u — vi uvrvopcTetnc
8. Document to be distributed to States by H<
^•a
jadquartera?
>«• n^
This Requeat Maata OSWER Olraetlvaa Syatam Format Standards.
9. Sgnatura of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
Betti VanEpps, Superfund Documents Coordinator
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Date
December 29,
Date
December 29,
1989
1989
EPA Form 1315*17 (Rev. 5-»7) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
0£C
1S8S
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3B
MEMORANDUM
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
SUBJECT:
FROM:
2)
TO:
Update to the "Procedures for Completion and
Deletion of National Priorities List Sites"
Guidance Document Regarding the Performance of
Five-Year Reviews
(Superfund Management Review: Rejpbmmegjfation No.
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and
Bruce M. Diamond, Director
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, and VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, and IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
PURPOSE
This memorandum incorporates into the "Procedures for
Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites"
guidance document (OSWER Directive 9320.2-3A) EPA's policy to
conduct at least one Five-Year Review prior to deleting sites from
the National Priorities List (NPL). This memorandum: (1)
implements Recommendation No. 2 contained in the Administrator's
Management Review; (2) is a necessary follow-up to the October 30,
1989 Jonathan Cannon, Acting Assistant Administrator, policy
directive to EPA Regional Administrators which explains which
sites will require five-year reviews, and how the policy will
affect deletions; and (3) identifies how EPA will administratively
amend thm deletion process to account for this policy directive.
BACKGROUND
On October 30, 1989, the Acting Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) issued a
policy directive concerning the performance of CERCLA 121(c) Five-
year reviews and the relationship of such reviews to the deletion
of sites from the NPL. This policy directive noted that EPA will
ensure that five-year reviews are conducted for all remedial
actions which result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
-------
- 2 -
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. This means that EPA vi]
conduct reviews of a remedial action unless the site has been
cleaned to at least health-protective levels and such levels allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Consequently, EPA
will conduct five-year reviews of all remedies requiring any access
or land-use restrictions or control, including remedies that attain
health-protective levels for the current use, but which include
restrictions on activities due to limits on exposure. Reviews will
begin no more than five years after the initiation of a remedial
action. The directive set out the policy that a site subject to
five-year reviews should generally not be deleted from the NPL
until at least one such review has been conducted following
completion of all remedial actions at a site (except operation and
maintenance) .
Although SARA provides that CERCLA Section 121 (including 121
(c)) applies only to actions resulting from RODs signed post-
SARA, the policy directive also notes that EPA believes as a
matter of policy that it would be inappropriate to distinguish
between pre- and post-SARA RODs in determining whether to conduct
five-year reviews. Furthermore, also as a matter of policy, EPA
will examine previously deleted sites to assess the
appropriateness of conducting five-year reviews for those remedial
actions which result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure. The purpose of such an examination
would be to determine whether such remedies remain protective.
EPA is also currently developing guidance on the nature and
extent of five-year reviews. EPA will revise and reissue the
guidance on deletion/completion of NPL sites upon the issuance of
the guidance on five-year reviews, which is expected in 1990.
The following update of the April 1989 OSWER Directive
9320. 2-3A, "Procedures for Completion and Deletion of NPL Sites",
provides the administrative requirements which should be followed
prior to deletion of sites from the NPL as a result of EPA's
October 30, 1989 Five-Year Review policy directive. Effective
immediately, these procedures should be followed for all sites
affected by the Five-Year Review policy. Any questions regarding
the attached update may be directed to Ed Hanlon of OSWER 's
Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD) at FTS: 475-9753. Until
the completion/deletion guidance is fully revised and reissued,
please contact Allen Dotson, HSCD, at FTS: 382-5755, to determine
the current policy on five-year reviews.
Attachment
CC: Regional Superfund Branch Chiefs
Offices of Regional Counsel - Regional Branch Chiefs
-------
Attachment
DSWER Directive 9320.2-3A.
•Procedures for Coapletion and Deletion of
National Priorities List Sites
1. Disclaimer. "Notice."
a) Page ii. Add the following as the second paragraph:
"The policies set out in this memorandum are intended
solely for the guidance of Government personnel. They
are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create
any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with
the United States. EPA officials may decide to follow
the guidance provided in this memorandum, or to act at
variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of
specific site circumstances. The Agency also reserves
the right to change this guidance at any time without
public notice."
2. Chapter 1. "Introduction." f nu»ndnu>ffl«- •
a) Page 2. Add the following as the fifth paragraph under
Introduction;
"EPA will ensure that five-year reviews are conducted at
all sites at which a selected remedial action results in
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remaining at a site above levels that allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure. EPA will generally not
delete a site for which five-year reviews are required
until one such review has been conducted following
completion of all remedial actions at a site (except
operation and maintenance) . EPA Headquarters also
intends to revise and reissue this guidance (OSWER
Directive 9320. 2-3A, as amended December 29, 1989) when
the final policy on when and how to conduct five-year
reviews is released. Until the reissuance of this
completion/deletion guidance, EPA Regions should consult
with BPA Headquarter ' s Hazardous Site Control Division to
determine when and how the five-year reviews should be
considered and conducted."
3. Chapter 2. "Site Completion." Amendments;
a) Page 3. Add the following as the second paragraph under
the sub-heading: "Final Operable Unit Remedial Actions":
-------
- 2 -
"For Fund-financed remedial actions, the lead and
support agencies should conduct a joint inspection at
the conclusion of construction of the remedial action
and.concur through a joint memorandum that (a) the
remedy has been constructed in accordance with the ROD
and with the remedial design, and (b) a period for
evaluating the operation of the remedy commences at that
time, and should continue until the completion of any
activities necessary to ensure that the remedy is fully
operational and functional. Once the remedy is
considered operational and functional by the party
contracting for construction, a Remedial Action Report
should be prepared by the party contracting for
construction to officially provide its assurance that
the work was performed within desired specifications,
and is considered operational and functional. The lead
and support agencies should then conduct a joint
inspection and execute a joint memorandum accepting the
Remedial Action Report."
b) Page 3. Change the second sentence under the subheading
"No Action Sites" as follows:
"It does not include sites with ROOs requiring only
monitoring or institutional controls; these types of
sites will be considered "Limited Action Sites" which
will require five-year reviews to ensure protection of
human health and the environment".
c) Page 3. Add the following to the third sentence under
the subheading "No Action Sites":
"...have been addressed (e.g., O&M assurances, need for
five-year reviews, and institutional controls)."
d) Page 5. The following new text will supersede the old
text of the "LTRA sites" subsection:
"Long Tern Response Action fLTRA) Sites
An "Interim Close Out Report for LTRA Sites",
prepared by the Region and approved by the RA, will be
required of all LTRA sites. This report will contain
final information for all completed operable units at
the site and describe the LTRA activities to be
performed, the cleanup levels to be achieved for the
LTRA portion of the site, and any five-year review
responsibilities (as discussed in the next section).
This report will act as the determining factor for
designating sites as LTRAs on the NPL and for internal
Superfund tracking. In addition, once a ground or
surface water restoration LTRA operable unit is operating
-------
as designed, States may assume responsibility for
operation of the LTRA.
The "Interim Close Out Report for LTRA Sites" will
be amended when cleanup levels are achieved to include
final information for the LTRA operable units of the
site in order to satisfy completion requirements. The
"Interim Close Out Report for LTRA Sites" and the
amendment together will constitute the final Close Out
Report for the site. The LTRA site vill then be
recategorized on the NPL as either a "Site Awaiting
Deletion" or a "Five-Year Review site""
e) Page 5. The following new text will be added as a
separate subsection after the "LTRA sites" subsection:
"Five-Year Review Sites
An "Interim Close Out Report for Five-Year Review
Sites", prepared by the Region and approved by the RA,
will be required of all Five-Year Review sites (this may
incorporate by reference interim or final Close Out
Reports already prepared). This report will contain
final information for all completed operable units at the
site and describe the Five-Year Review activities to be
performed. This report will also act as the determining
factor for designating sites as Five-Year Review sites on
the NPL and for internal Superfund tracking. This report
will be amended when at least one five-year review has
been conducted following the completion of the remedial
action (except operation and maintenance), and any
appropriate actions have been taken to ensure that the
site remains protective of human health and the
environment. The "Interim Close Out Report for Five-Year
Review Sites", and the amendment, together will
constitute the final Close Out Report for the site.
States may conduct five-year reviews under/pursuant to
Cooperative Agreements or Superfund State Contracts with
EPA, and submit five-year review reports to EPA.
For LTRA's such as bioremediation, flushing, and
groundvater pump and treat where health-based levels may
not b« achieved on site for an extended period of time
during and/or after site remediation, EPA will conduct
five-year reviews from the date on which the first
contract is awarded for work to install, construct, or
implement the LTRA operable unit. Even at sites that
are expected to achieve health-based levels at the
completion of remedial action, EPA will, as a matter of
policy, assure the conduct of five-year reviews when the
remedial action will require more than five years to
. complete.
-------
- 4 -
An Interim Close Out Report for Five Year Review
Site* would be required, for example, for a landfill
closure site which is not an LTRA site. However, one
Interim Close Out Report may be prepared for those sites
which are designated both as an LTRA as well as a five-
year- review site. In these cases, the Interim Close Out
Report will be amended twice, as follows: (a) when at
least one five-year review has been conducted following
the completion of the remedial action (except operation
and maintenance), and any appropriate actions have been
taken to ensure that the site remains protective of human
health and the environment; and (b) when the LTRA cleanup
levels are achieved, to include final information for the
LTRA operable units of the site in order to satisfy
completion requirements."
4. Chapter 3. "The Close Out Report." Aaep«*»«f "t*.s:.
a) Page 7. Add the following separate category (as
component 6) to the listed components which are
necessary to be addressed in the Close Out Report:
"6) Five-Year Review
o Statement explaining: (a) that at least one
five-year review has been conducted following
completion of all remedial actions at the site
(except operation and maintenance), and that any
appropriate actions have been taken to ensure
that the site remains protective of human health
and the environment; or (b) why no five-year
review was required. (EPA Headquarters will
revise and reissue this completion/deletion
guidance when the final policy on when and how to
conduct five-year reviews is released. Until the
reissuance of this guidance, EPA Regions should
consult with EPA Headquarter's Hazardous Site
Control Division to identify when and how the
five-year reviews should be considered and
conducted.)
o Assurance that, where appropriate, an acceptable
and detailed workplan is in place for the
performance of future five-year reviews, and is
sufficient to determine whether the
protectiveness of the remedy(s) for each operable
unit, and of the site as a whole, is maintained.
(A five-year review workplan may be incorporated
into the operation and maintenance assurance
agreements and workplans.)
-------
- 5 -
b) Page 8, Exhibit 2. Add the following item to the
"Contribution to Close-Out Report" section across from
the "Remedial Action" cleanup activity:
"o Five-year review plan, where appropriate"
a) Page 10. Add the following paragraphs after the third
deletion criteria:
."In addition to the above, for all remedial actions
which result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, it is
EPA's policy that sites should generally not be deleted
from the NPL until at least one five-year review has been
conducted following completion of all remedial actions at
a site (except operation and maintenance), any
appropriate actions have been taken to ensure that the
site remains protective of public health and the
environment, and the site meets EPA's deletion criteria
as outlined above. EPA must also assure that five-year
reviews will continue to be conducted at the site until
no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. States may conduct five-year
reviews under/pursuant to Cooperative Agreements or
Superfund State Contracts with EPA, and submit five-year
review reports to EPA.
An exception to this requirement involves situations
where a Consent Decree contained language specifically
committing EPA to delete a site from the NPL upon
completion of certain response activities. In such
cases, EPA Regions must consult with EPA Headquarters
prior to initiation of any deletion activities. However,
such an exception would apply only to the general policy
of not deleting sites before completion of the first
fiv«-y«ar review, not to the requirement to conduct
reviews. EPA would still need to assure that five-year
reviews will be conducted at the site. Given the October
30, 1989 policy directive from the Acting Assistant
Administrator for OSWER regarding the performance of
five-year reviews and their relationship to the deletion
process, Consent Decrees should now require one five-year
review following the completion of the remedial action
(except operation and maintenance) before deletion."
6.
a)
Page 10. Revise the first sentence of the first
paragraph as follows:
-------
- 6 -
"Th« deletion process may begin after approval of the
Close Out Report by the RA, and after RA and/ or the
State's approval of at least one five-year review at
those sites which require five-year reviews."
b) Page 11, Exhibit 3. Add the following step immediately
under the "Approved Close Out Report" step:
"Where Appropriate, Conduct At Least One Five-Year
Review"
c) Page 12. Add the following immediately under "Close Out
Report" in the suggested list of documents for the
deletion docket:
"Initial Five-Year Review report, where appropriate"
d) Page 13. Add the following separate bullet item to the
"Supplementary Information: Item IV - Basis for Intended
Site Deletion (s) " section, immediately under the
description of O&M procedures:
"Description of the results of the initial five-year
review, where appropriate, as well as reasoning for the
need for future five-year reviews, and plans for
performance of such reviews, in accordance with EPA's
requirements for protectiveness at the time of each
future review. "
7 . Appendix A. "Completion Process Diagrams.* Amendment:
a) Pages A-l through A-4. Add the following immediately
above the "NPL Deletion" item in the "Completion
Scenario" charts for Remedial Sites, LTRA Sites, No
Action Sites, and Removal Sites:
"Where Appropriate, Conduct At Least One Five-Year
Review"
8 . Appandiv B- "role Close Out Reort."
a) Pag* B-6. Add the following separate chapter, as the
n«tr Chapter V, prior to the " PROTECTIVENESS " Chapter, to
provide a summary of the Five-Year Review which, if
appropriate, was conducted, and what actions, if any,
were taken as a result of that Review, as follows:
"V. SUMMARY OF FIVE YEAR REVIEW STATUS
Consistent with the requirements of the October 30,
1989 policy directive from the Acting Assistant
Administrator for OSWER which describes EPA's general
policy of not deleting sites before completion of the
-------
- 7 -
first five year review following completion of all
remedial actions at a site (except operation and
maintenance), a five year review was completed and
signed by the EPA Region IX Office on . Based
on the findings of this five year review, EPA and the
State of California have determined that all remedial
actions conducted at the site remain protective of
public health, welfare, and the environment.
EPA Region IX entered into a Superfund State
Contract with the State of California on to
assure the performance of future five-year reviews at
this site by the State. An acceptable and detailed
workplan is in place for the performance of future five-
year reviews. This workplan has been incorporated into
the operation and maintenance plan already in place. If
necessary, it will be revised at the time of each five-
year review."
9. Appendix C. "Sample Notice of Intent To Delete." Ap^rid-ments
a) Page C-3. Add the following paragraphs after the third
deletion criteria under Chapter II:
"In addition to the above, for all remedial actions
which result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, it is
EPA's policy that sites should generally not be deleted
from the NPL until at least one five-year review has been
conducted following completion of all remedial actions at
a site (except operation and maintenance), any
appropriate actions have been taken to ensure that the
site remains protective of public health and the
environment, and the site meets EPA's deletion criteria
as outlined above. EPA must also assure that five-year
reviews will continue to be conducted at the site until
no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. States may conduct five-year
reviews under/pursuant to Cooperative Agreements or
Superfund State Contracts with EPA, and submit fiv. -year
review reports to EPA.
An exception to this requirement involves situations
where a Consent Decree contained language specifically
committing EPA to delete a site from the NPL upon
completion of certain response activities. In such
cases, EPA Regions must consult with EPA Headquarters
prior to initiation of any deletion activities. However,
such an exception would apply only to the general policy
of not deleting sites before completion of the first
five-year review, not to the requirement to conduct
-------
- 8 -
reviews. EPA would still need to assure that five-year
reviews will be conducted at the site. Given the October
30, 1989 policy directive from the Acting Assistant
Administrator for OSWER regarding the performance of
five-year reviews and their relationship to the deletion
process, Consent Decrees should now require one five-year
review following completion of the remedial action
(except operation and maintenance) before deletion."
b) Page C-3. Add the following as the new procedure 1.
under Chapter III:
"1. EPA Region II entered into a Superfund State
Contract with the State of New Jersey to conduct five-
year reviews at this site. New Jersey conducted the
first five-year review on . EPA and the State
find that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
c) Page C-5. Add the following after the sentence
beginning with °A five year..." in the paragraph
beginning with "The institutional controls...", and
delete the existing last sentence which begins "That
Program...":
"EPA Region II entered into a Superfund State Contract
with the State of New Jersey to conduct five-year
reviews at this site. New Jersey conducted the first
five-year review on . EPA and the State find
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment.
An acceptable and detailed workplan is in place for
the performance of future five-year reviews. This
workplan has been incorporated into the operation and
maintenance plan already in place, and has been
sufficiently prepared to allow the EPA and the State of
New Jersey to determine whether the protectiveness of
the remedy for the site will be maintained over time.
If necessary, it will be revised at the time of each
fiv»-y«ar review."
10.
a) Page E-l. Change the last sentence of the SUMMARY
section as follows:
"Moreover, EPA and the State of have determined
that remedial actions conducted at the site to date
remain protective of public health, welfare, and the
environment."
------- |