SIMM
3EPA
Send WMt« «
-------
Wunmgten. OC 20400
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
9360.0-18
2. OrlBlnitef m
Confimis general policy regarding removal program priorities.
suparfurti.COCA,SARA
rma aracov* SUOVMO* rrvnous utr*av««i ^
UN- U'-
0. Oott It Suepl*fn«nt Pr«vwus 0«cti»«<»)T [™""| i i
I |NO I |Y"
a A - SgnM By AAA3AA F I 8 - Sgn«d fty O«e« Oirtoar C-Forft«v*w ACarwncnt I 1 0 -
u—I I—J L__I
• m OoaooiT.
8. Oocumtnt to b« dittributtd to Stat«« by Htadquarttrs? I I "• LJ
Thi« ^•au««t M««u OSWgH Olracavo 8y«um
9. S^n«tu/« ei Una Offic* OirtcovM
Hvde
0«M
3/31/88
10.
J. Winston Porter 3/31/88
F«rm 1315-17 (M«v. S-47) Prwioua «crtjon» v* oosotx*
OSWER OSWER OSWER C
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 3 I (era
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Removal ProgramJViorities
'
FROM:
TO:
ATTN:
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive No. 9360.0-18
J. wtnstoir Porter
Assistant Administrator
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Director, Waste Management Division, Regions I, IV, V,
VII, VIII
Director, Emergency A Remedial Response Division, Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Regions III,
VI
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division, Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division, Regions I, VI, VII
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to confirm general policy regarding
removal program priorities.
BACKGROUND
The enactment of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) and other recent developments have expanded the potential scope
of the removal program. Removal resource levels, however, require us to set
priorities for the removal program, which address health and environmental
threats to the maximum extent possible within the confines of our resource
limitations. Funding levels and SCAP targets for FY 88 were contained in a
memorandum of August 31, 1987, entitled Final 1987 SCAP, from Henry L. Longest
and Gene Lucero to the Regions.
The national extramural cleanup budget for removals in FY 88 is about
$90 million: this will fund approximately 190 removal actions. All of the
S90 million is being distributed to the Regions; Headquarters is not keeping
any contingency reserve. The rate of removal obligations in the first and
second quarters of FY 88 suggests that there may not be enough removal funds
to last through the entire year If the current pace of program activity is
continued. Each Region is responsible for planning and conducting a removal
program consistent with Its annual resource allocation.
-------
-2-
REMOVAL PRIORITY POLICY
Removal resources must be used to address the most serious public health
and environmental threats. In all cases, Regions should aggressively pursue
cleanup by the responsible party (RP), if time permits, before initiating any
Fund-lead removals. Top priority for removal resources should be given to
time-critical actions as follows-
0 Classic emergencies involving incidents (e.g., threats of
fire or explosion) where response is generally necessary
within a matter of hours.
0 Time-critical removals at sites on the National Priorities
List (NPL). Regions should always give due consideration to
the fact that removals at NPL sites may result in a loss of
the 10 percent State cost-share; and
0 Time-critical removals at non-NPL sites posing major health
and environmental threats, which cannot be addressed by other
authorities.
These three categories of time-critical removals should be the primary focus
for the S90 million allocated to the removal program for cleanup contractor
support.
As resources permit, there are other non-time-critical removals at NPL
sites which we may be able to conduct. These removals will usually be at
sites already funded in the remedial SCAP to:
0 Completely cleanup NPL sites, resulting in deletion; or
0 Conduct interim actions at MPL sites.
Generally, WP intend to use remedial funds to pay for non-time-critical
actions at MPL sites. The principal source of these remedial funds will be
proceeds from RP settlements and funds allocated for remedial projects in the
SCAP. My staff is examining ways to create additional funding flexibility
in the Superfund SCAP and budget processes to facilitate this new direction.
Regions should strive to maintain consistency with remedial actions, but
actions taken should remain within the scope of a removal. Stabilization at
NPL sites is usually the most appropriate removal action, unless complete
cleanup can be done within the Region's resource allocation.
States should be strongly encouraged to conduct non-time-critical removals
at sites which will not score high enough to be on the NPL. Preference should
be given to response alternatives which contain and control the source of
contamination and prevent off-site migration. Removal personnel should also
continue to provide full cooperation with the enforcement program in pursuing
potential RP cleanup at these sites.
-------
-3-
OTHER RESPONSE MECHANISMS
Regions should actively pursue response by States and potential
responsible parties (PRPs). Enforcement authorities should be vigorously
applied to encourage PRP response. This means conducting a complete PRP
search, issuing general notices or special notice letters (if time permits),
negotiating with PRPs, and using administrative orders on consent to formalize
settlements. Unilateral administrative orders should be considered in every
case where voluntary settlement is not achieved.
Regions should also pursue response under other authorities, and give
priority to those incidents posing threats which can only be addressed by
Federal removal authority. For example, installation of new water supply
systems should generally be a State or local responsibility. The new drink-
ing water action levels are only one of many site-specific factors to be
considered in deciding whether Federally-funded removal action is appropriate.
More specific guidance in this area is under development. In the interim,
Regions should contact the appropriate Regional coordinator in the Emergency
Response Division whenever there are questions about removal priorities.
CONCLUSION
The importance of managing the removal program within the boundaries
of its resources cannot be overemphasized. We have provided these national
guidelines on remova"! priorities tn assist Regions in this effort; however,
Regions maintain the discretion to conduct other types of removals within
program authorities, if site-specific conditions necessitate such action and
if Regional resource levels permit. We recognize that the intrinsic nature
of the removal program is such that even with the most careful planning,
unanticipated events may occur.
I hope this memorandum is helpful as we all attempt to use our Superfund
resources to address the most significant environmental priorities.
!
cc: Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Oil and Hazardous Materials Coordinators, Regions I-X
Jack MeGraw
Henry Longest
Gene Lucero
Tim Fields
Paul Nadeau
Lloyd Guerci'
-------
REDELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO
EXERCISE CONCURRENCE, TO CONSULT
OR TO RECEIVE NOTICE
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)
R-14-35. List of Hazardous Substances and Toxlcologlcal Profiles
1. AUTHORITY. To consult with Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and
Toxic Substances or delegatee when preparing or revising the list of
hazardous substances and when developing guidelines for the development of
toxicological profiles for such substances under Delegation 14-35.
2. DESIGNEE. The Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
3. REDELBGATION AUTHORITY. This authority may be redelegated.
4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. Sections 104(i)(2) and (3) of CERCLA.
b. Delegation 14-35, "List of Hazardous Substances and Toxicological
Profiles."
*[Note that CERCLA section 104(j) is printed in the middle of Section
104(i). Sections 104(i)(2) and (3) can be tound on pages 24-25 of
Senate Print 99-217, "The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund) (P.L. 96-510), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(P.L. 99-499)," December 1986.]
-------
REDELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO
EXERCISE CONCURRENCE, TO CONSULT
OR TO RECEIVE NOTICE
THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)
R-14-36. Lead Contaminated Soil
1. AUTHORITY. To exercise concurrence in advance of Regional Administrators'
award of grants or cooperative agreement to a State, local government, or
other recipient to carry out a pilot program for removal, decontamination,
or other action with respect to lead-contaminated soil.
2. DESIGNEE. The Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR). .
3. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY. This authority may be redelegated to the Division
Director level.
4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. Section 111(a) of CERCLA.
b. Delegation 14-36, "Lead Contaminated Soil."
c. 40 CFR 30 and 40 CFR 33, EPA grant regulations.
-------
REDELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO
EXERCISE CONCURRENCE, TO CONSULT
OR TO RECEIVE NOTICE
SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZE ION ACT (SARA)
R-14-38. EPA Role in Department of Defense Environmental
. Restoration Program
1. AUTHORITY. To consult with the Assistant Administrator for Research
and Development or delegatee when consultation is provided to the Secretary
of Defense to carry out a program of research, development and demonstration
with respect to hazardous wastes.
2. DESIGNEE. The Director of the Office of Program Management and
Technology.
3. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY. This authority may be redelegated.
4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES. .
a. Section 211 of SARA.
b. Delegation 14-38, "EPA Role in Department of Defense Environmental
Restoration Program."
c. Title 10, United States Code, Chapter 160, Sections 2701, 2702,
2704, and 2705 ("Armed Forces, Environmental Restoration").
-------
REDEL83ATION OF AUTHORITY TO
EXERCISE CONCURRENCE, TO CONSULi
OR TO RECEIVE NOTICE
TITLE III OF THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT
(TITLE III Of SARA)
"Emergency Planning and Connunity Right to Know Act"
R-22-1. Civil Judicial Enforcement Actions
1. AUTHORITY. To receive notice from the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (AA/OECM) or delegatee when the Attorney
General is requested to appear and represent the Agency in any civil enforce-
ment action or to intervene in any civil enforcement action pursuant to Title
III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA); to receive
notice frcm the AA/OECM when the Attorney General is requested to decline
to prosecute a previously referred civil enforcement action, and when the
Attorney General is requested to initiate an appeal and represent the Agency
in such an appeal.
2. DESIGNEE. The Director of the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement.
3. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY. This authority may be redelegated.
4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
a. Title III of SARA, Section 325.'
b. Delegation 22-1, "Civil Judicial Enforcement Action."
-------
REDELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO
EXERCISE CONCURRENCE, TO CONSUL!
OR TO RECEIVE NOTICE
TITLE III OF THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT
(TITLE III of SARA)
"Emergency Planning and Cairo-unity Right to Know Act"
R-22-3. Administrative Enforcement Actions
1. AUTHORITY. To consult with Regional Administrators in advance of
their exercising administrative enforcement authority under SARA Title III,
Sections 302, 303, 304, 311, 312, 322, and 323; and to waive such advance
consultation by memorandum.
2. DESIGNEE. The Director of the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement.
3. REDELBGATION AUTHORITY. This authority may be redelegated.
4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES. -
a. Title III SARA, Section 325.
b. Delegation 22-3, "Administrative Enforcement Actions."
------- |