oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9355.0-25^
TITLE: Statement of Polity on Requirements for Using
Removal Authorities for Speeding up Remedial
Projects
12/9/88
11/9/88
OSWER OERR HSCD
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
[^ FINAL
D DRAFT
CTATHC [ ' A~ Pendin§ OMB approval
TATU5: i ; B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
[ ] C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other document*): headquarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC 9
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SOBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Statement of Policy: Requirements for Using
Removal Authorities for Speeding Up Remedial
Projects (OSWER Directive 9355.0i2l.
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia
.esponse
Directors, Waste Management Division, Regions I, IV,
V, VII and VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
Region II
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Directors, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Regions III and VI
Director, Toxic Waste Management Division, Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X
In accordance with OERR's FY-89 emphasis on identification
and codification of Superfund policies through the use of the
OSWER Directives system, this memorandum reissues two previously
distributed documents under the above directive number. Taken
together, they articulate the policy for utilizing removal
authorities in speeding up remedial projects. The policy was
developed as a result of an agreement reached with Region IV in
March of 1988, and further clarified by an Office of General
Counsel (OGC) opinion transmitted to Region IV in my memorandum
dated July 11, 1988.
Questions with respect to the policy should be directed to
Tim Fields in the Emergency Response Division (FTS-475-8720) or
Russ Wyer in the Hazardous Site Control Division (FTS-382-4632.
Questions with respect to the directives system should be referred
to Betti VanEpps, Office of Program Management, Policy and
Analysis Staff (FTS-475-8864).
Attachments
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs
Walt Kovalick
Jim Vickery
-------
AEPA
Urutea States environment* Pntection Agency
Wasmngtofl. OC 20460
OSWER Directive initiation Request
Directive Numoer
9355.Q-25
2. Oriclnator Information
Name of Ccmacj Person
Jim vickery
I Man Cooe
jCtfice
HSCD
Teiepnore Code
J. Title
Requirements for Using Removal Authorities for Speeding
Up Remedial Projects
4. Summary of Directive imciuce onei statement or purpose*
This memo clarifies the points of agreement required for using removal
authorities to speed remedial projects. States must provide CERCLA
Section 104(c){3) assurances for cost-sharing, operaton and maintenance
and off-site disposal through a signed SSC.
5. Keyworos Superf und, CEROA, SARA
Be, uoes This Directive Superseoe Previous uirective(S)?
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive!sl^
j j No I j Ves What directivt (numoer. title)
| j No j j Yts Wh« dirtctive *opmtnt
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
I Ves
D
No
Thl» Hequeit M««ta OSW6R Qlr«ctlv«s System Format Sundarfls.
9. Signature of teaa Office Directives Cooramitor
Betti C. VanEpps
Date
11/21/88
10. Name ano Title of Ac proving Of
Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR
Date
EPA Form i3iS-»7 (Rev. 5-a7) Previous eaitions are oosoiete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWE DIRECTIVE # 9355.0-25
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL II 1968
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Requirements for Use of Removal
Authorities for Speeding Up Remedial Projects
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director v\l //
Office of Emergency and RemediaMw^^onse
TO: Pat Tobin, Director
Waste Management Division
Region IV
This memo further clarifies one of the points of agreement
set out in my memo to you of March 18, 1988, regarding Region IV's
proposal to use ERC's contracts for speeding up remedial projects.
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has expressed a concern that
the requirement for entering into a State Superfund Contract
(SSC) before implementing a remedy at these sites is not specific
enough in the March 18 memo.
States must provide the CERCLA Section 104(c)(3) assurances
for cost-sharing, operation and maintenance (O&M), and off-site
disposal, in the form of a signed SSC. As usual, the State must
assure payment of 50% of all response costs at publicly operated
sites and 10% of all remedial action costs at privately operated
sites. The SSC must also commit the State to responsibility for
implementing and funding O&M for the remedy. The SSC must
include a payment schedule for the State's share of the costs, in
cash only, since payment in kind is not permitted for Federal
actions.
Questions should be addressed to Tim Fields in the Emergency
Response division (FTS-475-8720) or Paul Nadeau in the Hazardous
Site Control Division (FTS-382-4632).
*
cc: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, v, vii, vin
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI
Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division, Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9355.0-25
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR I 8 1988
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Region IV's Proposal to Use Removal Authorities
for Speeding up Remedial Project!
PROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remediaj^M&ponse
TO: Pat Tobin, Director
Waste Management Division
Region IV
This nemo contains the points of agreement reached in our
February 24, 1938, meeting on Region IV's proposal to use removal
authorities to speed up remedial projects at seven NPL sites.
While the agreement detailed in this memo was reached in the
context of the specific sites discussed, it can be generally
applied by all Regions. Therefore, I am also sending a copy to
appropriate Regional Division Directors for their consideration.
The principal point of agreement is the purpose served in
supporting the Region's initiative. The purpose as we discussed,
is to get NPL sites cleaned up, doing so more quickly and at a
lower cost than would be the case under a remedial project
management approach. For the seven sites discussed, it is my
understanding that cleanup work will be completed sufficient for
NPL deletion. Total project costs and duration are expected to
be less, based on adjustments to selected remedies and through
use of removal authorities and ERGS contracts.
Specifically, the points below detail our agreement in
relation to the following sites:
1. Distler Brickyard, KY
2. Distler Farm, KY
3. Geiger, SC
4. Independent Nail, SC
5. Palmetto Wood, SC
6. Tower Chemical, FL
7. Zellwood, FL
-------
- 2 -
(A). All seven sites are NPL sites with money for remedial
design or remedial action provided for in the FY 1988 SCAP. No
additional money is being sought by the Region. Budgeted FY
1988 money will be redistributed across sites to pay the complete
cleanup costs of all seven.
*
(B). The enforcement moratorium for these sites has expired;
and a ROD has been signed for each.
(C). Where more current information will lead to a significant
change in the selected remedy for a site, the Region will amend
its ROD following the steps outlined in the Draft ROD Guidance
Manual (OSWER Directive 9355.302).
(D) . Each site meets both remedial and removal action criteria.
ERGS contracts will be used with all removal requirements being
met, including preparing an action memorandum and obtaining any
necessary exemption waiver. Remedial dollars, activity codes,
and account numbers will be used to fund the actions; and the
appropriate audit trail provided by my office 'will be followed
by the Region.
(E) . As is the case with all remedial projects, State cost sharing
is required for these site actions. The Region will include
assurances for cost sharing in contracts signed with the States
involved.
(F). The Region will make sure 0 & M responsibilities are clear
and resolved for ea'-h site,
(G). Once cleanup work under this initiative is completed,
it is expected that the criteria for NPL deletion will be met and
the Region will quickly proceed with a formal deletion action.
(H). An eighth site, SAPP Battery, FL, also meeting these terms,
with a potential cleanup cost in the $4 million range will be
done in two stages. Stage one will stockpile contaminated material
using removal authorities and contracts. Stage two, solidification,
will be competitively bid due to its multi-million dollar cost.
In addition to this agreement, we are developing a generic
approach to support taking early actions at NPL sites. The approach
will touch on both Removal and Remedial program policies. You
soon will be receiving a separate OSWER directives, signed by
the Assistant Administrator, a policy statement on Removal Program
Priorities, and a policy statement on Interim Actions under the
Remedial Program.
cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-III, V-X
Environmental Service Division Directors, Regions I, VI, VIII
Gene Lucero
------- |