United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
3 EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: ,355.7-02
I I Lt. Structure and Components of Five-Year Reviews
23
05/JX/91
33
05/0T/91
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
H FINAL
D DRAFT
LEVEL OF DRAFT
fj A — Signed by AA or DAA
[] B — Signed by Office Director
O C — Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
,1£0 S~"J':
v'" ~..
"'ft'i
\~)
~~( ~c.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAY 2 3 1991 .
OFFICE OF
SOl.IO WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directiv.e 9355.7-02
MEMORANDUM
TO:
structure and componen~s of Fiwe lr Reviews
Henry L. Longest II, D~rector
Office of Emergency and Remedi ( ponse
ADDRESSEES
SUBJECT:
FROM:
I.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Directive is to provide guidance for
planning and conducting five-year reviews.' The Directive.
focuses primarily on the implementation of five-year reviews and
the issues associated with implementation. These include:
triggering points for reviews, responsibilities and funding,
content, and results of reviews. The goal of the Directive is to
assure that reviews are implemented in a consistent manner
nationally, with appropriate consideration of local concerns and
widely varying site conditions.
II.
BACKGROUND
The Directive provides guidance on periodic reviews EPA
plans to implement consistent with section 121(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), as amended, and section 300.430(f) (4) (ii) of the
National' contingency Plan (hereinafter referred to as "Statutory
Reviews"). The Directive also governs five-year reviews EPA
plans to implement as a matter of policy ("Policy Reviews") .
This Directive includes two attachments: (1) an explanation of
, The policies set forth in this Directive are intended solely
as guida~1ce. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon,
to craate any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with
the United States. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance
provided in this Directive, or to act at variance with the
directive, on the basis of an analysis of specific circumstances.
. The Agency also reserves the right to change this Directive at any
time without public notice.
@ Printed on Recycled Pc.
;)
-------
- 2 -
the five-year review policy, and (2) a matrix which outlines the
components of a five-year review.
III.
IMPLEMENTATION
A. Purpose of Reviews
Pive-year reviews are intended to evaluate whether the response
action remains protective of public health and the environment.
The focus of the five-year review will depend on the
original goal of the response action. If protectiveness is being
assured through exposure protection (e.g., containment with a
cap) and institutional controls, the review should focus on
whether the cap remains effective and the controls remain in
place. For a Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA) (i.e., an ongoing
remedial action which has not yet achieved the cleanup standards
set in the record of decision (ROD)), the review should focus on
both the effectiveness of the technology, and on the specific
performance levels established in the ROD (e.g., performance of
an extraction and treatment system for groundwater).
B. sites at which Reviews will be Conducted
IPA will conduct a statutory Review of any site at which a post-
SARA remedy, upon attainment of the ROD cleanup levels, will notl
allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure; and a Policy
Revie. of (1) sites where no halardous substances will remain
above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure
after completion of the remedial action, but the cleanup levels
specified in the ROD will require five or more years to attain
(e.g., LTRA sites); and (2) sites addressed pre-SARA at which the
remedy, upon attainment of the ROD cleanup levels, will not allow
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. In addition, IPA will
examine previously deleted sites, as a matter of policy, to
determine the appropriatenes. of five-year reviews.
C.
Timing of Reviews
statutory (lve-year reviews are required no less often than each
five year. after the initiation of the remedial action.
D.
Termination of Reviews
IPAmay terainate statutory five-yea~ reviews when no halardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the site above
levels that allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure.
E.
Responsibilities for Conduct of Reviews
IPA will retain final review and approval authority for five-ye~.
review.. Bowever, through contracts and/or other agreements, E~
3
-------
- 3 -
review.. Bowever, throuqh contracts and/or other aqreements, EPA
may authori.e other parties to perform portions of the reviews
(e.q., studie., investiqation and analysis) and identify
alternative. to assure protection of human health and the
environment.
F.
Funding of Reviews
pive-year reviews are response actions selected under section
121, and a. .uch, expenditure. for review activities are
authorized use. of the Pund under CERCLA section 111(a).
G.
Public participation
EPA will inform the public when it determines that either a
statutory or policy five-year review is appropriate" describe the
planned scope of such reviews, identify the location of the
report on the review (see section V below), and describe actions
taken based on any review.
H.
Level of Review
EPA contemplates that a Level I analysis will be appropriate in
all but a relatively few cases where site-specific circumstances
suqqest another level either at the outset of the review, or if
findinqs durinq the course of the review indicate the-need for
further analysis. (See Attachment I for a description of the
levels of review.) ,
IV.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW MATRIX
EPA has developed the attached five-year review matrix to
explain the activities that should be considered in determining
the scope of reviews proposed, in future RODs and in developing
work plans for five-year reviews. Additionally, the matrix may
be useful in explaining the scope, structure and available
components of five-year reviews to the public.
V.
REPORTS ON FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS
EPA vill develop and issue a report on each review conducted
pursuant to this Directive. OERR will issue additional guidance
on the fora and substance of such reports later this year.
VI.
CONDUCT OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS
This policy is effective immediately. Regions should
initiate their development of work plans and proceed with reviews
to assure completion within five years of initiation of the
remedial action. OERR will issue more detailed supplementary
guidance on five-year review model work plans, agreements, and
sa~ple reports later this year.
~
-------
- 4 -
Questions regarding this Directive should be directed to
Bill Ross (FTS 398-8335) of my staff.
ATTACHMENTS
ADDRESSEES
Directors, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Directors, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
cc:
Regional Superfund Branch Chiefs
Offices of Regional Counsel - Regional Branch .Chiefs
Bruce Diamond, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Earl Salo, Office of General Counsel
William White, Office of Enforcement
Gordon Davidson, Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
~
o
-------
ATTACHMENT I
EXPLANATION OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEW POLICY
I. PURPOSE
This Directive establishes a "Five-Year Review Level of
Effort Matrix" that is recommended for use by EPA Regional
personnel and other officials responsible for such reviews. The
matrix sets forth a three-tier, flexible approach to five-year
reviews to accommodate varied circumstances and site conditions.
The Matrix sets forth the structure and the range of components
for reviews and establishes a minimum level of review (i.e.,
Level I) to evaluate whether remedies remain protective of human
health and the environment.
As described below, EPA will determine the level of each
review based on site-specific considerations, including the
nature of the response action, the status of on-site response
activities, proximity to populated areas and sensitive
environmental areas, and the interval since the last review was
conducted.
II.
BACKGROUND
section 121(c} of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, provides
that: .
If the President selects a remedial action that results in
any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remaining at the site, the President shall review such
remedial action no less often than each five years after the
initiation of such remedial action to assure that human
health and the environment are being protected by the
remedial action being implemented.
Section 300.430(f) (4) (ii) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
states that:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unr..tricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such
action no less often than every five years after initiation
of the selected remedial action.
For purposes of this Dire~tive, five-year reviews that EPA
plans to implement consistent with CERCLA section 121(c} and the
NCP are referred to as "Statutory Reviews." Such reviews will be
conducted at least every five years or until contaminant levels
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The Directive
also refers to "Policy Reviews," which are five-year reviews that
the Agency believes should be conducted, as a matter of policy,
,
-------
- 2 -
although they are not required by CERCLA section 121(c). While
most policy Reviews are of remedies selected prior to the
enactment of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA), some are of post-SARA remedies (e.g., response
actions where upon completion of the remedial action, no
hazardous substances will remain, but five or more years are
required to reach that point).
Consistent with the NCP, Statutory Reviews are conducted of
sites at which hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure following completion of all remedial action.
Consequently, EPA will ensure that all remedies requiring any
engineering controls, or access or land-use restrictions or
controls are reviewed, including remedies that attai~ protective
levels for the current use, but which include restrictions on
activities due to limits on possible future exposure. For
purposes of implementing five-year reviews, EPA shall primarily
consider "hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants" that
are identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) as "contaminants
of concern."
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect the site's
potential need for a five-year review. For information on the
relationship between five-year reviews and the deletion of site~
from the NPL, consult OSWER Directive No. 9320.2-3 ("Procedures ~
for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites") .
.III.
IMPLEMENTATION
A. Purpose of Reviews
Pive-year review. are intende~ to evaluate whether the response
action remains protective of pUblic health and the environment.
The more specific purpose of the reviews is two-fold: (1) to
confirm that the remedy as spelled out in the ROD and/or remedial
design remains effective at protecting human health and the
environment (e.g., the remedy is operating and functioning as
designed, in8titutional controls are in place and are
protective), and (2) to evaluate whether original cleanup levels
remain protective of human health and the environment.
The focus of the five-year review will depend on the
oriqinal goal of the response action. If protectiveness is being
assured through exposure protection (e.g., containment with a
cap) and institutional controls, the review should focus on
whether the cap remains effective and the controls remain in
place and are sufficient to assure protection. For a Long-term
Remedial Action (LTRA) (i.e., an on-going remedial action which
has not yet achieved the cleanup standards set in the ROD), the~
review should focus on both the effectiveness of the technology~
1
-------
- 3 -
and on the specific performance levels established in the ROD
(e.g., performance of an extraction and. treatment system for
groundwater).
The first purpose of a five-year review may be accomplished
primarily through a review of documented operation and
maintenance of the site, a site visit and limited analysis of
site conditions. The second purpose requires an analysis of
newly promulgated or modified requirements of Federal and State
environmental laws to determine if they are applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and to determine if
they call into question the protectiveness of the remedy. NCP
section 300.430{f) (l) (ii) (B) (1). For example, a new Federal or
State maximum contaminant level (MCL) may be promulgated at a
mors stringent level calling into question the protectiveness of
a groundwater cleanup at the former MCL. The State should be
requested to identify state ARARs promulgated or modified since
ROD signature which may have a bearing on the protectiveness of
the remedy.
In exceptional cases, reviews may also consider whether
ARARs for substances not addressed under contaminants of concern
have changed such that the remedy is no longer protective. 'The
review may also consider pending changes in zoning or land-uses
that would undermine institutional controls established as a part
of the remedy. If appropriate, EPA would notify the local
government that the proposed change would compromise the
protectiveness of the remedy.
A further objective of the five-year review is to consider
the scope of operation and maintenance (O&M), the frequency of
repairs, changes in monitoring indicators, costs at a site, and
how this relates to protectiveness. If O&M activities either
grow unexpectedly over time or are simply much greater than had
been estimated at the time of remedy selection, the reviewer
should analyze O&M activities and cost increases in an effort to
determine if such increases are an early indicator of
deterioration of the remedy. Rising efforts or costs may
indicate that excessive attention or activity is required to
ensure that a remedy functions properly. This might be due to
the deterioration or inefficiency of the remedy. In this case,
repair or further actions may be necessary to protect against a
higher than acceptable potential for remedy failure. Based on
such an analysis, EPA, in cons\~ltation with the state, would
consider whether further actions should be taken to reduce
increasing O&M activities. As appropriate, potentially'
responsible parties may also propose additional response actions
to reduce O&M activities or contain rising O&M costs.
B. Sites at which Reviews will be Conducted
B~A will conduct a Statutory Review of any site at which a post-
1
-------
- 4 -
SARA r...dy, UpOD attaimaeDt of the ROD cl.anup levels, vill not
allov unltait.d u.. and uDrestricted expo.ure, and a policy
Reviev of (1) .ite. vhere no hazardous substance. vill remain
above .level. that allow unlimited u.. and unrestricted exposure
after completioD of the reaedial actioD, but the cleaDup levels
specified iD the ROD vill require five or more years to attain
(e.g., LTRA .ite.), and (2) site. addres.ed pre-SARA a~ which the
remedy, UpOD attaimaeDt of the ROD cleanup levels, vill not allow
unlimited u.. and unrestricted exposure. In addition, EPA will
examin. previously deleted site., a. a matter of policy, to
determine the appropriateness of five-year revievs.
A statutory five-year review will be conducted of remedies
selected, after the passage of SARA, that "result" in any
hazardous substances remaining at the site above levels for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Thus, such reviews are
required only of remedies that UDon attainment of the cleanup
goals will result in a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant remaining at a site above levels that allow unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure. Accordingly, even if a period of
30 years is required to attain such levels, and assuming that the
cleanup goals will be. met, a five-year review is not required~y
EPA's interpretation of the statute.
However, EPA acknowledges that especially for long-term
remedial actions, there is a potential that remediation goals of
unlimited exposure will not be attained.. Therefore, EPA has
determined, as a matter of policy, that policy reviews should be
conducted of any ongoing remedial action which will not allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure within five years of
initiation of the remedial action (sites where hazardous
substances will remain above these levels for five years or
longer). EPA will also conduct policy reviews of sites for which
the remedy was selected prior to the passage of SARA and that
remedy results in any hazardous substances remaining at the site
above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
Also as a matter of policy, EPA will examine previously
deleted sit.s concerning the appropriateness of five-year reviews
at those sites which were not cleaned to levels that allow
unlimited ua8 and unrestricted exposure.
c.
Timing of Reviews
statutory five-year review. are required no le.. often ~han each
five year. after the initiation of the reaedial action.
Statutory reviews should be commenced in sufficient time to
assure completion of the review within 5 years of initiation of
the remedial action (i.e., award of the contract for remedial
action). Initiation of the first remedial action will trigger a,
five-year review. In the event that EPA selects an interim
Cj
-------
- 5 -
remedy, such as the provision of alternative water supplies,
ground water plume control, or temporary source containment
measures, the five-year review of that ~emedy will be limited in
scope. In this case, the purpose of the review will be to
determine whether the specific action(s) implemented is serving
the protective purpose for which the interim remedy was intended
(e.g., the water supply remains in place, the plume is,still
controlled, the hazardous substances remain contained) .
Implementation of a more permanent remedy (e.g., source control
or ground water remediation) will result in a Level I, II or III
review as appropriate (see section H below for a description) .
Review of any subsequent response actions (e.g., operable units)
generally should be incorporated into the schedule following the
first review and will occur at least every five years after
completion of the first review.
Examples of factors affecting the estimated duration of a
review (due to the comprehensiveness of the review) might
include: the size of the site, the number of operable units, the
number of contaminants addressed by the remedy, the length of
time since construction of the remedy, reliability of the remedy,
and the vulnerability of the remedy to stress, wear, or other
physical deterioration. .
D.
Termination of Reviews
EPA may terminate statutory five-year reviews when no hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and unlimited exposure. \
statutory reviews will be conducted at least every five
years unless or until contaminant levels allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure. Once begun, reviews should be
discontinued only if levels of contaminants of concern are
reported, bas6d on the appropriate period of monitoring, at
levels that would allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure,
and ARARs promulgated or modified after ROD signature do not
result in a determination that the remedy is no longer
protective.
As noted above, LTRAs may present complications and
uncertainties not found in other remedial actions. Thus, a
decision to discontinue policy five-year reviews at such sites
should await attainment of the cleanup levels specified in the
ROD, assuming that these levels allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure.
EPA will describe in subsequent guidance the circumstances
for discontinuing policy reviews, and the nature of any public
notice and the documentation appropriate to support a decision to
discontinue reviews.
fO
-------
- 6 -
E.
Responsibilities for Conduct of Reviews
SPA will re~a!n final review and approval au~hori~y for tive-year' .
reviews. Bo.ever, through contracts and/or other agreements, EPA
may authori.e o~her par~ies to perfora por~ions of the.reviews
(e.g., studies, inves~igations and analy.i.) and identify
alternative. to assure protection of bumanbealtb and the
environment.
CERCLA section 121(c) provides that "the President" shall
conduct five-year reviews. section 2(g) of Executive Order 12580
(E.O. 12580) provides that the lead Federal agency (generally
EPA) is responsible for ensuring the conduct of five-year
reviews. EPA may, pursuant to section 104(d) (1), enter into a
contract or cooperative agreement (CA) with a state or political
subdivision, or Indian tribe to carry out portions of five-year
reviews (e.g., data collection, studies, investigations).
Additionally, EPA may elect to implement five-year reviews
through an interagency agreement with another Federal agency
(e.g., a Federal facility agreement pursuant to CERCLA section
120, a response agreement with the u.s. Corp of Engineers), or
any of a number of national contracts (e.g., ARCS). EPA may
authorize parties to settlement agreements with the United state~
to conduct studies and investigations to enable EPA to conduct
reviews. OERR will develop additional guidance to enable the
Regions to utilize these options, with appropriate oversight,
under varying site-specific circumstances. This guidance will
include model agreement language and work plans.
F.
Funding of Reviews
~ive-year revie.. are respon.. action. under sec~ion 121, and as
such, ezpend!ture. for review ac~ivitie. are authori.ed uses of
the Fund under CBRCLA section 111(a).
Due to the authority of section 104(d) (1) to enter into
cooperative agreements for response activities, including studies
and investigations in support of five-year reviews, the Regions
may enter into a cooperative agreement with the State pursuant to
40 CFR Part 35, Cooperative Agreements and Superfund state
Contract. for Response Actions (55 EB 22994). As appropriate, a
state may .atisfy any cost share requirement through its
.expenditure. for in-kind activities. EPA may elect to fund.
reviews in a given state annually through multi-site cooperative
agreements (MSCAs). Wherever possible, settlement agreements
should provide for the reimbursement of the costs of five-year
reviews directly to the agency responsible for such reviews
(including States, if applicable). In the absence of such
language in a settlement agreement, the costs of five-year
reviews should be recovered through a cost recovery action
pursuant to CERCLA section 107.
~
-------
- 7 -
EPA Regions should reflect plans to conduct five-year
reviews in their annual Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment
Plan (SCAP) or other appropriate strategic planning and budgeting.
system. The fiscal year 1992 Program Management Manual and other
planning documents will address the level of activity associated
with such reviews. The Regions must also capture the site-
specific costs associated with five-year reviews and reflect them
in the Software Package for Unique Reports (SPUR) or other
Regional cost summaries.
G.
Public Participation
EPA will inform the public when it determines that either a
statutory or POlicy five-year review is appropriate, describe the
planned scope of such reviews, identify the location of the
report on the review (see section V below), and describe actions
taken based on any review.
Beginning in fiscal year 1990, each ROD attempts to identify
whether a statutory or policy five-year review is appropriate for
the site based on the nature of the remedy. A discussion of the
five-year reviews in subsequent proposed plans will afford the
public an opportunity for comment on whether a five-year review
is appropriate for the remedy and the,general scope and timing of
such reviews. In conducting reviews, EPA Regions should inform
local communities of pending reviews and. consult with the
community in developing a communication strategy. As stated
below, the Five-Year Review Report should be made available to
the public through the administrative record file.
H.
Level of Review
EPA conte.plat.. that a Level I analysis will be appropriate
in all but a relatively few cases where site-specific'
circumstances sugg..t another level either at the outset of the
review, or if findings during the course of the review indicate
the need 'for furth.r analysis.
EPA will determine the level of the review based on site-
specific considerations, including the nature of the response
action, the status of on-site response activities, proximity to
populated areas and sensitive environmental areas, and the
interval since the last review was conducted. Level I is the
low~st level of evaluation of protectiveness, Level II is the.
intermediate level, and Level III is the highest level of
evaluation of protectiveness. EPA contemplates that a Level I
analysis will be appropriate in all but a relatively few cases
where site-specific circumstances suggest another level. A Level
II review would be appropriate only if warranted by site
conditions. For example, the absence of expected change in the
level of contaminants, as monitored, might suggest additional
(r
-------
- 8 -
source control or migration system samp~ing, or increased
evaluation of remedial components. It is unlikely that a Region
will propose a Level III review before the review is underway.
Regions should document fully their reasons where they believe a
Level II or Level III review is necessary.
In the event that further analysis is indicated by site
conditions during a review, the reviewer is not required to
consider all of the higher level matrix activities described
below, but may select only those related to a specific component
of the review, due to a specific finding. For example, the
matrix does not contemplate the recalculation of the risk (i.e.,
Level II) or a new risk assessment (i.e., Level III) for a
containment remedy, unless a site-specific finding calls into
question the protectiveness of the remedy.
It is important that EPA retain flexibility in planning and
conducting five-year reviews. However, the reviews should be
sufficient to evaluate whether a remedy remains protective of
human health and the environment. All reviews will examine
information such as: monitoring data, ARARs and cleanup levels,
and new information or considerations relevant to an assessment
of protectiveness.
All future RODs should contain a determination whether a
statutory or Policy Review is appropriate for the site and the
proposed level (ordinarily Level I) of the first review based on
site-specific conditions and the confidence level for the
selected remedy. Due to the dynamic nature of this process, the
level of review may be adjusted in subsequent years to account
for new or revised health-related information, the failure of
institutional controls, or the effectiveness of the remedy~
Subsequent EPA guidance on RODs and proposed plans will
incorporate this policy.
With the exception of five-year reviews of interim remedies,
Level I is generally the minimum level of review. EPA will
generally limit the scope of five-year reviews triggered by
interim remedies to those activities necessary to determine
whether the specific actions required by the ROD are serving the
protective purpose for which the interim remedy was intended
(e.g., the water supply remains in place, the plume is still
controlled, the hazardous substances remain contained).
IV.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ACTIVITIES MA~RIX
The attached matrix explains the activities which generally
should be considered in determining the scope of reviews proposed
in future RODs and in developing work plans for five-year
reviews. Additionally, the matrix may be useful in explaining tjl
the public the scope, structure and possible components of five~
year reviews. The matrix is designed to reflect the different
B
-------
- 9 -
levels of review that may be appropriate depending on the site-
specific circumstances or the status of the site with regard to
completion of the response action. Reviews of ongoing remedial
actions might focus on proper operation or implementation of the
remedy, while reviews of completed and of deleted sites would be
more extensive.
The matrix is organized into three sections: (1) documents
and standards, (2) site visit, and (3) report. section One
focuses on the review of available information in advance of and
in preparation for the site visit. Section Two, the site visit,
consists of interviews of key personnel, the site inspection, and
technology reviews. section Three consists of the report and
recommended actions on the basis of the review (e.g., no
additional response action r~quired or modification of the remedy
or a new remedy pursuant to NCP section 300.43S(c) (2)). The
activities for each section from level-to-level are additive
(i.e., activities and corresponding levels of effort (LOE) for
Level I are conducted as a part of Level II, and Level III
includes Level I and II activities). The estimated LOE,
expressed in hours, for each section represents our best
estimate. The dollar estimates supplied are in addition to the
LOE and represent the Agency's best estimate of the costs of
materials and services which require payment.
The matrix suggests that ~ reviews include a site visit.
This is intended to assure the public that an authorized official
will physically inspect the site at least every five years. Each
level of review should determine whether the remedy remains
operational and functional, and whether relevant standards or
measures have been revised such that the protectiveness of the
remedy is in doubt.
The matrix provides for a new risk assessment only at Level
III. Such an assessment may be appropriate in order to address a
new site condition such as a new pathway of exposure. At Level
I, the reyiewer will consider the ARARs and/or risk assessment
information contained in the ROD and ROD summary. At Level II,
the matrix proposes a recalculation of the original risk
assessment, for example to recognize new toxicity data obtained
during the review or for comparison to a changed chemical-
specific ARAR.
You should note that only reviews at Levels II and III
contemplate new field sampling. Generally, monitoring or O&M
data should be sufficient for conducting the review. However,
reviews will consider whether relevant standards of
protectiveness have become more stringent since completion of the
remedial action. Data on O&M or other site-specific information
may trigger new field sampling, if such sampling is necessary to
determine the protectiveness of the remedy. New remedies and
technologies should be considered by the reviewer only if the
1+
-------
- 10 -
review indicates that the remedy is no lonqer protective.
V.
REPORTS ON FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS
EPA will develop and issue a report on each review conducted
pursuant to this Directive. OERR will issue additional guidance
on the form and substance of such reports later this year. The
reports will be similar in format to the Site Close Out Report
which provides a technical description of how the implemented
remedy satisfies the completion requirements. Much of the
information contained in the Close out Report (e.q., site
summary, description of the remedy, O&M and five-year review
requirements) may be used to complete the Five-Year Review
Report. Additionally, the Report will include the scope and
nature of the current review, the results of the review, actions
taken or proposed on the basis of the review, and the scope and
nature of future reviews. EPA will notify communities of on-site
review activities, actions proposed on the basis of the review,
and the location of the administrative record file for the site.
EPA will add the Five-Year Review Report to the file pursuant to
section JOO.825{a){1) of the NCP. .
VI~
CONDUCT OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS
This policy is effective immediately. Reqions should
initiate their development of work plans. and proceed with reviewl
to assure completion within five years of initiation of the
remedial action. OERR will issue more detailed supplementary
quidance on five-year reviews later this year. As additional
guidance, model work plans and aqreements, and sample reports are
drafted, OERR will consult with the Reqions and provide an
opportunity for review and comment.
Questionp reqardinq this Directive should be directed to
Bill Ross (FTS ~S8-8J35) of my staff.
The policies set forth in this Directive are intended
solely a. quidance. They are not intended, nor can they
be relied upon, to create any riqhts enforceable by any
party in litiqation with the United States. EPA officials
may decide to follow the guidance provided in this
Directive, or to act at variance with the Directive, on
the basis ot an analysis of specific circumstances.. The
Aqency also reserves the riqht to chanqe this Directive at
any time without public notice.
,/
1'0
-------
. 5.YEAR REVIEW LEVEL.OF.EfFORT \1.HRli" 1 \"
InfonnaUon Level 14 T Level II: Le.el III:
" I.. OOCnfLVn ,,->;0 ST,,-"O.utDS: Dec.",.". R~~ I...
, AdditNe' _::\ S:.. : :XX~:~E:-;: RE\':~W ~E\'EL ' &: !I DOC: ''-1E' T .RE\ 'E\I.
I &asroWld ROD RE';?O'~i\'E;\.o5S StJ~~,""K i' COOPERA T1\':: ,...GREE~E;\L
ROD SUM~RY '7,\ 7:: CO'C'RRE~C::=. ,ER S I."" ,E SL'PER~'."D ,...G;!'EE~E':
COSSEST DECREE I PRP ~EAD SiTES, ,\,)'-1:';';,R...... i:\ E RE(1)'U 'D::\ ';\TERAGE:-;CY ",GKE::~E;\,
C~OSE OUT REPORT 7R......,5CRiPTS OF ?'.'BL:C ~EE:"C';
~ ::..; i'E,....SiBIU-;-Y S,UD~'
()e"Sf! i)", ~",:L~D JE5IG' :JOC ''.ie' 7"i RECORD ,,,,s.aL'I~ -:- DR.....\\, I'G5
C(\'(~?T',:"'~ DES;(,' RE?!};/.: SHOP DRA \\, I'(;S
~Jln[en3nc.e and OkM MA~U,"'L ~:.\L:-~ ...... "iAFE:Y ?:...\S
~onltonng O&.;M RE?ORTS ~. I)' -:-~~C'::'CY ?'_A'
GROlJ'DW", TER MO,r.O;/.I:-;G ?LA' 1).\.OC ?~.-\~
MOSITORI:-;G ::-;FORMAT!OS
S.~"181 1.01 Lowl I Dec.-.. R...... uHf II DM8me"l R.\i.. LAnl III 0-..8.1 R,,,i..-
(~h"1 ,8~.'IO h.., Il:~.l~ hnl
I'. ooct'~[:orrs "-'10 ST"-'O.utDS: St.an4.~. t.\B.AJU I R" i..
AddH"O' ~::\ E : 5:,\SDAR:)S ;/'EV:~W '_E\'El: .j.: II S:,"DARDS i'tE\ :E\I.
Back"'~cnd ROD ASD ROD SUMMAR Y ;/'E~EDIA~ :SVES,:C.... ::0' RIFS
ChaM"'n. st.1ndaras REGULA TJO~S R::CL'!..A T'OSS TOX:COlOC:~' D,'" T,'" REGULA T'O'S ,OX!(OlOC'~' ),'" T...
Risk Assessment ROD 'ROD SUMMARY :SEE ABOVE, REC.....LC'..'~."" TE RISI-; .\SSE';S~E'\T 'EW RISI-; ",SSESS~E~,
S.~"181 1.01: L...I I 518""" Reoi.. Leul 11 Stan4.rU R8\ i.. 1.0..1 111 S18,,4.... R..;..
I:!SoJO h", . Il6().:lO hn! t~1~h"'
II.. sm Vlsrr: I....,.i...
i AddltNe 1 ~::\'E~ : I:-;TERVIEWS lEVEL I '" Ii ;~LERVIEWS
aacqround PREVlOlIS STAFF~ASAGE~E~T C0'S,':L ,,,,:,,, FOR ROD iRl FS CO~SUL -;- A:",
SEARESr SEIGHBORS. ?RP-S ....\71\'E CI)~MU'\i , Y GROL!p<'; ?RP', RD RA COSSLIL TA:-I
Locai STATE CO>(T'ACT'S ~EGIO"AL ';TATE ?ERSO;\'EL
CJnllden.uoftl LOCAL GOVERSME:>oT CO'iTACTS ...DDITIO:-;AL LOC.....l CO:"T.KT'S
o,..r.uonaJ PlA>(T'SlIPERI"'"TESDE,,, OVERSIGHT CO'TRACTOR
Problemo O.tM CO"lTRACTORS
5._1 1.01: Lent I 1...,..;- t..\'f'1 II I."f'\'i... Lowl 111 '-toi...
I~""' ,8~-loe hn' i ~II! h..)
II~. srn: Vlsrr: SI.. 1.-ri_T..h..I- R..i..
I AddltNO\ :.,,\'EL ; SITE RE\'IEW LEVEL I '" II SITE i'tE\'IEW
Porform.n... II!d VISUAL ISSPEC!10S SOL'RCE COSTROL cOMPOSE' T'i SAMPLISG STRUCTURAL REVIEW
Cumphanc:e .; ~1(;KAl:()' ~YSTr.\1 ~A:-.1Pt.l;\(' CORROSIOS REVIEW
0'\~iTF: TRE..... T~E" ~ YST~.\lS ';A:o-API.:S(j
l{r.l'UL..... TOR Y CO\IPLlA'(:'
Off.ne OFFSITE REVIEW
OFF';ITE sA:o-APUSG
Recommendaunnl RECO~~E~DA TJOSS Rr('O:o-AMF'DATIO'S RECO~ME'iDA TIO"'S
S._I LOE Lent I Si.. IIo..tew 1.0..1 II Silo R..... Lowl 111 51.. R.ri..
I ,:!SolS ""' . ,.\II)..~ hro. \'~h"1
III. UPORT \
BadtFOWld I STRODIIC!10N i'\TRODLI\7iOS i:"nODUCTIOS
REMEDIAL OBJECT1VES RE~EDIAL OBJECT,H:S REMEDIAL 08.IEC"1'!\'E~
ARARS REVIEW .....R.\RS R'EVIEW REGUlATOR Y REVIEW
Site Cuncliuons SU~MARY OF sm VlSTr SL1MMARY OF SITE \ ISIT SU~MAR Y OF SITE vISIT
.~REAS OF SONCOMPl.IASCE ,....iREAS OF 'O'iCO\I?LlA;\CE AREAS OF :-;O'CO~PUA:"(E '
R,'k AsleUment RECALCUL....TIOS OF RISI-; RISK ASSESSME>(T'
Recommendauons RECOMMENDATJON~TECHNOLOOY RECOMMESDA TIO'S TECH,OLOOY RECOMME~D'" TJOSS TECHSOLjESS sn TEME,T 0, PROTECT!\'E:-;ESS ST A TEME>(T' OS PROTECT!\'E' E~~
SE."e additional. LOE and cost estimates reprc!>Cn! reiJll\e
order of magnitude for three levels of revlC:W and should be used tor comparauve purposes only. ,
2Levei [..Lowest level of evaluation of prolectiveness.
Level II.. [ntennediale level of evaluation ot protectiveness.
Level III--Highest level of evaluation of protectiveness.
. WDCM071091.S1
Ib
~" L
------- |