vv EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 936o.o-i3
Guidance on Implementation of the "Contribute to
Remedial Performance" Provision
APPROVAL DATE: April 6
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
0 FINAL
1987
1987
of Solid Waste
D DRAFT
STATUS:
[ ] A- Pending OMB approval
{ j B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
[ ] C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- .In development or circulating
headquarters
REFERENCE (other documents):
OS WER OS WER OS WER
/£ DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Di
-------
^
OtPA
United Slates Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Reauest
1. Directive Number
9360.0-13
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Jean Schumann
Mail Code
WH-548/B
Office
OSWER, OERR, ERD
Telephone Number
382-2190
3. Title
Guidance on Implementation of the "Contribute to Remedial Performance"
Provision
4. Summary of Directive (Include brief statement of purpose) '
'•:-,,..-••• •..••„,:.". •;/ >y ."'• liB'V_ • i • • ' ,
Provides guidance to Regions on implementation of the SARA provision that requires
removal actions to contribute to the efficient performance of long-term remedial
actions. ' : •' ••• • - -,' -• 4 . , • : .' : • ., .
Keywords.
Superfund, CERCLA, SARA, Removal Action, Contribute to Remedial Performance
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directives)? j_ Yes
No What directive (number, title)
Does It Supplement Previous Directives)? Q Yes Q No What Directive (number, title)
Implementation Strategy for Reauthorized Superfund: Short Term Priorities for Action
Draft Level
Q A — Signed by AA/DAA
O 8 - Si
Signed by Off ice Director
D C -
For Review 4 Comment
D
In Development
his Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Signatur
Office Direct
Date
Name and Title of Approving Oftifial
J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator/OSWER
DSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWER Directive 9360.0-13
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
"CONTRIBUTE TO REMEDIAL PERFORMANCE" PROVISION
1. -INTRODUCTION
Section 104(b) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthonzatlon Act of
1986 (SARA) amends section 104(a) of CERCLA to Include the statement that any
removal action undertaken by the President, or by any other person referred to
1n section 122* of the new law, should, to the extent practicable, contribute
to the efficient performance of any long-term remedial action with respect to
the release or threatened release concerned. This guidance document explains
how to Implement this provision, and Includes guidelines on the applicability
of the requirements, the definition of "contribute to efficient performance,"
exceptions, documentation and coordination. This document should be used in
conjunction with the general removal procedures described 1n the Superfund
Removal Procedures — Revision Number Two, August 20, 1984, or, as may be
amended.
2. APPLICABILITY
This provision will be applicable to removal actions at all sites —
final National Priorities List (NPL), proposed NPL, and non-NPL. The term
"long-term remedial action" as used in this provision will therefore refer
to a remedial action to be taken by the EPA, State, or a private party.
3. DEFINITION OF "CONTRIBUTE TO EFFICIENT PERFORMANCE"
3*.! Purpose ' •
This provision promotes the performance of removal actions that address
threats more efficiently by considering the overall site cleanup before the
start of the action. To the maximum extent practicable, removal actions
should be designed to avoid wasteful, repetitive, short-term actions that do
not contribute to the efficient, cost-effective performance of long-term
remedial actions to be taken by the EPA, State, or other party. The major
objective of this requirement is to provide maximum orotection of public
health and the environment at minimal cost by avoidance of removal restarts.
The focus of this provision 1s on avoidance of restarts that are due to recur-
ring threats that were not adequately abated 1n the original removal action,
and threats from deteriorating site conditions that should have been foreseen.
There are other circumstances, however, where removal restarts may be
necessary to meet program goals. For example, a removal action may be a phased
response. The first removal action might involve site stabilization and waste
*Sect1on 122 refers to potentially responsible parties (PRPs) who have entered
Into settlements with EPA.
-------
-2- OSWER Directive 9360.0-13
I
characterization. The site may then be demobilized and closed out to allow
removal personnel to prepare an analysis of waste treatment/disposal options.
Once an option 1s selected, a removal restart would be implemented to complete
the waste disposition phase. In this case, the removal restart would actually
contribute to achieving a more efficient cleanup. Removal restarts may also
occur 1n an attempt to meet other program goals, such as pursuing responsible
party (RP) cleanups or State assumption of removal action operation and main-
tenance requirements. An RP may take over a removal action from EPA, but EPA
may have to Initiate a restart 1f the RP 1s not performing an adequate cleanup.
The "contribute to efficient performance" provision was not intended to conflict
with these other program goals. As stated above, the provision was Intended
to reduce removal restarts due to inadequate planning at the start of the
action.
3.2 Implementation
To meet the goal of avoiding removal restarts, response personnel must
adequately assess the threats posed by the hazardous substances on a site and
consider how the removal action would most effectively contribute to the long-
term remedy. The following questions should be considered:
1. What 1s the long-term cleanup plan for the site?
This provision requires removal actions to contribute to the
performance of the "long-term remedial action." At an NPL. site,
if the Record of Decision has already been signed, then comparing
the removal action to the remedial cleanup plan is a straight-.
. forward task. However, for proposed NPL sites and for many final
NPL sites, the remedial action may not have been selected when the
removal action is implemented. In these cases, response personnel
. . will be limited to Identifying a range of feasible remedial
alternatives. Response personnel need only review existing site
information and use their best professional judgment. Removal and
remedial personnel in the Region must coordinate with each other in
this effort. It is the responsibility of the Region to establish
appropriate coordination mechanisms.
At non-NPL sites, response personnel should, where practicable,
consult with the party performing the long-term response action at
the site (e.g., State, RP) to determine the proposed approach for
the long-term cleanup. It is recognized that it may be more difficult
to ascertain the remedial action at non-NPL sites. Response personnel
should use their best efforts to coordinate with the party performing
the long-term remedy. At many non-NPL sites, there may be no plans
for another party to conduct a remedial action.
2. Which threats will require attention prior to the start of the
long-term action?
The February, 1986 National Contingency Plan (NCP) broadened
removal authority by allowing removal actions to be taken in response
to "threats" rather than just "immediate and significant" threats.
-------
-3- OSWER Directive 9360.0-13
This expanded authority will allow a removal action to address any
near-term threats that may arise prior to the start of the long-term
action, provided the threats meet the removal criteria established in
section 300.65 of the current NCR. Potential threats should be identi-
fied when the first removal action at a site 1s Implemented to avoid
the need for future removal, restarts. Therefore, in addition to
Identifying Immediate threats, response personnel should also identify
potential near-term threats from contaminant migration, deteriorating
site conditions, etc. This assessment 1s particularly Important if a
decision 1s made to leave surface hazardous substances on site after
the removal action is completed.
Response personnel must identify threats that may arise prior to
the start of long-term actions, but the length of time before long-
term actions will begin will vary from site to site. For example, for
NPL sites where a ROD has been signed, the time frame that response
personnel must consider will be shorter than for NPL sites where the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) has just been
Initiated. Of course, at some NPL sites, the remedial program may
plan to conduct an operable unit during the RI/FS 1f time permits.
In this case, the time period to consider would again be shorter.
Response personnel should consult with the party performing long-
term action at the site to determine when such action will begin,
and use their best professional judgment.
At non-NPL sites where there are no plans for another party to
undertake a long-term cleanup, all threats and potential threats that
meet the removal criteria in the current NCP should be identified.
3. How far should the removal action go to assure that the threats are
adequately abated?
The expanded authority in the 1986 NCP will allow more complete
removal actions to to be taken. Removal actions no longer have to
stop when emergency situations are mitigated, but can continue, or be
Initiated, where needed to ensure that near-term threats are adequately
abated. Measures that provide only temporary protection, insufficient
to last until long-term actions begin, should be avoided to the extent
possible. However, as noted above, consideration must also be given to
the availability of other response mechanisms (e.g., State action,
remedial operable unit) to Initiate long-term action in a timely manner.
Whether or not the removal action should address all surface
hazardous substances must be decided on a slte-by-slte basis.
A removal action would be appropriate whenever surface hazardous
substances may present a threat (as established in section 300.65 of
the current NCP) before the start of long-term action. How the
removal(action should address the surface hazardous substances will
also depend on site-specific conditions and the long-term cleanup plan.
With the increased emphasis on using alternative technologies and new
restrictions on land disposal, remedial actions may often include on-
site treatment 1f surface contamination is extensive. In this case,
the removal action may consist of consolidating and stabilizing the
-------
-4- OSWER Directive 9360.0-13
substances on site to await treatment. It is important to design the
removal action to ensure that the materials are adequately stabilized.
At other sites, surface hazardous substances may constitute only a
small part of the problem; may not be safely stabilized for a long
period of time; or may be more efficiently addressed as one unit by
Immediate treatment or disposal. In these situations, it may be more
appropriate for a removal action to Include final disposition of all
surface hazardous substances. The conditions at the site and the long-
term cleanup plan will determine the appropriate scope of the removal
response.
At non-NPL sites where there are no plans for another party to
perform long-term remedial action, the threats that meet the removal
criteria 1n the current NCR should be completely cleaned up, if possible.
The avoidance of removal restarts due to recurring threats 1s the ultimate
goal. If mitigation of the threats that meet the NCR removal criteria
results in complete site cleanup (I.e., no further Federal response
required), the "contribute to efficient performance" provision is fully
satisfied.
In considering all of the factors described above, the major
determinant of how far the removal action should go to assure threats
are adequately abated will be the statutory limits on removal actions*
Removal actions should contribute to the efficient performance of
remedial actions to the maximum extent practicable given the $2 million/
12 month limits on removal actions. (An exemption to the limits may
be granted where the site qualifies under the "emergency" or
"consistency" waivers.)
With regard to cleanup standards, this provision does not compel
the removal program to lower its cleanup standards. Rather, the pur-
pose of this provision is to improve the design of removal actions
such that after cleanup standards are established for a removal site,
the chosen removal action will address those substances targeted for
cleanup in a manner that avoids the need for removal restarts.
For example, the removal program has historically used 50 ppm as a
benchmark in determining the appropriate extent of cleanup of PCB-
contaminated soil. The "contribute to efficient performance"
provision would hot affect this number, but would direct that the
method chosen to address soil contaminated above 50 ppm should be
designed to avoid the need for removal restarts to the extent
practicable.
4. Is the proposed removal action consistent with the long-term remedy?
The removal action that is chosen should be consistent with
long-term actions at those sites where further cleanup will be taken.
"Consistent" 1s defined 1n its broadest sense and may be characterized
as a range of possible approaches. At one end of the spectrum, removal
actions may be found consistent 1f they do not hinder or interfere"with
the remedial action to be taken. At the other end of the spectrum, removal
actions may be found consistent because they contribute in a positive way
-------
-5- OSWER Directive 9360.0-13
to the long-term cleanup plan. For example, a removal action to
provide carbon filters to homes with contaminated drinking water as
an Interim measure would not Interfere with a long-term remedial plan
to clean up the contaminated aquifer. A removal action to solidify
sludge could, however, hinder a long-term plan to Incinerate the waste
and should, therefore, be avoided 1f other approaches are feasible.
A removal action to remove surface drums from a landfill could contribute
In a positive way to a remedial plan to clean up the site.
Removal actions may be found consistent If they fall anywhere within
this range; the most appropriate approach will depend on site-specific
factors. It Is recognized that 1n some cases, the removal action may
create additional work for the remedial action and yet still be the most
appropriate approach for the site. For example, a common removal action
Is capping contaminated soil to prevent migration and human contact 1n
the time period before remedial actions begin. Although the cap would
have to be removed to Implement a long-term plan to excavate and treat
the soil, It may still be the most effective method to mitigate the threat
In the short-term. Protection of public health and the environment, as
well as technical feasibility, must always be considered. If such an
action Is selected, the rationale for selection should be explained In the
Action Memorandum. (See Section 5.)
The answers to these four questions will help determine what type of
removal action Is needed and how 1t can be designed to contribute to the
efficient performance of long-term remedial actions. These questions are
provided as general guidelines to indicate the various factors that should
be considered In Implementing this provision of SARA. A written analysis of
the answers to each of these questions Is not required. The conclusions
should be documented In the Action Memorandum. (See Section 37J
4. EXCEPTION
The only situation where 1t may not be feasible to consider how the
proposed removal action relates to the long-term remedy Is In an emergency.
In such cases, response personnel may need to take whatever immediate
measures are required to protect the public health, welfare, and the
environment.
5. DOCUMENTATION AND COORDINATION
The Action Memorandum should specifically cite the "contribute to
efficient performance" requirement and briefly discuss how the proposed
removal action relates to long-term remedial actions, to the extent
practicable. (See the Superfund Removal Procedures for Information on the
preparation of Action Memoranda.) If the proposed removal action completes
the cleanup and no further action 1s required, this should be so noted. If
only minimal Information 1s available about long-term actions, this should
also be explained. If an emergency existed that precluded an analysis of how
the removal related to long-term actions, this should be noted. Finally, If
compliance with this provision would conflict with other program goals (e.g.,
pursuit of RP cleanup), this shoud be explained.
-------
-6- OSWER Directive 9360o-13
Compliance with this requirement does not require special approval; the
Action Memorandum should be approved by the established concurrence chain In
the Region or 1n Headquarters, 1f appropriate. In making the determination,
however, it will be the responsibility of the OSC to coordinate with the party
that will undertake the long-term remedy (for those sites where additional
cleanup measures will be taken).-
------- |