. 2.-03
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 r~vr-,rM
r
Assistant Administrator
For the last four years we have had a policy which requires
the Regions to conduct formal biennial evaluations of NPL sites.
This was originally established because of a concern that some
NPL sites were being overlooked and could have conditions which
posed immediate threats to health or the environment. We have
now completed two complete cycles of the evaluations. During the
last one no new or unexpected concerns were identified. Conse-
quently, we have decided that a mandatory evaluation policy is no
longer necessary, though the Regions are still responsible for
having a process in place which is fully protective. The
attached directive revises the current policy.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Attachment
-------
U32
UI
0
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 2 5 1994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9200.2-03A
NTIS Number PB93-963357
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Evaluating Immediate Threats at NPL Sites
Elliott P. Laws
Assistant Administrator
Director, Waste Mangement 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 revise the requirement
for biennial reviews of possible threats posed by National
Priorities List (NPL) sites.
BACKGROUND
OSWER Directive 9200.2-03 established a requirement that
Regions evaluate each NPL site at least once every two years to
make sure that there is no immediate threat to public health or
the environment. This step was taken to eliminate the possibili-
ty that potentially serious problems at sites with no active
response were being overlooked. The Regions have now been
through two complete cycles of the evaluation process. During
the last one, no new, unexpected concerns or threats were identi-
fied.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
OBJECTIVE
To reduce work not having a significant impact while contin-
uing to protect the public and the environment from unreasonable
risks posed by NPL sites.
IMPLEMENTATION
Effective January 1, 1994, Regions no longer have to conduct
biennial evaluations of every NPL site. Regions are still
responsible for seeing that no NPL site deteriorates to the point
that an immediate threat is posed, and promptly responding if a
problem is identified. This will require good program coordi-
nation of the kind that the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM) approach is intended to provide. It is desirable that a
routine part of every Region's efforts, through its Regional
Decision Team or other appropriate mechanism, should be some
periodic review of all NPL sites to determine if response priori-
ties are correct and to see if there are opportunities for early
action. The requirement remains that each newly proposed NPL
site receive a documented review and assessment within three
months of the date of proposal.
cc: Henry Longest
Bruce Diamond
Tim Fields
OERR Division Directors
Lisa Friedman
Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
Removal Managers, Regions I - X
-------
|