&EPA
              United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
           Office of
           Solid Waste and
           Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9355.0-25A
               TITLE:
                     Use of Removal Approaches to Speed Up
                     Remedial Action Projects
               APPROVAL DATE:    7/6/89

               EFFECTIVE DATE:    7/6/89

               ORIGINATING OFFICE:    ERD

               3 FINAL

               D DRAFT

                STATUS:



               REFERENCE (other documents):

                 Supersedes 9355.0-25
  OS WER     OS WER     OS WER
/£    DIRECTIVE   DIRECTIVE   Dl

-------
          United Stttw Environmental Prolecfcon Agency
                 Washington. DC 204«0
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
                                                                 11. Directs*
                                  2. Orlqlnitor Informitton
      Ntm« of Conuct Person
        Bruce Engelbert
                  Mail Cod*
                    05-210
Offic*
         ERD
                   "eiepnon* Cod*
      3. Till*
           Use of Removal Approaches  to Spped Up Remedial Action Projects
      4. Summary ol Directive (include bnel suiemeni of purpose)               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~——^—
             Presents basic  requirements  to be met when Region chooses to use removal
            authorities and  contracting methods to speed up remedial projects
      S. Keywords
              CERCLA; Removal; Remedial:  cleanup
      6«. Does This Oirecuve Supen«o« Prtvious Du-«cuve(j)?
      b. Does R Supplement Previous Oirtctive(s)?
                       D
                                            No
      Vn   What dir»ctSr« (number. Utie)
                               ^355.0-25
                          No   I   | Yts   Wh«l (Srtcttv* (number. We)
      7. Drift Level
          A-SJgnedbyAA/DAA    [   [ B - Signed by Office Director      C - For Review & Corwnent   I   I 0 - hi Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
—

Yes
^^•^HB
X

No
This Request M»«U OSWER Olr«cUvw System Format Standards.
9. Signature ol Lead Office Directives Coordinator
Betti C. Vanepps
10. Nam* and Title ol Approvin j OffitaJ
Henry L. Lor.gesi II ^
Date
7/6/89
L/«t*
7/6/89 '
     EPA Form 1315-17 (R*v. 5-17) Previous editions are obsolete.
   OSWER           OSWER                OSWER               0
VE     DIRECTIVE         DIRECTIVE        DIRECTIVE

-------
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                             WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                  JUL   6
                                                                   C* e 'CE OF
                                                         SOu'O 'AASTE AN3 EMERGENCY BE 3 =
                                       OSWER Directive So. 9355.0-25A
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Use of Removal*Approaches to Speed Up Remedial Action Projects

FROM:     Jcfya'WattVz.f Oaftrfo'j^'^
          Acting Assistant Administrator

TO:       Environmental Services Divis on Directors
           1 Regions I, VI, VII
          Waste Management Division Di. Actors
            Regions I. IV, V, VI, VII,  III'
          Emergency and Remedial Response Division Director
            Region' II
          Hazardous Waste Management Di- .sion Directors
            Regions III, VI
          Toxics and Waste Management Di ision Director
            Region IX
          Hazardous Waste Division Direc.ir
            Region X
Purpose:
     This memoranda defines the basic requirements to be me: when a R.egion
chooses to use removal authorities and cent-acting methods zs speed up
rer.ediai projects.
Background:

     Several Reg
and contracting
List (NPL) sites
completion of a
for this approac
1988.   (OSWER Di
eight sites.  Th
NPL this fiscal
ions have expressed interest in the use of removal authorities
methods to speed up remedial actions on National Priorities
 where surface cleanups may result in a total site cleanup or
major portion of the site.  Memoranda containing conditions
h vere forwarded to Region IV on March 18, 1988. and July 11.
receive No. 9355.0-25).  Region IV has used this approach on
ree of these sites are now scheduled to be deleted from :he
year.  Region III has also used this approach at tvo NPL

-------
     Several issues arose in defining and implementing this approach,  which
 required coordination of policies and procedures between both the remedial  and
 removal programs.  This coordination resulted in a unique set of requirements
 which each Region must meet when undertaking the use of removal authorities  to
 achieve early action at NPL sites.

 Objective:

     This policy is aimed ac speeding up response at some NPL sites.   The
 purpose is not to establish an alternative to remedial contracting methods  but
 to provide an additional response option until such time as rapid remedial
 contracting alternatives are fully developed.  This document supersedes
 previous memoranda on this ropic.  This"memorandum describes the criteria and
 other considerations for effective utilization of this approach.  The
 requirements outlined in this memorandum do not apply to the usual 40 to SO
 emergency and tiae-critical removal actions conducted by the removal program
 at NPL sites each year.

 Implementation:                                                    	

     The following are the key requirements which must be met before removal
authorities or removal contractors can be used to perform remedial actions  at
NPL sites.

     1)   All sites must have a signed Record of Decision (ROD).  Should the
         proposed response activities e "ail a substantive change frcr cha
         remedy specified in the ROD, C i Region must either amend the ROD  or
         publish an explanation of significant differences, whichever is
         appropriate, prior to commencir.; the cleanup.

     2)   Sufficient time and enforcement resources oust be allocated :o t.-.e
         extent feasible to conduct a potential responsible party (??J") search
         and obtain information about PRP's through Section 104(e) actions.
         Follow-up PRP Search activities should be conducted where necessary.
         If PRP's are identified during this process, the Region should send a
         notice letter, and, consistent with CERCLA Section 122(a) ar.d (e),
         issue special notice or advise the PRP that such procedures vill r.ot .
         be utilized.  If site exigencies require early response, the Region
         may chose to issue notice orally and follow up in writing.  Assuming
         that there is sufficient time, the Region should conclude Section 106
         negotiations with the PRP prior to initiation of any  response action.

     3)   These cases draw upon removal authorities, but are considered
         remedial actions.  Consequently, if the Region takes  an enfcrce-er.t
         action, it must utilize a consent decree or  issue a Unilateral
         Administrative Order.  If compliance is not  achieved  and tire  is
         critical (typical of many removals) the Region should take over the
         response and pursue cost recovery, seeking  treble damages and/or erne:
         penalties .

     •«)   All activities must be well documented  for  cost  recovery.

-------
      5)   A signed  State  Superfund Contract muse be obtained fron the State.
          prior  to  the  start  of  the  action, providing the Section 10i(c)
          assurances  for  cost sharing, operation and caintenance, off-site
          disposal  and, when  applicable, 20-year waste capacity.

      6)   The  proposed  response  action at  the site muse meet the National
          Contingency Plan  (NCP) criteria  for removal actions in section
          300.65.

      7)   All  proposed  response  activities must be described in a signed removal
          action memorandum.   If che response should exceed the statutory limits
          of 12 months  or $2  million, it will be necessary for the Region to
          prepare an  exemption request.  In the case wnere site costs are
          expected  to exceed  the $2 million limit, Headquarters approval must
          be obtained prior to commencing  the removal action.  These exemption
          requests  must be prepared as early as possible in the process.  Only
          Regional  approval is required for exemption requests where activities
          are  expected  to exceed the 12-month limit.

     8)   All  funding,  activity codes,  --ccount numbers, SCAP and CERCLIS data
          will use  remedial codes.  Thi.. will ensure that these activities are
          reported  on and tracked as remedial actions.  Funds will come fron
          the  remedial  portion of the Region's Advice of Allowance (ADA).  All
         'projected starts should be ent red into CERCLIS with their projected
          obligations data for the appro riate quarter of the fiscal year.

     9)   Cocnur.iry relations  requirement.; must be met and an administrative
          record must be established for :ach site.  The public cement period
          cust be observed in  accordance   *.th NCP requirements for both the
          remedial  ar.d  removal programs.

    10)   Generally at  the completion of t.-.is cleanup work, the srte should b«
          ready for deletion.  OSWER Directive 9320.2-3A procedures nust be
          followed  to delete  the site froa :he NPL.  When a sajor portion
          (significant  operable unit) of work is undertaken using these
          procedures  and the  site does not qualify for deletion, ur.usuai
          circumstances (e.g., emergency)  must preclude the use of remedial
          contracting mechanisms.

Future Plans

     The  remedial  program has two initiatives underway to provide the
contractual mechanisms and construction management systems needed to expedite
projects  within the  remedial  process and  authorities.  One  is  the Corps  of
Engineers new rapid  response  contracts used to expedite smaller pieces of soce
large site  cleanups  they manage.  The second is  the  subcontracting  provision
of the Alternative Remedial  Contracts Strategy  (ARCS).  ARCS will core
typically be used  for  smaller construction projects  such  as  those anticipated
for coverage under this policy.  With the inclusion  of experienced  engineering
and construction management  contractors in the ARCS  program, opportunities
open up for the use  of more  expeditious construction subcontracts for  some
sites with  plans for early initiation of  construction  based  on limited design.

-------
Alternatively, other subcontracting vehicles such as basic ordering agreements
and other methods of bidder prequalification might be used to reduce
procurement  lead time.  More guidance on the use of these mechanisms will be
issued.  It  is expected that as the Regions gain experience with the ARCS
program and  chese subcontracting mechanisms, the use of removal authorities and
prograa mechanisms Co speed up remedial projects will be phased out.


Ocher Considerations:

     If removal Authorities are going to be used, careful consideration must
be given to  the type of contract chat is selected for Che work.  Obtaining the
best price~~and maximizing competition are always major goals, as in using
competitive  contracting mechanisms to the maximum extent practicable.  The
Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERCS) contracts cay be the most
appropriate  vehicle where rapid response is necessary under emergency and time^
critical circumstances.  However, a Region should always consider using the
Prequalified Offerers Procurement Scracegy (PQOPS) or other site-specific
contracting  mechanisms.  This is especially true if the project is a non-
emergency situation where Che consist, r.cy waiver to the $2 million limit is
used.

     When use of alternative cechnolog ss is specified in che ROD, PQOPS
should be considered.  The use of this arrangement is nose appropriate when a
3  to 5 month lead time is available.  TMs procurement strategy is about to be
ispleaenced  for eobile incineracion.  : :OPS for other technologies will
follow.   When the lead time is approxic tely 4 monchs and PQOPS is unavail-
able,  use of sice-specific subcontracts -.aider che ERCS contracts may be
feasible.  This approach may be used on. •• where che prise contractor has r.ot
proposed rates for che sice's particular cleanup activity.  In addition, zany
Regions have Regional ERCS contracts wit  24 to 72 hour response tises which
=ay be core  cojt-effeccive Chan che Zone £RCS concracts.  In all cases, the
Region should keep in mind that achieving che maximua cocpecicion is a primary
goal of both che removal and remedial pro.-rams, caking inco account  the need
for rapid response and che nagnitude of cr.a risks posed.

      A final faccor Co consider is resoval concracts capacity.  Generally.
this policy  should noc be used to do expensive remedial work.   It is  ir.ter.iei
to help expedite delecion from che NPL of projeccs of sodesc scope.  This
approach cannot be used where che adequacy of removal contracts capacity  is
jeopardized.  Being able Co always prompcly and fully respond  to  che r.orzal
removal workload is a higher prioricy Chan doing che remedial  work  chat  is  the
subjecc of chis policy.

     In sussary. use of removal auchoricies or removal  (e.g.,  ERCS)  contracts
to take early accion ac NPL sices is an alcernacive  in cercain limited
sicuacions.   The sice muse meec che cricerla for a renoval  accion as well  as
fulfill all  che regular remedial requiremencs.  This scracegy  will  enable  the
Regions to complete cleanup ac cercain NPL sices  in  a more  expedicious and
efficient way and co scare che necessary delecion process.

-------
cc:   Superfund Branch Chiefs.  Regions I-X
     OHM Coordinators,  Regions I-X
     Henry Longesc,  OERR
     Bruce Diamond.^OWPE
     Tiaochy Fie Ids,"" ERD
     Russel'wyer.  HSCD
     Clem Rascacter.OPM
     Sally Mansbach.  OWPE
     Frank Russo.  OWPE
     Linda Boornazian.  OWPE
     Earl Sale.  OCC
   —tttrscen Engel,  OGC
     Karen Clark.  OCC
     Arthur Weissman,  0PM
     Betci Van Epps,  PAS
     Brxice Engelberc,  ERD
     John Riley. ERD
     Mark MJoness, ERD
     Linda Garczyriski,  EUD
     Dave O'Connor,  PCMD
     Sallyanne Harper,  PCMD
     Pat  Parzerson. PCMD

-------