OWPE
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
HANDBOOK
CORRECTIVE ACTION
D D
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB
CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS A
NATIONAL RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION STRATEGY B
CORRECTIVE ACTION AUTHORITIES C
INf ERPRETATION OF SECTION 3008(h) OF THE
SGllD WASTE DISPOSAL ACT, DECEMBER 1985 D
ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS UNDER
SECTION 3013 OF RCRA, SEPTEMBER 1984 E
FINAL REVISED GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM ON THE
USE AND ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
UNDER SECTION 7003 OF RCRA, SEPTEMBER 1984 F
GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM ON USE AND ISSUANCE
OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS UNDER SECTION
106 (a) OF CERCLA G
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR RCRA SECTION
9(jftd(hj ORDERS, FEBRUARY 1987 H
''
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION I
;3pp8,(|gj^j|P(^EIg|v:^:;, ••.'/'-'"• J
CORRECTIVE ACTION MODEL u
^FEBRUARY 1987
RCBAaVIL PENALTY POLICY M
J$QBA SECTION 3008(h) CORRECTIVE AQTION INTERIM
N
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, NOVEMBER 1935 ^O
, _ __ CFR PART 1910, HAZARDOUS VVASTE
'OreRATiONS & EMERGENCY RESPONSE^ INTERIM FINAL RULE
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (2) TAB
CORRECTIVE ACTION GUIDANCE SUMMARY Q
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DIRECTORY, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT, MAY 1986 R
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY BRIEFS: ALTERNATIVES
TO HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS, JULY 1986 S
OVERSIGHT OF ORDER IMPLEMENTATION T
RCRA CONSENT ORDER SUMMARIES U
CERCLA RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) SUMMARIES V
-------
COMPARISON OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
AND CERCLA REMEDIAL PROCESSES*
ESTIMATED
DURATION
OF TASKS
3J6
MONTHS
I
12-24
MONTHS
6-9
MONTHS
>6
MONTHS/YEARS
RCRA
RCRA FACILITY
ASSESSMENT
RFA
1
RCRA FACILITY
INVESTIGATION
RFI
1
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
STUDY
CMS
I
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION
CMI
VS.
CERCLA
PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT/
SITE
INVESTIGATION
PA/SI
1
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
Rl
1
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
FS
1
REMEDIAL DESIGN/
REMEDIAL ACTION
RD/RA
Identify releases needing
further investigation.
• Characterize nature, extent,
and rate of contaminant
releases.
• Evaluate/select remedy.
• Design and implementation
of chosen remedy.
'Interim Measures may be performed at any point in the corrective action process.
-------
CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS
AGENCY
• §3008(h) order may be issued
before, during, or after RFA
• Oversight
RCRA
Facility
Assessment
RFA
OWNER/OPERATOR
• Interim measures
• Permit may be issued
before, during, or after RFI
(public participation)
• RFI Report approved
• Clean-up requirements
established
• Oversight
• Corrective measures "\
selected 1
• §3008(h) order issued/ V
amended f
• Permit issued/modified I
• Public participation )
• Oversight
RCRA
Facility
Investigation
RFI
Corrective
Measure
Study
CMS
Corrective
Measure
Implementation
CMI
• RFI Workplan
• Facility Investigation
• RFI Report
• Interim measures
Identify and evaluate
alternatives
Recommend corrective
measure(s)
CMS Report
Interim measures
CMI Plans
CM design & Construction
CMI Report
Operations/maintenance
Monitoring
-------
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT
(CERCLA) COMMONLY-USED ACRONYMS
ADR - Alternate Dispute Resolution
ARAR - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CAG - Carcinogen Assessment Group
CEPP - Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
CERCLIS - CERCLA Information System
CLP - Contract Laboratory Program
CR - Community Relations
DQO . - Data Quality Objectives
EDD - Enforcement Decision Document
ERA - Expedited Response Action
ERGS - Emergency Response Clean-Up Services
FIT - Field Investigation Team
FS - Feasibility Study
HEA - Health Effects Assessment
HRS - Hazard Ranking System
IRP - Installation and Restoration Program (Department of Defense)
NC - Noncarcinogen
NCP - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NOAEL - No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NPL - National Priorities List
•NRG - National Response Center
OSC - On-Scene Coordinator
PA - Preliminary Assessment
PC - Potential Carcinogen
PHE - Public Health Evaluation
PRP - Potential Responsible Party
QA/QC - Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QAPP - Quality Assurance Project Plan
RA - Remedial Action
RAS - Routine Analytical Services
RD - Remedial Design
REM - Remedial Contractor
RI - Remedial Investigation
ROD - Record of Decision
RP - Responsible Party
RQ - Reportable Quantity
RRT - Regional Response Team
-------
CERCLA ACRONYMS (CONT.)
SARA - Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act
SCAP - Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plans
SI - Site Investigation
SMP - Site Management Plan
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
TAT - Technical Assistance Team
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
COMMONLY-USED ACRONYMS
ACL • - Alternate Concentration Limit
AO - Administrative Order
C/PC - Closure/Post-Closure
CA - Corrective Action
CAP - Corrective Action Plan
CEI - Compliance Evaluation Inspection
CME - Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation
CMI - Corrective Measures Implementation
CMS - Corrective Measures Study
EIR - Exposure Information Report
FMP - Facility Management Plan
GWM - Ground-Water Monitoring
GWPS - Ground-Water Protection Standard
HSWA - Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
HWDMS - Hazardous Waste Data Management System
LCRS - Leachate Collection and Removal System
LOIS ' - Loss of Interim Status
MCL - Maximum Concentration Limit
MCLG - Maximum Concentration Limit Goal
NTS - National Permit Strategy
0/0 - Owner/Operator
PIP - Public Involvement Plan
PR - Preliminary Review
RFA - RCRA Facility Assessment
RFI - RCRA Facility Investigation
RIP - RCRA Implementation Plan
RU - Regulated Unit
SNC - Significant Non-Complier
SOSG - Standard Operating Safety Guidance
SPA - State Program Advisory
SV - Sampling Visit
SWMU - Solid Waste Management Unit
T/A - Timely and Appropriate
TEGD - Technical Enforcement Guidance Document
TSDF - Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility
VSI - Visual Site Inspection
-------
NATIONAL RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION STRATEGY
October 3, 1986
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
NATIONAL RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION STRATEGY
I. INTRODUCTION
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
greatly expanded authorities under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) for requiring corrective action for
releases of hazardous wastes and constituents at facilities that
manage hazardous wastes. Section 3004(u) of HSWA requires
corrective action for releases of hazardous wastes or constituents
from any solid waste management unit at a storage, treatment or
disposal facility that is seeking or otherwise subject to a RCRA
permit. Section 3004(u) also requires that these permits contain
assurances of financial responsibility for complying with corrective
action. Moreover, section 3004(v) authorizes EPA to require
corrective action beyond the facility boundary. Section 3008(h)
of HSWA authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) to
require corrective action or other necessary response measures
whenever it is determined on the basis of any information that
there is or has been a release of hazardous wastes or constituents
from a facility authorized to operate under Section 3005(e) of RCRA.
This strategy is intended to inform Regions, States, the
regulated community and the public how the Agency plans to approach
implementation of the corrective action program. This section
introduces the HSWA corrective action authorities and discusses
the universe of RCRA facilities subject to these requirements.
Section II discusses the basic technical process that applies
generally to any corrective action. Section III discusses how the
Agency will approach the corrective action program, including
-------
-2-
establishing priorities, and factors influencing ranagenent of
corrective action. Section IV discusses the EPA-State partnership
in achieving corrective action goals. At the end of each section
or subsection there are lists of guidance documents for the RCRA
corrective action program that have been issued to date and
planned documents and the current target dates for their issue.
Also included are the training courses that are planned for each
component of the program. Under each item a contact person is -
provided who can answer inquiries about the topic. Appendix 1
lists guidance issued by other programs that may be useful in
implementing the corrective action program.
The success of the RCRA corrective action program depends
on the cooperation between the States, EPA, regulated community
and the public. Of critical importance is early involvement
of the affected public in the corrective action process. EFA
intends to develop a corrective action public participation
program that provides information on the facility to the public,
gives them an opportunity to make their views known to EPA or
the State and that provides for consideration of their views
in the decision making process.
These new corrective action authorities greatly expand
EPA's ability to ensure that RCRA facility owners and operators
correct releases at their facilities that may pose a threat to
human health and the environment. The new 3004(u) authority
applies to facilities subject to RCRA permits. This includes
operating permits for new and existing facilities and post closure
permits for land disposal facilities. At facilities that received
RCRA permits prior to November 8, 1984, corrective action require-
-------
-3-
ments will be imposed upon issuance of a new permit once the
current permit expires or is reopened.
The scope of the 3004(u) authority is largely defined
by its key terms. It requires that permits impose corrective
action for releases of hazardous wastes or constituents which
pose a threat to human health and the environment, from any
solid waste management unit(SWMU) at a storage, treatment or
disposal facility seeking a RCRA permit. To understand the
scope of this authority it is necessary to understand the key
terms of the statutory provision.
The term "release" is defined in the Final Codification
Rule (July 15, 1985) to include any spilling, leaking, pouring,
emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,
dumping or disposing into the environment. While similar to the
CERCLA definition, it excludes discharges of hazardous wastes or
constituents to the injection zone of a UIC permitted Class I
injection well. It can also include releases that are authorized
or otherwise permitted under other environmental statutes.
The term "solid waste management unit" is also explained
in the Final Codification Rule (July 15, 1985). It includes
any discernable waste management unit from which hazardous
constituents may migrate, irrespective of whether the unit was
intended for the management of solid or hazardous wastes. The
following types of units are therefore included in the definition
of SWMUs: landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, land
treatment units, incinerators, injection wells, tanks (including
-------
-4-
90 day accumulation tanks), container storage areas and transfer
stations. In addition to these types of units, certain areas
associated with production processes at facilities which have
become contaminated as a result of routine, systematic and
deliberate releases of wastes, or hazardous constituents from
wastes, are also considered to be solid waste management units.
A product may become a waste if it is abandoned or discarded.
Some questions have been raised regarding the application of
the concept of "solid waste management unit" to other types of"
contamination at facilities, such as spills, leakage from product
storage, and releases from production processes that are not
routine, systematic and deliberate. Such releases are not con-
sidered to be solid waste management units. As explained in the
Final Codification Rule (50 FR 28712), one-time spills of wastes
or constituents are considered subject to §30'04(u) corrective
action only if the spill occurred from a solid waste management
unit. A spill which cannot be linked to a discernible solid
waste managment unit is not of itself a solid waste management
unit. Likewise, leakage from product storage and other types of
releases associated with production processes would not be considered
solid waste management units, unless those releases were routine,
systematic and deliberate.
The term "facility" includes all contiguous property under
the control of an owner or operator at which the units subject
ta permitting are located .
Section 3008(h), the enforcement corrective action authority,
also vests broad discretion with the Agency to compel corrective
action. This authority has been interpreted to authorize the
-------
-5-
Agency to compel corrective measures or other actions necessary
to protect human health or the environment whenever the Administrator
determines, based on any information, that there is or has been a
release of hazardous wastes or constituents from an interim status
RCRA facility. The key terms in this provision are interpreted
in a December 16, 1985 EPA memorandum entitled "Interpretation
of Section 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act." The terms
release and facility are interpreted as they are for Section
3004(u). Appropriate information upon which to conclude there
may have been a release for purposes of section 3008(h) include,
but are not limited to the following: data from laboratory analyses
(from soil, air, surface water or ground water samples), observations
recorded during inspections, photographs and information obtained
from facility records. '
It should be noted that the §3008(h) authority is not con-
fined to addressing releases from solid waste management units.
It is the Agency's position that the coverage of the types of
releases which can be addressed under §3008(h) is somewhat different
in scope than that of §3004(u). In situations where a §3008(h)
action has been initiated at a facility to address releases that
are not from solid waste management units, and where a permit is
subsequently issued to the facility, the Agency intends that
those actions will be continued under the permit, under the
authority of RCRA section 3005(c)(3). Comment is requested on
this proposed approach.
Not only are these RCRA corrective action authorities broad,
but the universe of RCRA facilities to which they potentially
apply is diverse. Among the types of RCRA facilities that can
-------
-6-
present environmental problems are land disposal, treatment
and storage facilities. Corrective action requirements apply to
these facilities regardless of whether they are continuing waste
management operations or closing these operations. Moreover,
these requirements apply regardless of whether a facility or part
of it is subject to an action under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund)
The RCRA facilites subject to corrective action are also
diverse in that there are varying amounts of existing information
available on them. For example, in some cases there will be
extensive information available on the regulated unit (and
possibly the solid waste management units) from previous enforcement
actions, the Part A and B applications, inspection reports, etc.
In others, very little information may be available, thus increasing
the initial information gathering burden. At some facilites
there will be extensive and complex corrective action required,
while at others little or no action may be necessary.
Federal facilities are subject to RCRA corrective action
requirements. At this time EPA is working with other Federal
agencies to determine how best to manage the corrective action
program for the Federal establishment. This effort is dealing
with several- issues, including how to define facility ownership
in light of the structure of many agencies, and how to coordinate
the RCRA and CERCLA corrective action programs.
In developing the corrective action program it is EPA's
intent to recognize the diversity of the universe subject to
corrective action and to adopt a system for managing the program
-------
-7-
which provides sufficient flexibility to ensure that corrective
measures necessary to protect human health and the environment
are taken expeditiously.
In order to establish a consistent and well-defined program
for implementing the new RCRA corrective action mandate, the
Agency intends to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework to
define both procedural and substantive requirements for the
program. This major rulemaking will provide the regulated community
and other parties the opportunity to participate in the decision
making process for setting standards for the program. Regulations
will also provide a solid legal foundation to enforce these
standards. Proposed regulations are tentatively expected to be
issued in the Fall of 1987.
Among the most important decisions which must be made in
implementing corrective actions at actual facilities is the
determination of when corrective action is required, and when it
is completed. Standards for these "how clean is clean" decisions
will be a major component of the rulemaking effort described
above. The Agency intends to develop guidelines for determining
when corrective actions will be "triggered". "Target" levels
will be established to define the objectives to be reached by
corrective actions. It is the Agency's current intention to set
these target levels using health and environmental based goals,
within the limits of feasible technology.
The fundamental objectives of the RCRA corrective action
program are essentially similar to those of CERCLA. Because
some RCRA facilities can be expected to ultimately become Superfund
sites (some RCRA facilities actually have CERCLA-mandated actions
-------
-8-
already underway), there is need to maintain consistency between
the two programs in making response decisions. Whenever feasible,
the Agency will design corrective action policies and guidelines
so as to foster consistency. It must be recognized, however,
that there are statutory and programmatic differences between
the RCRA and CERCLA programs which the Agency must consider in
formulating the RCRA corrective action program. As the RCRA
program is developed through policy, guidance and regulation,
one of the Agency's primary objectives will be to maintain consistency
with CERCLA, while tailoring the program to meet the specific
needs and objectives of RCRA.
GUIDANCE:
Guidance on use of Section 3008(h); December 16, 1985;
Contact: Ginny Steiner (202)475-9329
Agency Interpretation of 3004(u): Corrective Action for Continuing
Releases; draft issued 1/30/85; Contact: Dave Fagan (202) 382-4740
TRAINING;
Seminars on use of 3008(h) and soon to be issued procedures
are tentatively planned for FY 87 for EPA Regional personnel.
II. THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS
This section outlines the basic technical steps that will be
taken to identify potential releases, characterize them and
select and undertake appropriate response actions. Understanding
these basic steps is central to implementing the corrective
action process outlined in section III of this strategy. These
steps apply to corrective action secured through a permit or
completed through an enforcement order.
-------
-9-
Specific policies, guidelines and regulations on various
aspects of this process will be issued over the next several
years. This section provides the basic framework against which
these guidances will be developed. It should be understood,
however, that these steps nay vary in detail or be eliminated
altogether depending on the individual facility situation.
Examples of situations i-n which this may occur are outlined in
section III below. The stages of a corrective action are
illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the steps of the
corrective action process and also identifies the appropriate
roles of the regulatory agency and the facility owner/operator
in the various steps.
A. RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA):
The first step in any corrective action is the assessment
of the facility to identify actual and potential releases from
RCRA regulated units and other solid waste management units.
The objective of this assessment is to determine whether there
is sufficient evidence of a release to require the owner/operator
to undertake additional investigations (a RCRA facility invest-
igation) to characterize the nature, extent and rate of migration
of contaminant releases of concern. For cases of likely releases,
the RCRA Facility Investigation will include release verification
procedures. Information gathered in the RFA should be used in
developing a sound scope of work for a full remedial investigation.
The RFA is intended to focus on investigating releases and potential
releases from identifiable solid waste management units. It is
not the Agency's intention that RFAs routinely examine facilities'
entire production, handling and storage areas, and activities.
-------
FIGURE 1
RCRA CONTINUING RELEASES CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS
Regulatory Agency performs RCRj
o/o cooperation where appropri<
0 Identify solid waste manager
collect existing informatio
0 Identify releases needing fv
\ facility assessment ( RFA) with
ate to:
nent. units ( SWMUs ) and
i on contaminant releases.
arther investigation.
Regulatory Agency specifies permit conditions or issues
i
enforcement order to facility owner or operator to:
0 Perform investigations on releases of concern;
and/ or
0 Implement interim corrective measures.
Facility Owner .or Operator performs RCRA facility
investigation ( RFI ) to characterize the nature, extent
and rate of migration for releases of concern and/or
implements interim corrective measures.
Regulatory Agency evalu
determines need for coi
lates results of RFI and
rrective measures. (CM)
Owner or Operator proposes appropriate CM when
required by regulatory agency.
Regulatory Agency evaluates CM proposal and
specifies appropriate CM.
Owner or Operator demonstrates financial assurance,
and designs, constructs, operates, maintains and
monitors the CM.
-------
-10-
However, when conducting RFAs investigators may become aware of
other types of releases (e.g./ product releases) or sources of
contamination not related to solid waste management units, but
which merit further investigation and characterization by the
owner/operator. Likewise, certain areas at facilities that are
not solid waste management units nay be identified as likely to
be causing serious environmental problems, but about which little
or no actual evidence of contamination is available; such situations
may merit preliminary, RFA-type investigations to be conducted by
owner/operators to verify releases.
As explained previously, releases which are not linked to
solid waste management units may be addressed using §3008(h) or
other enforcement authorities. It is the Agency's intention
that when issuing a permit to a facility, the permit schedule of
compliance may also, as necessary, require owner/operators to
address releases that are not linked to solid waste management
units, under the authority provided in RCRA section 3005(c)(3).
EPA specifically invites comment on this proposed approach.
The scope of an RFA may vary from facility to facilijty.
In most cases it is preferable to address all the solid waste
management units at the facility in the RFA. This is especially
true when dealing with a facility in which units are closely
related and subsequent investigations will be more efficiently
performed by addressing the entire facility. However, it may be
permissible to perform an RFA for a particular unit or units in
advance of the rest of the facility. This could occur, for
example, when there is an immediate threat that needs to be
addressed. The RFA is performed by EPA or the State and can
-------
-11-
inciude use of sampling data gathered by the owner/operator of
the facility. However, if there is any problem with owner/operator
participation in the RFA (timeliness, reliability etc.) EPA or
the State will perform the entire RFA.
E. Interim Measures:
These are corrective measures that may be taken at any point
in the corrective measures process to abate threats. These
actions are generally short term actions responding to immediate
threats, such as actual or potential exposure to hazardous wastes
or constituents, drinking water contamination, threats of fire
and explosion, and other situations posing similar threats.
Normally, minimum study and planning is necessary for interim
measures. Interim measures can be quite effective in abating
immediate problems and in keeping existing problems from worsening
while studies are being completed. Interim measures can be
particularly useful in dealing with facilities that are economically
marginal and which may only be able to complete part of their
RCRA corrective action obligations.
C. RCPA Facility Investigation (RFI):
The purpose of a RCRA Facility Investigation is to gather
data sufficient to fully characterize the nature, extent and rate
of migration of contaminant releases identified in the RFA. Of
paramount importance to the RFI is that it provide sufficient
data to determine appropriate response actions (i.e. appropriate
corrective measures or document that no action is needed). The
RFI is perfomed by the facility owner/operator pursuant to an
enforcement order or a permit schedule of compliance. EPA or
the State oversees this activity.
-------
-12-
D. Corrective Measures Study and Selection of the Appropriate
Measures
After the RCRA Facility Investigation is completed the
owner/operator must identify the appropriate corrective measures
and recommend them to EPA or the State. EPA or the State will
then review the recommendation, provide the public an opportunity
to review and comment on the proposed action and select the
final measures.
The owner/operator must conduct a corrective measures study
to assure that the proposed measures will be effective in correcting
threats posed by releases. Depending on the facility situation,
this study may include actions to control the source of the
contamination (by preventing or mitigating the continued migration
of contamination, by removing, stabilizing and or containing the
contaminants) and/or actions to abate problems posed by the migration
of substances from their original source into the environment.
In some cases it will be possible for the owner/operator to
analyze and present to the Agency or State only a single alternative
that meets public health and environmental requirements. This
should be done when EPA or the State agree that the alternative
the owner/operator is proposing to analyze is likely to effectively
achieve corrective action goals, including health and environmental
requirements and is technically sound. In other cases, however,
it may be necessary to analyze more than one alternative to
determine the appropriate response measure. For example, offsite
or onsite alternatives may be considered or there may be a difference
of opinion as to whether a particular alternative the owner/operator
-------
-13-
proposes to analyze would be reliable or effective in abating
threats expedition sly. In such cases, EPA or the State should
require the analysis of several alternatives to ensure that
appropriate response measures are completed on a timely basis
and that response is not delayed by a sequential analysis of
a series of alternatives.
The owner/operator must demonstrate that the response
action proposed effectively abates the threats to human health
•and the environment posed by the release(s). This requires
the owner/operator to analyze the alternative or alternatives
in detail sufficient to show that the recommended measures are
effective in abating the threats posed by the release. To do so
the owner/operator must assess the alternative or alternatives
'in terms of its technical feasibility (including reliability
and requirements for long term operation and maintenance), its
ability to meet public health protection requirements, its
ability to protect the environment and any adverse environmental
effects of the measures. The owner/operator also should consider
any institutional constraints to implementation of the measures,
such as offsite capacity problems and potential public opposition.
EPA has not yet completed guidelines on this phase of the
RCRA corrective action program. RCRA final remedies will, however,
be required to meet applicable health and environmental standards
pr6mulgated under RCRA and other laws. At regulated units,
groundwater releases are subject to the groundwater protection
standards. The groundwater protection standard consists of the
following: (1) for any constituents listed in Table 1 of 40- CFR
-------
-14-
264.94, the respective value given in that table (MCL) if the
background level of the constituent is below that given in Table
1; (2) the background level of that constituent in the groundwater;
or (3) an approved Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL) where
approval will be based on criteria set forth in 40 CFR 264.94(b).
The Agency plans to issue guidance on ACLs during FY 1987. The.
Agency is currently assessing the appropriate technical approach
to take to problems that cannot be addressed by existing standards.
One alternative is to establish appropriate health based standards
on a case by case basis.
EPA or the State will evaluate the owner/operator's recom-
mendation and approve or disapprove it. The financial assurance
demonstration will also be reviewed at this time. The views of
the public on the proposed measures will be considered by the
State and EPA in making these decisions.
E. Corrective Measures Implementation
After EPA or the State selects the remedy, the owner/operator
will design and construct the selected response action. After
construction the appropriate measures needed to operate, maintain
and monitor the remedy will be taken by the owner/operator. These
activities will be required by permit condition or order, and will be
performed by the owner/ope rator with oversight by EPA or the State.
Effecting remedies (or interim measures) at facilities that
do not have RCRA permits will, in some cases, involve creation of
new treatment, storage or disposal units. Rather than going
through the actual process of issuing RCRA permits to such new
units, which could substantially delay implementation of the
remedy, the Agency is considering using enforcement authorities
-------
-15-
and closure plan regulatory authorities to allow those units to
be constructed and operated without a formal RCRA permit. EPA
may need to amend existing regulations to provide for this
proposed approach. Such new units would nevertheless generally
be required to comply with applicable Part 264 technical standards,
and appropriate public review and comment would be provided for.
If such new units are created at a permitted facility, the normal
permit modification process would be followed. Comment is specif-
ically solicited on this proposed approach.
GUIDANCE;
RCRA Facility Assessment Guidance; Draft: 8/5/85 Final: Target--
10/86.For further information contact: Dave Fagan (202) 382-4740
RCRA Facility Investigation Guidance; Draft: Target—December, 1986
For further information Contact: Art Day-(202) 382-4680
Corrective Action Plan (model scope of work for CA): Target-- •
September, 1986. For further information contact: Mark
Gilbertson (202) 382-4849
Interim Measures Guidance; Final: Target--September, 1986
For further information contact: Jackie Moya (202) 382-3122
Corrective Measures Guidance; Target--Draft-Spring, 1987
For further information contact: Art Day (202) 382-4680
Guidance on Alternate Concentration Limits; Target: November, 1936
For further information contact: Vernon Myers (202) 382-4495
Implementation of RCRA Facility Assessments; From: J. Winston Porter
To: Hazardous Uaste Division Directors, Regions I-X, August 21, 1986
TRAINING: RFA training was delivered to EPA Regions and States
during April-September 1986.
-------
-16-
III. MANAGING THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
EPA and the States are responsible for management of the
corrective action program. The steps in a corrective action
will be imposed through permit conditions or through enforcement
orders. In general, a permit may be issued with a schedule of
compliance for an RFI and Corrective Measures study. After
EPA or State approval of the appropriate corrective measures,
the permit will be modified to provide a schedule of compliance
for design, implementation and operation and maintenence. This
modification will be considered a major modification to the permit,
and will, therefore, provide for additional public involvement.
Likewise, enforcement orders should be phased with one order
being issued for the RCRA. facility investigation and corrective
measures studies and another for the implementati.on steps after
approval of the corrective measures. The Agency is. currently
developing a policy on involvement of the public in Enforcement
corrective actions. Owner/operators of facilities at which the
corrective action process will-be implemented over time will
also be encouraged to develop their own community involvement and
education programs.
In the case of both permits and enforcement, negotiations
with the owner/operator on the scope of the initial studies and
remedy implementation will be necessary. Depending on the status
of a particular facility, Regions and States may choose to use
permit schedules of compliance to secure some stages of corrective
action and enforcement action for other stages. Where orders
are used in advance of permit conditions, the schedule of compliance
may later be incorporated into the permit. Subsections A. and B.
-------
-17-
below give some examples of how Regions and States can use
enforcement and permitting corrective action authorities in a
complementary fashion. These management choices are shown in
Figure 2. In general, permitting authorities should be used
when the owner/operator is cooperative. When the owner/opera tor
is recalcitrant, enforcement actions should be pursued.
Priorities for corrective action are established in the
annual RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP). The Agency's general
approach to assigning priorities for corrective action is to
focus the resources available to the program on those facilities
which pose the greatest overall threat to human health and the
environment. In order to implement this general policy, the
Agency has tentatively decided to target a limited number of
facilities to be dealt with intensively, rather than attempting
to implement the process simultaneously at all facilities subject
to corrective action requirements. Regions, in conjunction with
the States will, through the Facility Management Planning process,
identify a limited number of facilities in the Region for priority
attention in initiating and following through in the corrective
action process. These priority facilities will be targeted to
receive intensive EPA/State oversight, with sufficient resources
allocated for the technical, administrative and enforcement
support necessary to effectively and expeditiously effect corrective
action for those facilities. EPA recognizes that focusing the
program's resources on a limited number of higher priority
facilities will require that lower priority facilities which
nevertheless may have substantial environmental concerns will be
dealt with less aggressively in following through the corrective
-------
-18-
action process. For such facilities, compliance schedules may be
drawn over longer time frames, and/or less intensive review
given of owner/operator generated reports and data. Likewise,
at some facilities with multiple sources of contamination, the
releases which pose the greatest immediate threat to human health
and the environment may be given priority attention, with the
remainder of the facility dealt with as a lower priority. EPA
invites comnent on this proposed method of prioritizing for -the
corrective action program.
As discussed above, the progression of any particular facility
through the corrective action process may vary due to the status
of the facility. The following subsections describe consider-
ations that may be relevant when managing a corrective action
at facilities seeking operating permits and at facilities that
are closing waste management operations.
A. Facilities seeking operating permits.
Prior to issuance of an operating permit the EPA or State
should undertake a RCRA Facility Assessment covering the entire
facility to determine whether there may be releases from units
at the facility. RFAs on units being addressed by the permit
should be completed prior to permit issuance.
At land disposal facilities, current regulations require
that corrective action for groundwater releases at regulated
units be identified and designed prior to permit issuance. This is
not a requirement for regulated treatment units, such as in-
cinerators and storage units. EPA is examining the land disposal
regulations at this time to determine whether modification should
be made to allow permitting following the determination that a
-------
-19-
release exists, but in advance of design of the corrective
action.
At a facility seeking an operating permit, all corrective
action steps subsequent to the RFA. should be compelled through
a schedule of compliance in an operating permit when feasible
and appropriate. EPA's ultimate goal is to ensure that all
permits have enforceable schedules of compliance for corrective
action activities. If necessary, enforcement orders can be used
in advance of permit issuance to compel corrective action in
response to immediate threats or to get corrective action
investigation activities underway at a facility that is not near
enough to permit issuance to use a schedule of compliance in the
permit to secure corrective action. The use of the order ensures
that there are enforceable requirements in place. This approach
can be useful as the 1988 deadline for land disposal permit
issuance approaches. Not all land disposal permits, will be at
the same stage at the same time. In order to keep the land
disposal facilities moving toward 1988 permit issuance Regions
and States should consider supplementing permit activities by
using enforcement orders to support corrective action needs
during permit processing.
The choice of using an order or permit to secure various
steps of corrective action at facilities seeking permits should
be made a part of the Facility Management Planning Process. In
this process Regions and States should consider whether it is
likely that the facility will remain in the operating universe
or is Likely not to receive an operating permit. If the facility
-------
-20-
is not likely to receive an operating permit it may be appropriate
to initially consider the use of an enforcement order to secure
initial steps of corrective action in advance of permit denial
and closure.
B. Closing Facilities
Facilities that are closing their waste man ace merit operations
present a somewhat more complicated corrective action management
problem than those that are seeking operating permits. Some
closing facilities which are subject to post-closure permit require-
ments (i.e., land disposal facilities which received wastes after
July 26, 1982) may investigate and complete all corrective measures
under the post-closure permit. Other facility owner/operators
will be unwilling or unable to undertake required closure and
corrective measures and will ultimately become facilities that
must be dealt with under CERCLA or other authorities.
As with the operating universe, the first step in taking a
corrective action at a closing facility is for EPA or the State
to perform a RCRA facility assessment to identify actual or
potential releases from the facility. While the RFA provides an
idea on the scope of investigation that mav be necessary at a
facility, it does not give EPA or the State any idea of whether
a facility will have the financial ability to perform the necessary
investigations or take appropriate response actions. One option
is to assess the financial status of the facility early in the
corrective action process to determine the ability of the owner/op-
era tor to take necessary response actions. During FY 1987 the
Agency will be examining how to treat economically marginal faci-
lities and whether financial assessments can be a useful tool in
-------
-21-
this process. Such an assessment can assist in determining the
best approach to take to secure corrective action by the owner/op-
erator including use of CERCLA authorities. EPA is currently
examining tools that could be used in making these determinations.
Using the results of the RFA, the financial assessment (if appropriate
and other available information on the facility, a decision on
the best approach to corrective action can be made. The facility
management planning process should be used to determine the
appropriate management approach to the closing facility.
Several approaches can be taken to securing corrective
action depending on the situation at the individual facility.
The following authorities can be used individually or in
combination with each other:
i
1. Post closure permit call in and/or issuance; The post
closure permit application can be called in to secure
additional information (part 270) from the owner/operator
on the physical situation at the facility.* A 3008(a)
order can be used to compel submission of any information
that is missing or deficient in the post closure permit
application. Once secured, this information can be
used to support issuance of a 3008(h) order to compel
corrective measures or to support post closure permit
1 A separate post closure permit call in is not necessary at a
facility that submitted a permit application (in response to
call) and then decided to close before receiving an operating
permit. Since the post closure permit application requirements
are a subset of those required for an operating permit, it is not
necessary to initiate a separate call and experience the resulting
six months delay before enforcing Part 270 requirements.
-------
-22-
issuance. The RCRA program is focusing upon closure of
regulated units via the closure plan approval process
and the issuance of enforcement orders or post-closure
permits to secure corrective action at environmentally
significant facilities. Enforcement orders can later be
incorporated into post closure permits when appropriate
to do so.
2. 3008(h) orders; Many facilities in the closing
universe requiring corrective measures should be
addressed through 3008(h) orders. This is particularly
true for those facilities that are likely to cease
operations before fulfilling post closure obligations.
Environmentally significant closing facilities are
priority candidates for 3008(h) orders in FY 87. Use
of a 3008(h) order to address closing facilities has
several advantages. When an order is used at a facility
that is in an uncertain financial state, it provides
an opportunity to document whether the facility owner
is able to fulfill obligations under the order or
whether it is likely to become a site that must be
dealt with under CERCLA authorities. In this respect
it acts as a bridge to CERCLA. Moreover, if it becomes
apparent that the facility can complete its obligations
under RCRA, the -provisions of the order can later be
incorporated into the post-closure permit along with
any additional requirements necessary to complete
corrective action obligations.
-------
-23-
At many facilities in the closing universe it
will be difficult to determin-3 initially whether the
company will have sufficient financial resources to
take all the appropriate corrective measures. In such
situations emphasis should be placed initially on
compelling interim measures at the facility to abate-
the most immediate problems and RCRA facility investigations
to the extent feasible. V.here it is apparent that the
owner/operator is not financially viable and nay be a
candidate for CERCLA. act ion, corrective action requirements
should be tailored to achieved as much as possible
before the o/o is no longer able to pay for the clean-
up or other associated costs. I.f an owner/operator
has the financial resources to take appropriate actions
and refuses to do so, judicial action should be pursued.
3. CERCLA response; When a facility is clearly not able
to fulfill its corrective action obligations, action
should be taken as soon as possible to determine whether
it should be managed under the CERCLA program. For
example, a facility that is bankrupt is a prime candidate
for referral to the CERCLA program. Several options
are available under CERCLA for dealing with the facilities.
In the majority of cases where the owner is insolvent,
or efforts to secure action under RCRA have been
unsuccessful, CERCLA section 104 action may be no re
appropriate due tc the lack of viable responsible
parties. Under section 104 a fund-financed removal
may be pursued if the criteria outlined in the National
-------
-24-
Contingency Plan are met (see 40 CFR 300). In general
these criteria encompass more serious threats. Fund-
financed remedial action can be pursued at facilities
that are listed on the National Priorities List. The
EPA has recently issued final criteria for listing
RCRA facilities on the NPL and has proposed additional
criteria for listing these facilities (see 51 FR 21054
and 51 FR 21109, June 10, 1986).
In addition to the authorities outlined above, the closure
plan can also be a valuable tool to secure corrective action at
closing facilities. Many of the activities taken to close a
regulated unit are steps toward completion of a corrective measure.
Accordingly, closure plan development, approval and implementation
should be closely coordinated with corrective action activities
at closing facilities. Further detail on how to coordinate these
activities is included in Section IV below.
IV. FEDERAL STATE PARTNERSHIP IN THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
As a program delegated in phases, RCRA has always required
close coordination between EPA and the States. With the advent
of broad-based corrective action authorities, an effective
Federal/State partnership is even more important. Because the
Agency's new corrective action responsibilities derive from the
HSWA amendments, the Federal government has responsibility for
implementing the new authorities until states are specifically
authorized for corrective action. Consequently, until states
are authorized for the new §3004(u) authority, all permits
-------
-25-
incorporating corrective action will have to be issued jointly
by EPA and the State. Likewise, only the Federal government is
expressly authorized to issue §3008(h) orders requiring investi-
gation and clean up at interim status facilities. States, however,
may have similar authorities under their own laws.
EPA intends to give States a considerable opportunity to
participate in the corrective action process prior to official
authorization. Through their closure regulations, for example,
States can compel facilities to undertake various activities to
mitigate or eliminate threats to public health or the environment
(e.g., waste removal, soil decontamination, capping). Many States
also have authority to compel investigation or clean up through
non-RCP.A enforcement authorities such as public nuisance law,
state water laws, or state Superfunds. Use of.-these authorities
is encouraged at RCRA facilities provided that states use their
own authorities to achieve equivalent response as required by RCRA.
Given the varying authorities and responsibilities of Federal
and state governments prior to full authorization, joint Federal/state
planning will be particularly crucial to program implementation.
Regions and states should use the Facility Management Planning
process to decide on a facility-specific basis the timing of
various corrective action initiatives, which authority (ies )
should be used to compel the initiative, and which agency will
take responsibility for implementing and overseeing the action.
Where non-RCRA state authorities are used to compel corrective
action activities, EPA will have ultimate respons ibilty for
ensuring that the activities mandated are consistent with and
equivalent to the standards imposed by HSWA.
-------
-26-
GUIDANCE: RCRA Reauthorization and Joint Permitting In
Authorized States, July 1, 1985
V. REQUEST FOR COMMENT
EPA invites comments on the general features of this draft
strategy, as v/ell as on the specific issues and policies which
are expressed as part of the strategy. Comments should be
directed to:
Matt Hale
Chief, Permits Branch (WH-563)
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
APPLICATIONS OF RCRA AND CERCLA
CORRECTIVE ACTION AUTHORITIES
TRIGGER
SITUATIONS
POTENTIALS
LIABLE PERSONS^
Non-Compliance
with
Subtitle C
Substantial
Hazard
Imminent and
Substantial
Endangerment
Release of
Hazardous
Waste or
Hazardous
Constituents
Present generators,
transporters, and
owners/operators
§3008(a)
Present
owners/operators
§§3008(h)
3004(u)
3004(v)
Past or present
owners/operators
§3013
Past or present
generators,
transporters, and
owners/operators
CERCLA §§104,
106
RCRA §7003
-------
RCRA SECTION 7003
Any person who is handling or has handled solid waste or hazardous waste
including past or present generator, transporter, or o/o
Substance handled, stored, treated, transported or disposed of is a solid waste
or hazardous waste.
Handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.
-------
RCRA SECTION 3013
Present o/o or most recent previous o/o of a facility or site
Presence or release
Of hazardous waste
From a facility or site
Which may present a substantial hazard to human health or the environment.
-------
RCRA SECTION 3008(a)
Any person subject to RCRA Subtitle C
Who has violated or is in violation of any requirement under RCRA Subtitle C.
-------
RCRA SECTION 3008(h)
There is or has been a release
Off hazardous waste or hazardous constituents
Into the environment
From a facility subject to interim status under Section 3005(e)
Corrective action or other response measure is necessary to protect human
health or the environment
-------
RCRA SECTION 3004(u)
Releases
Of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents
From solid waste management units
At a permitted TSDF
-------
RCRA SECTION 3004(v)
Corrective action is required beyond the facility boundary of a TSDF for
releases
Of a hazardous waste
Where necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The owner/ operator is able to obtain the permission of the owner of the
affected property.
-------
CERCLA SECTION 104
In the event of a release or substantial threat of release of:
a hazardous substance, or
any pollutant or contaminant which may present an imminent and
substantial danger to public health or welfare
Into the environment,
EPA may take response actions consistent with the NCP as necessary to
protect public health or welfare or the environment.
EPA may seek cost recovery from generators, transporters or o/o's of facilities
pursuant to Section 107.
-------
CERCLA SECTION 106
In the event of a release or threatened release of
A hazardous substance
From a facility
Into the environment
Which release or threatened release may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment,
EPA may initiate an abatement action, or take other action or issue orders to
generators, transporters, or o/o's as may be necessary to protect public health
and welfare and the environment.
-------
§7003
COMPARISON OK RCRA AND CERCLA CORRECTIVE ACTION AUTHORITIES
§3008(a) §3013 §3008(h) §3004(u) §3004(v)
5104
§106
Trigger:
Substances
Covered :
Those
Potentially
1 iaKltk
I_ldDie
Actions
That Can
Be Required:
Handling, stor-
age, treatment.
transportation
or disposal nay
present an imrai-
nent and substan-
tial endangernent
to health or the
environment.
Sol id waste or
hazardous waste.
Any person who is
or has handled
sol id waste or
hazardous waste.
including present
generators, trans-
porters or o/o's.
Action to re-
strain party 1 Sa-
ble Iron hand-
ling, storage.
treatment, trans-
portation or dis-
posal of waste.
or other action
as may be neces-
sary, or both.
Violation of any
RCRA Subtitle C
requirement.
Any person subject
to Subtitle C, in-
cluding genera-
tors, transporters
and o/o's of RCRA
TSDFs.
Immediate con-
pi iance or con-
pi iance within a
specified tine
period; suspen-
sion or revoca-
tion of permit.
Presence or re-
lease fron a
facility or site
may present a
substantial
hazard to hunan
health or the
environment.
Hazardous waste.
Present o/o of a
facility or site,
or in certain
cases the most re-
cent previous o/o
expected to have
sufficient knowl-
edge to carry out
actions required.
Such oonitorinq.
testing, analysis
and reporting as
deemed reasonable
to ascertain the
the nature and ex-
tent of the
hazard. Hay, un-
der certain cir-
cumstances, re-
cover costs in-
curred by EPA for
monitoring, test-
ing, etc.
Information that Release from a
there is or has solid waste man-
been a release. agenent unit at a
facility seeking
a permit.
Hazardous waste Hazardous waste
and hazardous con- and hazardous con-
stituents, stituents.
o/o's of facili- o/o's of RCRA per-
ties subject to nit ted TSDFs.
interinTstatus
under Sec. 3005(e).
Corrective action Corrective action.
or such other re-
sponse measure as
deemed necessary to
protect human
health or the en-
vironment. Orders
can include a sus-
pension or revoca-
tion of authoriza-
tion to operate
under Sec. 3005(e).
Release beyond
the facility
boundary.
Hazardous waste.
o/o's of RCRA
permitted TSDFs.
Corrective action
beyond the facil i-
ity boundary, if
o/o can obtain
permission of
owner of affected
property.
Release or sub-
stantial threat
of release into
the environment.
Hazardous sub-
stances, or any
pollutant or con-
taminant which may
present an inminent
and substantial
danger to publ ic
health or wel fare.
Generators, trans-
porters, o/o's
of facilities.
Removal or remed-
ial action or
other response
measures consis-
tent with the NCR
deemed necessary
to protect public
health or welfare
or the environ-
ment. EPA can
seek reimbursement
of response costs
under Sec. 107.
Release or threat
of release fron a
facility which may
present an immi-
nent and substan-
tial endangernent
to public health
or welfare or the
environment.
Hazardous sub-
stances.
Generators.
transporters,
o/o's of facili-
ties.
Abatement or other
actions as may be
necessary to pro-
tect publ ic
health, welfare
and the environ-
ment. EPA can
seek reimburse-
ment of response
costs under Sec.
107.
DRAFT
-------
COMPARISON OF RCRA AND CERCLA CORRECTIVE ACTION AUTHORITIES
§7003
§3008( a)
§3013
§3008(h)
§300-11 u)
Procedures:
Penalties:
Administrator
nust notify af-
fected State
prior to issuing
notice.
0/0 has right to
an adjudicatory
hearing. Admini-
strator must
notify affected
authorized State.
Opportunity for
proposal confer-
ence with Agency.
Opportunity for
administrative
hearing nust be
provided.
Permitting pro-
cedures.
§3004(v)
Permitting pro-
cedures or orders.
§104
§106
Civil penalty
not to exceed
$5.000/day for
violation of
Sec. 7003
-------
SECTION 7003
IMMINENT HAZABO
SBC. 7003. [6973] (a) AUTHORITY OF ADMINIBTRATOR.—Notwith-
standing any other provision of this Act, upon receipt of evidence
that the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transporta-
tion or disposal of any solid waste or hazardous waste may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the* envi-
ronment, the Administrator may bring suit on behalf of the United
States in the appropriate district court against any person (includ-
ing any past or present generator, past or present transporter, or
past or present owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or dis-
posal facility) who has contributed or who is contributing to the al-
leged disposal to restrain such person from such handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, or disposal, to order such person to take
such other action as may be necessary, or both. A transporter shall
not be deemed to have contributed or to be contributing to such
handling, storage, treatment, or disposal taking place after such
solid waste or hazardous waste has left the possession or control of
such transporter if the transportation of such waste was under a
sole contractual arrangement arising from a published tariff and
acceptance for carriage by common carrier by rail and such trans-
porter has exercised due care in the past or present handling, stor-
age, treatment, transportation and disposal of such waste. The Ad-
ministrator shall provide notice to the affected State of any such
suit The Administrator may also, after notice to the affected State,
take other action under this section including, but not limited to,
issuing such orders as may be necessary to protect public health
and the environment.
(b) VIOLATIONS.—Any person who willfully violates, or fails or re-
fuses to comply with, any order of the Administrator under subsec-
tion (a) may, in an action brought in the appropriate United States
district court to enforce such order, be fined not more than $5,000
for each day in which such violation occurs or such failure to
comply continues.
(c) IMMEDIATE NOTICE.—Upon receipt of information that there is
hazardous waste at any site which has presented an imminent and
substantial endangerment to human health or the environment,
the Administrator shall provide immediate notice to the appropri-
ate local government agencies. In addition, the Administrator shall
require notice of such endangerment to be promptly posted at the
site where the waste is located.
(d) PUBLIC PABTICIPATIPN m SETTLEMENTS.—Whenever the
United States or the Administrator proposes to covenant not to sue
or to forbear from suit or to settle any claim arising under this sec-
tion, notice, and opportunity for a public meeting in the affected
area, and a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed
settlement prior to its final entry shall be afforded to the public.
The decision of the United States or the Administrator to enter
into or not to enter into such Consent Decree, covenant or agree-
ment shall not constitute a final agency action subject to judicial
review under this Act or the Administrative Procedure Act.
-------
SECTION 3008(a)
SK. 3008. [6928] (a) COMPLIANCE ORDERS.—(1) Except as provid-
ed in paragraph (2), whenever on the basis of any information the
Administrator determines that any person has violated or is in vio-
lation of any requirement of this subtitle, the Administrator may
issue an order assessing a civil penalty for any past or current vio-
lation, requiring compliance immediately or within a specified time
period, or both, or the Administrator may commence a civil action
in the United States district court in the district in which the vio-
lation occurred for appropriate relief, including a temporary or per-
manent injunction.
(2) In the case of a violation of any requirement of this subtitle
where such violation occurs in a State which is authorized to carry
out a hazardous waste program under section 3006, the Adminis-
trator snail give notice to the State in which such violation has oc-
curred thirty days prior to issuing an order or commencing a civil
action under this section.
(3) Any order issued pursuant to this subsection may include a
suspension or revocation of any permit issued by the Administrator
or a State under this subtitle and shall state with reasonable speci-
ficity the nature of the violation. Any penalty assessed in the order
shall not exceed $25,000 per day of noncompliance for each viola-
tion of a requirement of this subtitle. In assessing such a penalty,
the Administrator shall take into account the seriousness of the
violation and any good faith efforts to comply with applicable re-
quirements.
(b) PUBLIC HEARING.—Any order issued under this section shall
become final unless, no later than thirty days after the order is
served, the person or persons named therein request a public hear-
ing. Upon such request the Administrator shall promptly conduct a
public hearing. In connection with any proceeding under this sec-
tion the Administrator may issue subpenas for the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers,
books, and documents, and may promulgate rules for discovery pro-
cedures.
(c) VIOLATION OP COMPLIANCE ORDKBS.—If a violator fails to take
corrective action within the time specified in a compliance order,
the Administrator may assess a civil penalty of not more than
$25,000 for each day of continued noncompliance with the order
and the Administrator may suspend or revoke any permit issued to
the violator (whether issued by the Administrator or the State).
-------
SECTION 3013
MONITORING, ANALYSIS, AND TESTING
SEC. 3013. [6934] (a) AUTHORITY OP ADMINISTRATOR.—If the Ad-
ministrator determines, upon receipt of any information, that—
(1) the presence of any hazardous waste at a facility or site
at which hazardous waste is, or has been, stored, treated, or
disposed of, or
(2) the release of anv such waste from such facility or site
may present a substantial hazard to human health or the environ-
ment, he may issue an order requiring the owner or operator of
such facility or site to conduct such monitoring, testing, analysis,
and reporting with respect to such facility or site as the Adminis-
trator deems reasonable to ascertain the nature and extent of such
hazard.
(b) PREVIOUS OWNERS AND OPERATORS.—In the case of any facili-
ty or site not in operation at the time a determination is made
under subsection (a) with respect to the facility or site, if the Ad-
ministrator finds that the owner of such facility or site could not
reasonably be expected to have actual knowledge of the presence of
hazardous waste at such facility or site and of its potential for re-
lease, he may issue an order requiring the most recent previous
owner or operator of such facility or site who could reasonably be
expected to have such actual knowledge to carry out the actions re-
ferred to in subsection (a).
(c) PROPOSAL.—An order under subsection (a) or (b) shall require
the person to whom such order is issued to submit to the Adminis-
trator within 30 days from the issuance of such order a proposal
for carrying out the required monitoring, testing, analysis, and re-
porting. The Administrator may, after providing such person with
an opportunity to confer with the Administrator respecting such
proposal, require such person to carry out such monitoring, testing,
analysis, and reporting in accordance with such proposal, and such
modifications in such proposal as the Administrator deems reason-
able to ascertain the nature and extent of the hazard.
-------
SECTION 3013(d)
(d) MONITORING, ETC., CARRIED Our BY ADMINISTRATOR.—(1) If the
Administrator determines that no owner or operator referred to in
subsection (a) or (b) is able to conduct monitoring, testing, analysis,
or reporting satisfactory to the Administrator, if the Administrator
deems any such action carried out by an owner or operator to be
unsatisfactory, or if the Administrator cannot initially determine
that there is an owner or operator referred to in subsection (a) or
(b) who is able to conduct such monitoring, testing, analysis, or re-
porting, he may—
(A) conduct monitoring, testing, or analysis (or any combina-
tion thereof) which he deems reasonable to ascertain the
nature and extent of the hazard associated with the site con-
cerned, or
(B) authorize a State or local authority or other person to
carry out any such action,
and require, by order, the owner or operator referred to in subsec-
tion (a) or (b) to reimburse the Administrator or other authority or
person for the costs of such activity.
(2) No order may be issued under this subsection requiring reim-
bursement of the costs of any action carried out by the Administra-
tor which confirms the results of an order issued under subsection
(a) or (b).
(3) For purposes of carrying out this subsection, the Administra-
tor or any authority or other person authorized under paragraph
(1), may exercise the authorities set forth in section 3007.
(e) ENFORCEMENT.—The Administrator may commence a civil
action against any person who fails or refuses to comply with any
order issued under this section. Such action shall be brought in the
United States district court in which the defendant is located, re-
sides, or is doing business. Such court shall have jurisdiction to re-
quire compliance with such order and to assess a civil penalty of
not to exceed $5,000 for each day during which such failure or re-
fusal occurs.
-------
SECTION 3008(h)
(h) INTERIM STATUS CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERS.—(1) Whenever
on the basis of any information the Administrator determines that
there is or has been a release of hazardous waste into the environ-
ment from a facility authorized to operate under section 3005(e) of
this subtitle, the Administrator may issue an order requiring cor-
rective action or such other response measure as he deems neces-
sary to protect human health or the environment or the Adminis-
trator may commence a civil action in the United States district
court in the district in which the facility is located for appropriate
relief, including a temporary or permanent injunction.
(2) Any order issued under this subsection may include a suspen-
sion or revocation of authorization to operate under section 3005(e)
of this subtitle, shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of
the required corrective action or other response measure, and shall
specify a time for compliance. If any person named in an order
fails to comply with the order, the Administrator may assess, and
such person shall be liable to the United States for, a civil penalty
in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each day of noncompliance
with the order.
-------
SECTION 3004(u)
(u) CONTINUING RELEASES AT PERMITTED FACILITIES.—Standards
promulgated under this section shall require, and a permit issued
after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 by the Administrator or a State shall require,
corrective action for all releases of hazardous waste or constituents
from any solid waste management unit at a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility seeking a permit under this subtitle, regardless of
the time at which waste was placed in such unit. Permits issued
under section 3005 shall contain schedules of compliance for such
corrective action (where such corrective action cannot be completed
prior to issuance of the permit) and assurances of financial respon-
sibility for completing such corrective action.
-------
SECTION 3004(v)
(v) CoKBicnvK ACTIONS BEYOND FACILITY BOUNDARY.—As
promptly as practicable after the date of the enactment of the Haz-
ardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Administrator
shall amend the standards under this section regarding corrective
action required at facilities for the treatment, storage, or disposal,
of hazardous waste listed or identified under section 3001 to re-
quire that corrective action be taken beyond the facility boundary
where necessary to protect human health and the environment
unless the owner or operator of the facility concerned demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the Administrator that, despite the owner or
operator's best efforts, the owner or operator was unable to obtain
the necessary permission to undertake such action. Such regula-
tions shall take effect immediately upon promulgation, notwith-
standing section 3010(b), and shall apply to—
(1) all facilities operating under permits issued under subsec-
tion (c), and
(2) all landfills, surface impoundments, and waste pile units
(including any new units, replacements of existing units, or lat-
eral expansions of existing units) which receive hazardous
waste after July 26, 1982.
Pending promulgation of such regulations, the Administrator shall
issue corrective action orders for facilities referred to in para-
graphs (1) and (2), on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the pur-
poses of this subsection.
-------
CERCLA SECTION 104
(As amended by SARA. Words in italics represent additions made by
SARA; bracketed items have been deleted by SARA.)
SEC. 104. (aXl) Whenever (A) any hazardous substance is released
or there is a substantial threat of such a release into the environ-
ment, or (B) there is a release or substantial threat of release into
the environment of any pollutant or contaminant which may
present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health
or welfare, the President is authorized to act, consistent with the
national contingency plan, to remove or arrange for the removal of.
and provide, for remedial action relating to such hazardous sub-
stance, pollutant, or contaminant at any time (including its remov-
al from any contaminated natural resource), or take any other re-
sponse measure consistent with the national contingency plan
which the President deems necessary to protect the public health
or welfare or the environment [, unless the President determines
that such removal and remedial action will be done properly by the
owner or operator of the vessel or facility from which the release
or threat of release emanates, or by any other responsible party].
When the President determines that such action will be done proper-
ly and promptly by the owner or operator of the facility or vessel or
by any other responsible party, the President may allow such person
to carry out the action, conduct the remedial investigation, or con-
duct the feasibility study in accordance with section 122. No remedi-
al investigation or feasibility study (RI/FS) shall be authorized
except on a determination by the President that the party is quali-
fied to conduct the RI/FS and only if the President contracts with
or arranges for a qualified person to assist the President in oversee-
ing and reviewing the conduct of such RI/FS and if the responsible
party agrees to reimburse the Fund for any cost incurred by the
President under, or in connection with, the oversight contract or ar-
rangement. In no event shall a potentially responsible party be sub-
ject to a lesser standard of liability, receive preferential treatment.
or in any other way, whether direct or indirect, benefit from any
such arrangements as a response action contractor, or as a person
hired or retained by such a response action contractor, with respect
to the release or facility in question. The President shall give pri-
mary attention to those releases which the President deems ma\
present a public health threat.
-------
CERCLA SECTION 106
(As amended by SARA. Words in italics represent additions made by
SARA; bracketed items have been deleted by SARA.)
ABATEMENT ACTION
SBC. 106. (a) In addition to any other action taken by a
State or local government, when the President determines that
there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
public health or welfare or the environment because of an actual
or threatened release of a hazardous substance from a facility, he
may require the Attorney General of the United States to secure
such relief as may be necessary to abate such danger or threat, and
the district court of the United States in.the district in which the
threat occurs shall have jurisdiction to grant such relief as the
public interest and the equities of the case may require. The Presi-
dent may also, after notice to the affected State, take other action
under this section including, but not limited to, issuing such orders
as may be necessary to protect public health and welfare and the
environment. :
-------
TRIGGER
Imminent and
Substantial
Endangerment
Substantial
Threat
Release
Statutory and
Regulatory
Violation
7003
106
3013
104
104
3004(u,v)
3008(h)
3008(a)
7002
[Subtitle C]
Solid
Waste
Hazardous
Substances
Hazardous Waste
(Statutory Def.)
Hazardous Const.
Hazardous Waste
(Regulatory Def.)
SUBSTANCES
COVERED
7003
104
106
7003
7003
3013
104
106
3008(h)
3004(u,v)
7003
3013
106
104
Present
Owner/
Operator
Generator/
Transporter
Past
Owner/
Operator
LIABILITY
7003
3013
3008(a)
3008(h)
3004(u,v)
104
106
7003
3008(a)
104
106
7003
3013
104
106
[most recent]
-------
CORRECTIVE
ACTIONS
Any and All
Facility Wide
Corrective Actn
Any and All
Unit Specific
Corrective Actn
Emergency
Removals
7003
106
3008(h)
7003
106
3008(h)
3004(u,v)
104
106
7003
3008(h)
3004(u,v)
Study
3013
106
7003
3008(h)
3004(u,v)
PROCEDURES
Adjudicatory
Hearing
3008(a)
Streamlined
Hearing
Notify
States
Permit
Procedures
Notice
to PRPs
Conference
With EPA
3008(h)
7003
106
3004(u,v)
104
106
3013
PENALTIES
$5000/day
7003
3013
§25000/day
3008(a)
3008(h)
Treble
Damages
104 [under 107]
106 [under 107]
104 [under 122]
106 [under 122]
PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
REQUIRED
None
Some to
Substantial
7003 [unilateral]
3008(a)
3013
104
7003 [consent] [notice]
3004(u,v) [notice/comment/hearing]
3008(h) [notice/comment/meeting]
106 [notice/comment/meeting]
-------
DEFINITIONS
RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting,
emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,
dumping, or disposing...
From:
To:
Hazardous Waste Management Units
Solid Waste Management Units with hazardous
constituents
Hazardous waste management activities
Groundwater
Surface water
Air
Land surface and subsurface strata
FROM A FACILITY
• All contiguous property, not limited to solid and/or
hazardous waste management areas, under the control of
. an owner or operator at which units subject to RCRA
permitting are located.
AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE UNDER SECTION 3005(e)
• Facilities that have interim status
• Facilities that should have interim status
• Facilities that had interim status
-------
SCOPE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
OFF-SITE PLUME
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
AREA
PRODUCT STORAGE
PRE-RCRA UNIT
MANUFACTURING AREA
RCRA FACILITY
SOLID WAS
MANAGEME
OFF-SITE PLUME
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC I 6 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interpretation of Section 3008(h) of the Solid
Waste,Disposal Act
FROM: J.^winston Porter, Assistant Administrator
ffice of Solid Wfftte and Emergency Response
CoITrrfie9~~M\ Fride/'kssistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Regional Administrators
Regional Counsels
Regional Waste Management Division Directors
Director, National Enforcement Investigation Center
As part of our effort to support case development activities
undertaken by United States Environmental Protection Agency
personnel, we are transmitting to you guidance on the use of
Section 3008(h), one of the corrective action authorities added
to the Solid Waste Disposal Act by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. As you are aware, Section 3008(h) allows the
Agency to take enforcement action to require corrective action or
any other response necessary to protect human health or the
environment when a release is identified at an interim status
hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility. Because
the authority is broad, both with respect to the kinds of environ-
mental problems that can be addressed and the actions that the
Agency may compel, we have produced the attached document to
provide initial guidance on the interpretation of the terms of
the provision and to describe administrative requirements. The
document will be revised as case law and Agency policy develop.
In addition, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
intends to develop technical guidance on various types of response
measures and the circumstances in which they might be appropriate.
In view of the need to issue RCRA permits and to ensure that
the substantial number of interim status facilities expected to
cease operation in the near future are closed in an environmentally
sound manner, we encourage you to use the interim status corrective
action authority as appropriate to supplement the closure and
permitting processes. Questions or comments on this document or
the use of Section 3008(h) authority in general can be addressed to
Gene A. Lucero, Director of the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
(PTS 382-4814, WH-527) or Fred Stiehl, Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Waste (FTS 382-3050, LE-134S).
Attachment
-------
RCRA SECTION 3008(h)
THE INTERIM STATUS CORRECTIVE ACTION AUTHORITY
DECEMBER 16, 1985
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 have substantially
expanded the scope of the RCRA hazardous waste management program. One of
the most significant provisions is the interim status corrective action
authority, which allows EPA to take enforcement action to compel response
measures when the Agency determines that there is or has been a release of
hazardous waste at a RCRA interim status facility. Prior to the 1984
Amendments, EPA could require remedial action at interim status facilities
by, inter alia, (1) using RCRA §7003 or O2RCLA S106 authorities if an imminent
and substantial endangerment may have been presented, or (2) when significant
ground-water contamination was detected, calling in Part B of the RCRA permit
application and requiring corrective action as a condition of the permit. The
Amendments added Section 3008(h) to deal directly with environmental problems
by requiring clean-up at facilities that have operated or are operating subject
to RCRA interim status requirements.
The purpose of this document is to provide preliminary guidelines on the
scope of Section 3008(h) and to summarize appropriate procedures. The document
will be revised as case law and Agency policy develop. Other relevant RCRA
guidances that may be consulted include:
0 Final Revised Guidance on the Use and Issuance of Administrative Orders
under Section 7003 of RCRA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response - September, 1984.
0 Issuance of Administrative Orders under Section 3013 of RCRA, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring and Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response - September, 1984.
0 Draft Guidance on Corrective Action for Continuing Releases, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response - February, 1985.
0 Final RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Compliance Order Guidance, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response - August, 1985.
-------
-2-
0 Draft RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response - August, 1985.
0 Draft RCRA Prelijninary Assessment/Site Investigation Guidance, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response - August, 1985.
II. DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY
On April 16, 1985, the Administrator signed delegations enabling the Regional
Administrators, the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
and the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring to
exercise Section 3008(h) authority. There are three new delegations, 8-31, 32
and 33. The first enables the Regional Administrator or the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response to determine that there is or has been a
release of hazardous waste at or from a RGRA interim status facility. The second
and third delegate the authority to issue orders and sign consent agreements.
The authority to refer civil judicial actions is found in Delegation 8-10.
Because Section 3008(h) is quite broad, both with respect to the types of
environmental problems that may be addressed and the actions that EPA may compel,
delegation of Section 3008(h) authority is subject to limitations. To issue an
administrative order or sign a consent agreement, the Regions must obtain advance
concurrence from the Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response and must notify the Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Waste, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring. Until the
Agency as a whole gains experience in using the new authority, this requirement
is necessary to ensure that sound precedent is established and national program
priorities are-addressed. The Office of waste Programs Enforcement intends to
waive advance concurrence, however, for those Regions that demonstrate sufficient
experience in using Section 3008(h) as indicated by the number and quality of
S3008(h) orders submitted for review in the next six months. Civil judicial
actions will be handled in accordance with existing procedures for referrals.
-------
To expedite S3008(h) actions, the Regions should establish procedures for
drafting and reviewing orders and referrals and clearly delineate the roles
and responsibilities of Regional RCRA enforcement and program personnel (including
02RCLA personnel as necessary) and the Office of Regional Counsel in those
processes. Draft orders should be sent to the Chief, Compliance and Implementation
Branch, RCRA Enforcement Division, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement.
Headquarters is committed to conducting timely review of S3008(h) orders.
To avoid the delays associated with discussion and review of rough drafts, we
ask that orders be in "near final" form when they are submitted. Generally,
the orders will be examined to determine whether (1) the elements of proof are
adequately defined and documented, (2) the response to be compelled is practicable
and environmentally sound, and (3) the action supports national RCRA program goals.
Written comments or concurrence will be provided to the Regions within ten working
days of receipt.
III. SCOPE OF SECTION 3008(h)
Section 3008(h) provides:
" (1) Whenever on the basis of any information the Administrator
determines that there is or has been a release of hazardous
waste into the environment from a facility authorized to
operate under Section 3005(e) of this subtitle, the Administrator
may issue an order requiring corrective action or such other
response measure as he deems necessary to protect human health
or the environment, or the Administrator may commence a civil
action in the United States district court in the district in
which the facility is located for appropriate relief, including
a temporary or permanent injunction.
(2) Any order issued under this subsection may include a suspension
or revocation of authorization to operate under Section 3005(e)
of this subtitle, shall state with reasonable specificity the
nature of the required corrective action or other response
measure, and shall specify a time for compliance. If any
person named in an order fails to comply with the order, the
Administrator may assess, and such a person shall be liable to
the United States for, a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed
$25,000 for each day of noncompliance with the order."
-------
-4-
To exercise the interim status corrective action authority, the Agency
must first have information that there is or has been a release of hazardous
waste to the environment at or from an interim status facility. Second, the
corrective action or other response measure, in the judgment of the Agency,
must be necessary to protect human health or the environment. Key terms are
discussed below in greater detail.
"Whenever on the basis of any information the Administrator determines ..."
The opening clause of Section 3008(h) authorizes the Agency to make the
determination that there is or has been a release of hazardous waste into the
environment on the basis of 'any information'. Appropriate information can be
obtained from a variety of sources, including data from laboratory analyses of
soil, air, surface water or ground water samples, observations recorded during
inspections, photographs, and facts obtained from facility records.
The reference to a determination by the Administrator should be considered
in the context of the term 'any information1. To satisfy any requirement
imposed by the statute, an order should contain a specific determination. A
civil referral should also .be based on a written determination that there is
or has been a release.
" ...that there is or has been a release...into the environment..."
The trigger for issuing §3008(h) orders and initiating civil referrals
is the existence of information that there is or has been a release, which is
a lower threshold than the showing of 'substantial hazard1 under RCRA Section
3013 or ' imminent and substantial endangerment' under RCRA Section 7003 or CERCLA
Section 106. While the statute does not define the term 'release', the Agency
believes that, given the broad remedial purpose of Section 3008{h), the term
should encompass at least as much as the definition of release under CERCIA.
See 42 U.S.C. §9601(22). Therefore a release is any spilling, leaking, pumping,
-------
pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping
or disposing into the environment. The exemptions described in the CERCLA definition
are considered inapplicable or inappropriate for RCRA purposes, however, and are not
included in the RCRA definition.
The term 'environment' is also broad. The legislative history for
Section 3008(h), which discusses use of the authority to respond to releases
to various environmental media, makes it clear that Section 3008(h) is not
limited to a particular medium. H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 111-112
(1984). The Agency will use Section 3008(h) to address releases to surface
waters, groundwater, land surface or subsurface strata and air.
It is not necessary to have actual sampling data to show a release. An
inspector may find other evidence that a release has occurred, such as a broken
dike at a surface impoundment. Less obvious indications of release might also
be adequate to make the determination. For example, the Agency could have
sufficient information on the contents of a land disposal unit, the design and
operating characteristics of the unit, and the hydrogeology of the area in
which the unit is located to conclude that there has been a release to groundwater.
In addition to on-site information gathering undertaken specifically to
support a §3008(h) action, other sources that may provide information on
releases include:
0 Inspection Reports.
0 RCRA Part A and Part B permit applications.
0 Responses to RCRA §3007 information requests.
0 Information obtained through RCRA S3013 orders.
• Notifications required by CERCLA S103.
0 Information-gathering activities conducted under CERCLA $104.
0 Informants' tips or citizens' complaints corroborated by supporting
information.
-------
-6-
A determination that there is or has been a release does not require that
specific amounts of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents be found in
the environment. Quantities or concentrations of hazardous wastes or hazardous
constituents should be considered when ordering interim or complete corrective
actions, however, because response actions compelled by the Agency must be
necessary to protect human health or the environment.
"...of hazardous waste..."
In contrast to many Subtitle C provisions, the language of Section 3008(h)
refers to "hazardous waste" rather than "hazardous waste identified or listed
under Subtitle C". The Agency believes that the omission of a reference to
wastes listed or identified at 40 CFR Part 261 was deliberate, and Congress
did not intend to limit Section 3008(h) only to materials meeting the regulatory
definition of hazardous waste. The Conference Report specifically endorses the
use of corrective action orders to respond to releases of hazardous constituents.
H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. Ill (1984). The legislative history also
indicates that the new authority should be at least as broad as the corrective
action authority in the federal RCRA permit program. Id. at 111-112. Those
regulations address both hazardous waste and hazardous constituents. Moreover,
Section 3004(u), the 'Continuing Releases' provision requiring clean-up of
releases from any solid waste management unit at a treatment, storage or
disposal facility seeking a RCRA permit, applies to releases of hazardous
constituents as well as releases of listed and characteristic wastes. H. Rep.
. No. 198, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 60 (1983). Therefore, Section 3008(h) may also
be used to compel response measures for releases of hazardous constituents
from hazardous or solid waste.
-------
-7-
"Hazardous constituents" are the substances listed in Appendix VIII to
40 CFR Part 261. H. Rep. No. 198, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 60-61 (1983).
According to the legislative history for Section 3004(u), which is read in con-
junction with Section 3008(h), the term also includes Appendix VIII hazardous
constituents released from solid waste and hazardous constituents that are reaction
by-products. S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 32 (1983). It should be
noted that the legislative history for the new underground storage tank provisions
states that Section 3008 is not applicable to underground storage tanks regulated
under Subtitle I. Such releases may be addressed by Section 7002 and Section
7003 authorities, however. H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 127 (1984).
Section 3008(h) remains applicable to releases from underground tanks containing
hazardous or solid waste subject to Subtitle C provisions.
"...fron a facility..."
For interim status corrective action purposes, EPA intends to employ the
definition of 'facility1 adopted by the Agency in the corrective action
program for releases from permitted facilities. The preamble to the permitting
requirements for land disposal facilities indicates that the term 'facility'
refers to ..."the broadest extent of EPA's area jurisdiction under Section
3004 of RCRA...[meaning] the entire site that is under the control of the
owner or operator engaged in hazardous waste management." 47 FR 32288-89
(July 26, 1982). See also the Final Codification Rule. 50 FR 28712 (July 15,
1985). Therefore, the definition of facility encompasses all contiguous property
under the owner or operator's control.
i
The permit program, as amended by Section 3004(u), requires corrective action
for releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents from solid waste
management units at a facility. EPA interprets 'solid waste management unit1
-------
-8-
to include any discernable unit used for waste management. See 50 PR 28712
(July 15, 1985). Since the legislative history describes the interim status
corrective action authority as a "supplement" to permitting authority and
indicates that the interim status authority should be at least as broad as
the permit authority, Section 3008(h) clearly authorizes EPA to require corrective
action for any release of hazardous waste from discernable waste management
units. The Agency's authority to use Section 3008(h) .to address releases from
solid waste management units as well as hazardous waste management units is
•
discussed in the Final Codification Rule. 50 PR 28716 (July 15, 1985).
The language of Section 3008(h), however, suggests that Congress did not
intend to limit EPA's authority to releases from discernable units. Unlike
Section 3004(u), Section 3008(h) broadly authorizes corrective action for
any release from a "facility". It does not require the Agency to find that
a release originated in a discernable waste management "unit".
The legislative history supports this interpretation. Prior to enactment
of Section 3008(h), the RCRA regulations required corrective action for releases
to groundwater from permitted 'regulated units' (surface impoundments, waste
piles, landfills and land treatment areas that received Subtitle C hazardous
waste after a specified date). 40 CFR 264.100 and 40 CFR 264.90. Congress
criticized this approach as too slow and too limited, however, and created
the interim status corrective action authority to "deal directly with an
ongoing environmental problem at interim status facilities." H. Rep. No. 1133,
98th Cong., 2d Sess. 110-112 (1984). Moreover, Congress clearly did not intend
the authority to be limited to the scope of the existing permit program. For
instance, the legislative history lists several examples of releases outside
the regulatory program for which a $3008(h) action is appropriate, including
-------
-9-
releases from waste management units not required to undertake corrective
action or otherwise exempt from RdRA regulations and releases, such as air
emissions, to environmental media other than groundwater. Id. at 112.
The text of the statute, the broad remedial purpose, and the clear intent
to authorize action beyond the scope of the permit regulations support the
position that Section 3008(h) authorizes EPA to address all types of releases
of hazardous waste within a facility. As discussed previously, the term
'hazardous waste1 encompasses 'hazardous constituents' from both hazardous and
solid waste.
Section 3008(h) will also be used to address releases that have migrated
from the facility. New Section 3004(v), which provides that EPA may issue
orders requiring corrective action for releases that have crossed the facility
boundary if the permission of the owner of the affected property can be obtained,
supports the Agency's interpretation that such releases are subject to action
under Section 3008(h). See also the Final Codification Rule. 50 FR 23716
(July 15, 1985).
In a §3008(h) order or judicial referral, Agency personnel should describe
hazardous and solid waste management units within the boundary of the facility
and hazardous and solid wastes (and associated hazardous constituents) managed by
the facility in addition to information indicating that a release has occurred.
Since Section 3008(h) unequivocally authorizes EPA to address releases from
units, the order or complaint should establish some link between the hazardous
constituents in a release and the hazardous or solid wastes in waste management
units where possible. For example, the findings of fact might state that the
facility treats, stores or disposes of certain listed Subtitle C wastes, that
those wastes were listed because they contain the hazardous constituents cited
in Appendix VII to 40 CFR Part 261 and that some or all of those constituents
have been found in the environment, thereby indicating a release.
-------
-10-
"...authorized to operate under Section 3005(e)..."
This clause encompasses several classes of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. First, facilities that have met each
requirement for obtaining interim status in a timely manner.are subject to
Section 3008(h). With respect to those facilities brought into the hazardous
waste management system when the Phase I RCRA rules went into effect, to establish
interim status EPA must demonstrate that: (1) the facility was in existence on
November 19, 1980, and; (2) the owner or operator complied with the requirements
of Section 3010(a), regarding notification of hazardous waste activity, and;
(3) the owner or operator submitted a Part A application in accordance with 40
CFR 270.10. As to those facilities in existence on the date of regulatory or
statutory changes that render the facility subject to the requirement to obtain
a permit under Section 3005, to establish interim status the Agency must demonstrate
(1) that the facility was in existence on the appropriate date and (2) submitted
a Part A permit application in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 270.10.
If a statutory or regulatory change requires notification under Section 3010,
EPA must also establish that' the facility submitted the notification.
Second, Section 3008(h) applies to facilities that treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste, but have not actually obtained interim status because the
owner or operator did not fully comply with the requirements to submit a Section
3010 notification and/or a Part A. Such facilities have been allowed to operate
in accordance with a formal enforcement action or an Interim Status Compliance
Letter requiring compliance with Part 265 standards. Furthermore, the owners
or operators are not relieved of the duty to apply for and obtain a final RCRA
permit. See e.g., the notice of implementation and enforcement policy for loss
of interim status under Section 3005(e), 50 FR 38947-48 (September 25, 1985).
-------
-11-
The Agency believes that Congress intended the interim status corrective action
authority to apply to such facilities. The legislative history for Section
3008(h) supports this position by making it clear that the authority can be
used to address releases from units that do not have interim status, such as
wastewater treatment tanks. H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 112 (1984).
• Third, EPA considers Section 3008(h) to be applicable not only to owners
or operators of facilities in the above two categories but also to units or
facilities at which active operations have ceased and interim status has been
terminated pursuant to 40 CFR Part 124 or Sections 3005(c) and 3005(e)(2) of
RCRA. Section 3008(h) specifically provides that the interim status corrective
action orders may include a suspension or revocation of the authority to operate
under interim status, as well as any other response necessary to protect human
health or the environment. Consequently, a corrective measures program can
be inposed under Section 3008(h), even if a facility's interim status has been
taken away as a result of an interim status corrective action order. The
Agency also believes that Section 3008(h) can be used to compel responses to
releases at facilities that lost interim status prior to a §3008(h) action.
This approach is consistent with Congressional intent to assure that
significant environmental problems are addressed at facilities that treat,
store or dispose of hazardous waste but do not have a final RCRA operating or
post-closure permit. H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 110-112 (1984).
Where a State is authorized to administer the RCRA program, the require-
ments for obtaining the State's equivalent to interim status may differ from
those of the federal program. In authorized States that do not duplicate the
federal procedures, hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities
that have not been granted or denied a final RCRA permit are generally considered
interim status facilities. Land disposal facilities that were issued State permits
-------
-12-
after November 8, 1984 but have not yet received the federal portion of the
permit applicable to continuing releases under Section 3004(u) are treated for
purposes of this guidance in the same manner as interim status facilities.
Similarly, hazardous waste underground injection wells that did not receive a
UIC permit prior to that date will also be treated in the same manner as interim
status facilities. See the notice of implementation and enforcement policy for
loss of interim status under Section 3005(e). 50 PR 38947 (September 25, 1985).
"...Corrective action or such other response measure as he deems necessary
to protect human health or the environment ..."
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the term
"corrective action", in the RCRA regulatory context, referred to removal or
treatment in place of Appendix VIII hazardous constituents in groundwater.
40 CFR 264.100. Section 3008(h) is not restricted to remedial action for
ground-water contamination, however. The statutory language and the legislative
history indicate that a wide range of responses to releases to all media from
waste management activities may be compelled. Financial assurance for any
response measure may also be required.
The authority can be used to require implementation of one or more stages
of a clean-up program, such as:
0 Containment, stabilization or removal of the source of contamination,
0 Studies to characterize the nature and extent of contamination and to
assess exposure, and health and environmental effects,
0 Identification and evaluation of remedies,
0 Design and construction of the chosen remedy,
0 Implementation of the remedy, and
0 Monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the remedy.
-------
-13-
For example, a §3008(h) order might require that the owner or operator
conduct a study to characterize the nature and extent of contamination, then
select a remedy and submit a corrective action plan to EPA. The Agency and the
owner or operator would then confer on the plan and amend the order to reflect any
modifications. H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., Ill (1984). Because a
study on the nature and extent of contamination and the selection and design of
a remedy may require a significant amount of time, Section 3008(h) should be
employed to require interim measures as necessary to protect human health and
the environment prior to completion of the study and selection of a remedy.
Examples of interim remedies that could be compelled include removal of the
waste or containment of the source of the contamination by lining a unit or
erecting dikes. In some instances, preliminary pumping and treating of affected
groundwater may be appropriate.
While the information needed to make a determination that there is or has
been a release is minimal, more information may be needed to justify a specific
interim or full remedy. The Administrator can require "corrective action or
such other response measures as he deems necessary to protect human health or
the environment." To show that a response may be necessary to protect human
health or the environment, the present or potential threat posed by the release
should be described. The Agency may consider a variety of factors, including
the quantity of hazardous waste; the nature and concentration of hazardous
constituents or other hazardous properties exhibited by the waste; the facility's
waste management practices; potential exposure pathways; transport and environmental
fate of hazardous constituents; humans or environmental receptors that might be
exposed; the effects of exposure, and; any other appropriate factors. To compel
corrective action investigations or studies, only a general threat to human
health or the environment needs to be identified.
-------
-14-
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTICNS
Under Section 3008(h), the Agency can issue administrative orders or
commence a civil judicial action. The decision to pursue an administrative
or judicial remedy must be made on a case-by-case basis since each approach
has advantages and disadvantages. An administrative order, for instance, can
usually be issued quickly, while preparation for a judicial action may be more
time-consuming and must be referred to the Department of Justice. On the
other hand, a judicial order or consent decree can be enforced readily since
the court already has jurisdiction of the matter.
EPA may issue a §3008(h) administrative order to require corrective
action or any response necessary to protect human health or the environment.
The order may include a suspension or revocation of authorization to operate.
If any person named in the order fails to comply with the order, the Agency
may impose a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each day of noncompliance.
Notice to States
Section 3008(h) does not require that States be given notice of an impending
action. To ensure that the Agency is fully informed of relevant facts and, in
view of the Federal/State relationship, consultation with the State should
usually precede an EPA action. To avoid misunderstandings, reasonable notice
should be given to the State when an action is taken. The notice should include
the location and a description of the facility, the names and addresses of the
owners and operators, the conditions requiring a response and a description of
the action that EPA will require.
-------
-15-
Elements of Orders
Because it is the focal point in all proceedings subsequent to its issuance,
the initial order must be as complete as possible. Failure to develop an
adequate document may have adverse consequences if the Agency seeks judicial
enforcement. All §3008(h) orders should contain the following general elements:
0 A statement of the statutory basis for the order.
0 Factual allegations showing that there is or has been (1) a release (2)
of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents (3) into the environment
(4) at or from an interim status facility. Facts indicating that the
response is necessary to protect human health or the environment should
also be presented.
0 A determination, based on the factual allegations, that there is or
has been a release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to
the environment from an interim status facility.
0 An order that clearly identifies the tasks to be performed, and a schedule
of compliance accompanied by appropriate reporting and approval requirements.
0 A statement informing the respondent that he has a right to request
a hearing within 30 days of issuance concerning any material fact in
the order or the terms of the order.
8 A notice of opportunity for an informal settlement conference. It
is the Agency's policy to encourage settlement of §3008(h) actions
through informal discussions. The respondent should be cautioned, however,
that a request for a conference does not affect the 30 day period for
requesting a hearing.
0 A statement that EPA may assess penalties not to exceed $25,000 per
day of non-compliance with the order.
It may be appropriate to include a provision for stipulated penalties in
orders on consent. Such a provision, however, should be drafted to make it
clear that the stipulated penalty is not EPA's sole remedy and that Agency has
not waived its statutory authority to assess penalties under Section 3008(h)(2).
It is recommended that the Regions pursue judicial referrals to impose penalties
for noncompliance with a $3008(h) administrative order rather than issuing
a subsequent order for penalties.
-------
-16-
Releases fron liability and covenants not to sue may be sought by parties
negotiating S3008(h) orders. These.provisions terminate or seriously impair
the Federal Government's right of action against a party. In general, the
interim CERCLA Settlement Policy (December 5, 1984) may be followed. Releases
generally will not be appropriate, however, where the extent of contamination,
the reliability of the remedy or long-term operation and maintenance requirements
are uncertain. If provided, they should be narrowly drawn. In addition, EPA
personnel should exercise particular care in drafting such provisions to ensure
that they do not restrict the operation and enforcement of the on-going RCRA
regulatory program. Moreover, the order should also contain a provision reserving
the Agency's right to take additional action under RCRA and other laws. For
example, EPA should reserve the right to expend and recover funds under CERCLA;
to bring imminent and substantial endangerment actions under RCRA §7003 and
CERCLA §106; to assess penalties for violations of and require compliance with
RCRA requirements under §3008(a); to address releases other than those identified
in the order; to require further action as necessary to respond to the releases
addressed in the order, and;'to take action against nonparties if appropriate.
Hearing Requirement
To issue a unilateral §3008(h) order, EPA must comply with the requirements
of Section 3008(b) with respect to an opportunity for a hearing. 130 Cong. Rec.
S9175 (daily ed. July 25, 1984). Although procedures for §3008(a) administrative
actions have been established by regulation (See 40 CFR Part 22), those regulations
are not legally applicable to §3008(h) actions. Hearing procedures for §3008(h)
actions are under development. Until formal guidance is available, a Region
that intends to issue a unilateral order should contact the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
-------
-17-
Developnent and Preservation of the Administrative Record
§3008(h) orders might be reviewed in administrative or judicial proceedings.
Therefore, it is essential that information required by the statute and all
other relevant information or documents obtained by the Agency be compiled in
an administrative record, preserved and readily retrievable. The EPA official
initiating the action should maintain a file that contains the following:
0 EPA investigative records, such as inspection reports, sampling and
analytical data, copies of business records, photographs, etc.;
0 Reports and internal Agency documents used in generating or supporting
the enforcement action, including expert witness statements;
0 Copies of all documents filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk or the
Presiding Officer;
0 Copies of all relevant correspondence between EPA and the respondent;
0 Written records of conferences and telephone conversations between
EPA and the respondents, and;
0 Copies of all correspondence between EPA and State or other federal
agencies pertaining to the enforcement action.
V. CIVIL JUDICIAL ACTIONS
Under Section 3008(h), EPA may initiate civil judicial action to compel
appropriate relief, including a temporary or permanent injunction, or to
enforce a §3008(h) administrative order. As noted previously, the decision
to pursue administrative or judicial remedies will be made on a case-by-
case basis. Generally, however, a civil judicial action may be preferable
to issuance of an administrative order in the following types of situations:
0 A person is not likely to comply with an order or has failed to
comply with a §3008(h) order.
0 A person's conduct must be stopped immediately to prevent irreparable
injury, loss or damage to human health or the environment.
0 Long-term, complex and costly response measures will be required.
(Because compliance problems are more likely to arise during
implementation of these actions than while carrying out a simple,
short-term action, it may be better to have the matter already
before the court for ease of enforcement.)
-------
-18-
Other factors that could be considered include the value of a favorable decision
as precedent and the need to deter noncompliance by other potential targets for
EPA enforcement action under Section 3008(h).
A request to file a civil judicial action mast be referred by the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring to the Department of
of Justice. The procedures that Agency personnel should follow to develop a
referral and support litigation are described in the RCRA/CERCIA Case Management
Handbook (August, 1984) and the RCRA Compliance/Enforcement Guidance Manual
(September, 1984).
VI. USE OF SECTION 3008(h) IN RELATION TO PERMITTING, CLOSURE AND OTHER AUTHORITIES
RCRA Permits
The pre-HSWA regulations applicable to corrective action at permitted facilities
deal only with a remedial program for treatment in place or removal of groundwater
contaminated by a release from a 'regulated unit1. (Prior to HSWA, the term
f
'regulated unit' meant a surface impoundment, landfill, land treatment unit or
waste pile that operated after January 26, 1983. Enactment of new Section 3005(i),
which provides that the Part 264 groundwater monitoring, unsaturated zone monitoring
and corrective action requirements are applicable at the time of permitting to
landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles and land treatment units that received
Subtitle C hazardous wastes after July 26, 1982, necessitated a corresponding change
in the definition of regulated unit). Enactment of Section 3004(u) enlarged the
universe of units subject to corrective action at RCRA facilities by requiring
that a facility seeking a RCRA permit address all releases of hazardous waste
and hazardous constituents at any hazardous or solid waste management unit.
-------
-19-
In addition to increasing the number and kinds of units subject to corrective
action, EPA will use the Section 3004(u) authority to address releases to air,
land and surface waters as well as to groundwater. Furthermore, Section 3004(v)
allows EPA to require corrective action beyond the facility boundary where
necessary to protect human health and the environment unless the facility
owner or operator is unable to obtain permission from the owner of the affected
property.
Permitting can be a lengthy process. Therefore, the interim status
corrective action authority should be used to address significant environ-
mental problems prior to issuance of the permit. With respect to 'regulated
units', which cannot be permitted until the facility is in compliance with
Part 270 requirements to assess ground-water contamination and develop a
corrective action plan if necessary, Section 3008(h) may be particularly useful
for compelling activities not addressed by the Part 265 and Part 270 regulations.
For instance, interim corrective action measures could be required prior to
permit issuance. For releases from solid waste management units and hazardous
waste management units other than 'regulated units', Section 3008(h) may be
used to compel interim measures, studies to characterize the nature and extent
of contamination and the threat posed by the release, selection of remedy and
design, construction and implementation of the remedy.
If an interim status facility is seeking an operating permit or will be
required to obtain a post-closure permit, any §3008(h) action at that facility
should be designed to meet the needs of the permitting process to the extent
possible. If all necessary steps in a corrective measures program will not be
completed prior to issuance of a permit, compliance schedules in the order
should be developed so that they can be readily incorporated in the permit.
-------
-20-
RCRA Closures
EPA believes that the interim status corrective action authority will
be useful in assuring environmentally sound closures of RCRA hazardous waste
management units. Section 3008(h) may be used to supplement the interim status
closure regulations. Approval of a closure plan does not limit the Agency's
ability to use Section 3008(h), as well as other applicable corrective action •
authorities, to deal with releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents.
In view of the number of interim status closures anticipated as a result of
new statutory and regulatory requirements, the Regions are encouraged to
employ the interim status corrective action authority to assure that RCRA
hazardous waste management units are closed in a manner that properly protects
human health and the environment.
Other Enforcement Authorities
Because of the broad scope of Section 3008(h) and the variety of activities
that can be compelled, the interim status corrective action authority may be
employed in conjunction with other enforcement authorities, although it may be
appropriate to issue separate,concurrent orders due to differing hearing
requirements. For example, where a violation is associated with a release of
hazardous waste or hazardous constituents, a Section 3008(a) action should be
used to. require compliance with the regulation and assess penalties while a
Section 3008(h) action could be employed to compel response actions that go
beyond regulatory requirements. Section 3013, which allows the Agency to
compel owners or operators of treatment, storage or disposal facilities to
conduct certain types of studies, may be used when the presence of hazardous
waste may present a substantial threat but EPA does not have sufficient
information to make a determination that there is or has been a release.
-------
-21-
With regard to imminent and substantial endangerment actions, the legis-
lative history makes it clear that enactment of Section 3008(h) does not
alter the Agency's interpretation of Section 7003. H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong.,
2d Sess. Ill (1984). RCRA $7003 or CERCLA $106 actions are appropriate if
conditions at an interim status facility may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment and the Agency needs to move quickly to address the problem. The
'inminent hazard1 provisions of RCRA and CERCLA may be especially helpful if
the Agency wishes to take action against responsible parties other than or in
addition to the current owner or operator.
VII. RESERVATION
The policies and procedures set forth herein and the internal office
procedures adopted pursuant hereto are intended solely for the guidance
of United States Environmental Protection Agency personnel. These policies and
procedures are not intended tor do not, and may not be relied upon to create a
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party to
litigation with the United States. The Agency reserves the right to take any
action alleged to be at variance with these policies and procedures or that is
not in compliance with internal office procedures that may be adopted pursuant
to these materials.
-------
UNITED 5TA7E5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20450
3EF2S!S84
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Issuance of Administrative Orders Under Section 3013
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
fo.i
3,e ca^ve r y
TO:
Courtney M. ? r i ce v_j^-A-^ /-;.(),
Assistant Adm i n i s trSto r for'Enforcement
and ComDliance Monito/eThg
r—' '
Lee M. Thomas, AssisEaScAdminTscrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Addressees
Section 17 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1980 (P.L. 96-482) added Section 3013 to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1975 (RCRA). This memorandum
.provides guidance on the use of chat saccion and replaces
earlier guidance issued September 11, 1981.
DELEGATION
Under current delegation authority Section 3013
Administrative Orders (Orders) are issued by Regional Adminis-
trators (RAs) with the advance concurrence of the Director,
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), except in cases
of national significance or in multi-regional cases, when
the Director, OWPE, issues the Orders. The Assistant Adminis-
trator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM) , consults
as requeste-d on Orders, refers Section 3013 judicial actions
to the Department of Justice, and sends notices of such action
to the appropriate RA and to the Director, QW?E. Further
rede legation is currently under raviaw.
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR ISSUANCE
Section 3013 fa) . AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR.
"If the Administrator determines, upon receipt
of any information, that -
-------
(1) the presence of any hazardous waste at
a facility or site ac which hazardous waste is,
or has been, stored, treated, or disposed of, or
(2) the release of any such waste
from such facility or site may present a
substantial hazard to human health or the
environment, he may issue an order requiring
the owner or operator of such facility or
site to conduct such monitoring, testing, •
analysis, and reporting with respect to
such facility or site as the Administrator
deems reasonable to ascertain the nature
and.extent of such hazard."
Under subsection (a), before an .Order may be issued, the
RA or, in cases of national significance or multi-regional
cases, Che Director, OWPE, muse find that sufficient information
has been received to determine that:
(a) the presence of hazardous waste]/at a site may
present a substantial hazard to human health or the environment,
21;
(b) the release of any such waste from the site may
present a substantial hazard to human health or the environment.
The requirement for "information" means that some reliable
information upon which a reasonable person would base a decision
or take action has been gathered or presented before issuance
of the Order. Such information may include laboratory analysis
of samples, observations recorded in the course of an inspection,
and citizens complaints corroborated by supporting information.
Some background information regarding the type and quantity of
waste likely to be found on the site can be located in EPA and
State agency records, as well as by the use of site specific
requests under Section 3007 of RCRA and/or Section 10^- of the
U Note that the exclusion of gasoline from the definition
of hazardous substances under CSRCLA is not applicable
to the hazardous wastes as defined in RCRA. Accordingly, §2013
Orders may be useful enforcement tools in some situations
involving leaking underground storage tanks (LiJSTs) . tfote,
too, that the statutory definition of hazardous waste (RCRA
§1004(5)) is applicable in §3013 Orders, not the Subtitle C
regulatory definition.
-------
- 3 -
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensacion, and
Liability Ace of 1980 (CERCLA)." Section 3013 Orders may be
used in situations where information required under Subtitle C
has not been submitted if other factors support the determina-
tion that a substantial hazard may exist. In cases where
information required to be submitted under Subtitle C has not
been submitted, and no indication of substantial hazard is
presented, enforcement action under Section 3008 may be
appropriate. £/
It .should be noted that the mere presence of hazardous
waste at a site or facility is. sufficient to cause the issuance
of an order, provided that the information indicates that the
presence of the waste may present a substantial hazard. This
is true even in the absence of definite evidence of an actual
release of waste, and covers the cases where there is a threat
of release, or where it is difficult, if not impossible, to
ascertain, without extensive sampling, analysis and monitoring,
whether a release has actually occurred or will occur.
Finally, a determination as to whether known and detectable
or potential releases from the site may present a substantial
hazard requires gathering of sufficient information to make a
determination of two essential prerequisites:
2/ Section 106 of CERCLA also may be used to issue an order
to prior owners/operators under circumstances where the
"imminent and substantial endangerment" standard can be met.
In such situations, it may be advantageous to issue a §3013
Order in conjunction with a §106 Order under CERCLA. In
deciding whether to issue a §106 Order under CERCLA or a §3013
Order under RCRA, the main consideration should be whether
available information can support a. finding that there may be
an "imminent and substantial endangerment." If such a finding
can be supported, then a §106 Order or a §106 Order in conjunc-
tion with a §3013 Order is appropriate. The RI/FS policy
regarding, circumstances under which a potentially responsible
party may be required to perform an RI/FS should be consulted.
Section 3013 Orders should not be used to evade the RI/FS
policy. Remedial investigations may be performed pursuant
to a §3013 Order, but feasibility studies are beyond the
jurisdictional scope of §3013.
-------
(I) That there is a known or potential release of hazardous
waste from the site.
(2) That the release "may present a substantial hazard"
to human health or the environment.
Number (1) above may be determined in a variety of ways,
including actual observation of escape from the site of a
substance known to be hazardous, by governmental sampling or
analysis, or through information supplied by the owner/operator.
(See discussion of "information" above.) It is significant
that Congress used the words "may present" rather than "is
presenting", such as had been used in Section 7003 prior to
the 1980 amendments. As in Section 7003, the effect of the
words "may present" is to require that the information
presented to the RA or Director, OWPE, show only that there is
a possibility or potential of a substantial hazard to
human health or the environment, rather than to show that the
hazard actually exists.
Whether a "substantial hazard" may exist involves
consideration of some of the same factors as those used to
determine whether an "endangerment" exists under Section 7003.
The standard itself, however, is a lesser standard'than that
under Section 7003 • Again, actual ham to human health or the
environment need not be shown, but only that the potential for
harm may exist through a release or threat of release of
hazardous waste from a site. " Whether a release or threat
thereof may present a "substantial hazard" essentially depends
upon a number of factors, such as the likelihood of a release
of hazardous wastes, the manner of release of the hazardous
waste from the site (i.e., ground or surface water, air, etc.),
the characteristics and amount of the waste discharged, current
or potential use of the portion of the environment affected,
potential for exposure to humans and the environment, and
other related factors. If the site has been investigated and
prioritized by the Federal government as to hazard presented,
as required by Section 105 of CZRCIA, chat determination will
be useful in assessing the risk.
TO WHOM THE ORDER MAY 3E ISSUED
Section 3013(a) authorizes issuance of an order against
the present owner or operator. Under the circumstances set
forth in subsection (b), issuance of an order may also be
appropriate against a prior owner or operator.
-------
Section 3013 (b). PREVIOUS OWNERS AND OPERATORS.
"In Che case of any facility or sice no c in
operacion at Che time a determination is made
under subsection (a) wich respect to the
facility or site, if the Administrator finds
that the owner of such facility or site could
not reasonably be expected to have actual
knowledge of the presence of hazardous waste
at such facility or site and of its potential
for release, he may issue an order requiring
the most recent previous owner or operator of
such facility or site who could reasonably be
expected to have such actual knowledge to carry
ouc the actions referred' to in subsection (a)."
Subsection (b) entitles the Agency -- under certain
circumstances -- to go back in time in the chain of title to a
previous owner or operator of the site. The conditions which
must be met for issuance of a Se.ccion 3013 Order to a previous
owner or operator of a site are:
(1) The facility or site must be one which is not
"in operation" at the time a determination is made under sub-
section (a) and (2) the present owner'of the facility or site
"could not reasonably be expected co have actual knowledge of
the presence of hazardous waste at such facility or site and
of its potential for release." While in many cases there will
be little question as to whether a facility is "in operation"
(e.g., a closed landfill), in other cases that determination
wi11 no t be as clear. We believe that it was the intent of
Congress to place an interpretation on the words "in operation"
which would enable EPA to gather information concerning potent-
ially hazardous sices from those in the best position to provide
that information - the previous owners or operators. We there-
fore believe that a facility is not "in operation" if it has
been abandoned or is not otherwise being actively operated as
a hazardous waste facilicy by "he current owner or operator.
It should be no ced chac if che present owner of che site
could reasonably be expected co have actual knowledge of both
tne presence of the waste and ics pocencial for release (even
chough che wasce had been placed in or on che sice by a previous
owner or operator), this subsection *ould appear to prohibit
the issuance of an Order to the previous owner or operator.
-------
- 6 -
Assuming che two conditions discussed above are mec, the
Order may be issued only to the "most recent previous owner or
operator of such facility or site who could reasonably be
expected to have such actual'knowledge. ..." Whether an
owner or a previous owner or operator of a site could "reason-
ably" be expected to have actual knowledge of the presence of
the waste or its potential for release can best be determined
through evidence showing the use of the facility during the
period of ownership by the previous owners. For example, if a
previous owner dumped uncontainerized waste into an unlined
pit and then covered it with dirt, he can reasonably be expected
to have the actual knowledge of both the presence and potential
for release of the waste. The same determination could be
made for an owner who stored waste in leaky containers on the
bare ground without benefit of a pad or base and containment
walls.
ELEMENTS OF AN ORDER
Section 3013 (e). PROPOSAL.
"An order under subsection (a) or (b) shall
require the person to whom such order is
issued to submit to the Administrator within
30 days from the issuance of such order a
proposal for carrying out the required
monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting.
The Administrator may, after providing such
person with an opportunity to confer with
the Administrator respecting such proposal,
require such person to carry out such moni-
toring, testing, analysis, and reporting in
accordance with such proposal, and such
modifications in such proposal as the
Administrator deems reasonable to ascertain
the nature and extent of the hazard."
Unless EPA and the respondent have agreed in advance en a
work plan to be incorporated in the Order, the Order must
require the respondent to prepare and sufamic a proposal for
the monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting Program for
the site from which the waste is or may be escaping. Such
proposal must be submitted within 30 days from the date of
issuance of the Order. The Order should recite (1) the informa-
tion and facts upon which it is based; (2) the threat or
potential threat to human health and/or the environment; and,
(3) outline with some degree of specificity the general areas
-------
of concern which should be addressed in che proposal to be
submitted by che respondent. Attached to this memorandum is
an example of an Order (Appendix A) outlining the general
areas of concern to be addressed in the requested sampling,
analysis and monitoring program. 3/
The Order shall direct the respondent to conduct the
monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting program and
should be specific as co details of the program. For example,
the Order may require the proposal to set forth the number,
location and depth of monitoring wells, the number and
frequency of samples to • be taken, the parameters of the
analysis, reporting requirements and ocher related details,
including dates by which each element should be commenced and
completed and, where appropriate, requirements for submission
of status reports to EPA as work on the program progresses.
The Order, if issued unilaterally, must advise the
respondent of his right to submit in writing any legal or
technical defenses, objections or contentions which he may
desire to make, and that he is entitled to confer in person
and/or by attorney with EPA regarding the proposal. The Order
must also specify the name, ' address and telephone number of
the appropriate official of EPA whom the respondent may contact
to arrange a conference. Th-e Order should be.sent to the
respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested.
In some instances; contacts with the owner/opera tor may
result in issuance of a §3013 Order on a consensual basis. An
example of an Order issued after conferring with the owner/
operator ("Consent Order") is attached (Appendix 3). In such
cases, the Order should note that the respondent has already
conferred with EPA and consents to issuance of the Order.
In addition, when a plan already has met with the approval
of the parties, it is advisable to include in the Order a pro-
vision such as:
Respondent agrees to implement the requirements
of the work plan set forth below for carrying out
investigative activities including monitoring,
3/ The appendices are attached as examples only. They are
not intended to dictate how Orders should, be written. The
unique circunstances of each case necessitates some latitude in
the form of such Orders.
-------
- 3 -
testing, analysis and reporting at the facility.
This work plan has been developed jointly by EPA
and Respondent. EPA and Respondent agree that
incorporation of this work plan in the instant
Order satisfies the requirement under Section
3013(c) that Respondent submit a proposal and
that EPA provide an opportunity for Respondent
to confer regarding such proposal.
An Order is "final" in that it requires the preparation
and submission of a plan. However, no actual sampling, analysis
or monitoring should be conducted until after approval of a
satisfactory plan submitted by the .respondent (except in cases
delineated in"subsection (d)(l) of §3013).
REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposal submitted by the respondent is noc required
to be in any particular form. It must be critically -reviewed
by EPA to ensure that it covers the areas addressed by the
Order, both from a legal and technical standpoint. The proposal
should be as specific as the circumstances and knowledge of
the site will allow, setting forth, for example, the number and
location of monitoring wells, the frequency of samples from
the wells, the location, of soil samples,• parameters and proto-'
cols for analysis, and so forth. In some cases the extent of
the work required will be such that submission of a detailed
plan may be difficult to accomplish in a 30 .day period. In
such cases, it may be sensible to require submission of a
broader, less detailed plan within the 30 day period and a
lengthier, detailed plan after the respondent has had an oppor-
tunity to confer with EPA. In cases in which the sampling,
analysis, testing and monitoring program is to be carried out
in stages, or over a significant period of time, the proposal
should include a statement that EPA shall be furnished periodic
status reports from the respondent regarding progress being
made in implementation of the program. The Order should always
state that EPA has a right to approve any proposed changes or
modifications after initial approval has been given to the
proposal.
In reviewing a proposal, EPA personnel should examine two
areas: first, the adequacy of the proposal to achieve the
goals of the sampling, analysis and monitoring programs; and
second, the competence of the persons or firms who will be
implementing the proposal to conduct the sampling, analysis,
monitoring and reporting activities in a. technically acceptable
manner, so that the information oroduced thereby will be
-------
- 9 -
reliable. The second area -- the competence _of the_ contractor
or consultant who will implement the" 'program -"-"Ts "de'llcate
because EPA should not place itself in the position of formally
appjroving or disapproving, the professional qualifications of
particular^ contractors and it should .. be.,made__clear to the
jjes^onlienrc~'"cHa¥'"ch"e respondent, not EPAL_.is__res_p_onsible for
?he__cofflpetencle "~d£. tEe --co.ritract.or . However, the design and
implementation of the type of program which will be conducted
under a §3013 Order requires engineers and other persons who
are knowledgable in a variety of areas such as hydrology,
geology and chemistry, among others.
While an owner or operator of a site should be at liberty
to hire a contractor of his own choice, EPA should always
require the technical aspects of the proposal to be very
detailed and. specific so as to avoid misunderstandings during
the implementation of the program and should also require
frequent status reports while the work is in progress.
In the event a conference results in a modified proposal,
the respondent should either resubmit the entire proposal,
as modified, or if the modifications are not extensive, the
respondent may submit a separate amendment to the proposal.
In all cases, the .proposal, and any amendments or modifications,
should be signed by the respondent.
PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
The Order must give 'the respondent an opportunity to
confer on the proposal submitted for the monitoring plan.
This conference will also afford the respondent the opportunity
to indicate why the respondent should not be subject to the
Order. A record in the fonn of a tape recording or steno-
grapher's notes should be made and included in the case file.
In the event of subsequent litigation over the Order, the
recording or notes can then be transcribed for use, if necessary.
While the proposal must be submitted to EPA within 30 days
after the date of the Order, we interpret §3013(c) to allow a
conference requested by che respondent to be held either before
or after the proposal is submitted. However, the holding of a
conference cannot vary or extend _tiie 30 day period jo r submission
of the proposal , so that i± a conference is requested for a
time before the proposal is submitted, the conference must be
held and the proposal submitted within the 30 day period.
Conferences to be held after submission of the proposal should
be scheduled as soon as possible aftar submission (i.e., not
more than 30 days thereafter) , so as to avoid delay in finalizing
the proposal.
-------
- 10 -
Under che statute, chare is no requirement for public
notice of the conference or any requirement that third parties
be admitted to the conference. However, nothing precludes the
admittance of a non-party to the conference, if the Region
determines that such' participation would be beneficial or
desirable. In certain cases, the Department of Justice, the
State or local pollution control agency and others may be
appropriate attendees or participants.
Pursuant to information developed at the conference, EPA
may modify the proposed sampling, analysis and monitoring
requirements contained in the Order as may be reasonably
required to ascertain the nature and extent of the hazard.
This may include modifications making the requirements more
strict or extensive, as well as less extensive.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL
An acknowledgement letter must be issued under §3013 after
review of the respondent's proposal has been completed. The
purpose of the letter is to acknowledge in writing the decision
EPA has reached after review of the respondent's proposal.
It should be signed, if possible, by the person who signed the
Order. Section 3013(c) permits EPA to modify the proposal
submitted by the respondent or to develop its own program of.
sampling, analysis and monitoring in .order to determine the
nature and extent of the hazard. The letter should state
whether the proposal has been accepted and should specify what
modifications, if any, have been made to the proposal. This
can be accomplished by attaching a copy of the proposal, as
modified, to the acknowledgement letter. In the unlikely
event that EPA plans to incorporate any major changes in the
Order that were not discussed at the conference, EPA should
notify the respondent of such changes before issuing the
acknowledgement letter and provide reasonable opportunity to
the respondent to comment upon such modifications.
MONITORING•PROGRAM BY EPA. STATS. OR OTHER PERSONS
Section 3013(d). MONITORING, ETC., CARRIED OUT BY ADMINIST3UTOR
"(1) If Che Administrator determines that no
owner or operator referred to in subsection
(a) or (b) is able to conduct monitoring,
testing, analysis, or reporting satisfactory
to the Administrator, if the Administrator
deems any such action carried out by an owner
-------
- LI -
or operator co be unsatisfactory, or if the
Administrator cannot initially determine that
there is an owner or operator referred to in
subsection (a) or (b) who is able to conduct
such monitoring, testing, analysis, or reporting,
he may—
(A) conduct monitoring, testing, or
analysis (or any combination thereof)
which he deems reasonable to ascertain
the nature and extent of the hazard
associated with the site concerned, or
(B) authorize a State or local authority
or other person to carry out any such
action,
and require, by order, the owner or operator
referred to in subsection (a) or (b) to
reimburse the Administrator or other
authority or person for the costs of such
activity.
(2) j^o order may be issued under this
: subagction .requiring reimbursement of
the~cos't¥ or any~acci.oji carried out "By the
AdmTnTsTrator which confirms the results
of an order issued under subsection•(a)
or (b) .
(3) For purposes of carrying out this
subsection, the Administrator or any
authority or other person authorized
under paragraph (1), may exercise the
authorities set forth in Section 3007."
The provisions of this subsection provide for three
situations where the Agency may carry out the monitoring
activities or authorize others to do so-.
(1) Where no owner or operator is able to conduct
these activities satisfactorily;
(2) Where the tes^tin^ conducted by the owner/ooerator
is determined to be unsatisfactory; of
-------
- 12 -
(3) Where Ic cannot be determined initially whether
there is an owner or operator able to conduct the required
monitoring and testing.
Numbers (1) and (3) are similar; the distinction is
that in number (3) no owner/operator can be identified or
located initially, whereas in number (1) the owner/operator is
identified but unable or unwilling to conduct the required
activities.
In numbers (1), (2) and (3) the important consideration
is whether the owner/operator will conduct the required activi-
ties in a manner satisfactory to EPA, i.e., in a timely manner
and in a manner technically consistent with EPA requirements.
•Subsection (d) is intended to allow EPA to conduct the monitoring,
testing, analysis or reporting itself or to authorize the State
or other third parties to perform the required activities if
delay or•inadequate performance will result from relying on the
owner/operator.
Once EPA or some other authorized person has performed
monitoring, testing, analysis or reporting pursuant to §3013(d),
an Order may be issued to require reimbursement of the costs.
The Order for Reimbursement should be issued to th.e present
owner or operator or the most recent previous owner or operator ••
who could reasonably be expected to have actual knowledge of
the hazardous waste. An example of an Order for Reimbursement
is attached as Appendix C.
Note that subsection (d)(2) prohibits an Order for
Reimbursement if the results obtained confirm the results of
an Order issued under subsection (a) and (b). Our interpre-
tation is that this provision prohibits seeking reimbursement
in circumstance (2) above, where the Agency acted because of
information leading to the belief that the results from the
owner/operator tests were inaccurate or unreliable, and our
subsequent tests, in fact, confirm the owner/operator test
•results.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDE3.
Section 3013 (e). ENFORCEMENT.
"The Administrator may commence a civil
action against any person who fails or
refuses to comply with any order issued
under this section. Such action shall be
-------
- 13 -
brought in the Uniced States district
court in which the defendant is located,
resides, or is doing business. Such court
shall have jurisdiction to require compliance
with such order and to assess a civil penalty
not to exceed $5,000 for each day during
which such failure or refusal occurs."
This subsection authorizes bringing a civil action to
require compliance with any Order issued under Section 3013 and
to assess a civil penalty of not to exceed $5,000 for each day
of. noncompliance with the Order. This authority includes
commencement of a civil action to enforce an Order issued under
Section 3013(d)(l) for reimbursement of costs incurred by EPA
or other authorized person who conducts the monitoring, testing,
or analysis in lieu of an owner/operator.
Any referral of a civil action under Section 3013(e)
should follow the format used for other civil actions.
DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
We attempt to emphasize throughout this memorandum the
importance of obtaining the information required by the statute
prior to the issuance of the Order. Equally important is the
establishment and preservation of a record where the information
and all documents relevant to the reimbursement or enforcement
proceedings described herein should be kept, since the Order
may eventually be reviewed by a court, and EPA must have a
complete record of the information which formed the basis for
its decisions and documentation of the opportunity afforded
the respondents to confer. The acknowledgement letter is an
important part of the documentation.
The Region should encourage communications with the
respondent and his representatives to be in writing insofar
as possible. Written records of communication should be made
of all telephone conservations with the respondent and a record
should be made of any conference held with respondents in
accordance with this guidance.
In the event EPA should reject any objections, defenses
or contentions of the respondent, or modify the respondent's
proposal for monitoring, testing, analysis and reporting
without the respondent's agreement, EPA should set forth the
reasons for such rejection or modification and furnish those
reasons in writing to the respondent..
Attachments
-------
APPZTOIX A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE .MATTER OF:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Complainant,
) • RCRA Docket !
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION,
AND ORDER REQUIRING SUBMISSION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL
FOR SAMPLING, ANALYSIS.
MONITORING AND REPORTING
V.
Respondent.
Proceedings under § 3013 of
the Resource Conservation and
Recover/ Act, *2 U.S.C. § 6934.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is an administrative action instituted pursuant to Section 3013
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. Section 5534],
hereinafter referred to as "the Act" or "RCRA". The Complainant is
Region of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND ORDER PAGE 1 of 3
-------
2. The Regional Acrrinlstrator of EPA Region , by and through
*
2 author!ty-duly delegated from the Administrator of EPA, having bean
3 'presented with information concerning the presence of hazardous wastes that
4 are being stored, treated or disposed at the facility described below, with
5 information concerning potential releases of hazardous wastes fron this
6 facility, and with information that these circumstances may present a-
7 substantial hazard to human heal.th or the environment, hereby issues the
8 following Findings of Fact, Determination and Order Requiring Submission,
9 pursuant to Section 3013 of the Act [42 U.S.C. Section S.934] that are set
10 forth below.
11 FINDINGS CF FACT
^
12 1. * ' ; •• . .' ' ,, submitted a
13 Notification of Hazardous Wasts Activity (EPA Fora 8700-12) for its facilit:
14 at . which was received by Complainant on August 15, 1330.
15 This' notification satisfied Section 3010 of the Act. This notification •
16 indicated that . ., was a generator, and treater,
17 storer and/or disposer of hazardous waste. The facility is located
18 . . •
19 2. * ' ., submitted a Part A application (EPA
20 Forms 3510-1 and 3510-3) ' . , which was received by
211 Complainant on November 13, 1580, as required by 40 C"R Section
*
22 270.10(e)(i). This application stated that '
23 was a starsr, trsatar and disposer of hazardous waste at the facility.
24 3. ' , has operated a facility at
^e
since at least (from Respondent's Part A application),
25 and including a period of tine November 13, 1580, the effective date of
regulations promulgated pursuant to RCRA.
281 FINOIMGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND ORDER PAGE 2 of 3
-------
1 4. Respondent's facility Included a landfill of approximately 55
2 acre-feet 1n size consisting of at least 12 trenches, each of which was
3 approximately 10- feet wide, '20" feet 'long, and 4 feet 'deep. Wastes, •
4 including hazardous wasta and hazardous waste constituents, generated by
5 Respondent's facility were periodically placed on and into the landfill
6 prior to and after November 19, 1980. Respondent thus owns and operates a
7 hazardous waste management facility • ' for the treatment,
8 storage, and/or disposal of hazardous wastes,
^ 5. Respondent, in correspondence dated '.t advised
10 Complainant that Respondent was discontinuing the landfill ing of hazardous
11 wastes and requestad withdrawal of the Part A application.
6. Complainant issued a letter to Respondent on , formally
13 requesting the submission of the Part B application. The letter required
14 Respondent to submit the Part B application to the Complainant within six
15 (5) months of receipt of the request. '
'
16j 7. Respondent, in correspondence dated ,, advised
17'
; Complainant that it would not submit a Part 8 application. Respondent
«Q
stated that effective > . Respondent was storing all hazardous
19
wasta in drums and storing such waste on-sita for less than ninety (90) days.
20 8. Complainant issued a lettsr to Respondent on .,
21 requesting Respondent to provide documentation that the landfill.units at
•yy
the facility were properly closed and that the units would be properly
23
maintained after closure, if necessary. Complainant specifically requested,
in part, that Respondent, demonstrate closure occurred in a manner that
"controls, minimizes or eliminates to the extant necessary to protact huTian
health and the environment, any post closure escape of hazardous wasta
constituents to the ground, groundwater, surface waters, or to the
23 «. . , •
atnosohere.
-------
1
2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
20
21
28
9. Respondent, in correspondence datad , and
., stated Its contention that'the landfill ing activity at
the facility was properly closed. Said correspondence Included laboratory
analyses of samples of landfilled material from the facility.
These laboratory analyses show the presence of hazardous constituents, as
defined in 40 CFR Part 261, in the landfilled material as summarized below:
Range of levels
Hazardous Constituents detected, pom
Toluene 3.1 to 58.7
Lead ' 2.6 to 22.6 '
Chromium • 13.5 to 49.5'
Other Constituents
Xylene . \.1.5 to 25.8
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone . . 1.2 to 9.3
A'dditionally, all of the samples of landfilled materials exhibited the
17 hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability by having a flash point less
than- 60*F, indicating the hazardous waste had not been rendered
non-fgm'table prior to landffVling.
10. Respondent's correspondence dated stated that no
analysis of groundwater quality has been performed. Consequently, no
22 evidence exists to determine whether hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents have migrated to groundwater.
11. The continued presence of hazardous waste constituents in the
jo'ndent's landfilled material could result in release of hazardous >
constituents by leachate production and migration off-site by means of
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND ORDER PAGE 4 of S
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
surface run-off or groundwater flow. Respondent has not submitted to
Complainant*documentation that Respondent's facility is not OP may not be
releasing hazardous wasta or hazardous w'asts constituents to ground or
surface water.
DETERMINATION
Based upon the aforementioned data and information, ft is hereby determined
pursuant ta Section 3013 of the Act that:
1. The facility, as described hereinabove,
owned and operated by Respondent, .is a facility at which hazardous wastes
are present and at which hazardous wastes have been stored, treated, and
disposed.
• ^
Z. The methods and practices employed at the facility for treating and
disposing of hazardous wastes are aVid were such Wat the presence of
anc
hazardous wastes at the facility may present a substantial hazard to Hunan
health or the environment.
3. Hazardous wastes and/or hazardous waste constituents released at
the facility may have migrated to surface or ground waters. The release of
hazardous wastes at and/or from the facility may present a substantial
hazard to human health or the environment,
ORDER REQUIRING SUBMISSION AMD IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL
FOR SAMPLING, ANALYSIS. MONITORING AND SPORTING
Pursuant to Section 3013 of the Act [42 U.S.C. § 6934], and in order to
ascertain the nature and extent of the hazard at the
facility as described hereinabove, Respondent is hereby ordered to submit 3
written proposal to_EPA for the. sampling, analysis, monitoring and rs:
of the hazardous wastes and hazardous waste constituents that are present at
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND ORDER PAGE 5 of 3
-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
or that ;nay have been released frsra the facility, and Is herebv ordered to
implement such proposal, once approved by c?A. Such written proposal shall
• * •
contain, but is not limited to, the following:
1. A plan and timetable for the determination of the horizontal and
vertical permeabilities of the uppermost aquifer and the nature of the
aquitards, or barriers, including a determination of the direction and
velocity of grcundwater flow in .the uppermost water-bearing zones in the
area likely to be affected by migration of hazardous wastes from the
Facility. The plan shall consider means to determine areas of discharge and
recharge of groundwater in the areas Tilcely to be affectad by migration of
hazardous wastes from the facility.
2. -A plan for determining whether hazardous wastes or hazardous waste
constituents have leaked or are leaking from the landfill. This shall
include a plan and timetable for the installation of a groundwater
monitoring program, including proposals as to locations, depth, and
construction thereof, designed to monitor groundwater elevation and water
quality.
3. A sampling and analysis plan for monitoring groundwatsr at or near
the landfill which describes analysis parameters, frequency of sampling, and
procedures and quality assurance measures for sampling and analyzing for
hazardous waste and hazardous waste constituents. The plan shall provide
that groundwater be sampled and analyzed at least quarterly for one year.
The plan shall also provide for analysis of all priority pollutants
contained in Appendix VIII of 40 C?R Part 261 for at least one of the
quarterly sampling periods.
26
FINDINGS OF FACT, OETSLMIMATIOH AND ORDER PAGE 5 of 8
-------
"> 4. A plan and timetable ta collect and analyze soil samples of
*
2 appropriate size, depth, and location ta. determine the nature and extant of. •
3 contamination of the-surface and of "the" soil column above the groundwatar
* table at the facility.
5 . S. A proposal, including timeframes, for determining the extent of any
6 hazard presented by hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents that may
7 have been released to drainage ditches, surface waters, or sediments
8 therein. This proposal shall specifically include sampling of water,
9 sediment, and soils, both on and off-site., sufficient to document the extent
10 of contamination by hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents that may
11 have, resulted from past events such as rainfall and resulting run-off.
12 6. A'provision for site access-for employees, agents, and contractor?
13 of Complainant at all reasonable times for purposes of inspecting and
14 verifying, compliance with the provisions of this Order in accordance with
15 and pursuant ta the authority of §3007 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §6927.
16 7. A description of the means of implementation of the items set forth
17 above, a proposal for reporting ta EPA on the progress of these items, and
18 for reporting the results of the sampling, analysis and monitoring program.
19 OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER
20 Under the provisions of the Act, Respondent say confer with EPA at any time
21 prior ta subnrittal of the proposal. The proposal submitted by Respondent
22 shall be subject to review, modification and approval_by EPA. After
23 submittal of the proposal, Respondent shall be afforded an opportunity to
24 confer with EPA on a date specified by EPA ta discuss the terms of the
25 proposal. Following this conference and after review, modification (if
any), and approval of the proposal by EPA, Respondent shall forthwith
27
28 FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND ORDER PAGE 7 of 3
-------
1 conduct, carry out and implement the sampling, analysis, monitoring and
2 reporting, program according to Its approved'terns and schedules.
3 The written proposal-ordered herein must be submitted by Respondent to the
4 Contact Person, . •, at the address listed below.jyithin
5 thirty (30) days of Respondent's receipt of this Order.
6 ' LIABILITY
7 If. EPA determines that Respondent is not able to conduct the activities
>
8 required by this Order in a satisfactory manner, is not able to conduct the
•
9 activities contained in-the approved proposal, or if actions carried out are
10 deemed unsatisfactory, then EPA may conduct such actions deemed reasonable
11 by EPA to ascertain the nature and extent of the hazard at the facility.
12 Respondent may then be ordered to reimburse EPA for the costs of such"
13 activity pursuant to §3013(d) of the Act. In the event Respondent fails or
1-* refuses to comply with the tarns and provisions of this Order, EPA may
15 coraiencs a civil action ta require compliance with such order and to assess
16 a civil penalty of not to exceed $S-,QCQ for each day during which such
17 failure or refusal occurs.
18 • • •
19 WITNESS MY HAND as Regional Administrator pursuant to the authority of the
*
20 Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, on
21 this day of _(_ , 1984.
22
23
By: .. .
24 - '
Regional Administrator
25
26 Contact Person:
27 ..
23 .'
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND ORDER PAGt 8 of 3
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
• 13
14.
IS
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
jorm 030-183
• '
-
• • '
. . ' . '' • •
._ ' * ."I .
•
•
*»SID1X 3
•
f.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
,
IN THE MATTER OF: )
Environmental Protection Agency, }
Complainant, )
v' )
Respondent. )
Proceedings under §§ 3008 and 3013)
of the Resource Conservation and )
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6928 )
and 6934. )
• I
RCRA Docket XS3-11-OS-300P 3013 J
FINDINGS OF FACT, AGREED
COMPLIANCE ORDER, AND AGREED
ORDER REQUIRING SUBMISSION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
PROPOSAL FOR SAMPLING,
ANALYSIS, MONITORING AND
REPORTING
•
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is -an administrative action
instituted pursuant to Sections
3008(a) and 3013 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [42 U.S.C
Sections 6923(a) and 6934], hereinafter
"RCRA". The Complainant is Region of
Protection Agency (EPA).
referred' to as "the Act" or
the United States Environmental
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER PAGE 1 of 26
•
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
2. Complainant has reason to believe that
, ('Respondent") has violated Section 3005 of the Act [42 ' •
•
U.S.C §6925] as set forth below. Additionally, the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region ,, by and through authority duly delegated
from the Administrator of'EPA, having been presented with information
concerning the presence of. hazardous wastes that are being stared, •
treated, and disposed at the facility described below, with Information
concerning potential releases of hazardous wastes from this facility, and
with Information that these circumstances may present a substantial
hazard to human health or the environment, hereby Issues the following
Findings of Fact, Determination, Compliance Order, and Order Requiring
*
Submission, pursuant to Sections 3008 and 3013 of the Act [42 U.S.C.
Sections 6928 and 6934] that are sat forth below.
3. Respondent consents to comply with the penalty assessment,
Compliance Order and Order Requiring Submission as described below.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. " .. submitted a Notification of
Hazardous Waste Activity (EPA Form 8700-12) for its facility near
which was received by Complainant on
This notification satisfied Section 3Q10(a) of the Act. This
*
notification indicated that was a generator, transporter,
and treatar, storer, and/or disposer of hazardous wasta. The facility is
located at i'
and. was then and is now known as . (hereafter
"the facility").
>rm 030-133
O .T C T>^ f
FINDINGS OF FACT,. DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER'
PAGE 2 of 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
' 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
jrm 030-183
'ji.7« nnr
2. - submitted a Part A application (EPA Forms 3510-1
and 3510-3) dated ,, whidt was received by Complainant on
November 18, 1980, as required by 40 CFR Part 270.10(e)(l). This
application stated that ., was a storer and disposer of
*
hazardous waste at the facility. >..
3. • had operated a facility at since .
., and including a period of time prior to and after November 19,
1980. At the facility, . accepted waste including hazardous
waste for storage and/or disposal as indicated on its notification and
Part A permit application. Therefore, the . facility known
as qualified for Interim Status pursuant to Section 3005(e) of the^
Act.
4. 40 CFR Part 255 establishes and sets forth standards, known as
the Interim Status Standards (ISS), which were prcmulgated pursuant to
Section 3C04 of the Act, and which are applicable to all hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that qualify for Interim
Status. These standards apply to such facilities until final
administrative disposition has been made of permit applications submitted
by owners and operators of such facilities. No such disposition has been
made with respect to the facility. Thus, the standards of 40 CFR
Parts 270, 124, _and-255 apply to the facility.
5. In correspondence frcm , dated
, Complainant was notified that Respondent intended to
acquire all of the capital stock of and to liquidate the
assets of . into ~ ' ,
. •
" The letter further stated that would continue the
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 3 of 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
23
030-183
2-3-76 DOJ
operations of at the facility. The notification was
submitted pursuant to 40 C?R Part 122.23 (now 270.72).
6. In correspondence dated .., Respondent notified
Complainant that the operating name. of Respondent's facility would be
.'..'• the date that
formal closing of the ownership transaction would occur. .After that
date, Respondent has owned and operated the facility, known as
7. Respondent on , submitted a
« .
revised Part A permit application and requested approval to add treatment
as a hazardous waste management process to be conducted at the facility.
Complainant approved the request on .
8. Respondent thus owns and operates a hazardous waste management *
facility (100 } for the treatment, storage, and/or disposal of
hazardous wastes, which is subject to the Interim Status provisions of
Section 3005(e) of the Act and regulations promulgated under the Act.
9. Complainant issued a letter to Respondent on
formally requesting the submission of the Part & permit application. The
letter required Respondent to submit the Part 8 application to the
Complainant within six (6) months of receipt of the request.
10. Respondent requested, in correspondence dated , a
four (4) month extension for submittal of the Part 3 application.
Complainant approved the request and extended the submittal date to
n.. Complainant has conducted and/or participated in several
inspections of Respondent's . facility to determine compliance with
the Interim Status Standards. An inspection was conducted by Complainant
on . Several violations of the ISS were noted during the
inspection. Respondent was advised of these findings, which were
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
arm C90-183
7JJ.78 OOJ
attached to correspondence dated . Corrective action
was required as a part of the Part 3 permit application but, 1n any
event, within six (5) months of Respondent's receipt of the letter.
12. Complainant again Inspected the facility on .,
1983, to determine compliance with the ISS. Copies-.of several documents
required to be developed and maintained by the facility were collected
and were reviewed in detail after on-site Inspection. Several violations
of Interim Status Standards were noted and made known to Respondent 1n a
t
Notice of Violation and Warning (NOYW) dated ' " Among
those noted were.violations of requirements for the Wasta Analysis Plan
(40 CFR §265.13), General Inspections (40 CFR §255.15), Personnel
Training (40 CFR §255.15), Contingency Plan (40 CFR §265.52), Groundwater
Monitoring .(40 CFR Part 255 Subpart F), and Closure and Post-Closure (40
CFR Part 255 Subpart G). In the NOVW, Respondent was required to submit'
a plan and schedule for compliance.
13. Respondent submitted a plan and schedule dated .,
1983 for compliance with the items noted in the , NOVW,
and requested an extension of the 30 day sufcmittal requirement for 40 CFR
265 Subpart F violations, until . . . Complainant granted
the extension, 1n correspondence datad , to allow
completion of ge_etachnical work then underway at the site. Respondent
subsequently submitted the plan and schedule, in correspondence datad
., in which Respondent proposed installation of a
groundwater monitoring program. Complainant accepted Respondent's plan
and schedule, with some revisions, in correspondence datad •• ,
1983, and advisad Respondent that full compliance with ISS groundwatar
monitoring requirements was required to be achieved by .,
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 5 of 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13''
. 14
15
16
17
13
19
-20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
m 030-183
.3-78 OOJ
. A ground water waiver demonstration was developed by Respondent.
Based on an Inspection in *nd subsequent review of the waiver
demonstration Complainant advised Respondent 1n the NOVW dated
that the waiver demonstration was Inadequate. Respondent
therefore has not Implemented a groundwater monitoring program (or
developed a complete waiver demonstration) capable of determining the
facility's impact on the quality of groundwater In the uppermost aquifer
underlying the facility as required by 40 CFR Part 255 Subpart F".
14. A storm and flash flood occurred at Respondent's '_ : facility
on the night and/or morning of .' . .„, which may have
exceeded a 25-year storm event. Complainant conducted an Inspection of
the facility on during which erosion and other signs of
runoff from the site were noted at two arsas of the facility. The
erosion noted was due to runoff from the storm. Inspectors noted liquid
In an active hazardous waste disposal trench (Trench ). This liquid
had flowed into the disposal trench 'from surrounding areas during the
storm. After the storm, facility personnel
constructed a berm at the end of Trench to deflect future storm
run-off into that trench. Failure to prevent flow of surface water into
an active hazardous waste, disposal trench constitutes a violation of 40
CFR §265.302(a). . .
15~ Complainant was advised on or about " by the
County Prosecutor that violations of the Interim Status Standards
had allegedly occurred at Respondent's facility during the
approximate period of through ' ... Respondent was
alleged to have disposed of large quantities of drums of improperly
solidified and unsolidified liquid waste in Respondent's disposal trench
FINDINGS OF FACT,.DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 6 of 26
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
used for disposal of hazardous wasta (Trench ].
16. On OP about , Respondent voluntarily began
excavating and exhuming drums of waste previously disposed 1n Trench
Complainant has continually observed excavation activities since
... Excavation of drums continues 'to. data by Respondent.
As drums have been recovered from the disposal trench they have been
individually opened and examined by representatives of Respondent and
Complainant. ' •
• •
. 17. During the period of , Respondent removed
1412 drums from the disposal trench (Trench ). Of these, 528 drums
were determined to contain liquid in whole or in part as follows:
a. 145 drums full or containing greater than approximately 75S
liquid
b.
c.
d.
e.
33 drums containing between approximately 50i and 75i liquid
44 drums containing between approximately 25S and SOS liquid
225 drums containing between approximately 52 and 25J liquid
80 drums containing less than approximately 55 liquid
18. At the request of Complainant, Respondent provided control
records that document the dates that some of the above-mentioned 528
drums containing liquids were placed in the disposal trench. These
records disclosed that drums found to contain liquids were placed in
Trench . on at least the following occasions:
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER .
PAGE 7 of 25
irm 090-t 81
•J.7R TV-It
-------
^ O.TC *srt
1 ' Dats • Control No.
2 5/27/83 " 2252
3 2358
4 2231
5 5/20/33 ' 2323
6 6/10 and 3/9/33 2330
7 8/3/83 2343
8 2361
9 2392
10 6/3/83 2370
.11 2374
12 6/10/83 2381
13 5/21/83 ' 2386
14 23S4
IS 6/18/83 2443
16 Such placement of liquids 1n Trench
No. of Drums
21
7
3
1
9
32
4
16
.7
47
Z
4
5
. 5
13
was in violation of 40 CFR
17 §265.314. Some of the control documents provided to Complainant fail to
!8 clearly account for all containers In each
19 manifested to the facility.
20 19. Qn 'and
21 Respondent's . • facility. The purpose
shipment of hazardous waste
', Complainant again inspected
of the inspection, in part.
22 was to determine compliance with RC3A Interim Status Standards. More
23 specifically, the inspection was to examine facility operations and
24 physical conditions at the facility. The
25 following:
26
27
28 FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED
3-183
*/"> T
inspection disclosed the
.
ORDER ' PAGE 8 of 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
•-orm 03O-183
2 •3-78 DOT
a. Approximately 8,500 drums were in storage at the facility.
The number of drums In storage 1s Increasing.
b. Several drums containing hazardous waste in storage on-site
Were corroded or badly deteriorated; specifically, drums of
hazardous waste designated as 0007 were bulging and had not been
'managed in accordance with 40 CFR §255.171. .
c. Several drums containing hazardous waste in storage on-site
were leaking either from the top seals or openings or through
the drum; specifically, drums of hazardous waste designated by
waste codes on the labels as containing F003, FOOS, 0001, 0006,
and phosphoric acid, were leaking, and had not been managed in
accordance with 40 CFR §265.171.
d. Several drums containing hazardous waste were stored with
open tops; specifically, drums designated by wasta codes on the
labels as containing 0002/0007 and F003/FQOS had open tops, in
violation of 40 CFR §255.173(a).
e. Drums containing hazardous waste were stored in a manner
which may cause them to leak; specifically, drums were stored
directly on the ground surface and in areas of poor drainage
which may cause or accelerate drum deterioration or rusting, in
violation.of 40 CFS §265.172(b).
f. Run-off from active portions of the facility was not
collected in a collection system. Prevailing grade determines
the course of run-off and natural ponding. Ponds formed by
••
run-off or run-on were allowed to evaporate or percolate into
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 9 of 26
-------
1
2
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
arm OSD-I83
.10.1* TV»I
the son, 1n violation of 40 CFR §255.302(6).
g. The diversion structure (a berm) which had been constructed
to cause run-on into Trench 11 was still in place, in violation
of 40 CFR §2S5.302(a).
h. Inspections by Respondent of containers in storage had not
been adequate to detect deterioration and releases of hazardous
waste constituents to the environment, in violation of 40 CFR
§2S5.15(a). Remedial action had not been initiated to correct
such drum management problems in violation of 40 CFR §255.171.
1. Respondent's facility was not then currently maintained and
operated to minimize the possibility of unplanned sudden or
non-sudden releases of hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents to air, soil, or surface water; specifically, any
spill during use of the stabilization pad could result in
hazardous waste flow to surrounding soil, and failure of any
container of hazardous waste in storage would result in
discharge to the soil or surface.water, in violation of 40 CFR
§265.31. Additionally, Respondent's facility is not equipped
with a facility or system to prevent the release of hazardous
waste or hazardous waste constituents from truclcs or other
vehicles 1-eaving the site.
20. At Respondent's facility there are '
underground structures ' .
These structures were
filled with liquid and solid hazardous waste and hazardous waste
constituents prior to November 19, 1980. The integrity of the
FINDINGS OF FACT,.DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 10 of 26
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
underground structures 1s u."known. Respondent, in correspondence dated
,, advised Complainant that grcundwater had been
encountered beneath the site near a,depth of 200 feet. ..
21. A-well reaching a deep artasian aquifer was constructed as part
of the original facility. An integral part of that well is Its steel
casing. The water produced by this well contains natural chemical
compounds which may be destructive to metals such as the steel well
• *
casing. The well and construction materials are approximately 25 years
old. The condition and integrity of the casing and well head are
unknown. The well head is situated in an underground structure (the
power house) which is connected by a series of tunnels, structures, and
access doors to . ' •• underground structures
containing hazardous wasta. The potential of a well casing failure
exists. Such a failure could result in the release of a large volume of
water to the soil and to hazardous waste disposal units, which might
result 1n the release of hazardous waste by leachate production and
migration off-site by means of surface run-off or groundwater flow. The
well presents a potential risk of unplanned sudden and non-sudden release
of hazardous waste or hazardous wasta constituents.
™ i
CIVIL PENALTY
In view of the violations noted in the Findings of Fact above,
Complainant hereby assesses a civil penalty of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS [5150,000].
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 11 of 26
arm 030-183
1.0 .1 e f^ t
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
arm 030-183
2-3-75 DO;
DETERMINATION
* ™^™^^H^^HB
Based upon the above information, it is hereby determined pursuant to
Section 3013 of the Act that:
1. The facility as described hereinabove, owned and operated
by the Respondent, is a facility at which hazardous wastes are present
and at which hazardous wastes have been treated, stored, and disposed.
2. The methods and practices employed at the facility for treating,
storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes are such that the presence of
»
•
the hazardous wastes at the facility may present a substantial hazard to
human health or the environment.
3. The releases of hazardous wastes and/or hazardous waste
constituents at the facility may have migrated to surface or
groundwatar. Several off-site wells on adjacent or nearby property exist
which could be or could become contaminated as a result of such
releases. Therefore, the release of hazardous wastes at the facility may
present a substantial hazard to human health or the environment.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
Based upon the foregoing and pursuant to Section 3008 of the Act, it
is hereby ordered that the Respondent take the following corrective
actions within the time periods specified:
1. Respondent shall upon its receipt of this Order initiate
telephone contact with all known generators and transporters of hazardous
waste' who ship or transport hazardous waste to Respondent's ' •
facility and advise each:
FINDINGS OF FACT,. DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 12 of 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
•6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
^5tm 090-183
'2-8-76 DOJ
a. to immediately cease shipping any containerized hazardous
•
waste or bulk hazardous waste which contains free liquids to the
facility until further notice; and
b. to allow shipments of -hazardous waste already in transit to
the facility to continue to the facility; and
c. that any. shipments of containerized hazardous waste or bulk
hazardous waste which contain frae liquids will not be accepted
at the facility if shipped after the telephone notice. •
•
The telephone notifications shall be completed as soon as possible
but in any event all such generators and transporters must be so notified
within three (3) working days of Respondent's receipt of this Order.
^
2. Respondent shall follow the above telephone notification with
written confirmation to each such generator and transporter -and shall
provide' a written summary to Cc~.pl ai/iant within five '(5) working days of
Respondent's receipt of this Order, which" includes:
a. a copy of each written notification (a single copy of the
notification will suffice if the text of all such notifications
is identical).
b. a list of the companies to which the notification is sent,
including company name, company EPA ID number, mailing addrsss
of the company, company contact, and company telephone number.
c. a' record of the datss the telephone contacts were made.
3. Respondent shall, upon its receipt of this Order, immediately
cease and thereafter desist from accepting at the facility any
containerized hazardous waste or bulk hazardous waste which contains free
liquid and which was shipped from any generator after the aforementioned
telephone notification to that generator. In no event shall Respondent
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGSEE-D ORDER
PAGE 13 of 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
3
10
n
12
13 .
u
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
28
27
23
arm CSO-183
* a f « v^s^f
accept at tha-fteility any containerized hazardous wasta or bulk
hazardous wasta which contains free liquids shipped Tatar than three (3)
working days after Respondent's receipt of this Order; with respect to
hazardous waste containing free liquid that is unknowingly accepted at
the facility, such waste shall not remain on the facility for a period
longer than 24 hours. This prohibition shall remain in effect until
Respondent has complied with Paragraph 4 below and further, until
*
Complainant by its Contact designated hereinbelow has notified the
• .
Respondent, orally or in writing, that this prohibition has been removed.
4. Respondent shall immediately upon its receipt of this Order
implement procedures which assure that no container containing fres
liquids is placed in a landfill. These and/or alternative procedures
shall.be documented in writing and submitted to Complainant for review
and approval. Until Complainant has advised the.Respondent, orally or in
writing, that the procedures are approved, Respondent shall open and
inspect all containers of hazardous waste prior to placement in 'a
•landfill and shall verify that no free liquids exist 1n any such
container. Following Complainant's approval, orally or in writing,
Respondent shall immediately implement the- approved procedures.
5. Respondent shall remove from Trench all liquids disposed
therein in vloUtion of 40 C5R §255.314. In order to accomplish this,
Respondent sha^l continue to excavate, exhume, and examine, for liquids,
drums and/or containers disposed in Trench at the facility.
This activity shall continue until Complainant notifies Respondent in
writing that such activity may cease. Respondent shall remove for
solidification drums containing free liquid in accordance with EPA
guidance and Complainant's on-site representative when such is present.
FINDINGS OF FACT,. DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 14 of 26
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13.
14.
15.
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
-orm 030-183
24-78 001
5. Respondent shall within fifteen (15) working days of its receipt
•
of this Order create and maintain a current written record of the total
Inventory of containers of hazardous waste in storage on-site. This
inventory'shall include all containers which are or have been exhumed
from the landfill and which contained free liquids when exhumed.
Respondent shall not allow the storage inventory of containers to exceed
the design capacity of the facility which is currently defined by the
Part A application on file with Complainant.
\
7. Respondent shall develop, Install, and put into operation
equipment and/or procedures to remove hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents from exterior surfaces of vehicles which leave the site.
^
Respondent shall. Within fifteen (15) working days of its receipt of this
Order, submit to Complainant for approval a written plan and proposal for
this purpose, including a proposed schedule for installation and
implementation. This plan and proposal must assure that no'vehicle
leaving the facility is visibly contaminated with hazardous waste and
must assure that any dirt, soil, or other material which has become
adhered to the exterior of the vehicle, is removed prior to.leaving the
site. The plan and proposal shall provide that all such materials
removed, including any washing solutions or wastewater, shall be treated
as hazardous waste unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. Upon
approval of the plan by Complainant, Respondent shall immediately
•implement the plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION ANG AGREED ORDER
PAGE 15 of 26
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
:o
1
2
•
8. Respondent shall, within fifteen (15) working days of Us
receipt of this Order, develop a written plan and schedule to divert
run-on away frcm active portions of the facility and to collect and
manage, a's hazardous waste, run-off from active portions of the facility
in accordance with 40 CFR §255.302. The plan and schedule shall be
submitted to Complainant for review and approval. The plan and schedule
as approved by Complainant shall be implemented by Respondent Immediately
•upon receipt of written approval by Complainant.
• .
9. To the extent Respondent has not already done so, Respondent
shall, by .. ., attempt to enter into arrangements or
agreements with local authorities such as police and firs deparbnents,
emergency response teams, contractors and equipment suppliers, and local
hospitals, in compliance with 40 CFR §255.37(a). Whers such arrangements
or agreements have not been reached by ' - ., Respondent
shall document the refusal of such State, County, or other local
authorities to enter into such arrangements, in compliance with 40 CPU
§265.37(b).
10. To the extent Respondent has not already done so, Respondent
shall, within fifteen (15) working days of its receipt of this Order,
maintain a written operating record at the . facility, including
records of the dates of disposal and location and quantities of hazardous
waste, in compliance with 40 C?R §265.73(b).
11. Respondent shall, within fifteen (15) working days of its
receipt of this Order, cease and thereafter desist from the storage of
drums- of hazardous waste in a manner which may causa them to deteriorate
and/or leak, including the closing of all drums in storage and removal of
drums frcm storage on the ground surface and/or 1n areas of poor
drainage, in compliance with 40 CFR §255.173.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2S
27
28
jrm 030-183
12. Respondent shall upon Us receipt of this Order implement
procedures to inspect daily all containers of hazardous wasta on-site.
Respondent shall further, within fifteen (15) working days of its receipt
of this Order, transfer any hazardous waste contained in corroded,
deteriorated, leaking, or bulging drums, or drums not in-good condition,
Into sound drums in good condition or shall otherwise comply with 40 CF3
§255.171. Thereafter, Respondent shall comply with 40 CFR §255.171.
13. To the extent Respondent has not already done so, Respondent
*
shall, within thirty (30) days of its receipt of this Order, equip its
facility with a continuously operable and operating internal
communications or alarm system in compliance with 40 CFR §255.32(a) and
(b).
14. Respondent shall, within thirty (30). working days of its receipt
of this Order, prepare and subint to Complainant a written plan and
schedule to maintain and operate Respondent's *••.:- facility so as to
minimize the possibility of unplanned sudden or non-sudden releases of
hazardous waste to soil or surface, water. The plan shall provide for at
least the following specific measures:
a. such measures as are necessary to eliminate the threat of
failure of the well casing in 'the on-site artesian well. The
plan shall contain provisions to permanently plug the well. The
plan,' as approved by Complainant, shall be implemented
immediately upon approval.
b. such measures as are necessary to minimize, contain, or
prevent the release of hazardous waste to the soil or surface
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER.
PAGE 17 of 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
13
19
20
21 '
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
water, upon the failure of any container or tank.
C. such measures as are necessary to minimize, contain, or
prevent:
(1) any release due to spillage during off-loading of
hazardous, waste into the stabilization pond, and
(2) any release due to failure of the bera surrounding the
stabilization pond during use and/or treatment of hazardous
waste for stabilization or solidification.
• .
15. Respondent shall Implement and comply with the groundwatar
monitoring proposal and schedule submitted to Complainant 1n
correspondence dated Respondent shall also, within
seven (7) working days of its receipt of this Order, provide a written
response to Complainant's letter of . ' which provided
consents on- the Respondent's proposal. The written response shall
document the actions Respondent has taken or intends to take with respect
to the fourteen (14) comments in Complainant's letter, except for item
twelve (12), which 1s covered under the Section 3013 Order, infra.
Additionally, Respondent shall include in the Part 3 application for the
facility (due - .. ) a plan and proposal, including
timeframes, for installation and implementation of a groundwater
monitoring system ar.d program that fully complies with 40 C?R Parts 254
and 265, Subparts F.
16. Respondent shall immediately upon its receipt of this Order
provide access to •'•• to employees, agents, and contractors of
Compl-ainant at all reasonable times, for the purposes of inspecting and
verifying the status of Respondent's compliance with this Order,.in
irm 030-183
•j».7« not
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 18 of 26
-------
1
2
3
4
5
€
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
accordance with and pursuant to the authority of §2007 of the Act, 42
U.S.C. §6927.
ORDER REQUIRING SUBMISSION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL FOR SAMPLING,
ANALYSIS, MONITORING AND REPORTTNG
Pursuant to Section 3013 of the Act [42 U.S.C. §5934], and in order
to ascertain the nature and extent of the hazard at the facility as
described hereinabove, Respondent is hereby ordered to submit a written
• •
proposal to' EPA for the sampling, analysis, monitoring and reporting of
the hazardous wastes and hazardous waste constituents that ars present at
or that may have been released from the facility, and is hereby ordered
» -•
to implement, such proposal, once approved by EPA. Such written proposal
shall contain, but is not limited to, the following:
1. A determination of whether hazardous wasta cr hazardous waste
constituents have leaked or are leaking from the
underground structures. This shall Include a plan and timetable for the
installation of a groundwater monitoring program, including
recommendations as to locations, depth, and construction thereof,
designed to monitor groundwatsr elevation and water quality.
2. A sampling and analysis plan for groundwatar at or near the
underground structures containing wasta which describes
frequency of sampling, and procedures and quality assurance measures for
sampling and analyzing for hazardous wasta and hazardous wasta
constituents. The plan shall provide that g'roundwatar be sampled and
analyzed at least quarterly for one year. The plan shall also provica
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAG£ 19"of 25
arm 090-183
:-8-7S DOJ
-------
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2S
27
28
for analysis-of all priority pollutants contained 1n Appendix VIII of 40
«
CFR'Part 261 for at least two of the sampling periods.
3. A proposal, Including timeframes, for determining the chemical
composition of the contents of any-container which has been exhumed frcm
••••<• and which contained free liquid at the time of exhumation. Such
determination shall include, as a minimum, sampling and analysis of a
representative number of such containers. Such proposal shall be
sufficient to determine whether Respondent'.s records and record-keeping
t .
procedures accurately reflect drum contents and the chemical composition
of liquid hazardous wastes disposed by Respondent. Nothing in this
paragraph shall limit the exhumation, processing, and disposal activities
required by this Order prior to approval and implementation of this
proposal.
4. A proposal, including timeframes, for detamining the extant of
any hazard presented by hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents
that have leaked or otherwise been released to the environment from
tanks, containers, vehicles, or other containment devices, or that have
otherwise orginatad from active treatment, storage, or disposal units at
the site. This proposal shall specifically include sampling of soils,
both on and off-site (assuming access can be obtained), sufficient to
document the extent of contamination by hazardous wasta or hazardous
waste constituents that may have resulted from past events, including:
a. rainfall and resulting run-on and run-off;
b. liquid wasta solidification activities;
c. wasta transfer between process units at the facility;
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION ANO AGREED ORDER
PAGE 20 of 25
=orm 030-183
2-6-7 6 DOT
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
«
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
=orm 030-183
2-3-76 DO;
d. vehicle entry, vehicle unloading, and vehicle exit from the
facility;
e. other on-sita waste management practices including,
Inter alia, container storage, tanlc storage, treatment, and
disposal of hazardous waste*. \.
5. A provision for site access for employees, agents, and
contractors of Complainant at aU reasonable times for purposes of
inspecting and verifying compliance with the approved proposal in
«
accordance with and pursuant to the authority of §3007 of the Act, 42
U.S.C. §6927.
6. A description of the means of implementation of the items set
*
forth above, a proposal for reporting to EPA on the progress of these
items, and for reporting the results of the sampling, analysis and
monitoring program.
OPPORTUNITY TO CCNFiR
Under the provisions of the Act, Respondent may confer with EPA at
any time prior to submittal of the §3013 proposal. The proposal
submitted by Respondent shall be subject to review, modification and
approval by EPA. After submittal of the proposal, Respondent shall be
afforded an opportunity to confer with EPA on a data specified by EPA to
discuss the terms of the proposal. Following this conference and after
review, modification (if any), and approval of the proposal by E?A,
Respondent shal'l forthwith conduct, carry out and implement the sampling,
analysis, monitoring and reporting program according to its approved
tarms and schedules.
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 21 of 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
1.1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONTACT
The written proposal ordered herein must be submitted by Respondent
to at the address listed above, within thirty (30)
days of Respondent's receipt of this Order. Sufcnrittals required by the
Section 30C8 Compliance Order, supra, as well as any questions, shall
likewise be addressed to
LIABILITY
• ^™^^H•» ^
If EPA determines that Respondent 1s not able to conduct the
activities required by this §3013 Order in a satisfactory manner, 1s not
able to conduct the activities contained in the approved proposal, or 1f
*•
actions carried out are deemed unsatisfactory, then EPA may conduct such
actions deemed reasonable by EPA to ascertain the nature and extent of
the hazard at the facility. Respondent may then be ordered to reimburse
EPA for the costs of such activity pursuant to §3013(d) of the Act. In
the event Respondent fails to comply with the terms and provisions of
this §3013 order, EPA may commence a civil action to require compliance
with such order and to assess a civil penalty of not to exceed 53COO for
each day during which such failure or refusal occurs.
CONSENT
1. In connection with this matter, the Respondent consents to the
followi ng:
a. To pay the assessed civil penalty of 5150,000, on the terms
described below.
3rm C9O-I81
2-8-78 DOT
FINDINGS OF FACT,. DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 22 of 25
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b. To comply 1n full with the Compliance Order issued pursuant
to Section 3008 of the Act.
c. To comply in full with the Order Requiring Submission and
Implementation of Proposal for Sampling, Analysis, Monitoring-
and Reporting. >..
2. .The consent of both Respondent and Complainant to settle this
matter on the terms and conditions sat forth in the penalty assessment
and order provisions of this document (hereafter collectively referred to
•
as the "Order") is based upon the following:
a. Respondent neither admits nor denies any factual or legal
allegations contained in this Order. Nevertheless, In full and
complete settlement of this matter, Respondent agrees to be
bound by the terms of this Order, consents to the assessment of
the civil penalty set forth herein, and explicitly waives its
right to request a hearing regarding any provision of this Order.
b. The provisions of this Order imposing duties (other than the
payment of penalties) upon Respondent shall apply to and be
binding upon not only Respondent, but also its officers, agents,
servants and employees, and upon all those in active concert or
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREES ORDER
PAGE 23 of 25
arm 030-183
2-3-7 S DOJ
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
•
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
•-arm O30-I83
•2-8-76 DOJ
participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order
by personal service or otherwise.
c. It 1s the Intention of this Order to bring Respondent and
all operations at the facility in compliance with the provisions
of RC3A and applicable RCRA regulations. It is not
Complainant's intention by this Order to impose standards or
conditions more stringent than those specified in the
aforementioned provisions except to the extent that it may be
necessary to remedy existing alleged violations at the facility.
d. This Order shall in no way relieve the Respondent of its
obligation to comply with any other local, State or Federal law^
in any way related to the substance of this Order.
e. This Order is not and shall not be interpreted to be a
permit for treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste
under Section 3005 of RCRA (or under the terms of a State
program operating in lieu of the Federal program under Section
3006 of RCRA), nor shall this Order in any way affect the
Respondent's obligation, if any, to secure such a permit, nor
shall this Order be interpreted in any way to affect or waive
any of the conditions or requirements that may be validly
imposed as conditions for the issuance of such permit nor of
Respondent's right to appeal any conditions of such permit.
f. This Order is being entered into between Complainant and
Respondent in full settlement of all civil penalties for the
*
alleged violations identified herein. Nothing in this Order
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 24 of 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
''"8
9
10
11
12
' 13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
arm OSO-183
>.a.7R noi
Shall restrict the right of Complainant to initiate further
enforcement action for penalties or otherwise only 1n the event
additional facts are uncovered which ar« unknown to Complainant
at the time this Order is entered and which justify such action.
g. Notwithstanding compliance with the terms of this-Order,
Respondent is not released from liability, If any, for abatement
of any imminent and substantial endangerment to the public
health, welfare or the environment posed by this facility.
•
h. Within 60 days of the date hereof, Respondent shall pay by
cashier's or certified check, a civil penalty in the amount of
$150,000.00 in full and complete settlement of all violations
alleged herein. Such check shall be payable to the Treasurer,
United States of America, and shall be remitted to
, Regional Administrator.
i. Complainant shall expeditiously review all plans and
proposals submitted pursuant hereto and shall not unreasonably
withhold its approval.
j. The terms of the Order may be modified by written mutual
agreement of the parties.
k. This Order shall terminate two years from the date it is
entered^ or. on the data of issuance of the Part 3 permit,
whichever is earlier.
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGc 25 of 25
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
4
8
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
>rm 030-183
3. 3y the*following signatures, the Complainant and Respondent
hereby consent to the entry of the Order on the tarns and conditions
herein stated:
DATED-
Respondent
Secretary
DATED:
, Regional Counsel
EPA, Region
Attorney for Complainant
Assistant Regio'naT Counsel
EPA, Region
Attorney for Complainant
ENTRY OF FINAL CONSENT OR PER
It is so Ordered as set forth above. This ORDER, including each and every
portion hereof', shall become effective immediately.
Regional Administrator
EPA, Region 10
DATED'this .
FINDINGS OF FACT, DETERMINATION AND AGREED ORDER
PAGE 25 of 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
U-
15
16
17
18
19
- 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r
MODIFICATION OF AGREED ORDER ...
ENTERED INTO f.. " . BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY REGION AND
Upon the mutual agreement of the parties to the above-referenced
Agreed Order as evidenced by the signatures below, and pursuant to Paragraph
2.J. of the "CONSENT" section thereof (p. 25 of 26),. the Agreed Order is
hereby modified as follows:
1. Page 13 of the Agrsed Order shall be amended as follows:
a. On line 11 thereof, omit "three (3)", and insert "ten (10)"
in place thereof;
fa. On line 14 thereof, omit "five (5)", and insert "twelve
(12)" in place thereof. '..
2. Page 14 of the Agreed Order sha'll be amended as follows: On
line 2 thereof, emit "three (3)", and insert "tan (10)" in place thereof.
3. Noncomplianca with Paragraph 4 on Page V^of the Agreed Order
prior to % shall, in the sole discretion of the Complainant by
its Contact designated on Page 22 of the Agrssd Order, and without further
notice* or opportunity for a hearing, effect a further unilateral modification
of any of the three provisions modified above, but such modification shall
maintain the existing date relationship of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 on Pages
12-14'of the Agreed Ordetvcf .
DATE
for tnviror.ir.entai Protection Agency Region
ENTRY OF ORDER AMENDING AGREED ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
"""DATE
MODIFICATION OF AGREED ORDER - -page 1 of .1
Regional Administrator
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
* OSD-183
•76 DOJ
APPENDIX C
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF:
RCRA Docket
ORDER
Respondents.
Proceedings under §3013 of the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6934
'ORDER FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
MONITORING, TESTING, AND ANALYSIS COSTS
This Order is issued pursuant to Section 3013(d) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act [42 'J.S.C.6934 (d) , hereinafter
referred to as "the Act"], by the undersigned, the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
a duly authorized designee of the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to
Rescor.de nts.
ORDER - Page 1 of 7
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
• 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
-i oso-taa
•76 DOJ
DETERMINATIONS AS'D FINDINGS OF -ACT
The undersigned makes the following determinations and findings
of fact:
1. The " Facility (hereinafter referred to
as, "the Facility"] is located at , near the
junction of Road Street in . The
Facility is owned and operated by
2. is managing owner, operator and
Chairman of the Board of Directors of Company, Inc.
3. was, until , the President of
•
4. and each have
personally participated in each and every operation conducted at
the Facility. Together' they exercise, or have exercised control
over all activities occurring at the Facility.
hereinafter referred to as "Respondents".
5. -The EPA Administrator determined, on or before August ,
198 , that the presence of hazardous waste at the Western Processing
facility and the release of hazardous waste from the facility may be
presenting a substantial hazard to human health or the environment
and that determination required monitoring, sampling, analysis and
reporting. The basis for that determination is documented in an
Order issued to Respondents signed by Administrator
~ on August , 198,:, pursuant to the authority of
ORDER - Page 2 of 7
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
23
m 03O-1S3
1-76 DOJ
Section 3013 of the Act.
6. The S3013 Order was served on the Respondents on
August 17, 1982.
7. The §3013 Order required the Respondents to submit to EPA a
proposal for monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting of hazardous
waste and hazardous waste constituents that are present at or that
have been released from the facility, and to implement such proposal,
once approved by EPA. The Respondents were required to submit the
proposal to EPA within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Order.
8. Notwithstanding such Order, Respondents failed to submit any
proposal and on September , 198 , notified EPA that the Respondents
were unable to develop the proposal and to implement monitoring, test-
ing, analysis, and reporting.
9. Based upon the Respondents' failure to submit the required
proposal and the notification cy the Respondents of their, inability to
develop the proposal and implement the required investigation, the
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste' and Emergency
Response determined that no owner or operator was able to conduct the
required monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting .
10. Accordingly, and pursuant to the authority contained in
§3013(d) of the Act, the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, acting through the Regional
Administrator of Region 10 EPA, undertook to conduct monitoring,
sampling, and analysis of the site to ascertain the nature and
extent of the hazard associated with the site. Such activity was
initiated on September , 1982.
ORDER - Page 3 of 7
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
25
27
28
i 030-183
.-76 DOJ
11. Monitoring, testing, and analysis conducted through
November , 198 , have resulted in expenditures of funds in the
sum of $134,450. This sum has been expended for conducting monitoring
testing, and analysis on or in the vicinity of the Western Processing
site deemed necessary and reasonable to ascertain the extent of the
hazard associated with the site.
12. The 5184,450 has been expended as follows:
Prime Contractor Personnel Costs.
Field Invesigation Team 1,953 hrs 9 $35.00
395 hrs 35.00
Technical Assistance Team
Prime Contractor Total
Sub-Contractor Costs
South Seattle Asphalt S1467.98
RJ3 Wholesale . 2729.27
TUB Wholesale . 513.82
Sanikan 209.34
National Barricade 463.77
Rental Mart-submersible pump 332.23
Analytical Services Center (Buffalo) 2400.00
Burns Security 1542.30
Brooks Truck Line-forklift, flatbed 339.99
Story and Dodge (well driller) 20444.50
Crosby and Overton- barrel storage 360.00
City of Kent - Water 45.00
Sub-Contractor Total
$68,530".00
13,825.00
$82,355.00
$30,358.25
ORDER - Page 4 of 7
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
n
12
13
• 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i 090-183
•76 DOJ
Equipment and Supplies
Sears- fencing gate S 324.39
Sears- come-along hand wrench 85.18
Burdic Feed and Hardware -'wire stretcher 56.90
N.w. Stationers - stencil and paint- for drums 68.05
Cascade Bag - sample bags . 79.32
Seattle Barrel Company 1427.10
Lone Star Industries . 223.66
Glacier Sand and Gravel 275.84
J.C. Penny's - lantern 45.78
MSA - supplies, cartridges, respirator 896.53
supplies
check valve, hydrant wrench 35.52
pipe without gasket . 152.61
drive caps ' • 46.86
disposable gloves 114.60
diesel, gas, ice, small equipment 156.59
personal mileage, supplies, maintenance 172.35
film development and purchase 54.00
Seattle Skin Diving - refill air bottles 38.07
Andrews Machinery - pressure release valve 17.34
Sears paint for drums 28.46 . •
Label Master Labels 27.96
Equipment and Supplies Total S4323.ll
ORDER - Page 5 of 7
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
• 15
16
17
18
19
20 .
.21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•n 050-183
i-76 .DOJ
Car Rental
3 vehicles § So.10 per day ( 157 days)
1 vehicle 3 5.50 per day ( 5 days)
Mileage
Gasoline
Car Rental Total
S 957.70
32.50
391 .00
645.00
S 2525.20
Analytical Support (Laboratory) (includes 10% Mgmt. overhead)
Soil samples - inorganics
- organics
Water samples - inorganics
- organics
Special services
high hazard samples 1 9 S398
Filter samples 35 9 8
% moisture 124 9 5
- Analytical Support total
Sample Transportation and Packaging
Grand Total to November 29, 1982
122 samples @5 93 511,346.00
124 samples 9S 305 ' 37,820.00
25 samples 9 93 2,325.00
25 samples 9 305 7,625.00
398.00
230 .00
620.00
S 60,414.00
3,963.58
S 184,450.24
The above sum covers only activities which were carried out under
contract to EPA. Activities carried out by EPA personnel are not
included in the above sura.
ORDER
Based upon the deterainations and findings of fact above, the
Respondents are hereby ordered to pay a sum of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY dollars (5134,450) to reimburse the United
ORDER - Page 6 Of 7
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
?•
3
• 9
10
11
12
13
. 14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2S
27
23
« O3O-183
•76 DOJ
States for incurred costs of the monitoring, testing and analysis
conducted through November , 198 . This sun shall be paid within
15 days of the date of this Order by a certified check payable to
"Treasurer, United States of America." This payment must be remitted
*
to the contact person a"t the address below.
Failure to comply with the terms of this Order raay subject
Respondents to a civil action by EPA for assessment of a penalty of
an amount not to exceed 5 5,000.00 for each day of such failure to
ccmply.
The contact person shall be:
Witness my hand as Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response'pursuant to the Authority of the
Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agecy.
Dated this
day of ._
, 198.'
ORDER - page 1 of 1
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 21 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Issuance of Final Revised Guidance on the Use and
Issuance of Administrative Orders Under Section 7003
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Courtney M. Pricef^
Assistant Administrator *for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
^^^^^^ *
Lee M. Thomas C^^—
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
See Attached List
Attached is the Final Revised Guidance on the Use and
Issuance of Administrative Orders Under Section 7003 of RCRA.
The responses to the1 drafts of this guidance were very
positive. A considerable effort has been made to incorporate
the comments received where appropriate. We greatly appreciate
your involvement in ther development of this important policy.
If you have any questions, please contact Susan Conti, of
OECM-Waste, at FTS-382-3103.
Attachment
-------
Regional Counsels, Regions 1-X
Regional Administrators, Regions 1-X
Hazardous Waste Coordinators, Regions I-X
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X1
-------
FINAL REVISED GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM ON THE
USE AND ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
UNDER SECTION 7003 OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
September 26, 1984
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SCOPE OF RCRA §7003 2
A. Evidence 2
B. What Constitutes Handling, Storage,
Treatment or Disposal 3
C. Necessity of Existence of Imminent and
Substantial Endangerment 3
D. Persons to Whom an Order May be Issued 5
. E. Notice to Affected States 6
III. SELECTING ENFORCEMENT OPTION 6
A. Administrative Order or Civil Referral 7
B. Use of RCRA or CERCLA 7
C. Deciding to Use a §7003 Order 9
1'. Respondent's Financial Status 9
2. Number of Respondents Subject to the Order.. 10
i) Coordination of Response Action 10
ii) Supervision 11
3. Specificity of the Necessary Response
Action 11
IV. . ELEMENTS OF AN ORDER 12
V. CONFERENCE PROCEDURES 14
VI. MODIFICATION, REVOCATION, OR STAY OF THE ORDER.... 15
VII. NEGOTIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS 15
VIII. DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY 16
APPENDIX. STATE NOTIFICATION LETTER 17
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
RCRA's administrative enforcement authority is an
important component of the Agency's overall hazardous waste
enforcement program. The effectiveness of EPA's enforcement
program wiTl be demonstrated as respondents implement site
remedies in compliance with administrative orders, the Agency
pursues enforcement actions vigorously against respondents
who fail to comply with such orders, and the Agency defends
aggressively judicial challenges to orders.
Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) provides EPA with a broad and powerful enforcement
tool that may be used to abate imminent hazards that are caused
by the handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal
.of solid waste or hazardous waste. Under §7003, the Adminis-
trator may seek injunctive relief in the appropriate United
States District Court or, after notice to the affected State,
take appropriate action "including, but not limited to, issuing
such orders as may be necessary to protect public health or the
environment."
The §7003 administrative order authority provides strong
incentives for respondents to expeditiously undertake response
actions deemed necessary by EPA to ensure protection to public
health or the environment. Therefore, the Regions are urged to
consider the use of unilateral RCRA §7003 orders in appropriate
cases wherever it is necessary to compel response action. It
is essential that the RCRA enforcement program combines both
administrative and judi/cial enforcement authorities to ensure
protection of health and the environment frop the improper
handling of hazardous waste.
The following guidance has been prepared to assist the
Regional offices in developing and issuing administrative
orders pursuant to §7003. It supersedes the earlier Agency
guidance issued on September 11, 1981, by Douglas MacMillan,
Acting Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, entitled
"Issuance of Administrative Orders Under §7003 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act."
Since §7003 is similar in scope to §106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, the reader should consult the guidance
issued on September 8, 1983, entitled "Guidance Memorandum on
Use or Issuance of Administrative Orders Under §106 (a) of
-------
- 2 -
CERCLA." A fuller treatment of the following areas, common to
both 7003 and 106, is found in the (1983) 106 Guidance:
Necessity for Determination Based on Evidence; Necessity for
Actual or Threatened Release; Necessity that Release or Threat
of Release be from a facility (applicable in the case of joint
7003 & 106 orders); and Necessity for Existence of Imminent
and Substantial Endangerraent. Where joint orders under §§7003
and 106 are issued, the Regions should adhere to the require-
ments set out in both guidance memoranda. The reader should
also consult the CERCLA §106 guidance, "Issuance of Administra-
tive Orders for Immediate Removal Actions" (Lee Thomas, OSWER,
February 21, 1984).
It should be noted that the reauthorization of RCRA by
Congress may affect some aspects of §7003, regarding the
participation of the public in the settlement of administrative
orders and liability for past activities. If RCRA is amenaed,
supplemental guidance will be provided as appropriate.
II. SCOPE OF RCRA §7003 *J
In order to issue a §7003 order, the Administrator must
possess evidence "that the handling, storage, treatment, trans-
portation or disposal of any solid waste or hazardous waste
may present an-imminent and substantial endangerment to health
or the environment" (42 U.S.C. §6973). Additionally, §7003
requires that the Administrator provide notice to the affected
State prior to issuance of the order. Each of these require-
ments is discussed in further detail below.
A. Evidence
Because the recipient of a §7003 order may seek
administrative or judicial review of the order, the Region
must have all the evidence necessary to demonstrate that the
*J Note; the terras "hazardous waste" and "solid waste"
in RCRA §7003 refer to the statutory definitions,
§§1004(5) and 1004(27), of RCRA and not to the regulatory
provisions promulgated pursuant to §3001 and codified at 40 CFR
Part 261. These regulatory provisions are meant for application
only in the Subtitle C regulatory program. As long as a waste
meets the §1004 definition of solid or hazardous waste, it need
not be listed in Part 261 or satisfy one of the characteristics
specified in Part 261.
-------
- 3 -
statutory criteria have been satisfied at the time the order
is issued. The evidence must establish that the respondent
has handled, treated, stored, transported or disposed of a
solid or hazardous waste, and that such activity has resulted
in a condition that may present an imminent and substantial
endangermert to health or the environment. Necessary evidence
may be documentary, testimonial, or physical and may be
obtained from a variety of sources including inspections,
investigations, or requests for production of documents or
other data pursuant to RCRA §§3007, 3013 or CERCLA §104. The
evidence must be sufficiently probative and reliable to
enable a reasonable person to conclude that issuance of an
order is appropriate. For example, an unsubstantiated citizen's
complaint would normally not be sufficient to justify issuance
of an order. If that complaint were supported by corroborating
evidence, however, such as laboratory analyses, the complaint
and corroboration could normally be considered a sufficient
basis for issuance of the order.
B. What Constitutes Handling, Storage, Treatment,
Transportation or Disposal.
It is undisputed that §7003 may be utilized to enjoin
present conduct. Thus, persons who are presently handling,
storing, treating, transporting or disposing of solid or
hazardous wastes are potential recipients of a §7003 order.
Whether §7003 may be used to abate present imminent hazards
caused by past disposal practices is an issue that has been
litigated repeatedly, the Agency has consistently maintained
that §7003 applies to such past disposal. Although there has
been some disagreement by courts considering this question,
the prevailing view as expressed in U.S. v. Waste Industries,
et al., No. 83-1320 (4th Cir., May 8, 1984) clearly supports
the Agency's position. Thus, Regional Offices should consider
the issuance of §7003 orders at presently inactive facilities,
provided such issuance is consistent with this guidance.
C. Necessity for Existence of Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment.
Evidence possessed to support the issuance of a RCRA
§7003 order must show that the "handling, storage, treatment,
transportation or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or
the environment." The words "may present" indicate that
Congress established a standard of proof that does not require
a certainty. The evidence need not demonstrate that an immi-
-------
- 4 -
nent and substantial endangennent to public health or the'
environment definitely exists. Instead, an order may be issued
"if there-is sound reason to believe that such an endangennent
may exist.
Evidence of actual harm is not required. As the Court
stated in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, construing an endangerment
provision in the Clean Air Act:
The meaning of "endanger" is not disputed.
Case law and dictionary definition agree that
endanger means something less than actual harm.
When one is endangered, harm is threatened; no
actual injury need ever occur. 541 F.2d 1 at
13, footnotes omitted, original emphasis, D.C.
Cir., cert, denied 426 U.S. 941 (1976).
It should also be noted that while the risk of harm must
be imminent in order for the Agency to act under §7003, the
harm itself need not be. (See the legislative history to the
"imminent and substantial endangerment" provision of §1431 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, H. Rpt. 93-1185 at 3536.) For
example, EPA could act if there exists a likelihood that
contaminants might be introduced into a water supply which
could cause damage after a period of latency.• One must judge
the risk or likelihood of the harm by examining the factual
circumstances, including, but not limited to: 1) nature and
amount of the hazardous substance; 2) the potential for
exposure of humans or the environment to the substance; and
3) the known, or suspectefd effect of the substance on humans
or that part of the environment subject to exposure to the
substance.
Legal analyses of the concept of imminent and substantial
endangerment can also be found in Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA,
546 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1975); U.S. v. Vertac Chemical Co.. et
al., 489 F.Supp. 870 (E.D. Ark. 1980); U.S. v. Solvents
Recovery Service, 496 F.Supp. 1127 (D. Conn. 1980); UTS, v.
Midwest Solvent~Recovery, 484 F.Supp. 138 (N.D. Ind. 1980);
U.S. v. Diamond Shamrock Corp., 17 E.R. 1329, (N.D. Ohio
T98T); U.S. v. Price, 688 F.2d 204 (3rd Cir. 1982); and, U.S.
v. Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp., 546 F.Supp. 1100 (D. Minn.
19 sir:
The nature of the endangerment and the basis for the
finding of an imminent and substantial endangerment must be set
forth in the order. If sampling and analysis data are being
relied upon, a summary of such data should ordinarily be set
-------
- 5 -
forth in the order. At any rate, all evidence supporting the
finding'of any imminent and substantial endangerment in the
order must be compiled into a single, concise document consti-
tuting the endangerment assessment. [An Endangerment Assessment
Guidance is presently being prepared by the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.]
D. Persons to Whom an Order May be Issued.
Section 7003 provides that an order may be issued to "any
person" who contributed to conduct or lack of conduct that may
present an imminent hazard. The terra encompasses, if applicable,
the present owners and operators of a site, including an inactive
site. Similarly, the term includes persons whose ongoing
conduct may result in the risk of an imminent hazard. Whether
previous owners of a site or past non-negligent off-site
generators are also covered by §7003 is an issue that has
received much judicial attention.
Although the case law is unsettled, two courts have upheld
EPA's position that previous owners of a site may be held
liable under §7003. U.S. v. Price. 688 F.2d 204; U.S. v.
Reilly Tar and Chemical Co., 546 F. Supp. 1100. Thus, if
otherwise appropriate, Regions should consider issuing §7003
orders to previous owners of a site, even an inactive one, in
cases where the previous owner's conduct may have caused or
contributed to conditions at the site which may present an
imminent hazard and substantial endangerment.
To date, the courts have been unwilling to include past,
non-negligent, off-site generators within the scope of §7003.
See, U.S. v. Wade. 546 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. Pa., 1982); U.S. v.
NEPACCO. 579 F. Supp. 823 (W.D. Mo., 1984) [U.S. filed cross-
appeal June 29, 1984; decision pending]. It is recommended,
therefore, that the Regional Offices utilize CERCLA §106 to
order such generators to perform necessary cleanup work. While
an early decision was unfavorable, the majority and all recent
decisions have held that §106 does apply: U.S. v. Wade, 546 F.
Supp. 785 [held §106 is not applicable to past, non-negligent
generators]; U.S. v. Price. 577 F. Supp. 1103 (D. N.J., 1983)
[held §106 does apply to past, non-negligent generators]; U.S.
v. NEPACCO. 579 F. Supp. 823 [held §106 does apply to past,
non-negligent generators]; U.S. v. Conservation Chemical Company,
No. 82-0983-CV-W-5, Order (W.D. Mo., Feb. 3, 1984) [held §106
does apply to past, non-negligent generators]; and U.S. v.
A&F Materials, et al. . No. 83-3123 (S.D. 111., Jan. Z0~, 1984)
[held §106 does apply to past, non-negligent generators]. The
Agency's position is that §106 does apply to past, non-negligent,
off-site generators.
-------
- 6 -
E. Notice to Affected States
Finally, before an Order may be issued, the "affected
state" must be given notice of the Agency's intention to issue
the Order.
The Agency is not held to a statutory period of time for
notice. Normally, written notification to the state should
precede federal action by at least one week. Circumstances
may arise, however, where a more rapid response at a site is
necessary. In such cases, issuance of an order may follow an
abbreviated notice period or even a telephone call made by EPA
to the director of the agency responsible for environmental
protection in the affected state. Written confirmation must
follo.w such telephone notice. In some cases, the draft order
may be subject to a State's Freedom of Information Act prior to
issuance of the order by EPA. If this situation arises, the
Agency may delay notice to the affected state(s) until (no
later than) one week before issuance of the final order.
11 is unlikely that a state FOIA request would result in early
disclosure of the draft order during that short period of
time.
As indicated above, the notification should be directed to
the director of the state agency having jurisdiction over
hazardous waste matters. A suggested form for a notification
letter is attached to this memorandum as the Appendix. This
form also provides the format for oral notice.
t
An "affected state" is -a state in which the conduct or
condition which may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment is occurring or is located, and in which the
response activity required by the proposed order will be taken.
In some cases, this may involve more than one state, such as
where a facility is located near the border of a state and the
hazardous wastes have migrated from the facility into another
state(s). In those cases, all of the states in which the
hazardous wastes are found and in which response activity may
be performed pursuant to the order should be notified. (Note:
Consult the following guidance for more information on the
State/Federal relationship: "Implementing the State/Federal
Relationship in Enforcement: State/Federal Enforcement
Agreements", OECM, June 6, 1984.)
III. SELECTING ENFORCEMENT OPTION
Although §7003 administrative orders are a potent
enforcement tool, there will be instances when it will be more
appropriate for the Agency to use other enforcement options,
including a RCRA §7003 judicial action, a CERCLA §106 adminis-
-------
- 7 -
trative or judicial action, or a Superfund financed cleanup of
a hazardous waste site. . The Regions should examine each of
'these options and select the option which will result in the
most efficient use of limited enforcement resources and
Superfund monies while still quickly abating the threat.
(See also, the memorandum on "Issuance of Administrative Orders
for Immediate Removal Action", supra, for additional guidance
on selecting enforcement options.; •
A. Administrative Order or Civil Referral
Initially, the Agency must determine whether it is more
appropriate to use administrative or judicial enforcement
action; each has definite advantages and drawbacks. An admin-
istrative order has the benefit of being'a relatively speedy
method of enforcement. The Agency can issue an order that
establishes a timetable for compliance, unilaterally or on
consent, in a short period of time. A judicial action, on the
other hand, is usually a more time-consuming process. The
referral of a case to the Department of Justice and filing of
a complaint may delay the initiation of remedial activities.
Even though a judicial action can be time-consuming, any
resulting judicial order or consent decree can be more quickly
enforced in the event of noncompliance since the Court already
has jurisdiction of the matte_r, and an additional referral
to DOJ generally is not needed.
Because AO's can be issued quickly, the general rule is
that an administrative"order, whether issued unilaterally or
on consent, is appropriate absent some indication that the
respondent will not comply with its terms. Where noncompliance
is anticipated, Regions should .prepare a civil referral.
Should immediate remedial action be necessary, EPA should
consider requesting a preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order.
B. Use of RCRA or CERCLA
Once a decision has been made to proceed administratively,
the Region must then decide whether an order under RCRA §7003
or CERCLA §106 is more appropriate. Upon examination, both
statutory provisions appear quite similar. When faced with
the need to abate an imminent hazard, the Agency can often use
a joint order if the RCRA "hazardous waste" is also a CERCLA
"hazardous substance." [Consult the CERCLA §106 (1983) guidance
for a discussion of the issuance of joint orders,]
-------
- 8 -
There are three situations where a joint order is not
.available, more specifically, where a RCRA §7003 order can be
used but a CERCLA §106 order cannot.
The first situation would result when the imminent hazard
is caused by a RCRA Irsolid waste" but not a "hazardous waste."
RCRA §7003 orders can be used to abate imminent hazards pre-
sented by "solid wastes" (RCRA §1004(27)) as well as "hazardous
wastes" (RCRA §1004(5)). By contrast, CERCLA §106 orders are
limited to abating imminent hazards presented by "hazardous
substances" (CERCLA §101(14), CERCLA S101(14)(c) defines
"hazardous substances" as including "hazardous wastes" under
RCRA §3001, but not RCRA "solid wastes" under §1004(27).
Therefore, when an imminent hazard is caused by a RCRA "solid
waste", which is not a RCRA "hazardous wastes" (or CERCLA
hazardous substance) RCRA §7003 orders can be issued, whereas
CERCLA §106 orders cannot.
The second situation would result when a waste meets the
definition of "hazardous wastes" under §1004(5) of RCRA but does
not qualify as a "hazardous waste" under 40 CFR Part 261. The
term "hazardous waste" in §7003 refers to the broad statutory
definition (§1004 (5)) of RCRA and not to the more narrow
regulatory provisions promulgated pursuant to §3001 and codi-
fied at 40 CFR Part 261. These regulatory provisions are
meant to be applied only in the Subtitle C regulatory program.
Because the CERCLA definition of "hazardous substances" (§101
(14)) includes "hazardous wastes" under RCRA'§3001 but not
under RCRA §1004(5), a" CERCLA §106 order could not be
used in the above situation.
The third situation would result when the waste involved
is excluded from regulation under CERCLA because it is a petro-
leum product. [See, CERCLA §101(14) for the definition of
"hazardous substances"]. Gasoline is not a listed "hazardous
waste" or commercial chemical product under RCRA regulations
(40 CFR 261 Subpart D). Residues of a spill or a. release of
gasoline are not automatically listed as hazardous. Even so,
gasoline leaking from underground storage tanks can be control-
led under RCRA as a "solid waste". As stated earlier, §7003
can be used to address wastes that satisfy the statutory defin-
ition of "hazardous waste" under RCRA §1004(5) even if they
are not listed or do not exhibit a RCRA hazardous waste charac-
teristic under 40 CFR Subpart C. Orders have been issued
under RCRA §7003 to owners of underground storage tanks that
were leaking gasoline or other petroleum products.
-------
- 9 -
C. Deciding to Use a §7003 Order
This section discusses factors to consider when deciding
whether or not to use a §7003 order. These factors include:
- financial status of the respondents
.- number of potential respondents
- specificity of the necessary response action
As a general proposition, a §7003 order should be issued
only in those situations in which compliance with the terms of
the order is feasible, i.e., where the respondents are in a
position to perform the ordered response actions within speci-
fied time periods. This does not mean that EPA must make a
pre-issuance determination that respondents will comply with
an order, but rather that compliance is practicable. If the
Agency anticipates non-compliance with an order it is
considering issuing, the use of the order mechanism may serve
only to delay initiation of an injunctive action under §7003
or, if appropriate, a Fund-Financed response. In addition,
it is an inefficient use of resources.
1) Respondent's Financial Status
Before an administrative order requiring remedial work
is issued, the Agency should assess, to the extent possible,
whether the responsible party has sufficient financial resources
to comply with the order. This assessment is only a factor to
be considered in the decision to issue an order when the neces-
sary information is available. Financial information may be
available from several sources:
0 Agency files may contain financial information
collected as part of the identification of
parties responsible for the hazards posed
by sites on the National Priorities List.
0 The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
requires publicly traded companies to submit
detailed financial statements. This information
is publicly available. (Consult NEIC's manual
entitled "Identifying Responsible Parties" for
additional information on obtaining SEC
files.)
-------
- 10 -
0 Responsible parties may submit financial
information to the Agency during discussions
'or negotiations held prior to the issuance of
an Order.
0 The Agency collects financial data as part of
the RCRA permitting process.
In addition, NEIC can provide further financial information
on respondents who are publicly held companies or companies
previously the subject of EPA action(s).
2) Number of Respondents Subject to the Order
The Agency's position that §7003 provides for joint and
several liability has been challenged by U.S. v. Stringfellow,
No. 83-2501 - MML (C.D. Cal., April 5, 198~4j7 That decision
held that neither RCRA §7003 nor CERCLA §106 provides for joint-
and several liability. In the case of a multiple party adminis-
trative order, the Stringfellow Court stated that "...such
would have to state with specificity the steps to be taken and
the party to take them. If steps were ordered taken jointly,
the Court would have to prescribe the participation of each
defendant". (Slip. op. at 12.)
At present, the Agency has not changed its position on
§7003 and joint and several liability. Even so, the Stringfellow
decision may affect future §7003 orders issued to multiple
respondents without an- allocation of individual responsibilities.
Some factors LC consider before issuing a RCRA §7003 order
to multiple parties are as follows:
i) Coordination of Response Action
An order issued to multiple respondents who are
jointly and severally liable generally will not allocate
individual clean up responsibilities. *_] Instead, the order
will require the same response action, to be conducted by each
responsible party. Multiple parties must organize and coordi-
nate their response to ensure compliance with the order's
requirements. Thus, compliance with orders may depend upon
group agreement on each member's share of the response cost.
In a large group of responsible parties, it may be difficult
for the group to develop a consensus on individual liability
and perform response activities as quickly as necessary to
*/ However, the Agency may issue an order to a respondent
requiring a response to a discrete, separable aspect of the
hazard at a site, notwithstanding the existence of other
responsibile parties or other less divisible problem areas.
-------
- 11 -
abate imminent hazard conditions at a site. Accordingly,
issuing Orders to all responsible parties may not be appro-
priate where there are a large number of parties who are .
unlikely to agree on a concerted response. Instead, the Agency
will pursue" judicial remedies or consider issuing Orders to a
selected subset of responsible parties.
Even in situations where Orders are issued to a large
number of parties, Agency policy, which should be reflected in .
the terms of the Order, is that each Respondent is individually
liable for compliance with the Order's requirements.
ii) Supervision
After an order is issued, the Agency conducts
compliance monitoring at the site to ensure that responsible
parties comply with the terms of the order. Although no
specific number of responsible parties can be considered ideal,
it is clear that the Agency's oversight responsibility is most
effective when there are a limited number of responsible parties
or a single contractor (hired by the responsible parties) doing
the work at the site.
3) Specificity of the Necessary Response Action
In order to minimize the potential for confusion
between Respondents and the Agency concerning the required
response action, orders should be used in situations where the
nature of the required response action is relatively precise.
Orders are particularly useful to require that respondents
cease any ongoing activity that is causing the imminent hazard.
When remedial work is required, an order may best be used to
mandate discrete tasks such as the erecting of fences to secure
the site and the removal of drummed wastes. Orders can be
inappropriate in cases where the abatement will be very complex,
cost more than several million dollars, or take more than a few
years to complete. These are offered as factors to consider
and not criteria to be rigidly followed.
A RCRA. §7003^ order, or succession of orders, may be used
to require respon'se action throughout the entire cleanup pro-
cess. 11 is entirely appropriate to use §7003 to order
immediate sampling or testing programs as part of a broader
set of proposed response activities. For example, where it
is important to respond immediately to an imminent hazard, a
§7003 order may be used to determine the full extent of site
contamination and to require immediate security and clean up
action in response to hazards that have already been established,
-------
- 12 -
Monitoring, sampling, analysis and reporting can, of course,
also be required through use of a RCRA §3013 order. A §3013
order may be issued absent a finding of an imminent hazard
although it does require a finding that the presence of, or
release from a site of, hazardous waste "may present a substan-
tial hazard* to human health or the environment." RCRA §3013(a)
(1)&(2). [See, Issuance of Administrative Orders Under Section
3013 of RCRA, issued September 1984.]
IV. ELEMENTS OF AN ORDER
All §7003 orders should contain the following elements:
0 a statement of the statutory basis for the order.
0 a statement of the agency's authority to issue
the order and the liability that may be incurred
if the respondent fails to comply.
0 a specific determination supported by findings
or reference to a separate endangerment assessment
that states that the Agency has determined that an
imminent and substantial endangerment may exist.
Such an explicit finding is necessary even if the
Respondent is willing to consent to the issuance
of the order. Should EPA need to seek judicial
enforcement of the order, even one issued on
consent, it should be able to demonstrate that it
acted within its statutory authority in issuing the
order. '
c the company is a facility as defined under CERCLA
§101(9). (Note: required only when the A.O. is also
based on CERCLA §106).
0 a finding that the substances are solid or
hazardous wastes.
0 statements as to the liability of the
respondents, i.e., that the responsible party •
is or has been engaged in the activities
described in §7003.
o
a compliance schedule that clearly sets forth
the tasks to be performed, the time frames for
performance, and quality and performance stan-
dards for tasks. Such specificity enhances the
-------
- 13 -
operator's ability to comply and the Agency's
ability to enforce the order judicially should
the respondent violate its terms. A specific
order provides the court with Agency articulated
standards by which to judge the respondent's
noncompliance.
0 EPA authority to be on site during work, obtain
split samples and other information generated,
and stop work if an emergency arises.
0 sampling and analytical procedures.
0 health and safety procedures.
0 notice to affected States. A statement should
be included, where possible, that notice to the
affected state(s) has been given.
0 an opportunity to confer if the order is
unilateral. Agency policy is to offer
recipients of §7003 orders an opportunity to
confer with the Agency concerning the appro-
priateness of its terms and its applicability
to the recipient. (Note; The administrative record
containing EPA's evidence should be available for the
recipient to examine.) The conference will help EPA
ensure that it has based its order on complete
and accurate information and ensure that both
sides have a common understanding of the work
to be performed. Another benefit to such a
conference is that it may reveal the unwilling-
ness of the respondents to take necessary action.
In this case, EPA can be better prepared to
take necessary remedial action itself or seek
judicial remedies. (See also, Conference Procedures,
infra p. 14).
0 an effective date of the order. Each order
should specify the date on which it becomes
effective. Because a §7003 order by definition
addresses an imminent hazard, it should ordinarily
become effective within 10-14 days of receipt by
the respondent. In emergency situations the
effective date may be shortened to as little as
48 hours. Any situation that requires an
-------
o
- 14 -
affirmative response in less than 48 hours should
be addressed under §104 of CERCLA as a fund-
financed emergency removal. [S££: Issuance of
Administrative Orders for Immediate Removal Actions,
supra, p. 2 (discussion of the timing of A.O.'s).]
indemnification of EPA. The order should exempt the
Agency from liability for damages, even if the damages
occurred pursuant to an EPA enforced order.
0 a public comment period for consent orders.
0 a civil penalties section for unilateral orders
and a stipulated penalties section for consent
orders.
0 EPA authority to take additional enforcement
action if the respondent does not comply with
the terms of this order.
V. CONFERENCE PROCEDURES
The conference will normally be held at the appropriate
EPA Regional office and will be presided over by the Regional
Administrator's designee. However, other arrangements may be
agreed to for the sake of convenience to the parties. At any
time after the issuance of the order and particularly at the
conference, EPA should be prepared to provide the Respondent
with information sufficient to explain the basis for the
Order and to promote constructive discussions. (NOTE: The
administrative record containing EPA's evidence must be avail-
able for the recipient to examine.) The Respondent will have
the opportunity to ask questions and present its views through
legal counsel or technical advisors. The schedule and agenda
for the conference will be left to the discretion of the EPA
official leading the conference, as long as the Respondent
receives a reasonable opportunity to address relevant issues.
Following the conference, a written summary of the
proceeding must be prepared and signed by the Agency official
who presided over the conference. The written statement should
contain:
0 A statement of the date(s) and attendees of any
conference(s) held; and
0 A description of the major inquiries made and
views offered by the Respondent contesting the
terms of the order.
-------
- 1.5 -
The presiding official must prepare a statement which
addresses the significant arguments raised by the respondent,
recommends how the order should be modified, if at all,
and contains the reasons for the changes or revisions.
VI. MODIFICATIONS, REVOCATION, OR STAY OF THE ORDER
Based on a review of the file (on which the order was
based) any probative information or argument made by the
respondent (following receipt of the order) or by recommen-
dation of the presiding official, the issuing official may
modify or revoke the order. Any modification to the order
must be communicated to the respondent as part of a copy o'f a
written statement containing the elements listed in Section V
above. The original should be kept in the Agency files along
with the evidence supporting the order, copies of written
documents offered in rebuttal by the respondent during the
conference, and a copy of the request for a conference.
The issuing official may also stay the effective date of
the order if the conference process could not be completed
within-the specified time period.
VII. NEGOTIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
Although EPA recogriizes that recipients of unilateral
§7003 orders should be given an opportunity to confer, the
Agency will not engage in lengthy negotiations with recipients
after an order is issued. Limited negotiations, before or
after issuance of an order, are useful in that they give EPA
an opportunity to assess the likelihood that the respondents
will perform the tasks set forth in the order. If negotiations
look unpromising EPA must decide whether to issue an order
unilaterally, refer a §7003 civil action or initiate a Fund-
Financed response (if this option exists). EPA should not
compromise its authority to secure necessary action simply to
obtain an order on consent.
Should negotiations result in an agreement, the resulting
order must contain all of the requirements set forth above;
these requirements are necessary to ensure that the order is
enforceable should the respondent decide not to comply. The
same requirements apply even if the respondent has voluntarily
begun cleanup efforts. In general, the negotiated order
should set out specifically what each respondent must do to
comply.
-------
- 16 -
VIII. DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY
At the present time, the authority to issue RCRA §7003
administrative orders is delegated to the Assistant Adminis-
trator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Regional
Administrators. The Regional Administrator must consult with
the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring or the designee and must obtain the advance
concurrence of the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response or delegatee. The Assistant Adminis-
trator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's
authority to issue §7003 orders and to give advance concurrence
has been redelegated to the Director, Office of Waste .Programs
Enforcement.
The RCRA Delegations of Authority are being revised and
should be issued in the near future. The draft §7003 delegations
which are found in Chapter 8, Section 22 of the draft delegations
manual are divided into three parts: determination of imminent
and substantial endangerment; abatement through a unilateral
order; and, abatement through an order on consent.
According to the draft delegations, the Regional
Administrator (RA) must consult with the Office of Regional
Counsel before issuance of either a RCRA §7003 unilateral
order or order on consent. Regarding Headquarters, the RA
must consult with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) prior to issuing RCRA §7003 orders to deter-
mine an imminent and substantial endangerment and to abate
such an endangerment through a unilateral order. The RA is
not required to consult with the Offices of Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring (OECM) or the Office of General Counsel
(OGC) to issue the above. For orders on consent under §7003,
the RA must obtain advance concurrence of OSWER or a waiver of
such concurrence by advance memorandum, before issuance of
such an order. The RA does not have to consult with or procure
concurrence from OECM or OGC prior to issuance of §7003 Orders
on consent. Consultation with OECM and OGC is recommended in
relatively new areas such as the use of a RCRA §7003 order for
underground gas tanks and where there are other novel legal
issues involved.
-------
- 17 -
Appendix
STATE NOTIHCATION LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. R. Jones
State Agency
Division of Environmental Control
Dear Mr. Jones:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of an order
[stamped "DRAFT" and "CONFIDENTIAL"] that the Agency intends
to issue on or after [date] , to the XYZ Company, pur-
suant to Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation .and Recovery
Act (42 U.S.C. §6973). The order requires certain activities
to be taken at the company's site located at [location] .
Please refer to the enclosed copy of the proposed order for
the specific actions required of the company and the time
within which such actions must be taken. If you have any
comments or questions concerning the order, please contact
[EPA official] at [office] .
Sincerely yours,
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
[or]
Regional Administrator
[or their designees]
Enclosure
cc: Honorable J. Smith, Governor
-------
GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
ON
USE AND ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
UNDER
SECTION 106(a)
OF CERCLA
-------
'
I. Ir.crocucticn .......... ' ......... 1
II. Requirements for Issuance and Scope
of §1 06 (a) Administrative Orders .......... 4
A. Necessity for "Determination" ......... 5
B. Necessity for Actual or Threatened
Release of Hazardous Substance ........ 6
C. Necessity that Release or Threat
of Release be From a Facility ......... 7
D. Necessity for Existence of Imminent
and Substantial Endangerment ......... 8
E. Notice to Affected States ........... .9
III. Persons to Whom an Order May Be Issued ....... 10
IV. Criteria for Issuance of $106 Orders ........ 11
A. Responsible Parties' Financial Status ..... 12
•B. Number of Responsible Parties Subject to
the Order ................... 13
C. Specificity of the Necessary Response Action. . 14
D. Agency's Readiness to Litigate the Merits
of the Order .......... . ........ 16
E. Competing Considerations ............ 16
V. Orders Relating to Removals and Remedial Actions. . 17
A. Immediate Removals ............... 17
B. Planned Removals and Remedial Actions ..... 19
VI. Procedures for Issuance of $106 Orders ....... 20
A. Planned Removals and Remedial Actions ..... 21
B. Immediate Removals ............... 21
*
VII. Opportunity to Confer ............... 22
A. Planned Removals and Remedial Actions ..... 22
B. Emergency Situations .............. 23
-------
C. Conference Procedures 23
D. .Vodif icatior> , Revocation, rr Stay of
the Order 24
VIII. Procedure if Order Not Obeyed 25
IX. Note on Purpose and Use of This Memorandum 26
Appendix A: Notification Letter
Appendix 3: Sa.-ple §106 (a) Administrative Order
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC Z04SO
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance Memorandum on Use and Issuance of
Administrative Orders-sCJnder 5106 (a) of CERCLA
FROM: Lee M. Thomas
Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response
_^T--, •-)
Courtney M. Price ^^"^ti_^ (/ ^
Special Counsel for Enforcement:'
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Regional Superfund Coordinators
Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Associate Enforcement Counsel, Waste Division
I. Introduction
The administrative order authority which the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) exercises under $106(a) of the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA) and Executive Order 12316 is one of the most
potent administrative remedies available to the Agency under any
existing environmental statute.
Section 106(a) of CERCLA authorizes the issuance of "such
V
orders as may be necessary to protect public health and welfare
and the environment," after notice to the affected state, upon
a determination that "there may be an imminent and substantial
-------
-2-
endar.cs—er.t to the public health or velfars or the environrer.t
t-scause af an actual or threatened release of a hazardous
substance from a facility." A fine not exceeding S5,000 per
day may be imposed for willful violation, failure or refusal
to comply with a $106(a) Order (Order)/ and punitive damages
of up to three times the cost of clean-up of the site may be
imposed under S107(c)(3) for failure, without sufficient cause,
to properly provide removal or remedial action pursuant to such
an Order. In view of the magnitude of these penalties, the
Agency expects that the regulated community will comply with
administrative Orders. At the same time, the Agency's obliga-
tion is to ensure that Orders are properly issued.
It is the current policy of EPA that, whenever possible,
parties who have caused or contributed to a release or a threat
of a release of hazardous substances at a site should
rectify the problems at the site. This action is necessary
to ensure that the Agency efficiently manages the limited funds
available under CERCLA and to ensure that the maximum number of
sites are addressed.
Accordingly, after the Agency discovers a site and in advance
of completing a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS),
(and has conducted an endangennent assessment, or their equiva-
lent), responsible parties normally will be sent a notice letter
requesting them to clean up the site. Following completion of the
feasibility study, the Agency normally engages in discussions with
-------
-3-
r.esoonsible parties in an atter.pt to obtain promptly the acree-
ner.t cf suc.u. parties tc vcluntarilv undertake the recesssrv
raspcr.se actions. If tns iiscussicns are successful, the teras
of the agreement will be embodied in a judicial consent decree
or a $106 administrative consent Order.
In circumstances where the Agency wishes to compel a responsible
party to undertake the response actions, including instances where
no settlement can be reached, the Agency will consider issuing a
unilateral S106 Order in accordance with this guidance.
The administrative enforcement authority is an important
component of the Agency's enforcement program authorized under
CERCLA. This guidance is being issued to assist the regional
offices in developing and maintaining an effective CERCLA admini-
strative enforcement program. The effectiveness of the program
will be enhanced as site remedies are implemented by Respondents
in compliance with administrative orders, and as enforcement of
Orders with '••hich Respondents are not in compliance is success-
fully and expeditiously pursued by EPA. The Agency will
aggressively defend judicial challenges to Orders and enforce
instances of non-compliance to validate the CERCLA administrative
enforcement program. Regional offices should issue Orders consistent
with the criteria and procedures contained in 'this guidance to ensure
the legal sufficiency of the program.
iTh« $106 administrative order authority provides strong incen-
tives for Respondents to undertake expeditiously response actions
deemed necessary by EPA to ensure protection of public health or
-------
-4-
weifare or the environment. Therefore/ Regional offices are ufce'
to consider -he use of unilateral CI5.CLA acr.ir.istrative orders
in 2**sr" ~iss vhsrc ccspsl-ing sri^orcc«c.~; authority is necss~
sary. Criteria are .provided herein to assist regional offices
in determining whether Orders are appropriate ir. any case. It
is essential that a balanced CERCLA enforcement program is
implemented by EPA, combining administrative and judicial enforce
ment authorites, to ensure protection of health and the environ-
ment from the hazards of releases or threats of releases of
hazardous substances.
II. Requirements for Issuance and Scope of Section 106 CSRCLA
Orders
A comparison of 5106(a) and $7003 of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA) reveals similarities in -the two
sections, and therefore many of the criteria for issuance of a
$7003 Order also apply to 5106 Orders.^/ In many situations,
either Order would be appropriate. Where the hazardous sub-
stances are also "hazardous waste" under RCRA, the Order should
cite the authority of both sections.
Section 106 (a) of CERCLA provides as follows:
In addition to any other action taken by a State
or local government, when the President determines
that there may be an imminent and substantial
endangennent to the public health or welfare or
the environment because of an actual or threatened
I/ Guidance on the use of RCRA $7003 administrative orders
may be found in a memorandum entitled, "Issuance of Admini-
strative Orders under Section 7003 of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act" dated September 11, 1981.
-------
-5-
release of a hazardous substance from a facility,
he r.sy require the Attorney General of the United
Ststes tc «ecure such relief ss pay be necessary
to abate such danger or threat... The President
may also, after notice to the affected State, take
such action ur.cer this section inciuc.i.ic, but not
limited to, issuing such orders as may be r.ecessary
to protect public health and welfare and the environ-
ment. 2/
In order for an Order to be issued, the following
legal pre-requisites must be met:
A. Necessity for a Determination Based Upon.Evidence
A determination must be made that/ because of a release
or threat of a release, an imminent and substantial endangerment
may exist. This determination will depend upon documentary, testi-
monial, and physical evidence obtained through investigations
and inspections. Other information concerning the-nature of the
threat posed by a site may already be contained in Agency files,
such as data generated pursuant to 5103 of CERCLA or the permit
and notification sections of RCRA. The Order, therefore, must
include a finding that an imminent and substantial endangerment
may exist, in order to. ensure that this statutory requirement is
met. (See sample order, Appendix B, Finding No. ?).
^/ The President has delegated his authority under this Section
to the Administrator of EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard by Executive
Order No. 12316 dated August 24, 1981. EPA and the Coast Guard
have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement dated October 9,
1981, that all site-related releases in the Coast Guard's juris-
dictional areas (coastal zones, Great Lakes, ports and harbors)
shall be the responsibility of EPA.
-------
5. ^-?~?ssit'' nf .-cv.'sl T Tur? ? ' ^""-•f Prless? c-f
**• .. . w <4 *• • • • ** . . W — 4. _ • «• K •.
..•^^^.WWM^ w^*»ww>«.«wC.a
Section 106 requires that t.u.e irr.r.ir.sr.t and substantial
encangsr.-ent be caused by "an actual or threatened release 2''
of a hazardous substance" from a facility. A "hazardous
substance" is defined in Section 101(14) of CERCLA, and is
generally any substance, waste or pollutant designated pur-
suant to Sections 307(a^ and 311(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Water
Act, Section 3001 of RCRA, Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,
Section 7 of TSCA, or Section 102 of CESCLA. (Crude oil,
fractions tnereof, natural gas, and liquefied natural gas
are exempted from statutory coverage.)
Whether a release from a facility is "actual" or "threatened"
primarily depends upon temporal considerations. Actual releases
should be observable in some form, either visually or through
analysis showing contaminants present in samples of soil, water
or air. A "threat" of a release, on the other hand, involves
releases which have yet to occur or have yet to find their way into
the environment. A bulging tank containing a hazardous substance
in which pressure has built up/ and a surface impoundment
I/ A "Release" is defined in CERCLA §101(22) as "any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging,
ejecting, escaping, leaching, dumping or disposing into the
environment," with certain specific exemptions (e.g. release
solely in work place; engine exhaust; release of certain nuclear
material; and normal application of fertilizer).
-------
-7-
which is about to overflow because of heavy rainfall, present
ctvi;us thrsats cf a release. A chreat is also presented by
csrrccinc. or leaking drur.s containing incompatible wastes jr.i.-.cled
in a conur.cn area. Accordingly, the determination of whether a
"threat" of a release warrants issuance cf an Order is a jurfgr.ent
decision to be made on a case-by-case basis.
The nature of both the hazardous substances present at the
site and the release or threat cf release should be set forth as
findings in the order, together with the bases for such findings.
C. Necessity That Release or Threat of Release be
Fr'am a Facility
The release or threat of release must be from a "facility,"
which is defined in CERCLA $101(9) as:
. (A) -any building, -structure, installation, equipment,
pipe or pipeline (including any pipe into a sewer or
publically owned treatment works), well, pit, pond,
lagoon, impoundment, ditch, landfill, storage container,
motor vehicle, rolling stock, or aircraft, or (B) any
site or area where, a hazardous substance has been
deposited, stored, disposed of or placed, or otherwise
come to be located; but does not include any consumer
product in consumer use or any vessel (a watercraft or
other contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a
means of transportation on water).
This definition of "facility" includes on-shore or off-shore
sites, including land transportation facilities, from which
releases or threats might originate. The Order must specify
the physical location that is the source of the release.
-------
-8-
D. Necessity for Existence of Imminent and Substantial-
Irider.cs presented to support the issuance of a SlCSCa)
order must show "that there may be an imminent and substantial
endangerr.ent" ro public health or welfare or the environment.
The words "may be" indicate that Congress established a
*
standard of proof that does not require a certainty. The evidence
need not demonstrate .that an imminent and substantial endangemsnt
to public health or the environment definitely exists. Instead,
an Order may be issued if there is sound reason to believe that
such an endangerment may exist.
Evidence of actual harm is not required. As the Court stated
in Ethyl Cor?, v. EPA, construing an endangerment provision in the
Clean Air Act:
The meaning of "endanger" is not disputed. Case
law and dictionary definition agree that endanger
means something less than actual harm. When one
is endangered, harm is threatened; no actual injury
need over occur. (541 F.2d 1 at 13, footnotes omitted,
original emphasis, D.C. Cir., cert. den. 426 U.S. 941
. (1976).)
It should also be noted while the risk of harm must be
imminent in order for the Agency to act under 5106, the harm
itself need not be. (See the legislative history to the
"imminent and substantial endangerment" provision of $1431 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, H. Rpt. 93-1185 at 35-36.) for example,
EPA could act if there exists a likelihood that contaminants
might be introduced into a water supply which could cause
damage after a period of latency. One must judge the risk or
-------
-9-
likelihocc of the harm by examining the factual circumstances,.
including/ but not limited to: 1) nature and amount of the
hazardous substance involves; 2) trve potential for exposure of
humans or the environment to the substance, and 2> the known
or suspected effect of the substance on humans or that part
of the environment subject to exposure to the substance.
Legal analyses of the concept of imminent and substantial
endangermer.t can also be found in Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA,
514 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1975); U.S. v. Vertac Chemical Co. et al,
489 F.Supp. 870 (E.D. Ark. 1980); U.S. v. Solvents Recover1/
Service, 496 F. Supp. 1127 (D. Conn. 1980); U.S. v. Midwest
Solvent Recovery, 484 F. Supp. 138 (N.D. Ind. 1980); U.S. v.
Diamond Shamrock Cor?., 17 E.R. 1329, (N.D. Ohio 1981); U.S. v.
Price, 688 F. 2d 204 (3rd Cir. 1982-) ; U.S. v. Reilly Tar and
Chemical Corp., 546 F. Supp 1100 (D. Minn. 1982).
The nature of the eftdangerment and the basis for the finding
of an imminent and substantial endangerment must be set forth
in the Order. The link between the endangerment and the relief
mandated by the Order should also be evident.
E. Notice to Affected States
Finally, before an Order may be issued, the "affected state"
must be given notice of the Agency's intention to issue the,
Order.
fhe Agency is not held to a statutory period of time for
notice. Normally, written notification to the state should
precede federal action by at least one week. Circumstances
-------
-10-
may arise, however, where rapid response at a site is necessary.
I- s-jch czrss, izz'.zr.zz of ar. Criar say folio-- an abbreviated
notice juried or even a telephone call made by EPA to the
Director of the agency responsible for environmental protection
in the affected state. Written confirmation must follow such
telephone notice.
As indicated above, the notification should be directed to
the Director of the state agency having jurisdiction, over
hazardous waste matters. A suggested fora for a notification
letter is attached to this memorandum as Appendix A. "This
form also provides the format for oral notice.
An "affected state" is interpreted to be the state where
the facility is located from which the discharge is being
released or threatens to be released, and in which the response
activity required by the proposed order will be taken. In some
cases/ this may involve more than one state, such as where the
facility is located near the border of a state and the
hazardous substances have migrated from the facility located
in one state into another state(s). In those cases, all of
the states in which the hazardous substances are found and in
which response activity may be performed pursuant to the order
should be notified.
III.^Persons To Whom an Order May Be Issued
Section 106 does not specify any person or persons to whom
an Order may be issued, but permits the issuance of "such orders
-------
-li-
as say be necarsar?..." Section lC4(a), however, refers to the
•owner or operator" or "other responsible party" as the persons
co whom the A<5eiicy coulu look to determine whether clean-up of
a site will be dene properly before expending CE2CLA funds.
Section 107{a), designating those who shall be liable for
response costs, specifies present owners and operators of i
facility, persons who were owners and operators at the time
of disposal of a hazardous substance, and generators and certain
transporters vhc, according to available evidence, contributed
hazardous substances to the facility. It follows' that those
sane persons could be recipients of an Order issued under
Section 106(a), {see U.S. v. Outboard Marine Corp., 556 F. Sup?.
54, 57 (N.D. 111. 19621. In addition, in appropriate cases,
it may be possible to issue orders to parties other than
those listed in Section 107(a), if actions by such parties are
necessary to protect the public or the environment.
IV. Criteria for Issuance of SI06 Orders
Other parts of this guidance document examine the legal
requirements for issuing an Order. This section's purpose is
to list specific factors which favor the use of Orders
over other possible enforcement responses. These factors include:
• Responsible parties' financial status
• Number of potentially responsible parties
• Certainty of the necessary response action
\
• Agency's readiness to litigate the merits
of the Order
-------
-12-
Th e theme common to these factors is that Orders should
be iss-jad in these situations in which crrpliar.ce with the
terrrs of the Order is feasible, i.e., vher* the P.espcr.isr.ts •
are in a position to perform the oraered response actions
within specified time periods. This does not evean EPA must
make a pre-issuance determination that Respondents will com-
ply with an Order, but rather that compliance is practicable.
If the Agency does not anticipate compliance with an Order it
is considering issuing, the use of the Order nay serve only to
delay direct injunctive action under $106 or the initiation of
Fund-financed response. On the other hand, the Agency may wish
to issue an Order in any situation where the needed response action
and the liability therefor are clear and straight-forward, so
that refusal to comply with the terms of the Order would not, in
all probability, be with "sufficient cause" (CERCLA $107(C)(3)).
Such refusal would render the Respondent liable for civil penalties
f
or punitive damages in the event of federal cleanup.
A. Responsible Parties' Financial Status
Before an administrative order requiring remedial work
is issued, the Agency should assess, to the extent possible,
whether the responsible party has sufficient financial resources
to comply with the Order. Financial information is available
from several sources:
• Agency files contain financial information
»
collected as part of the identification of
parties responsible for the hazards posed
-------
-13-
by sites on the National Priorities List.
• The Securities and Exchange Cemission (SEC) recuires
publicly traded ccr.rsr.iss to submit detailed financial
statements. This information is publicly available.
(Consult NEIC'S manual entitled "Identifying Responsible
Parties" for additional information on obtaining SEC files.)
0 Responsible parties may submit financial information
to the Agency during discussions or negotiations held
prior to the issuance of an Order.
In addition, NEIC can provide further information on
Respondents' financial status.
B. Number of Responsible Parties Subject to the Order
For two primary reasons, the success cf Orders for
remedial action is enhanced where there are relatively few
responsible parties.
1) Coordination of Response Action
T
An Order issued to multiple Respondents who are jointly
and severally liable generally will not allocate individual
clean up responsibilities._£/ Instead, the Order will require
the same response action to be conducted by each responsible
party. Multiple parties must organize and coordinate their
response to ensure compliance with the Order's requirements.
Thus, compliance with Orders may depend upon group agreement
V However, the Agency may issue an Order to a Respondent
"requiring a response to a discrete, separable aspect of the
hazard at a site, notwithstanding the existence of other
responsible parties or other less divisible problem areas.
-------
-14-
on each meter's share of the response cost. In a large group
or responsiole parties, it may be difficult for the group to
develop A consensus on individual liability and perform respor.se
activities as quickly as necessary to £.iol? ijaminent harard
conditions at a site. Accordingly, issuing Orders to all respon-
sible parties may not be appropriate where there are a large
number of parties who are unlikely to agree on a concerted response.
Instead, the Agency will pursue judicial remedies or consider
issuing Orders to a selected subset of responsible parties.
Even in situations where Orders are issued to-a large number
of parties, Agency policy, which should be reflected in the
terms of the Order, is that each Respondent is individually
liable for compliance with the Order's requirements. Individual
liability also extends to penalties and punitive' damages imposed
by CERCLA for failure to comply with the Order.
2) Supervision '
After an Order is issued, the Agency conducts compliance
monitoring at the site to ensure that responsible parties comply
with the terms of the Order. Although no maximum number of
responsible parties can be specified as optimum, it is clear that
the Agency's oversight responsibility is most effectively accom-
plished where there are a limited number of responsible parties.
C. Specificity of the Necessary Response Action
Jn order to minimize the potential for confusion between
Respondents and the Agency concerning the required response
action, Orders should be used in situations where the nature
of the required response action has been relatively precisely
-------
-15-
icentified. Orders are normally better suited to mandating
discrete tasks such as drur. Tsr.cvals rsther than less exact
, .*. .•_-,- -.. —u . — —i,__-•—_ r•• ea i ^ — -.. u _ J : cc .' ... t b e._ «•»- =
a-... —..5 5 —».. C5 ^ _c..j.^ ..3. «r_..e_".ac _. —ij —c w.---— — — _ --- --.c
Agency to supervise compliance activities, and for responsible
parties to reach agreement on a compliance plan. In most cases,
information sufficient to describe the required response actions
will be generated by the RI/FS.
An Order should contain the following elements (see
Appendix 3):
• The steps the Respondent must take to comply with
the Order;
8 The effective date of the Order;
0 A mandatory time-table for completion
of remedial work; and, where appropriate,
0 A statement to the effect that other actions or orders
may follow.
' r
Specific remedial action Orders benefit both the Agency and
responsible parties. Responsible parties are provided clearly
defined compliance standards which will facilitate agreement
among the responsible parties on a remedial plan. If the
responsible parties then determine that the remedial work is
best accomplished by a third party contractor, the Order provides
a basis for their contract negotiations.
-------
Specific Orders benefit the Agency by red'jcing the difficulty
of supervision and judicial enforcement. In noncompliance situa-
tions, the Agency r.sy seek to enforce an Crcer in ccurt. A
specific Order provides the court with Agency-articulate- stan-
dards by which to judge the responsible party's non-compliance
with its terms. Therefore, EPA should make every effort to
clearly articulate the response activities rsquired by an Order.
. E. Agency's Readiness to Litigate the Merits of the Order
After the Agency issues an Order, the respondent may seek
judicial review to stay the Order. Respondents may challenge
their liability or the appropriateness of the remedy specified
in the Order. On the other hand, the Agency may promptly seek
to enforce, the Order in court. In light of these-possibilities,
the Agency must be ready to defend the Order in court at the time
it is issued. This means that the site problem, the reasonable-
ness of the required response, evidence of liability, and the
Agency's response to issues raised by the recipient must be
thoroughly documented, and that the documentation be organized
and easily retrievable. The documentation will constitute the
administrative record for any litigation.
E. Competing Considerations
The absence of the factors listed above may argue in favor
of pursuing a judicial or Fund-financed, rather than an adminis-
trative, remedy. For example, EPA should not normally issue an
-------
-17-
order if the necessary response actions have not -been clearly
identified. Ir. addition, Acer.cy er.fcrcsTranr personnel should
g ^ ^ *•„ *-* i* 1 y C*"*r^S ^ ^*S ** ^ ^ o •*n/'**f»*«2. CC'J 2T3 3 C^ »"**i^** * * J
8 the responsible parties have violated provisions
in several environmental statutes;
0 the opportunity for public comment on the terms
of a settlement agreement warrants the use of a
judicial consent decree, (where there is a 30-day
comment period before the decree is finalized) _5/;
and
0 there is a need for long term court oversight of
a settlement agreement, (such as in cases where an
agreement calls for separately enforceable response
milestones prior to completion of the cleanup).
V. Orders Relating to Removals and Remedial Actions
Guidance on conducting removal actions issued by the
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) divides the
statutory concept of removals into "immediate" and "planned"
removals.
A. Immediate Removals
Immediate removal actions are to be taken only if a
response is needed within a relatively short time frame to
prevent or mitigate significant harm to human health or the
£/ However, it should be noted that the Agency is exploring
mechanisms which provide for public comment on both unilateral
and consent administrative Orders. Guidance on this matter will
be provided at a later date.
-------
-18-
environraent, and such action will not otherwise be provided
or. a tirreiy basis.
Orders T.2" be used tc cc^rpsl various i~r.2ii.2t5 rs—cval.
measures, including:
1. Suspension of activities which aggravate an
existing release or substancial threat of a
release (e.g., active use of a storage tank
judged by the OSC to be in .imminent danger cf
failure).
2. Suspension of activities which interfere with
Federal removal actions (e.g., plant traffic in
area of cleanup).
3. Movement or non-movement of a transport vehicle
(railway tank car, tank truck,: tank vessel)
which is the source of a release or substantial
threat of a release.
r
4. Measures to limit access, such as fencing.
5. Use of readily available equipment, owned by the
responsible party, to contain or remove a release
during the initial stages of a response before
•- the OSC is able to obtain comparable equipment
from other sources.
6. Dikings; construction of berms; or removal of
the hazardous substance to an approved facility.
-------
-19-
(This list illustrates various uses for an Order; it is not an
Section 1-^5 'a) Orders, both in iirunediate and non-iirjaediate
situations, zust contain a stateaent notifying the party of
EPA's authority and the liability that may be incurred by
failure to comply. As specifically as possible the Order
prescribes the response activity and sets the date for its
completion. To ensure enforceacility of the Order, EPA should
not undertake its own CERCLA-funded response activity during
the period of time given to the party to respond, unless (i)
such CERCLA-funded response activity becomes necessary due to
the immediacy of the release or threat of release or (ii) the
Respondent formally and unequivocally states an unwillingness
to comply with the Order. In the event the party undertakes
response activity, the OSC should remain on-site to ensure
that the work is being conducted in accordance with the Order.
f
B. Planned Removals and Remedial Actions
Planned removal situations are those that allow several
days or weeks to execute the response. Remedial actions, on
the other hand, are generally those intended to provide a
permanent resolution to the release and require a longer time
and more expensive efforts to implement.
As in the case of immediate removals, an Order is available
to compel response measures routinely taken during planned removal
and remedial actions. "Removal activity* includes assessment
programs to evaluate the nature of the problem, and removal of
-------
-20-
material from the site. "Remedial actions" are those consistent
•-.•it.", s. psrr.cr.£-t rs-s-y, ar.i ir.clu'c sue!-, activity as cappi,-.;- th
ai-ea, trenching, and provision of an alternate water supply.£/
EPA's position is that any activity that the Government might
undertake at a site - from planning and studies to complete
cleanup-could be ordered pursuant to §106(a). Of course, the
issuance of more than one Order may be necessary if the cleanup
is performed in stages, or if additional responsible parties
become known to EPA who should participate in the cleanup.
VI. Procedures for Issuance of S106(a) Orders.
CERCLA designates the President as the primary official
responsible for taking response and enforcement action under
the Act. The authority to issue administrative orders under
S106(a) has been delegated to the Administrator of EPA by
Executive Order No. 12316, and redelegated by the Administrator
" r
to the Regional Administrators and the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA-OSWER). The RAs and
the AA-OSWER must consult with the Associate Administrator for
Legal and Enforcement Counsel (AA-OLEC) prior to exercising
this authority, and the RAs must obtain advance concurrence from
the AA-OSWER. (See Delegations Manual: 14-14.) The AA-OLEC has
6/ See $101(23) of CERCLA for definition of "remove" or "removal",
and 5101(24) of CERCLA for definition of "remedy" or "remedial
action". Those definitions contain detailed examples of the
types of activities that fall within these categories.
-------
-21-
redelegated the consultation authority to the Associate Enforce-
ment Counsel-Waste and the Recional Counsels. The AA OSWE? has
TS-ele^ated his advance 7"^c-rr?r.c9 a'jtnorit" tc the Dir^ctrr,
Waste Programs Enforcement will develop and issue criteria in
separate guidance which will be used to evaluate circumstances
uncer which this advance concurrence requirement will be waived
on a Region by Region basis. Regional offices are expected to
develop strong administrative enforcement programs, on an expedi
tious schedule, which will permit their, to initiate .and issue
legally and technically adequate administrative orders with
only prior notice to Headquarters.
A. Planned Removals and Remedial Actions
For planned removals and remedial actions, Orders are
drafted oy the Regional program office with the cooperation of
the Regional Counsel's office. The draft Order is forwarded
to the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement for review and con-
f
currence. The Regional Administrators will usually . issue the
Order and provide prior notice of the action to the state.
B. Immediate Removals
For those Orders which require emergency or quick handling,
usually in response to situations warranting an immediate
removal, the following approval sequence will be used:
The Regional Administrator first must determine whether
to issue an Order based on communication with the OSC and
V
consultation with Regional Counsel. The Region then prepares
an order with any supporting information and electronically
-------
-22-
tra.~3~.ii3 c.u.o -.ctcrial to the Office of Waste Programs Enforce-
sc.-i for review arc concurrence. Notification to the State
of our inter.': to issue the Order should be accomplished orally,
and followed up by fcrr.al written notice.
VII. Crrortur.ity to Confer
Agency policy is to offer parties to whom EPA has issued a
unilateral S106 Order an opportunity to confer with the Agency con-
cerning the appropriateness of its terms and its applicability to the
recipient. The conference will help EPA ensure that it has
based its Order on complete and accurate information and help
EPA and Respondents reach a common understanding of how the
Order should be implemented of modified. The procedures for
exercising this option are communicated to respondents through
the text of the Order itself. (See sample Order, page 4 of
Appendix B. ) • ,
A. Planned Removals and Remedial Actions
Each Order will specify a date when the Order becomes
effective. For actions other than immediate removals, the
effective date should ordinarily be twenty calendar days from
the day the Order is received by the Respondent. Certain Orders,
such as those requiring that long term remedial actions be taken,
may warrant a more extensive examination of the facts. In such
cases, the Order may specify an effective date more than twenty
days removed to permit the Respondent an opportunity to discuss the
Order with the Agency beyond that accorded by th« procedures set
forth in Subpart C below.
-------
-23-
If the Respondent seeks to confer with the Agency about
t.w.e Order, the Respondent must provide written notification
to tne EPA official listed in the Order within ten calendar
cays cf the da-te of receipt. T.ne ccr-fer^ce shrulc be scheduled
and held as scon thereafter as practicable, but prior to twenty
cays frcr. the data the Order was received by the Respondent.
B. Emergency Situations
The applicable time periods for the effective date and
for requesting a conference nay be shortened, (e.g., to ~2
and 48 hours respectively), or the conference procedures may
be eliminated entirely, if the immediacy of the hazard posed
by a site and other surrounding circumstances so warrant.
In the former situation, the Order should permit the Respondent
to request a conference orally, later followed by written
notification. .
C. Conference Procedures
The conference will normally be held at the appropriate
c.PA Regional office and will be presided over by the. Regional
Administrator's designee. However, other arrangements may be
agreed to for the sake of convenience to the parties. At the
conference, EPA should be prepared to provide the Respondent
with information sufficient to explain the basis for the Order
and to promote constructive discussions. The Respondent will
have the opportunity to ask questions and present its views
through legal counsel or technical advisors. The schedule and
agenda for the conference will be left to the discretion of
the EPA official leading the conference, as long as the Respondent
-------
-24-
rereives a reasonable opportunity to address relevant issues.
Following the conference, a written suanary of the proceeding
r.usf be prepared, signed by the Agency official who presided over
0 A statement of the date(s! arc attendees
of any cc-ference(s) helc; and
0 A description of the major inquiries made and
views offered by the Respondent contesting
the terms of the Order.
In addition, the presiding official must prepare a statement
which addresses the significant arguments raised by the Respon-
dent and which recommends whether and how the Order should be
.modified, together with the reasons therefor.
D. Modification, Revocation, or Stay of the Order
Based upon a review of the file upon which the Order
initially was based, any probative information or argument
proffered by the Respondent following receipt of the Order,
and the recommendation of .the presiding official, the issuing
official may modify or revoke the Order. Any modification to the
Order must be communicated to the Respondent as part of a copy of
a written statement containing the elements listed in Subpart C
above. The original should be kept in the Agency files along
with the evidence supporting the order, copies of written
documents offered in rebuttal by the Respondent during the
V
conference, and a copy of the request for a conference.
The issuing official may also stay the effective date of
the Order if the conference process could not be completed
-------
-25-
vithin the specified time period. . Befr-re substantially modifying-
cr revoking an Crcer, the issuing official must consult wit.1".'
the appropriate Headquarters or Regional course! zr\t ?u»-2i? --*?•
advance cr-.cjrrer.ci cf the Z;rector, C'^rE.
VTII. Procedure _If_Order Is Not Obeyed
In the event the party to whom the Order is issued does
not comply with its terms, the Agency must quickly decide
whe-her to attempt to enforce the Order by referring the case.
to the Department of Justice for filing of a suit to force
compliance, or whether to undertake cleanup of the site by
use of CERCLA funds, and then file suit against the party for
reimbursement of the costs expended plus statutory penalties
for failure to comply with the Order.
The determination of which action to pursue depends
on the type of response action to be taken. Obviously, if an
immediate removal action is, required by the hazard at the
site, EPA will clean up the site and attempt recovery of costs
and penalties in a subsequent recovery action. The same course
of action applies to a planned removal where the removal action
must be quickly undertaken and cannot await the filing of a
suit. However, planned removal or remedial responses which
require an extended period of time to perform, and in which
initiation of action may be delayed for a brief period without
jeopardising human health and the environment, may allow sufficient
time for the filing of a suit to enforce the Order, or at least
that portion of the Order which calls for the planned removal or
-------
-26-
remedial action to be taken.
. . . .. -.
ciucs the strength of evidence end the financial ability cf the
party to perform £.-.= -ssired response activity. The decision c:
which option to pursue is initially to be made by the Regional
Administrator/ in the sane manner and using the same procedures
as previously prescribed for any other enforcement action. The
Regional Administrator's recommendation is then forwarded to
Headquarters for action.
IX. Note on Purpose and Use of This Memorandum
The policy and procedures set forth herein, and internal
office procedures adopted pursuant hereto, are intended solely
for the guidance of attorneys and other employees of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. They are not intended to nor
do they constitute rule-making b> the Agency, and nay not be
relied upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or pro-
cedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any person. The
Agency nay take any action which is at variance with the
policies or procedures contained in this memorandum, or which
is not in compliance with internal office procedures that may
be adopted pursuant to these materials.
Attached to this memorandum as Appendices A and B are
• A sample letter to a state providing notification
»
of the Agency's intent to issue a $106 Order; and
• A sample Order.
-------
-27-
If you have any questions or problems concerning any
(382-4314), or Russell 3. Selman (426-7503) or Steve Leifs
(j32--iS43) =f t~e Office of Legal and Enforcement Policy.
Attachments
-------
Appendix A
STATE NOTIFICATION LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. R. Jones
State Agency
Division of Environmental Control
Dear Mr. Jones:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of an order
[stamped "DRAFT" and "CONFIDENTIAL"] that the Agency intends
to issue on or .after [date] , to the XYZ Company, pursuant
to Section 106(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, (42 USC 9606). The
order requires certain activities to be taken at the company's
site located at [location] . Please refer to the enclosed
copy of the proposed order for the specific actions required
of the company and the time within which such actions must
be taken. If you have any comments or questions concerning
the order, please contact [EPA official] at [office].
Sincerely yours,
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
[or]
Regional Administrator
[or their designees]
Enclosure
cc: Honorable J. Smith, Governor.
-------
Appendix B
SAMPLE ORDER
MAIL __
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In The Matter Of )
(Name of Person, )
Finn or Corporation) )
) Docket No._
Proceeding Under Section 106(a) of the )
Comprehensive Environmental Response, )
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 )
(42 USC Section 9606(a) ) )
ORDE?.
The following Order is issued on this date to (insert name
and address of person, firra or corporation, along with facility
name or place of business if the Respondent is not the owner
or operator) ('Respondent(s)"), pursuant to $106(a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 USC 9606(a)), by authority delegated to
the undersigned by the'Administrator of the United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). Notice of the issuance of
this Order has heretofore been given to the State of __^^___ .
There is an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
public health and welfare and the environment due to a (threat
of a release)(release) of (a) hazardous substance(s) as defined
in 5101(14) of CERCLA (42 USC 9601(14)), from the following
location (the "Facility"):
(insert legal description, if known;
otherwise, use street or route address)
This order directs you to undertake action to protect the public
and the environment from this endangerment.
% FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. (Choose one or more of 1A through IE, as appropriate under
the factual situation of the case. Do not include headings.)
-------
-2-
1A. [(Present G^ner)- Respondent is now, and has been since
, 19 , tne (owner)(and)(operator) .of the Facility, as
determined from (source of information)].
IB. I(??mer owner/operator) - Respondent was, fro?. ,
1? , until . IT- , the (cwnsr){and5{3?erat:rJ
of the Facility, as determined from (source of information).
During thst t ir:e, hazardous substances, irrl'Jding those described
herein, were disposed of at the facility. Respondent sold or
otherwise transferred and conveyed the Facility to ________^
on , 19 , according to (property records )T"I
1C. [(Generator) - Respondent (disposed of) (arranged, by con-
tract or agreement, for the disposal or transport for disposal)
of hazardous substances at the Facility as determined from
(source)). •
ID. [(Transporter) - Respondent chose to accept hazardous
substances for transport to, and disposal at, the Facility as
determined from (source)].
IE. [(Other Party) (Insert reasons why ordered actions are
necessary to facilitate the abatement of the hazard, prevent the
aggravation of the hazard, or otherwise protect the public health'
and welfare" and/or the environment.)]
2. (Describe the nature of the facility.)
3. On or about the day of , 19 , an
inspection of the Facility was conducted by (names) ,
(a) duly authorized representative(s) of (EPA, State agency).
At the time of .that inspection, the inspectors observed the
following conditions existing at the Facility:
A. Approximately 1000 drums of liquid, semi-solid
and solid material, which were leaking, without
covers and in various stages of corrosion,
rusting and other deterioration, located directly
on the ground. Material leaking from said drums
was observed running approximately 25 yards
across the site into Crystal Creek, which adjoins
the Facility, and which is a tributary of Pristine
River, a navigable water. According to records at
the Facility, materials contained in the drums
include:
i (describe hazardous substances)
B. An area in the Facility (the "Landfill area")
of approximately four (4) acres in size,
without vegetation, from which leachate was
-------
-3-
ocserved flowing approximately forty (40) yards
ir.to Crystal Cree.k. Vegetation had been killed
'
,
it the Facilit"/ ths follc'''ir!'' h2Z2r---s su^stsr.zss
r.2d beer: piac=c in the Landfill area:
flist hazardous substances-
trsen continue with the following)
Ac the time of the inspection, _ samples of the drummed
waste, samples of the leachate from the Landfill area, and _
samples of (soil, surface water, groundvater, air, etc. ) were
obtained by the inspector ( s ).
4. An analysis of the samples taken at the tin*? of. the inspec-
tion disclosed whe presence at the Facility of the following
substances in the concentrations set forth:
(list hazardous substances and concentrations
confirmed fcy analysis - then continue with
following sentence)
These substances are "hazardous suostances" as defined in
5101(14) of CERCLA, and are subject to the terms and provisions
of that Act. .
5. The hazardous substances described above are treated or
disposed of at the Facility in such manner that they (are being)
(threaten to be ) released 'and discharged from the Facility into
the (soil, groundwater,, surf ace water, air, etc.) and other
parts of the environment.
6. (Describe population or environment at risk and route of
exposure). Exposure to said hazardous substances may cause
illness, disease, death or other harmful effects to plant and
animal life and humans.
7. The (release) (and/or) (threat of release) of said hazardous
substances may present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health and welfare and the environment.
8. In order to protect human health and welfare and the environ-
ment, it is necessary that action be taken to contain and terminate
the (release) (and/or) (threat of release) of hazardous substances
from the Facility into the environment.
-------
-4-
OP.D r?.
S2Sci -jtrn the foregoing ceismir.stic.-.s ar.i Fir.dir.js of
face, it is nereoy urcareo and Directed tnat:
f.N'OTI - the Respondent nay be criered to undertake
any resr^se •erivity tr»t may b*» reTv.re?. tt
protect p'jslic health, welfare and the environment,
including, but not limited to, those actions which
the government is authorized to carry out under
CERCLA.)
(Insert he.re the response actions which EPA directs
the Respondent to take at the site. Each activity,
(i.e., red ramming cf waste, construction of fencing,-
levees, submission of plans for installation of
monitoring welis, etc.), and the date for compliance
with each activity, should be listed separately.)
(Insert a statement to the effect that other orders
or action may follow.}
EFFECTIVE DATE - OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER
This Order is effective on the twentieth calendar day
following receipt thereof by Respondent, and all times for
performance of .response activities shall be calculated from
that date. (Note: For immediate removal situations, the
effective date will be considerably abbreviated.)
You may, within ten calendar days after receipt of this
Order, request in writing a conference with (Official) to
iisjuss this Order and its applicability to you. (Note: For
immediate removal situations, the time for requesting a hearing
will be abbreviated. In addition, the Respondent should be
informed that he or she may make an oral request for a con-
ference, to be followed up by written notice within two to
three days.)
At any conference held pursuant to your request, you may
appear in person and by attorney or other representatives for
the purpose of presenting any objections, defenses or contentions
which you may have regarding this Order. If you desire such a
conference, please contact ( name, title, address and telephone
number of EPA contact) within the time set forth above for
requesting a conference.
-------
Respondent is advised that willful violation or failure or
civil per.slty of r.ct n:crs sr.a.n 53000 for each dsy ir. which sue."
violation occurs or such failure to ccnply continues. Failure
to comply with this Order, or any portion thereof, withou-t
sufficient cause, may subject you under §lC?(c)(3) of C."?.C!A,
U2 U.S.C. $9607(c)(3)), to liability for punitive damages in an
amount up to three times the amount of any costs incurred
by the government as a result of your failure to take proper
action.
WITNESS my hand in the City of , Stats or
/ as (title of authorized EPA issuing official),
on this day of , 19
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By: '
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
FOR §3008(h) UNILATERAL ORDERS
§3008(b) provides for hearing on request
§3008(h) procedures streamlined
-------
§3008(a) PROCEDURES APPLY WHEN
Joint §3008(a)/ §3008(h) order
§3008(h) orders seeking to revoke/suspend authority to
operate under §3005(e)
§3008(h) (2) orders seeking penalties for noncompliance
with §3008(h) order
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Prepare prior to issuance of order
Exclude confidential business information
Exclude deliberative documents
Index and make available
Order should state when and where available
-------
PHASED APPROACH TO ORDERS
Studies
Remedies
Interim Remedies
-------
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Issued by designee of RA
Service effective upon receipt
- Personal service
- Certified mail
Evidentiary hearing not required
Ex parte contacts allowed
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
*>*i**S&
FEB I 9 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Administrative Hearing Procedures for RCRA
Section 3008(h) Orders
FROM: Thomas L. Adams, Jr. ^^^^-c. K-^S*-^ \
Assistant Administrator . \
for Enforcement and Compliance MonitortngN
,• *^»_ y^-x^j
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
TO: Regional Administrators
Regional Counsels
Regional Waste Management
Division Directors
Office of General Counsel
We are hereby transmitting to you the final version of the
Administrative Hearing Procedures for RCRA Section 3008(h)
Orders (and related General Guidance). These procedures reflect
the input of a number of commenters from the Regions and other
Headquarters offices to whom we extend our thanks.
In response to suggestions made on the draft procedures
circulated for comment on November 21 , 1986, we have made several
changes in the procedures. These include: (1) allowing the
Presiding Officer and Regional Administrator to engage in ex
parte contacts, while insuring that any new and relevant inTorraa-
tion gleanwfr from such contacts is served on opposing parties,
who will hov« an opportunity to respond to sane;' (2) adopting
alternative language in the draft of the "study order" procedures
which will permit respondents to ask questions during the hearing
only when the Presiding Officer in his discretion deems it appro-
priate; (3) returning to earlier "remedy order" procedure language
which requires that the Agency respond to written questions in 14
(rather than 30) days, so as to insure that Agency responses are
available before the hearing; (4) allowing use of the study order
procedures for orders directing that limited interim measures in
conjunction with studies be undertaken; and (5) restricting
-------
-2-
respondent's ability to make major evidentiary submissions at the
hearing rattatr than during prehearing procedures while insuring
that the Agency may seek leave to respond after the hearing to
late submissions. We have also included in the "General Guidance"
which accompanies the Administrative Hearing Procedures a require-
ment that the public be afforded an opportunity to comment on the
Agency's proposed remedy and be given notice of the final remedy
before it is implemented.
please also note that these procedures reguire that initial
corrective action orders be issued by a Regional official other
than the Regional Administrator. This requirement insures that
the Regional Administrator, who will issue the final Agency
decision affirming, modifying, or withdrawing the initial order,
is not "tainted" as a decisionmaker by reason of having earlier
performed a prosecutorial function in the same proceeding.
Accordingly, it will be necessary for Regional Administrators,
who have not already done so, to redelegate authority to issue
initial (and final) ^-corrective action orders.
Several commenters have asked whether a request for a hear-
ing under these procedures would prevent an order from becoming
effective, or, stated differently, whether an initial corrective
action order may be enforced after a request for hearing, but
before issuance of the Regional Administrator's final decision.
The Office of General Counsel has determined that, in light of
the language of RCRA Section 3008(b) which indicates that an
order becomes final unless the respondent requests a hearing, the
order may not be enforced once a hearing is requested until a
final Agency decision on the matter is issued.
In developing these administrative hearing procedures it has
become clear that the regulations in 40 CFR Part 22 governing
adjudicatory hearings on RCRA Section 3008(a) orders for injunctive
relief and/or penalties, may in certain respects exceed minimum
due process requirements. Accordingly, we have decided to re-
evaluate these regulations to determine whether, as they apply to
certain RCRA Section- 3008(a) and similar proceedings, they are
unnecessarily cumbersome or burdensome. Your thoughts on these
questioM>~vill be invited at a later date.
Attachment
cc: Lisa Friedman
Bruce Meddle
RCRA Enforcement Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
1 The procedures contemplate that final orders would be signed
by the same official who issued the initial order.
-------
FEE I 9 !9?~
GENERAL. GUIDANCE ON ISSUANCE OF RCRA SECTION 3008(h) ORDERS
1. To satisfy the public hearing requirement of Section
3008(b) , unilateral RCRA administrative orders issued pursuant to
Section 3008(h) must provide the named person or persons with the
opportunity for a hearing. This guidance document and the
attached hearing procedures set forth the procedures for issuing
an administrative order for corrective action and conducting a
hearing, except for hearings for the following types of orders:
(1) Section 3008(h) orders that are combined in one order with
claims under Section 3008(a); (2) Section 3008(h) orders that
include a suspension or revocation of authorization to operate
under Section 3005 (e); and (3) orders issued under Section
3008(h) seeking penalties under Section 3008(h)(2) for noncorapli-
ance with a Section 3008(h) order. Hearings for the three above-
outlined categories of orders must be held under 40 CFR Part 22.
The procedures in 40 CFR Part 22 do not apply to other orders
issued under Section 3008(h).
2. Except in unusual circumstances, for orders not issued
on consent, separate orders will be issued for distinct phases of
work rather than a single, multiple phase order. Consent orders
may also be issued in a similar fashion.
Accordingly, when a particular corrective action is likelv
ultimately to involve studies, interim measures, and remedy, the
first order should address the studies (including both the RCRA
Facility Investigation, during which the nature and extent of
any releases are characterized, and the Corrective Measures
-------
-2-
Study, during which proposals for remediation are developed) and
any known interim measures. A subsequent order(s) should address
additional actions to be undertaken. A copy of the "Administra-
tive Hearing Procedures for RCRA Section 3008(h) Orders" (not to
include the "General Guidance on Issuance of RCRA Section 3008(h)
Orders") should accompany each initial administrative order. A
hearing under these procedures may be requested by a respondent
whenever a new order is issued.
3. Prior to the issuance of an initial administrative order
or a final administrative order on consent, the EPA office issuing
the order shall prepare an administrative record supporting the
findings of fact, determinations of law and relief in the initial
order or final order on consent. The administrative record must
have an index and be available for review during normal business
hours, after issuance of an order. The order must state when and
where the record is available for review.
4. The record shall include, subject to applicable law
restricting the public disclosure of confidential information and
deliberative material, all relevant documents and oral informa c ion
(which has been reduced to writing) which the Agency considered
in the process of issuing the order, including: (1) EPA records
on conditions at the facility, such as inspection reports, sampl-
ing and analytical data, business records, and photographs;
(2) other reports and internal Agency documents used in generating
or supporting the enforcement action; (3) copies of all relevant
correspondence between EPA and the respondent; (4) written records
-------
-3-
of relevant conferences and telephone conversations between EPA
and the respondent; (5) copies of correspondence between EPA and
State or other federal agencies pertaining to the enforcement
action; and (6) comments submitted by the public during the public
comment period on the RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective
Measures Study results and proposed remedy, EPA's responses to
significant comments, and any statement of the basis and purpose
of the proposed corrective measures prepared by EPA.
5. Following the respondent's submission of its report on
the RCRA Facility Investigation and Corrective Measures Study the
Agency shall develop a proposed plan for corrective measures. The
Agency shall prepare a document that summarizes the data relating
to releases, outlines the -recommendations contained in the
Corrective Measures Study, and indicates briefly why EPA has
adopted the proposed plan for corrective measures.
The Agency shall then (1) publish a notice and brief analvsis
of the proposed plan for corrective measures and make such olan
available to the public, and (2) provide a reasonable opportunity
(ordinarily 30-45 days) for submission of written comments and
(in the event the Regional Administrator deems it appropriate) a
public meeting on the plan. If the Regional Administrator denies
a request for a public meeting, he shall explain his decision in
writing.
The Agency shall, as necessary, modify its proposed plan for
corrective measures on the basis of written and oral comments
received. Prior to issuance of the initial order for corrective
-------
-4-
measures the Agency shall prepare a responsiveness summary
indicating whether and why it has accepted or rejected any sig-
nificant comments. Following finalization of the order tor
corrective measures but before implementation of corrective
measures, notice of the final plan for corrective measures shall
be published and the plan shall be made available to the public.
Where, in the interest of protecting human health and the
environment, it is important that interim corrective measures be
implemented quickly, no advance opportunity for written or oral
comments will have to be afforded to the public. Here, EPA will
simply provide substantially contemporaneous notice to the public
of interim measures implemented. It is further contemplated
that, where the Agency has directed the owner/operator to under-
take certain remedial investigations but later determines that no
corrective measures are required, the public shall have an oppor-
tunity to comment on this determination to the same extent as it
may comment on a proposed plan for corrective measures.
Public involvement beyond that provided for herein is
allowable at the discretion of the Regional Administrator. It a
facility is on the National Priorities List, those additional
procedures for public participation contained in the National
Contingency Plan at 40 C.F.R. 300 et_ s eq. must be followed.
6. A flow chart of the 3008(h) corrective action process
indicating the points at which opportunities for public involve-
ment or notice will normally occur is attached.
-------
§3008(h) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCEDURES
Procedures to develop Orders for Studies/Investigations
PREPARE
ADMIN.
RECORD
ISSUE
INITIAL
ORDER
RESPONDENT
REQUESTS
A HEARING
^-
HEARING
HELD
k.
FINAL
ORDER
V „
RFI/CMS
INITIATED
RFI/CMS
COMPLETED
EPA
DEVELOPS
JUSTIFICATION
PUBLIC
NOTICE
AND
COMMENT
-------
§3008(h) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCEDURES
Procedures to develop Orders for Full Remedies
PREPARE
RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY FOR
ADMIN. RECORD
^
ISSUE INITIAL
ORDER FOR
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
^
RESPONDENT
REQUESTS
A HEARING
^
RESPONDENT
SUBMITS
INTERROG-
ATORIES
HEARING
HELD
^
FINAL
ORDER
^
PUBLIC
NOTICE
fe
INITIATE
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCEDURES FOR RCRA SECTION 3008(h) ORDERS
I.
1. An administrative action under Section 3008(h) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) shall be commenced
by issuance of an administrative order. When the order is issued
unilaterally, the order shall be referred to as an initial admin-
istrative order and may be referenced as a proceeding under
Section 3008(h). When the order has become effective, either
after issuance of a final order following a final decision by the
Regional Administrator or after thirty days from issuance it no
hearing is requested, the order shall be referred to as a final
administrative order. Where the order is agreed to by the parties,
the order shall be denominated as a final administrative order on
consent.
2. The initial administrative order shall be executed by
an authorized official of EPA (petitioner) , other than the Regional
Administrator or the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. For orders issued by EPA
Headquarters, rather than by a Regional office, all references
in these procedures to the Regional Administrator shall be under-
stood to be to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response or his delegatee.
3. A Clerk shall be designated by the Regional Administra-
tor to receive all initial orders, final orders, responses,
memoranda, and documents regarding the order and to maintain the
official record and docket.
-------
-2-
4. The original and one copy of the initial administrative
order, the final decision and the final administrative order, and
one copy of the administrative record and an index thereto must
be filed with the Clerk designated for Section 3008(h) orders.
In addition, all memoranda and documents submitted in the proceed-
ing shall be filed with the Clerk.
5. The Clerk (or some other designated EPA employee) shall
arrange for the effectuation of service of the initial administra-
tive order, the final decision, and final administrative order.
Service of a copy of the initial administrative order together
with a copy of these procedures, the final decision, or a final
administrative order, shall be made personally or by certified
mail, return receipt requested, or, if personal service can not
be effectuated or certified mail is returned refused or unsigned,
by regular mail, on the respondent or his representative. The
Clerk shall serve other documents from the Presiding Officer by
regular mail.
6. Service of all documents, filed by the parties, shall
be made by the parties or their representatives on other parties
or their representatives and may be made by regular mail, with
the original filed with the Clerk.
7. Service of the initial administrative order and final
administrative order is complete upon receipt by respondent
(or the respondent's agent, attorney, representative or other
person employed by respondent and receiving such service),
personally or by certified mail, or upon mailing by regular
mail if personal service or certified mail can not be accom-
plished, in accordance with Paragraph 5. Service of all other
-------
-3-
pleadings and documents is complete upon mailing, except as
provided in Paragraphs 15 and 25.
8. The initial administrative order becomes a final admin-
istrative order thirty (30) days after service of the order,
unless the respondent files with the Clerk within thirty (30)
days after service of the order, a response to the initial order
order and requests a hearing.
9. The response to the initial order and request for a hear-
ing must be in writing and mailed to, or personally served on,
the Clerk of the Region which issued the order.
10. The response to the initial order shall specify each
factual, or legal determination, or relief provision in the
initial order the respondent disputes.
11. Upon receipt of a. request for a hearing, the Regional
Administrator shall designate a Presiding Officer to conduct the
.hearing and preside over the proceedings.
12. The respondent may request an informal settlement con-
ference at any time by contacting the appropriate EPA employee,
as specified in the initial administrative order. A request for
an informal conference will not affect the respondent's obligation
to timely request a hearing.
Whether or not the respondent requests a hearing, the parties
may confer informally concerning any aspect of the order. The
respondent and respondent's representatives shall generally be
allowed the opportunity at an informal conference to discuss with
the appropriate Agency technical and legal personnel all aspects
-------
-4-
of the order, in particular the basis for the determination that
a release has occurred and the appropriateness of the ordered
corrective action.
13. If the initial order directs the respondent (a) to
undertake only a RCRA Facility Investigation and/or Corrective
Measures Study, which may include monitoring, surveys, testing,
information gathering, analyses, and/or studies (including studies
designed to develop recommendations for appropriate corrective
measures), or (b) to undertake such investigations and/or studies
and interim measures, which are neither costly nor technically
complex and are necessary to protect human health and the environ-
ment prior to development of a permanent remedy, the hearing
procedures set forth in Section II, A., Paragraphs 14 through 19,
shall be employed for any requested hearing. If the respondent
seeks a hearing on an order directing that corrective measures or
such corrective measures together with studies be undertaken, the
hearing procedures set forth in Section II, B., Paragraphs 20
through 30, shall be employed. The procedures contained in
Section I, Paragraphs 1 through 13 and Section III, Paragraphs 31
through 33 shall be followed regardless of whether the initial
order directs respondent to undertake an investigation or imple-
ment corrective measures.
II.
A. Hearings on Orders Requiring Investigations or Studies
14. The Presiding Officer shall be any employee of the Agency
designated by the Regional Administrator other than a person
-------
-5-
who drafted or participated in drafting the order in question.
If, after issuance of the initial order and prior to issuance
of the final order, the Regional Administrator, Presiding Officer,
or any person who will advise these officials in the decision on
the case receives from or on behalf of any party in an e_x parte
communication information which is relevant to the decision on
the case and to which other parties have not had an opportunity
to respond, a summary of such information shall be served on all
other parties, who shall have an opportunity to reply to same
within ten (10) days of service of t"he summary.
15. The Presiding Officer shall establish the date and time
for the requested public hearing. Subject to Paragraph 16, the
hearing shall be scheduled and held within thirty (30) days of
the Agency's receipt of the request for a public hearing.
At any time up to five (5) business days before the hearing
respondent may, but is not required to, submit for inclusion in
the administrative record information and argument supporting
respondent's positions on the facts, law, and relief, as each
relates to the order in question. All factual reoresentations
made by respondent must be in writing by affidavit. A copy of
any Information or argument submitted by respondent shall be
served such that the Clerk and petitioner receive sane at least
five (5) business days before hearing.
16. The Presiding Officer may grant an extension of tune
for the conduct of the hearing, upon written request of either
party, for good cause shown, and after consideration of any
-------
-6-
prejudice to other parties. The Presiding Officer may not
extend the date by which the request for hearing is due under
paragraph 8.
17. The hearing shall be held in the city in which the
relevant EPA Regional Office is located, unless the Presiding
Officer determines that there is good cause to hold it in another
location.
18. The Presiding Officer shall establish the agenda for
the hearing and conduct the hearing in a fair and impartial way,
taking action as needed to avoid unnecessary delay, exclude
redundant material, and maintain order during the proceedings.
Representatives of EPA shall introduce the administrative record
and be prepared to summarize the basis for the order. The
respondent shall have a reasonable opportunity to address relevant
issues and present its views through legal counsel or technical
advisors. The Presiding Officer may also allow technical and
legal discussions and interchanges between the parties, inducing
responses to questions to the extent deemed appropriate. It is
not the Agency's intent to provide EPA or respondent an oppor-
tunity to engage in direct or cross examination of witnesses.
Where respondent can demonstrate that, through no fault of its
own, certain documents supportive of its position could not have
been submitted before hearing in accordance with the requirements
of Paragraph 15, it may submit such documents at hearing. Other-
wise no new documentary support may be submitted at hearing.
Unless otherwise directed by the Presiding Officer, factual
-------
-7-
representacions made by respondent shall be in writing by
affidavit. The Presiding Officer may upon request grant petitioner
leave to respond to submissions made by respondent pursuant to
this paragraph or Paragraph 15.
1.9. As soon as practicable after the conclusion of the
hearing a written summary of the proceeding shall be prepared.
This summary shall, at a minimum, identify (a) the dates of and
known attendees at the hearing, and (b) the bases upon which the
respondent contested the terms of the order. The sunraary muse
be signed by the Presiding Officer.
The Presiding Officer will evaluate the entire administrative
record and, on the basis of that review and the representations
of EPA and respondent at the hearing, shall prepare and file a
statement recommending to the Regional Administrator that the
initial order be modified, withdrawn, or issued without modifica-
tion. The statement must address all significant arguments
raised by respondent and provide support, through citation to
material contained in the record or adduced at the hearing, for
any decision to modify a term of the order, withdraw the order,
or issue the order without change.
The statement shall be based on the administrative record,
including the hearing and supplemental submissions. If the
Presiding Officer finds that there is not adequate support in
the record for the initial order, the Presiding Officer may
recommend that the order be modified and issued on terras that are
supported by the record, or withdrawn.
-------
-8-
B. Hearings on Orders Requiring Corrective Measures
20. The Presiding Officer shall be either the Regional
Judicial Officer, or another attorney employed by the Agency who
has had no prior connection to the Section 3008(h) initial order
that is the subject of the proceeding.
If, after issuance of the initial order and prior to issuance
of the final order, the Regional Administrator, Presiding Officer,
or any person who will advise these officials in the decision on
the case receives from or on behalf of any party in an ex parte
communication information which is relevant to the decision on the
case and to which other parties have not had an opportunity to
respond, a summary of such information shall be served on all other
parties, who shall have an opportunity to reply to same within
ten' (10) days of service of the summary..
21. The Presiding Officer shall establish an expeditious
schedule for: (a) the submission by respondent of a memorandum,
with appropriate affidavits and exhibits, stating and supporting
respondent's position on the facts, law and relief, specifying
the bases upon and manner in which such determinations or relief
provisions, if erroneous, require modification or withdrawal of
the order; (b) submission of a response by E?A; and (c) a public
hearing. Subject to paragraph 22., a hearing shall be scheduled
within 45 days of the order setting the schedule.
22. The Presiding Officer, as appropriate, may grant an exten
sion of time for the filing of any document, other than a request
for a hearing under paragraph 8, or may grant an extension of
-------
-9-
time for the conduct of the hearing, upon written request of
either party, for good cause shown and after consideration of any
prejudice to other parties.
23. In accordance with the schedule set by the Presiding
Officer, the respondent shall file a memorandum stating and
supporting respondent's position on the facts, law and relief.
The memorandum must identify each factual allegation and all
issues regarding appropriateness of the terms of the relief in
the initial order that respondent contests and for which
respondent requests a hearing. The memorandum must clearly state
respondent's position with respect to each such issue. Respondent
must also include any proposals for modification of the order.
Respondent must submit affidavits and exhibits which support anv
of its factual contentions on relief and defenses. The merfiorandutfi
shall also present any arguments on the legal conclusions con-
tained in the order.
24. The respondent may file a request with the Presiding
Officer for permission to submit written questions to the EPA
Regional Office issuing the order concerning issues of material
fact in the order. Requests shall be accompanied by the proposed
questions. In most instances, no more than twenty-five (25)
questions, including subquestions and subparts, may be posed.
The request and questions must be submitted to the Presiding
Officer at least twenty-one (21) days before the hearing.
The Presiding Officer may direct EPA to respond to such
questions as he designates, if he determines that such questions
-------
-10-
are required for full disclosure and adequate resolution of the
facts. No questions shall be allowed regarding natters of poLicv
or privileged internal communications relating to the deliberative
process. The Presiding Officer shall grant, deny, or modify such
requests expeditiously. If a request is granted, the Presiding
Officer may revise questions and may limit the number and scope of
questions. Questions may be deleted or revised in the discretion
of the Presiding Officer for reasons, which may include the fact
that he finds the questions to be irrelevant, redundant, un-
neccessary, or an undue burden on the Agency. The Presiding
Officer shall transmit the questions as submitted or as modified
to EPA. EPA shall respond to the questions within fourteen (14)
calendar days of service of the questions by the Presiding
Officer, unless an extension is granted.
25. The Presiding Officer shall have the discretion to order
either party to submit additional information in whatever form he
deems appropriate. The Presiding Officer may issue subpoenas for
the attendance and testimony of persons and the production of
relevant papers, books, and documents. Since these hearing
procedures provide elsewhere that the parties are not to engage
in director cross examination of witnesses and must make any
factual representations in writing by affidavit, the subpoena
power is to serve only as an adjunct to the Presiding Officer's
authority to ask questions and otherwise take steps to clarify
factual matters which are in dispute. Upon request of the
respondent, the Presiding Officer may, in his discretion, allow
-------
-11 -
submittal by the respondent of additional information in support
of its claim, if it is received by the Clerk and petitioner at
least five (5) business days before the hearing.
26. The hearing shall be held in the city in which the
relevant EPA Regional Office is located, unless the Presiding
Officer determines that there is good cause to hold it in
another location.
27. The Presiding Officer shall conduct the hearing. The
Presiding Officer shall conduct a fair and impartial hearing,
take action to avoid unnecessary delay in the disposition of the
proceedings, and maintain order. The Presiding Officer shall
permit oral statements on behalf of the respondent and EPA. The
Presiding Officer may address questions to the respondent or the
EPA representative^ during the hearing. Although oral statements
will be permitted at the hearing, unless otherwise directed by
the Presiding Officer, all factual matters to be presented by
respondent must be in writing by affidavit. Apart from questions
by the Presiding Officer, no direct examination or cross-examina-
tion shall be allowed.
Upon commencement of the hearing, a representative of EPA
shall introduce the order and the record supporting issuance of
the order, and summarize the basis for the order. The respondent
may respond to the administrative record and offer any facts,
statements, explanations or documents which bear on any issue tor
which the hearing has been requested. Any such presentation by
respondent may include new documents only to the extent that
-------
-12-
respondent can demonstrate that, through no fault of its own,
such documents could not have been submitted before hearing in
accordance with the requirements of Paragraphs 23 and 25. The
Agency may then present matters solely in rebuttal to matters
previously presented by the respondent. The Presiding Officer
may allow the respondent to respond to any such rebuttal submitted.
The Presiding Officer may exclude repetitive or irrelevant matter.
The Presiding Officer may upon request grant petitioner leave to
respond to submissions made by respondent pursuant to this paragraph
or Paragraph 25.
28. The hearing shall be either transcribed stenographic-
ically or tape recorded. Upon written request, such transcript
or tape recording shall be made available for inspection or
copying.
29. The transcript or recording of the hearing and all
written submittals filed with the Clerk by the parties subsequent
to initial issuance of the order including post-hearing sub-
missions will become part of the administrative record for the
proceeding, for consideration by the Presiding Officer and Regional
Administrator.
30. The Presiding Officer will, as soon as practicable after
the conclusion of the hearing, evaluate the entire administrative
record and, on the basis of the administrative record, prepare
and file a recommended decision with the Regional Administrator.
The recommended decision must address all material issues of
fact or law properly raised by respondent, and must recommend that
the order be modified, withdrawn or issued without modification.
-------
-13-
The recommended decision must provide an explanation, with
citation to material contained in the record, for any decision to
modify a term of the order, to issue the order without change or
to withdraw the order.
The recommended decision shall be based on the administrative
record. If the Presiding Officer finds that there is not adequate
support in the record for any contested required action, the
Presiding Officer may recommend that the order be modified and
issued on terms that are supported by the record, or withdrawn.
Ill
31. As soon as practicable after receipt of either the
summary and statement or the recommended decision, the Regional
Administrator will either sign, or modify such statement or
recommended decision; and issue it as a final decision. The
Regional Administrator's decision shall be based on the admin-
istrative record.
32. If the Regional Administrator does not adopt portions
of the initial order, or finds that modification of the order is
necessary, the signatory official on the initial administrative
order shall modify the order in accordance with the terms of the
final decision and file and serve a copy of the final administra-
tive order. If the Regional Administrator finds the initial
order appropriate as originally issued, the final decision shall
declare the initial administrative order to be a final order,
effective upon service of the final decision. If the Regional
Administrator declares that the initial order must be withdrawn,
-------
-14-
the signatory official on the initial administrative order will
file and serve a withdrawal of the initial administrative order.
This may be done without-prejudice.
33. The final decision and the final administrative order
are final agency actions that are effective on filing and service.
These actions are not appealable to the Administrator.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 990 1 . 3
MAY 5 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Public Involvement In RCRA
Section 300,8 Qi) Actions
' '
.
FROM: J. Winstc-'n Porter
Assistant Administrator
TO: ADDRESSEES
EPA is committed to providing meaningful opportunity to the
public to be informed of and participate in decisions that affect
them and their communities. This memorandum provides guidance
on public involvement actions taken under Section 3008 (h) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
It is highly likely that corrective action activities, which
differ from normal operations at a facility, will generate
public concern. The nature of the problem and the visibility of
corrective action activities are two reasons for EPA to involve
the public during the corrective action process. If the public
is informed early, and allowed to be involved in the decision-
making, it is less likely that there will be opposition to the
decisions that are made. Also, valuable information can be
obtained from concerned citizens who may know the site and facility's
history.
Section 3008(h), the interim status corrective action authority,
allows EPA to take enforcement action to require clean-up at a
RCRA interim status facility when the Agency has information
that there has been a release of hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents. We anticipate that the cleanup program under
Section 3008 (h) will frequently be implemented with two orders.
The first order would require the owner or operator to conduct a
study to characterize the nature and extent of contamination,
and to develop a remedy or alternative remedies as needed. Once
a remedy has been selected, a second order would require design,
construction, and implementation of that remedy.
-------
-2- 9901.3
MINIMUM PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Although there will be many situations where much additional
public involvement will be necessary, I would like to emphasize
that there are minimun requirements for all 3008(h) orders,
whether on consent or unilateral. Following the respondent's
submission of its report on the RCRA Facility Investigation and
Corrective Measures Study, the Agency will develop a proposed plan
for corrective measures, or make the decision that no corrective
measures are necessary. The Agency shall then (1) publish a
notice and brief analysis of the proposed plan for corrective
measures, or of its decision that no corrective measures
are necessary, and make such information available to the public,
and (2) provide a reasonable opportunity (ordinarily 30-45 days)
for submission of written comments and, if the Regional Administrator
deems it appropriate, a public meeting on the plan. If the
Regional Administrator denies a request for a public meeting, he
shall explain his decision in writing.
The Agency shall, as necessary, modify its proposed plan for
corrective measures on the basis of written and oral comments
received. Prior to issuance of the initial order for corrective
measures the Agency shall prepare a responsiveness summary indicating
whether and why it has accepted or rejected any significant
comments. Following finalization of the order for corrective
measures but before implementation of corrective measures, notice
of the final plan for corrective measures shall be published and
the plan shall be made available to the public.
Where, in the interest of protecting human health and the
environment, it is important that interim corrective measures be
implemented quickly, the public will have no advance opportunity
for written or oral comments. Here, EPA will simply provide
substantially contemporaneous notice to the public of interim
measures being implemented.
EXPANDED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MAY BE NECESSARY
The degree of public involvement in a corrective action program
will be determined by the amount of public interest in the site,
the actual or potential hazard to human health or the environment
and the type of clean-up action that will be undertaken. In
general, if the Agency has identified releases and determined
that they require investigation, the public should be informed
that studies are underway. The Region may also want to hold
additional public meetings if there is a lot of interest in the
facility. The public should be made aware of significant technical
issues at the site. There will be occasions where affected
citizens can make valuable contributions to remedy selection
through participation in technical discussions with owners or
operators and government representatives.
-------
9901.3
We strongly urge the use of a public involvement plan for
sites in which there is likely to be significant public interest.
At appropriate points during the process, fact sheets can be
developed that should both inform the public and allay fears
that could surface if no substantive knowledge were made available.
A public involvement plan tailored to each site can also be very
helpful. You may refer to Community Relations in Superfund;
A Handbook March 1936, and Public Involvement Guidance in the
Permitting Program, March 1986,Directive 9500.01,for further
information on public involvement techniques and process. The
regional RCRA public involvement coordinator can also offer
valuable information and assistance.
There are limitations on the release or discussion of certain
information during the §3008(h) enforcement process. This is
especially true during negotiations. The confidentiality of
statements made during the course of negotiations must be maintained.
Our goal during negotiations is to encourage frank discussion of
all issues, and try to resolve differences. Public disclosure
of this information would jeopardize the success of the negotiations.
Disclosures of strengths and weaknesses of a case, information
that is privileged and protected under the law, enforcement
strategy and timing would also jeopardize the government's enforce-
ment position. If a case is referred to the Department of Justice
to initiate litigation, further constraints may be placed upon
public involvement. In this situation, the scope of public
involvement .should be discussed with the lead DOJ attorney.
Coordination among EPA and/or State personnel is very important.
At some sites, RCRA Permits and Enforcement Personnel and Superfund
will be involved, and a coordinated approach will serve the
Agency and the public best. In order to establish a network
whereby information can be exchanged, I would like each region
to appoint a coordinator for public involvement in §3008(h)
orders. This person may be from either your public involvement
or enforcement staffs. Please call Jackie Tenusak of my staff
at FTS 475-8729 with the name of your contact.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not
hesitate to call me, or any of our public involvement staff, if
you have questions.
-------
-4-
ADDRESSEES
Regional Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors,
Regions I-X
RCRA Enforcement Section Chiefs
Regions I-X
RCRA Enforcement Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Public Involvement/Community Relations Coordinators
Regions I-X
cc: Pamela Garrow, OWPE
Olga Corey, OWPE
Vanessa Musgrave, OSW
Melissa Friedland, OERR
9901.3
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN CORRECTIVE ACTION
RCRA
PERMITTING
RCRA
ENFORCEMENT
CERCLA
Conduct Field
Assessment
Public
Involvement Plan
Mailing List
Public Notice
Public Comment
Period
Public Hearing, if
requested
Fact Sheet
RCRA FACILITY
ASSESSMENT
RFA
» DRAFT PERMIT!
Conduct Field
Assessment
Public Involvement
Plan
Public Meetings
PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT/
SITE
INVESTIGATION
PA/SI
* Public Comment
Period on the
Proposed NPL
* Community Interviews
* Community Relations
Plan
* Information Repository
. Fact Sheets
. Public Meetings
* Required
Suggested
-^ Refers to Permits only
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN CORRECTIVE ACTION
RCRA
PERMITTING
RCRA
ENFORCEMENT
CERCLA
Fact Sheets
Public Meetings
RCRA FACILITY
INVESTIGATION
RFI
Fact Sheets
Public Meetings
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
Rl
Progress meetings
Fact sheets
Suggested
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN CORRECTIVE ACTION
RCRA
PERMITTING
RCRA
ENFORCEMENT
CERCLA
Public Notice
Public Comment
Period
Public Hearing, if
requested
Notice of Decision
Response to
Comments
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
STUDY
CMS
; Draft Permit J
j Modification J
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION
CMI
Required
Suggested
Refers to Permits only
Agency Issue
Notice/Analysis of
Proposed Corrective
Measures Plan
Public Comment
Period
Responsiveness
Summary
Notice Final Plan for
Corrective Measure
Fact Sheets
Public Meetings
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
FS
1
REMEDY
SELECTION
REMEDIAL DESIGN/
REMEDIAL ACTION
RD/RA
Public Comment Period
- On the RI/FS Report
- On Consent Decrees
Public Meeting
Revised Community
Relations Plan
- Fact Sheets
- Meetings
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN RCRA §3008(h)
RCRA FACILITY
ASSESSMENT
RFA
RCRA FACILITY
INVESTIGATION
RFI
I
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
STUDY
CMS
1
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION
CMI
Required
Suggested
Conduct Field
Assessment
Public Involvement
Plan
Public Meetings
Fact Sheets
Public Meetings
* Agency Issue
Notice/Analysis of
Proposed Corrective
Measures Plan
* Public Comment
Period
* Responsiveness
Summary
* Notice Final Plan for
Corrective Measure
. Fact Sheets
. Public Meetings
-------
ovc.N
500 . DO - \
GUIDANCE ON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE
RCRA PERMITTING PROGRAM
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
January 1986
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. Introduction 1
2. Policy and Guidelines for Public Involvement 2
3. Key Activities During the Permitting Process 12
4. Techniques for Conducting Public Involvement Activities 19
5 . Special Issues 47
5.1 Public Involvement in Exposure Assessments [reserved]
5.2 Public Involvement in Incinerator Certification
[reserved]
5.3 Public Involvement in Corrective Action [reserved]
5.4 Public Involvement in.Siting New Facilities [reserved]
Appendix A: Format for Public Involvement Work Plans
Appendix B: Samples of Written Materials and Publications
-------
PREFACE
This guidance document was developed by the Office of Solid Waste with
support from IGF Incorporated under Contract No. 68-01-6861. It is intended
to assist the EPA regional offices and state agencies in expanding public
involvement in RCRA permitting, as suggested in EPA's National Permits
Strategy.
This guidance document incorporates strategies and techniques previously
developed for and already used by EPA. It includes excerpts or adaptations
from the following documents:
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook. Prepared by IGF Incorporated
for the U.S. EPA. September 1983.
EPA and the Public: A Handbook on Public Participation Concepts and Skills.
Barry Lawson Associates, Inc. 1981.
"Responsiveness Summary and Preamble on Public Participation Policy,"
Vol. 46, Federal Register, No. 12. 1981.
How to Write a Public Notice: A Collection of Examples. Barry H. Jordan.
U.S. EPA Water Programs Operations. December 1979.
Implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, U.S. EPA,
No. EPA/530-SW-84-007. 1984.
Citizen Participation Handbook for Public Officials and Other Professionals
Serving the Public. Annemarie and Hans Bleiker. 1981.
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This guidance has been prepared for staff in U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional offices and in authorized states to facilitate public
involvement in the permitting of hazardous waste management facilities under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). It outlines a basic
approach to involving the local community in decision-making on a facility's
permit, and identifies a series of key activities that should be conducted
during the permitting process. The emphasis is on explaining how to plan and
organize public involvement efforts. Suggested techniques for issuing public
notices, holding meetings, responding to comments, and performing similar
activities are also explained.
This guidance reflects EPA policy as stated in the National Permits
Strategy (August 1984). It incorporates public participation requirements in
RCRA section 7004(b)(l) and in EPA regulations on procedures for decision-
making in 40 CFR Part 124, Subpart A.
The organization of this guidance is as follows. Chapter 2 presents EPA's
policy and general guidelines for public involvement in RCRA permitting.
Chapter 3 suggests activities for particular points in the permitting process
to aid in planning, designing, and organizing a public involvement effort for
a facility. Chapter 4 is a "how to" presentation. It consists of discussions
of typical public involvement activities, with explanations of techniques for
preparing and conducting these activities in the context of hazardous waste
management facility permitting. Chapter 5 (reserved) addresses special issues
that may require particular attention in planning a public involvement
effort. There are two appendices. Appendix A provides a format for the plans
to be used to help prepare public involvement efforts, and Appendix B provides
samples of materials for public distribution.
For further information on this guidance, contact Vanessa Musgrave in the
Office of Solid Waste at (202) 382-4751.
-------
-2-
2. POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement in the permitting of hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities provides an opportunity for all potentially
affected and interested parties to become informed about and involved in the
permitting process. Whether the final determination is to issue or deny a
permit, public involvement ensures that decision-makers are better informed.
Early public involvement can provide decision-makers with advance notice of
citizens' concerns. It can also provide valuable information and ideas for
consideration in developing environmentally protective permit conditions. The
result will be permits better matched to particular facilities and their
respective communities, and which will ultimately serve more effectively as a
basis for sound hazardous waste management practices. Indeed, an active and
early public involvement program may reduce delays in the permit process by
decreasing the likelihood of time-consuming and expensive litigation by
parties whose concerns have not been heard or addressed.
Accordingly, EPA's National Permits Strategy assigns high priority to
early and expanded public involvement in facility permitting under RCRA. This
guidance has been developed by the Permits Branch of EPA's Office of Solid
Waste to support the implementation of an early and expanded public
involvement program. The guidelines' it offers are presented pursuant to the
National Permits Strategy and to the public participation provisions of RCRA
section 7004 and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 124. It has been prepared for
use both by the EPA regional offices and by states authorized to issue RCRA
permits.
This chapter of the guidance document is a policy statement that outlines
the objectives of public involvement in the permitting program and offers
basic guidelines for ensuring opportunities for the public to participate.
Chapter 3 explains how to integrate public involvement with decision-making on
a facility permit.
2.1 OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE
The objectives of encouraging public involvement in RCRA permitting are as
follows:
• Create early and continuing opportunities for public
participation in RCRA permitting activities.
• Ensure public understanding of the RCRA program and of the
implications of not awarding a final RCRA permit to a
facility.
• Obtain the public's input to assist in evaluating a
permit's environmental soundness.
-------
-3-
• Create equal and open access to the permitting process.
• Ensure agency understanding of and responsiveness to
public concerns.
• Anticipate conflicts and provide early means for
resolution.
• Foster trust and openness between EPA or the state and the
public.
• Emphasize the responsibilities of agency and program
management for promoting effective public involvement in
decis ion-making.
2.2 SCOPE OF APPLICABILITY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
The National Permits Strategy establishes as a key priority of the RCRA
program the focusing of permitting and enforcement resources on
environmentally significant facilities. While some of these facilities may
also be significant in terms of public interest and concern, others may not.
Because resources for expanded public involvement activities should be
concentrated on the facilities that generate the most public concern, all
environmentally significant facilities should be seriously considered, but not
automatically targetted, for expanded public involvement.
The National Permits Strategy specifies the following criteria, in
summary, for an environmentally significant facility:
• The facility is a recipient of wastes from a Superfund
site;
• The facility has caused environmental damage, violated
environmental standards, or disregarded RCRA regulations;
• The facility is a suspected source of ground or
surface water contamination; or
• The facility poses significant environmental risk,
based on proximity to population centers or ground or
surface water; size; amount, nature, or complexity of
wastes; and age.
The highest-priority environmentally significant facilities for expanded
public involvement -- which will be referred to as "targetted facilities"
throughout this guidance manual -- are further clarified as the following:
(1) All existing, environmentally significant, commercial
hazardous waste treatment/storage/disposal/incineration
facilities.
-------
-4-
(2) All existing hazardous waste treatment/storage/disposal
facilities about which significant public interest or
concern has already been expressed, or about which
significant public interest can reasonably be
anticipated.
Predicting which facilities will generate significant public interest is not
always possible. However, a number of factors have been shown to be typically
associated with significant public interest or concern. In order to target
facilities for public involvement efforts, an attempt should be made to
discover if any of the following situations exist for a facility:
• The owner or operator lacks credibility with, or the
trust of, the public or local officials;
• The permit allows the transportation of Superfund
hazardous wastes to or from the facility;
• The public perceives.that the facility poses major'
health risks;
• The type of technology proposed in the permit (e.g.,
incineration, underground injection, landfill, etc.) has
a negative reputation in that particular area;
• Facility non-compliance or violations have been highly
publicized or will be made known by the permit process
(in general, the more serious the continuing
non-compliance, the more public interest likely to be
generated);
• The facility has been or will likely become an
election issue; or
• Major hazardous substance releases or accidents have
been recently publicized in the area.
Public involvement efforts are also very important in the siting of new
facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The local public may have
special concerns about proposals for a new waste management facility in the
community. Moreover, new incineration and treatment facilities offer
alternatives to land disposal of hazardous wastes. Thus, a third type of
targetted facility for public involvement efforts is the following:
(3) All proposed (not yet sited, constructed, or permitted)
treatment or incineration facilities, both at new sites
and as additions to existing sites.
-------
2.3 GUIDELINES
The following guidelines should be considered in planning for public
involvement in the RCRA permitting program and in conducting the activities
described in Section 2.6 and Chapter 3:
• Public involvement efforts should be tailored to the
distinctive issues and individual features of the facility
and the surrounding community.
• The applicant and other responsible government agencies
should have a role in public involvement efforts, especially
to help .clarify or resolve issues that may be related to the
permit but are not or cannot be appropriately addressed by
the RCRA permit process.
• Small-scale, low-profile, informal communications
techniques are preferred. Public meetings may be held in
informal settings, before small audiences, without elaborate
presentations (e.g., in living rooms). They need not be
conducted by high-level staff.
• In general, public involvement actions should extend
beyond providing information to the public; they should
actively reach out to the public, encourage participation,
and provide an opportunity for public input on. permit
decisions made by EPA or the state.
2.4 KEY AREAS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
Because of certain provisions in the 1984 RCRA amendments, and the debate
over enactment of those amendments, public interest in the RCRA permitting
program has broadened and public involvement in the program will become more
complex. The following issues, in particular, are likely to be of special
concern.
1. Groundwater protection. There have been reports of widespread
failure to comply with RCRA's groundwater protection requirements. The
removal of wastes from Superfund sites to RCRA facilities has intensified
concern over the possibility of groundwater contamination and its effects on
human health.
2. Protective standards and enforcement for operating units. Public
interest is already strong on the question of whether RCRA's design standards
and operating specifications (e.g., landfill liner requirements) are strong
enough and are being met. Citizens may not be aware of new RCRA standards.
They may also question the federal or state agency's ability to adequately
monitor permit requirements.
3. Exposure assessments and ATSDR referrals. Section 247 of the 1984
RCRA amendments requires each final permit application for a landfill or
-------
-6-
surface impoundment to be accompanied by information on the potential for the
public to be exposed to hazardous constituents through releases from the
facility. There may be considerable local interest in this information. It
is anticipated that referrals to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) will also be of concern to the public.
4. Corrective action. Significant public interest can be expected in
all facets of corrective action requirements. Have releases occurred from a
facility? Have any releases been cleaned up? Will corrective action be
sufficient to prevent future releases? What kinds of investigations will be
conducted to determine the need for corrective action?
5. Permit process itself. The length of time involved in issuing a
permit as well as the adequacy of public involvement opportunities are
examples of issues related to the permit process (as opposed to the contents
of permits) that may be of public concern. When joint EPA/state RCRA
permitting is conducted, the public may also have difficulty understanding the
coordination process and the differences between federal and state
requirements.
6. Transportation of hazardous wastes. Many times the public's
strongest concern centers on hazardous wastes being transported to or from a
facility. The common nature of traffic accidents and the proximity of
transportation routes to homes and schools heighten the public's concern over
releases during transportation. Often, though, the sheer volume of traffic
and the associated noise and congestion are of even greater concern.
7. Evacuation plans. The very existence of evacuation plans implies
that accidents can and will occur. Beyond the concern raised by that
implication, the public has shown interest in the adequacy of evacuation
plans. Who will be evacuated? How will they be notified? Who pays for
alternative living arrangements?
8. Fire and explosion emergency plans. Like evacuation plans, these
contingency plans acknowledge the potential for threats to the public's safety
and undercut assurances that such occurrences are unlikely. The public is
interested in the probability that fire and explosions will occur and the
precautions being taken to prevent or reduce their danger. If local police
and fire units are involved, the public may also be concerned over who pays
for emergency responses, and whether or not local fire departments are
adequately equipped or trained to respond.
9. Omnibus provision. Section 212 of the 1984 RCRA amendments states •
that "each permit...shall contain such terms and conditions as the
Administrator (or the State) determines necessary to protect human health and
the environment." The public may be inclined to read great flexibility into
this provision.
10. Consequences of permit denial. Whether an operating permit is
approved or denied, the conse.quences will be of interest to the public.
Economic impacts on employment, property values, and the local tax base are
-------
all likely to generate concern. Denial may lead to special concerns because
the public may not at first appreciate its environmental implications.
Denying a permit for incineration, for example, might mean that the applicant
has to continue to landfill wastes.
To derive full benefit from expanded public involvement, it is important
to ensure the members of the community in which the facility is located the
opportunity to provide input on permit conditions as early as possible
before the draft permit has been written. For example, the local public
should be enabled to comment on conditions requiring corrective action. If
there is no opportunity for public input before the draft permit has been
prepared, it may be impossible to provide the local public a meaningful voice
in decision-making on the permit. While the public may comment on and provide
input to the development of permit conditions, however, the final decision on
permit conditions and on whether to issue or deny a permit rests with EPA or
authorized states.
2.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Each EPA regional office, and each state authorized to issue final
permits, should designate someone on its staff as the RCRA permitting program
public involvement coordinator. The coordinator will work with permit
writers, enforcement personnel (both EPA and state), facility owner/operators,
and other appropriate individuals or groups to implement public involvement
activities, and will also serve as liaison to the Office of Solid Waste and
the Administrator's office in the event of a permit appeal.
The RCRA public involvement effort should be viewed as a team effort. In
certain instances, particularly during the field assessment (as explained in
Sections 2.6 and 3.1) and development of the public involvement work plan for
specific facilities, a contractor may also become part of the team.
It is anticipated that the roles and responsibilities of the various
members of the public involvement team will vary depending on the region or
state and individual permit circumstances. While it is not necessary that the
following functions and activities be carried out in all cases by the
individuals indicated, in general the responsibilities of each team member
include (but'are not necessarily limited to) the following:
Public Involvement Coordinator
(a) Identify potentially affected, concerned, or interested members of
the community, including local and state officials and the local
media.
(b) Develop public involvement plan and evaluate progress of public
involvement activities. Update plan upon final determination of
permit.
(c) Initiate and maintain lines of communication between the agency
and the public.
(d) Identify the need for and develop educational and informational
materials; take lead in other outreach activities regarding the
RCRA permit process in general.
-------
(e) Depending on the level of technical detail involved, lead or
participate in dialogue activities regarding development of permit
conditions to address citizen concerns.
(f) Coordinate public involvement activities with other programs and
agencies.
(g) Provide feedback and reporting within the agency on public
involvement.
Permit Writer and Other Technical Staff
(a) Participate in or take the lead in dialogue activities with public
and owner/operator, including detailed discussion or negotiations
on specific permit conditions on facility operations.
(b) Respond to, or provide the public involvement coordinator with
information sufficient to respond to, the public's or
owner/operator's specific technical questions related to the
facility and its operation.
(c) Establish and maintain close communication with the public
involvement coordinator relative to all aspects of permit
development to ensure coordinated and consistent communications
with the public.
Enforcement Personnel
(a) Participate in or take the lead in dialogue activities with the
public and owner/operator regarding enforcement/compliance
activities being developed for the facility.
(b) Respond to, or provide the public involvement coordinator with
information sufficient to respond to, public and owner/operator
questions and concerns regarding the facility's past and present
compliance record.
(c) Establish and maintain close communications with the public
involvement coordinator relative to all aspects of enforcement and
compliance and corrective actions activities developed for the
facility.
If a state is authorized or operates under a cooperative agreement with
EPA, the above responsibilities can be assumed by state personnel. In
unauthorized states, state agencies can still serve a supportive role by
providing the regional public involvement coordinator with information, such
as names for inclusion on a mailing list or background information on a
facility's history and community attitudes towards the facility, and by
coordinating state requirements on~permits, public involvement, and
administrative procedures. Regardless of the level of authorization, states
should be encouraged to play an active role in expanded public involvement
efforts.
During the same time that EPA or an authorized state is conducting public
involvement activities at a facility, it is not uncommon for the
owner/operator to initiate public outreach efforts of his own. Attempts by
the owner/operator to inform and involve the public should be encouraged by
-------
-9-
the public involvement coordinator. For example, the owner Operator could
conduct facility tours or hold public meetings. Owners or operators who do
not initiate public involvement activities should be made aware of their
responsibility to inform the public.
It is appropriate, in some instances, for EPA or state staff to
participate in activities in which the owner/operator has taken the lead. At
a public meeting held by the owner/operator, for instance, EPA or state staff
could deliver a presentation on design and operating standards for that type
of facility. In so doing, however, it is essential to distinguish EPA's (or
the state's) cooperation with owner/operator educational efforts from support
for public relations efforts aimed at gaining community support for the
facility's permit. The regulatory role of EPA (or the state) must be clearly
defined for the public and distinguished from the owner/operator's interests,
regardless of whether the agency's involvement in owner/operator activities is
to observe, participate, mediate, or simply to receive a report.
There may also be instances in which the owner or operator may contribute
to public involvement efforts conducted by EPA or the state (although state
requirements may preclude owner/operator participation in some activities.)
For example, the owner/operator could be invited to provide panelists for
discussion forums or participate in dialogue activities sponsored by the
agency. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the owner/operator's
participation is constructive, coordinated with EPA's efforts, and supportive
of EPA's policy for the RCRA permitting program as much as possible. The
public, as well as the owner/operator, should recognize that decisions on
permitting a wasce management facility are made by EPA (or authorized states)
on the basis of RCRA's mandate to protect human health and the environment,
not on the basis of the owner/operator's interests.
There will be times when the owner/operator conducts public involvement
activities separately from EPA or the state. The public involvement
coordinator will need to be cognizant of these activities, because they will
provide the public with information that may influence opinions. Conversely,
the public involvement coordinator should inform the owner/operator of the
public involvement program that the agency intends to conduct during the
facility's permit process. Optimally, the efforts of the owner/operator and
EPA (or the state) should complement each other without compromising the
integrity of the agency's regulatory role.
2.6 CRITICAL ELEMENTS
The specific suggestions for public involvement in the RCRA permitting
program have been kept to a minimum to provide the flexibility to adjust
public involvement efforts to the extent of public interest, the environmental
significance of the facility, and the status of the permit application.
Because the intended result of this policy is for public involvement to
facilitate the ability of EPA or the state to process permit applications, the
activities included in each specific public involvement effort should be
tailored to the particular needs of the community and facility.
-------
-10-
Th e following, however, are three critical elements for public involvement
in the RCRA permitting program for targetted facilities (as defined in Section
2.2 above).
(1) Field Assessment. A field assessment should be conducted for each
targetted facility by the public involvement coordinator (or other appropriate
EPA or state staff, or a contractor) for the following purposes:
• To identify major community concerns regarding the
facility;
• To identify the citizens, officials, and groups in the
area who are especially interested in the facility and
should be kept apprised of developments;
• To identify the best means to provide information to
the public and, in return, to obtain public comment and
input.
As explained in Chapters 3 and 4 below, the field assessment consists
primarily of interviews in the local community with key citizens, officials,
and other interested parties.
(2) Public Involvement Plan. Based on the field assessment, a public
involvement plan detailing appropriate 'public involvement activities keyed to •
milestones in the RCRA permit process should be developed. This plan
indicates the actions EPA or the state will take to facilitate public
involvement in the decision-making process for the permit based on the
interests and concerns of the public and the best channels for communicating
with the local public, as identified in the field assessment. The plan should
be a concise document that identifies the distinctive features of a facility
and a community relevant to public involvement efforts and the key public
involvement activities that need to be undertaken.
(3) Public Involvement Activities. Public involvement activities will
vary by facility and by the stage in the permitting process at which public
involvement efforts are initiated. The following types of activities,
however, will be necessary in each instance:
(a) Outreach activities, such as informal informational
briefings and meetings, including the public notice of
the draft permit and attendant requirements under RCRA
section 7004 and 40 CFR 124 Subpart A;
(b) Dialogue and assimilation activities, such as work
sessions, public meetings, and public hearings (if
appropriate);
(c) Response activities, including informal responses to
questions, concerns, and requests from the public during
the permit process as well as formal, final
responsiveness summaries.
-------
-11-
Th e next chapter of this guidance document explains how such activities
may be scheduled and integrated with technical milestones in the typical
permitting process for a facility.
-------
-12-
3. KEY ACTIVITIES DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS
This chapter explains how to structure and schedule a public involvement
effort for a typical targetted facility in accordance with the policy outlined
in Chapter 2. It recommends key public involvement activities and indicates
when, in relation to technical milestones in the permitting process, such
activities could be conducted. Also discussed are the first two critical
elements in the public involvement effort -- the field assessment and the
preparation of a public involvement plan -- and the time at which these
actions should be conducted.
It should be emphasized that public involvement efforts should be tailored
to the specific circumstances of a facility and the specific needs of a
community. Thus, the sequence of activities described here is solely
illustrative. Public involvement coordinators have the flexibility to choose
whichever activities are best in each instance, varying the sequence of
activities outlined in this chapter, or adding other activities, depending on
circumstances. If the draft permit has already been prepared, public
involvement efforts will of necessity be more limited. Even when there is
insufficient time to conduct a formal field assessment, however, an attempt
should be made to identify key members of the community and their concerns
through telephone calls or some other means.
It should also be noted, however, that some of the activities discussed in
this chapter are regulatory requirements. These requirements are indicated in
the text.
In general, preference should be given to small-scale, low-profile,
informal activities rather than large-scale, formal activities. For example,
face-to-face discussions with a small group of community members in someone's
living room are preferred to a public meeting with presentations before a
large audience. The more personal the activity, the greater the likelihood of
mutual communication between government staff and the community.
The four subsequent sections of this chapter correspond to four milestones
in the typical permitting process. Exhibit 3-1 summarizes these milestones
and the activities recommended in the text.
3.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOLLOWING SUBMISSION OF THE
PERMIT APPLICATION
(a) One of the first actions to be taken to facilitate public involvement
is to conduct a field assessment. If possible, in fact, the field
assessment should be conducted prior to the submission of the permit
application. The field assessment is a critical element under EPA's policy
for public involvement in the RCRA permitting program. It consists of
interviews by the public involvement coordinator (or other appropriate EPA or
state staff, or a contractor) with several local citizens, members of
community organizations, and officials for the following purposes:
-------
-13-
EXHIBIT 3-1
SUMMARY OF MILESTONES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES
Permit Milestone
Submission of permit
application
Required Activities-
• Mailing list
Suggested Activities
Field assessment
Public involvement plan
Introductory notice
Repository
Informal meetings
Fact sheet on facility
Completion of draft
permit (or intent to
deny)
• Fact sheet/statement
of basis
• Public notice
• Public comment period
• Public hearing (if
requested)
Informal meetings
Permit issued (or
denied)
• Notice of decision
• Response to comments
Final determination
of permit
• Update public involve-
ment plan
• Update repository
• Informal meetings
• Publications as needed
(fact sheets, press
releases, etc.)
••'•• Requirements under RCRA section 7004 and 40 CFR 124 Subpart A.
-------
-14-
• To identify major community concerns regarding the
facility;
• To identify the citizens, community leaders, and
officials in the area who are especially interested in
the facility and should be kept apprised of developments;
• To identify the best means to provide information to
the public and, in return, to obtain public comment and
input.
The information collected during the field assessment is the basis for the
public involvement work plan and enables the public involvement effort to be
structured to meet tRe needs of a specific community.
The field assessment may involve one or two days of interviews in the
community, as appropriate. Efficiency in the use of travel resources, as well
as optimal timing considerations, may lead to the field assessment being
conducted at the same time as the site visit made by permit writers and
enforcement personnel, that is, within 90 days after the permit application
request (unless the permit application has already been submitted). Even if
the permit writer is well-acquainted with the facility, in most cases the
field assessment will be necessary at targetted facilities to update and
expand knowledge of the parties and issues involved and to make public .
involvement efforts visible and documentable.
(b) A public, involvement plan is the second 'critical element of EPA's
policy for targetted facilities. This plan indicates the actions EPA or the
state will take to facilitate public involvement in the decision-making
process for the permit. Public involvement plans are flexible documents that
reflect the dynamic nature of the public involvement process. As the public
involvement team becomes more involved in the community, and as the community
learns more about the facility and the permitting process, new (and more
effective) public involvement activities and additional concerns may suggest
themselves. The initial plan should, therefore, be a brief document --
concise and to the point -- that:
• Identifies major community concerns and leaders;
• Outlines the minimum actions EPA or the state will use
to facilitate public involvement; and
• Identifies the timing of these activities.
Public involvement plans prepared by states and regions should be retained
in the facility files and repositories. These plans will be reviewed at the
time of the mid-year and end-of-year reviews of the state, and during regional
program reviews. Plans prepared by the regional offices will be appraised by
EPA headquarters during annual reviews of the region's RCRA permitting program.
-------
-15-
(c) At the same time as this plan is prepared, EPA or the state should
assemble a mailing list for the community in which the facility is
located. The individuals or organizations identified during the field
assessment can be the core for the mailing list. If a mailing list is already
available, it should be updated based on the field assessment. Chapter 4
provides additional techniques for developing a comprehensive mailing list.
(d) An introductory notice should be provided to the community as soon
as possible after the submission of the permit application. If enough is
known about the community in advance to identify adequate means of providing
the notice, the introductory notice may precede the field assessment. The
purpose of this notice is to explain EPA's permit application review process
and the opportunities for public involvement in that process. It should
include some mechanism (e.g., a telephone number for a contact person, a
return slip to request additional information) to allow the public to express
its interest in opening and continuing dialogue with the agency.
The notice should take whatever form is most useful in a particular
community. Options include a fact sheet or newsletter sent to residents on
the mailing list, a radio or television public service announcement, or a
newspaper advertisement.
(e) Regulations require that the administrative record for a RCRA draft
permit, including the permit application, be placed into a file for public
inspection. Information repositories, however, should contain more than
the administrative record to aid the public's understanding 'of the facility
and the -permit under consideration. Non-technical descriptions of the
facility and its operation, brochures explaining the permit process and public
involvement, and generic fact sheets describing the meaning of exposure
assessments are examples of materials that could be included in a repository.
More examples are given in Chapter 4.
Selection of a repository site should take into account the convenience
and ease of access for the general public. A location that does not allow
access after normal work hours will have limited usefulness. More than one
repository may be necessary.
(f) If public interest or response to the introductory notice is
sufficiently great, in the judgment of the public involvement coordinator, an
informal meeting (or series of meetings) may be held to review more fully
the permitting process and to provide opportunities for public comment.
Informal meetings at this stage allow the public to understand and to
contribute information to the development of a draft permit, although state
requirements prohibiting ex parte communication should be taken into
consideration.
(g) In addition to generic fact sheets and brochures being developed by
headquarters and in the regions, facility-specific fact sheets should be
considered when a significant number of citizens appear to be interested or
concerned about a facility's permit. This fact sheet should be sent to
persons on the mailing list, included in repositories, and distributed by any
-------
-16-
other means suitable for the specific community. The fact sheet could include
background information on the facility, provide a timeframe for permitting
activities at the facility, identify opportunities for the public to provide
information and input, address specific concerns of the public about the
facility, and identify repository locations.
As explained in Chapter 2, for public involvement in the permitting
p'rocess to be meaningful, the public must have access to the decision-making
process early enough to understand and provide input to that process. In the
case of permit issuance, the actions described above should be conducted as
soon as possible following the submission of the permit application to enable
the public to provide input to permit conditions before the draft permit is
written. When an application has not yet been submitted for a facility,
actions intended to anticipate and facilitate public involvement, such as the
field assessment and the public involvement plan, can gain additional
effectiveness by being completed before submission of the permit
application.
Early public involvement can introduce the problem of contacting the
public before having answers to facility-specific questions the public might
raise. It will be necessary to explain clearly to the public the purpose of
early contacts and the limits on the information available at early stages of
the permitting process. A clear explanation can prevent false expectations
from being formed and reduce any negative impact on the agency's credibility
that could result from not being able to answer the public's questions.
Under the 1984 RCRA amendments, each land disposal facility owner/operator
must provide EPA (or the state) information on the potential for exposure of
the public to hazardous constituents through releases from the facility. The
public may also contribute such exposure information. Since this information
is expected to be of significant interest to the public, the exposure
assessment should be considered an agenda item for any contact with the
public, including public notices.
3.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPON COMPLETION OF THE DRAFT PERMIT
Most public involvement actions to be taken at this point are required
under 40 CFR Part 124.
(a) EPA or the state must provide public notice that a draft permit has
been prepared. The public notice must be published in a major local newspaper
and broadcast over local radio stations.
(b) At least 45 days must be allowed for public comment on the draft
permit.
(c) If there is written notice of opposition to the draft permit, EPA or
the state must hold an informal public hearing with 30 days prior notice.
A written transcript or tape recording of the hearing must be made part of the
repository's files.
-------
-17-
(d) A fact sheet must be prepared for every draft permit for a major
hazardous waste management facility. The fact sheet must include the
significant factual, legal, methodological, and policy questions considered in
preparing the draft permit.
(e) Despite earlier public involvement efforts, some members of the public
may not take an active interest in the permit process until a draft permit has
been completed and announced. Informal meetings should be held with
members of the public to discuss elements of the draft permit that are poorly
understood or are of interest or concern to them. These opportunities for
dialogue confirm to the public that the draft permit is indeed a draft and
still open for additional modifications to address issues that might not have
surfaced to that point.
3.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPON A DECISION ON THE PERMIT
EPA regulations require two actions at this time.
(a) When a final decision is reached on whether to issue, deny, or modify
a permit, notice of the decision must be given to each person who submitted
written comments or who requested such notice.
(b) In addition, EPA or the state must issue a response to comments.
The response to comments should include a summary of significant comments
received and an explanation of either how they were incorporated or addressed
in permit conditions or why they were rejected. Comments that are referred to
other agencies should also be indicated. The response document should be sent
to those who submitted comments, attended the public hearing, or who requested
to receive it. Any documents cited in the response to comments should be
included in the administrative record for the final permit decision and placed
in the information repositories.
3.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPON FINAL DETERMINATION OF A PERMIT
Whether a facility is ultimately denied or granted a permit, public
concern does not necessarily end at that stage of the permitting process.
Continuing long-term issues of public interest may require additional public
involvement efforts. Public involvement after a permit denial, for instance,
could address the public's interest in these issues:
• Corrective actions;
• Release of ongoing monitoring data;
• Release of additional exposure information; or
• Closure plans.
If a permit is issued, continuing public involvement can address these
same issues and also accomplish several other objectives, including:
-------
-18-
• Provide information to the public regarding changes in
transportation or emergency evacuation plans;
• Receive information from the public on adherence to
permit conditions (both construction and operation
phases);
• Provide a mechanism to address new or continuing
concerns resulting from facility operations;
• Facilitate permit appeals, renewals, and revisions; and
• Increase overall agency credibility.
The type and level of public involvement effort needed at this stage
should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If, at the time of final
determination, the level of interest or the types of concerns that the public
has differ substantially from those described in the public involvement plan,
or continuing public involvement activities are anticipated, the plan may need
to be updated to coordinate continuing public involvement efforts. Updating
the repository may also be necessary to keep the public informed as additional
information is obtained, changes to the permit or facility are made, or
subsequent agency actions are taken.
When significant issues- will continue to be of concern or can be
anticipated to arise after the final determination on a permit, additional
informal meetings or publications may be necessary to accomplish the
aforementioned objectives. Press releases, fact sheets, continuation of
newsletters, and other types of written public information (as described in
the next chapter) should be considered. Informal meetings with the public may
also be needed when public concern continues to be substantial or the public
desires to play a role in monitoring a facility to ensure adherence to permit
conditions.
Chapter 4 of this manual explains how to conduct the activities noted in
this chapter. Chapter 5 discusses certain issues and circumstances that merit
special attention in designing and organizing a public involvement effort.
-------
-19-
4. TECHNIQUES FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES
The following discussions have been selected from various sources (see the
preface) and are provided as a reference in planning and implementing a
sensible and sensitive public involvement program. The discussion of each
activity focuses on general techniques for conducting the activity; these are
"how to" discussions.
As previously noted, the recommendations for this program have been kept
to a minimum to allow for maximum flexibility for each facility-specific work
plan and public involvement effort. It must be noted, however, that simple
adherence to the recommendations will not, in most instances, produce a
successful public involvement process, nor will it necessarily speed issuance
of the permit.
A skillfully selected blend of both specifically recommended activities,
and activities appropriately tailored to the needs and concerns of the
community and the owner/operator, will produce far preferable results.
This chapter is divided into eight sections, as follows: 4.1 -
Identifying Potential Participants and Building Mailing Lists; 4.2 - Field
Assessment; 4.3 - Public Information Programs and Publications; 4.4 -
Information Repositories; 4.5 - Public Notices; 4.6 - Public Meetings; 4.7 -
Public Hearings; and 4.8 - Responsiveness Summaries.
4.1 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS AND BUILDING MAILING LISTS
4.1.1 Focus
A mailing list is an important communications tool which allows an agency
or organization to reach broad or targetted audiences with its messages. The
better the mailing list, the better the public outreach and delivery of
information. A well-developed mailing list will reach a group of potentially
active participants -- people who want to be involved in an agency program or
plan, or those who wish to be involved simply by staying informed. The
process of developing a mailing list begins early in the public involvement
effort.
The mailing list is used to send announcements of meetings, hearings,
events, and available reports and documents to the public. In addition, it is
used to identify members of the public who may be considered for work groups
or attendance at meetings and briefings. A wide variety of approaches are
available to collect names for the list. Several, but not all, of these
approaches should be employed.
-------
-20-
4.1.2 Techniques
A. The names of people interviewed during the field assessment, as well
as other names these people recommend, should be placed on the mailing
list.
B. All nearby residents and owners of land adjacent to the facility
should be included on a mailing list.
C. Seek out existing lists. Other EPA and federal programs, as well as
state and local programs, may have developed mailinq lists which can
be used in whole or in part. Sometimes, lists are exchanged or traded
among agencies. Prepared lists should be carefully scrutinized,
however, to make sure they are applicable.
Borrowed lists may be out of date. Verify some of the names and
addresses on the list to test its current validity.
D. Organizations with a potential interest in an agency program or action
may have mailing lists of members important to the agency, although
some organizations may be reluctant to give these lists. Each agency
or program with a mission must consider different types of groups.
Representative groups include:
1. Outdoor recreation organizations such as hiking
associations, rod and gun clubs, cross country skiing
groups, sports fisheries' associations, and recreational
boaters and sailors.
2. Commerce and business groups such as manufacturer
associations, associated industries, Chambers of
Commerce, and the Jaycees.
3. Labor leaders and unions.
4. Environmental leaders and groups.
5. State and district farmers' associations, including the
farm bureau, dairyman's cooperatives, conservation
districts, and water districts.
6. Health organizations such as the American Lung
Association.
7. University extension and county agricultural extension
agents.
E. Many civic and social organizations, such as the League of Women
Voters or the Chambers of Commerce, have their own newsletters. For
applicable groups consider requesting a copy of the group's newsletter
mailing list, and ask if they would run notices in their paper.
-------
-21-
F. Specialized directories of organizations and businesses can provide
additional names and addresses of potential participants. Examples
include state directories of manufacturers, environmental groups and
chemical society members.
The business and reference section of the library is a good starting
point for reviewing various directories.
G. Any individual who attends a public meeting of the agency, or one with
a related mission, or calls or writes to the agency seeking
information, should be added to the mailing list. Careful attention
to the affiliations of various individuals or groups attending
meetings or corresponding with the agency can yield entire categories
of people to be added to the list.
H. The applicant should be included on the mailing list.
I. According to Executive Order 12372, the state may designate a single
point of contact (SPOC) or delegate intergovernmental review
responsibility to an agency or organization for the purpose of
reviewing proposed RCRA permit actions. At the very least, the SPOC
or delegated entity should be sent a copy of the draft permit and '
notified of the public comment period.
J. Local newspaper stories often contain substantial information of use
to public involvement specialists, including the names of people with
a potential interest in the agency.
K. The names of local reporters and editors, and appropriate newsletter
editors, should be added to the mailing list. If time permits,
interview reporters and editors with knowledge of an area or subject.
Placing their names on the mailing list is one way of assuring that
these "gate keepers" have direct access and accurate information about
a program.
L. Elected and appointed officials with a potential interest (substantive
or political interest) should be placed on the list.
M. Consider placing the names of local educators (primary, secondary,
high school, and college and university) on the list. Aside from
their personal interest, these people can use project information to
develop classroom learning packages and programs, and tell their
students about the project and underlying issues. Often, children
will communicate information and ideas on class projects and current
events to their parents, thus affecting a secondary communication.
N. State agency technical, enforcement, public affairs, and public staff
should be contacted.
0. Public notices for draft permits, public comment periods, and intended
denials are required to be sent to state agencies that have authority
-------
under state law with respect to the construction or operation of a
RCRA facility and to any unit of local government having jurisdiction
over an area where a facility is located.
P. Secondary or miscellaneous sources of names for mailing lists include:
1. State revenue departments which'maintain lists of
non-profit organizations in the state.
2. For states, the Secretary of State or offices of the
legislative leadership maintain lists of legal
lobbyists. In Washington, lobbyists register with the
Senate Office of Public Records and the House Office of
Records and Registration.
3. Local, regional, and state League of Women Voters,
environmental, planning commissions, and land use
chairpeople may have lists of potential participants.
The national League maintains other lists.
4. University scientists, senior administrators, and
technical experts (such as soil scientists,
hydrologists, and law and political science faculty who
specialize in land use and environmental law) might be
placed on mailing lists. They may recommend the names
of others who should be added to the list.
5. The public affairs or environmental control directors of
major industries might be consulted for additional names
and addresses.
6. Local neighborhood associations -- formal and informal
-- may prove helpful.
7. Churches and church organizations.
8. Telephone directories, especially the yellow pages,
provide lists of associations. Zip code directories may
be useful when trying to reach one small part of a city
or state. Consider developing a list of all landowners
within one mile of the facility in question.
9. Multi-service centers, community development
corporations, community centers, and health centers
might prove helpful in attempts to reach senior citizens
organizations.
10. Local fire, police, and disaster agency officials should
be located and listed.
-------
-23-
4.1.3 Evaluation
A. Is the mailing list comprehensive, encompassing all of the key
categories or target publics?
B. Is the mailing list updated regularly?
C. Has an easy to access system been devised for adding and subtracting
names easily and efficiently?
D. Has the list been broken down by zip codes if bulk mailing is
anticipated?
E. Have adequate funds been allocated in the budget to cover the costs of
maintaining the list and the cost of printing and postage?
4.2 FIELD ASSESSMENT
4.2.1 Focus
On-site interviews with local residents, government officials, community
groups, and media representatives are extremely useful techniques to help gain
an understanding of the facility's history, the community issues connected
with the facility, the level of citizen concern, and the political climate.
Community interviews are also useful to identify credible sources and
disseminators of information.
4.2.2 Techniques
A. Arranging the interviews:
At this stage of the permit process, the names and phone numbers of
the people involved with the facility may already be known or have
been obtained. Ideally, the meeting place should be at the
interviewee's office or home, whichever may be most conducive to
candid discussions. While government and media representatives are
likely to prefer meeting in their offices during business hours, local
residents and community groups may be available only after-hours.
B. Planning the interviews:
Prior to or during the interview, time may be spent reviewing files at
EPA, the state agency, or a local library or Chamber of Commerce that
contain news clippings, documents, letters, and other sources of
information relevant to the facility. Ideally, only people with a
thorough understanding of the RCRA program, the facility itself, and
interview techniques should conduct the interviews.
-------
-24-
C. Telephone interviews:
Some information may be efficiently obtained over the telephone. In
telephone interviews, explain how the interviewee's name was acquired,
the type of information needed, the reason the information is needed,
and how it will be used. Be brief.
D. Interviewing residents and community groups:
Interviews involving local residents or community groups are likely to
require more time. Be prepared with a set of questions in mind;
questionnaires may seem too formal and are likely to elicit curt
responses. ,Be sensitive to the residents' needs and concerns, but
remind them that the purpose of the interview is to gather preliminary
information to be used in planning an appropriate public involvement
effort. In this way, unrealistic expectations are not raised.
In many cases, the interviewee will ask questions and express concerns
about the facility. The field assessment, in some cases, can be a .
useful technique for providing interested citizens with timely
information on the RCRA permitting process and on facility and Agency
activities prior to development of the draft permit conditions. With
adequate preparation, the interviewer can thus acquire information
useful for later planning, as well as respond to initial citizen
concern with accurate information and allay unwarranted concerns.
E.. Interviewing government officials:
Interviews with government officials should include a brief
introduction explaining why they are being interviewed and what kind
of information is needed (facility history, government activity at the
site, a political perspective on citizen's expectations, etc.).
F. Confidentiality:
At the beginning of each interview, explain that the field assessment
will be used to prepare a public involvement work plan. If the
interviewee would like to remain anonymous, explain that the
information will be used to understand community concerns and that a
record of the contact will be made, but EPA or the state will not
attribute any specific statements or information to the interviewee.
G. Other possible contacts:
During the field assessment interviews, ask for names and phone
numbers of persons who could provide additional information on the
facility and community views and concerns.
-------
-25-
H. Information on public involvement activities:
Ask whether the interviewee would like to receive any fact sheets or
other printed information as the permitting process continues. Also,
'for future reference, keep a list of persons interested in attending
public meetings.
4.3 PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS AND PUBLICATIONS
4.3.1 Focus
The outreach activities which this guidance recommends should include the
development of accurate and timely written information for distribution to the
public, for example, fact sheets and newsletters.
Overall, such materials should promote understanding and highlight and
summarize critical issues. The environmental consequences of potential
actions, options, or decisions should be clearly stated in materials
distributed to the public. The public should also have access to complete
reports and documents in information repositories.
At a minimum, site-specific materials should include:
• Background information
• Legal justification for the action
• -Timetable of proposed actions or planning phase
• Summaries of lengthy or technical material
• Delineation of issues
• Alternatives or tentative determinations made by the
agency
• Ways to encourage public involvement
• Names of people to contact for further information
• Opportunities for public involvement
The public may also be provided with general descriptions of the RCRA
permitting process, hazardous waste management techniques, or similar topics.
4.3.2 Techniques and Methods
The first step in developing an effective information program is to plan
for a publication effort that is integrated with the overall public
involvement plan for a facility. The public involvement plan must
realistically balance the cost, timing, quality, scope, variety of
publications, and identify target audiences for various publications. Using
the plan for guidance, work can proceed on individual publications with
knowledge of how each publication will contribute to the total public
involvement effort.
Written communication should meet the five criteria embodied in the
acronym ANSVA: ATTENTION, NEED, SATISFACTION, VISUALIZATION, ACTION
-------
-26-
(a) Attention: Each information product should capture the attention
of its intended audience by using a theme or issue important to
that audience.
(b) Need: Each publication should demonstrate that the reader has a
need or problem.
(c) Satisfaction: The written piece should show how the government's
program can meet or satisfy the readers' need or problem.
(d) Visualization: People often comprehend and retain complex ideas
and material better if they can see the material visualized.
Materials should make liberal use of charts, diagrams,
illustrations, photographs, or mathematical displays. The adage
"a picture is worth a thousand words" has proved true in many
studies of reader/audience comprehension and retention rates.
r(e) Action: Each piece of public information should invite action.
Attending a public meeting or placing a name on a mailing list are
examples of action steps. Public information is effective only if
it provides the basis for potential change. The action step
reinforces learning.
4.3.3 General Guidelines for Developing Public Information Products
A. Begin each writing project by developing a detailed outline of the
purpose and content of the material to be covered. The audience for
whom the material is intended should also be clearly stated.
B. Every information program must operate on at least two levels -- the
publics that are already interested and involved, and those that are
not. The information directed toward the involved group may include
more complex or detailed information or progress reports. Fact sheets
and lengthy information pieces fall under this category. The
information directed to the less involved group might be considered
preliminary to participation. These materials should be attractive
and brief, and appeal to the needs and concerns of laypeople.
C. In headlines and initial paragraphs, attract attention and interest
with thought-provoking statements or questions. Link problems and
issues with the reader's life and experience. Personalize messages;
demonstrate how the agency's programs affect people's lives.
D. Early in the text introduce the content of the publication.
E. Write clearly, simply, and directly, avoiding technical terminology,
acronyms and professional jargon. Translate technical language into
terms the public can understand, or define technical terms the first
time they are used in a publication. Write general purpose materials
at the same reading level as the local paper is written.
-------
-27-
F. Use short declarative sentences with active verbs to make key points.
Avoid the use of long and complex sentences. Say it simply.
G. Use conversational English. For example, use "do" for "accomplish"
and "because" for "in view of the fact that."
H. Consider using human scale comparisons, rather than technical terms,
to communicate a point. For example, "the facility will generate
noise approximately equal to that of a typical city street," or "the
cost per family will be about $100 per year."
I. Limit the length of the material. Five double-spaced pages (about
1,500 words) is all the general interest citizen will typically take
the time to read. If the material requires greater length, prepare a
one-page summary for readers with limited time. Another approach is
to design a longer piece so that someone with limited time can read
highlights in five minutes, more in-depth material in 15 minutes, and
complete the entire piece in 30 minutes. By telling the reader how a
piece is structured on the first page, the reader can choose how much
time to invest in the piece.
J. Don't lose sight of broad perspectives and goals when developing
materials. For example, in technical documents, provide a summary
that stresses concepts, not just facts. Organize materials
conceptually with facts and data providing the-foundation for basic
themes.
K. Each individual element in an information and education program should
be easily linked to the overall program. The reader should easily see
the relationship between a particular topic or product and the total
project.
L. Pre-test all public information products by asking several lay
citizens or officials to read and evaluate drafts for clarity, order,
comprehensiveness, and detail. This final review can help ensure high
quality publications that meet their intended goals.
M. Use graphics and illustrations to support the written content of a
publication. Photographs, charts, and drawings can communicate ideas
quickly, directly using few words. Using several type faces, such as
a standard and an italic type, can lend emphasis and clarity.
Capitalization and underlining add emphasis, too.
N. Always make full reports and technical information available to the
public for review, in addition to providing summaries. Materials
should be available at easily accessible repositories. Let the public
know where and when the materials are available.
0. For general purpose publications, such as brochures and newsletters,
distribute copies to people whose names are on the mailing list,
including elected and appointed officials. Mail copies of
-------
publications co media outlets in the project area. Make publications
readily available to the general public at libraries, government
buildings, shopping centers, and other public places. Include
publications as a part of a project display.
4.3.4 Types/Uses of Specific Publications
A. Brochures
1. A general pamphlet or brochure is a useful tool to explain the
background and mandate of a program, the role of the public in the
planning process, and the expected outcomes of the project. A
brochure should be an easy-to-read, quick summary of agency and
program goals and objectives. It should provide answers to common
questions.
2. A brochure should include a brief background on the program, the
planning process, schedules for upcoming events, and the points
where public involvement is most important.
3. The publication should give the reader a sense of the scope of the
issue, how planning will proceed, possible alternatives, potential
impacts on the area's growth and development, and possible effects
on taxes and quality of life.
4. The brochure should be written with a long-term perspective in
mind,' so the publication remains timely throughout the process or
is useful in a number of cases.
5. Distribute the brochure widely in the early stages of a project.
Timing is important for establishing credibility and for informing
the public early.
Mail copies of the brochure to all media outlets in the planning
area, accompanied by a cover letter offering a name and address to
contact for further information. The letter should explain why
the project is important and how it might affect the community and
region.
6. Include a pre-addressed mail-in form as a part of the brochure so
that people with an interest in the program can be added to the
mailing list. Let the public know that other materials will
follow as the program develops (i.e., newsletters, report
summaries, etc.).
7. Include a name, address, and phone number in the brochure for the
public to contact for additional information.
-------
-29-
B. Newsletters
1. Newsletters facilitate a regular flow of information to the
primary audiences of a public involvement effort. They provide
timely and useful information to citizens. They are an
inexpensive way to regularly promote understanding, dialogue, and
public involvement.
2. Newsletters should inform without bias. They should not be used
as an advocacy tool. Newsletter editors must maintain credibility
if the newsletter is to remain effective over time.
(a) Separate opinion from objective or historical material, and
label it as such.
(b) Sometimes credibility can be enhanced by printing statements'
developed by representatives of opposing points of view.
3. Link key issues to subjects and ideas the general public can
understand and appreciate.
4. Newsletters can provide timely information such as:
a. Articles on new developments.
.b. Reports on public involvement activities, and how to join them.
c. People stories are particularly good for reader interest, but
should not be over used. Describe the activities of citizens
and officials working on various aspects of a project. Use
people stories to encourage citizens to participate. Avoid
long lists of names.
d. Feature articles on major issues in a project, the most common
questions asked by the public, or the primary concerns of
officials or other professionals. Also, consider reprinting
relevant articles from other publications.
e. Calendar of upcoming meetings.
f. Summaries of meeting comments and responses. If used as an
informal responsiveness summary, newsletters reach the most
important audience with timely and useful information
documenting the value, history, and impact of public
involvement.
g. A regular column written by a citizen (an option). If stories
are invited from guest authors, detail editing ground rules in
advance.
-------
-30-
h. The names and addresses of people to contact for further
information.
i. Maps and other forms of graphic information.
j. Lists of information and audio-visual materials available to
the public, and the locations of resource material.
5. More than any other information tool, newsletters can be used
imaginatively. Maps for citizens to evaluate, mark-up, and
return, and attitude and opinion questionnaires are just a few
unusual suggestions for newsletters. These techniques make
newsletters an enjoyable and interesting experience for readers.
6. Newsletters should be mailed to local and regional media
representatives as another way of keeping them informed of
progress.
7. The editors of other newsletters with a potential interest in the
subject of your newsletter should receive copies as well. They
may find information of importance they would like to pass on to
their readers.
8. Many citizens will keep all issues of a newsletter as a historical
record of their involvement in a project. Number and date all
newsletters.
C. Fact Sheets
1. Fact sheets are an adjunct to newsletters and other publications.
They are most useful for providing an in-depth analysis of
specific, complex issues of public concern. They may be longer
than newsletters and contain more detail.
2. Some fact sheet topics will be chosen in advance; others will
evolve from questions and concerns raised during the public
involvement process.
3. Fact sheets can be distributed as a part of a newsletter or as a
separate publication. They can be mailed to the entire mailing
list or to selected groups. They should be available to anyone
for the asking.
4. They are most useful for presenting key information at crucial
decision points in a project.
5. They provide excellent background for citizen activities at public
meetings and conferences.
6. Fact sheets can be produced inexpensively, and are easily up-dated
as projects mature and become more refined.
-------
-31-
D. Length of time it usually takes to prepare a typical public
information product
1. Scheduling adequate writing, review, and production time is an
important element of information planning. Plenty of lead
time is required to produce a high quality document. For
example, for a state government to produce a twelve-page
newspaper tabloid that serves as an executive summary and
public hearing notice, the following time schedule is
suggested (in person days):
a. Writing first draft 10 days
b. Typing the first draft 2 days
c. Agency staff reviews/citizen reviews
of first draft 5 days
d. Consolidation of reviews and rewrite 5 days
e. Retyping 2 days
f. Graphic design, typesetting, paste-up 3 days
(If portions are copied this time may be reduced)
g. Printing 4-7 days
h. Preparation for mailing (100-500 copies) 3 days
i. In the mails 5 days
j . Date in citizen' s hands 14 days
before public meeting
or hearing
4.3.5 Evaluation
A. Information Planning
1. Have information needs been identified in the public
involvement plan?
2. Do the program elements in the information plan work together
to support one another?
3. Do information products precede public meetings and public
hearings in the plan? Has the schedule been maintained?
4. Are the goals of the information program and each program
element clearly stated?
-------
-32-
5. Does each information piece have a definite goal and targetted
audience?
6. What types of information products are anticipated? Are a variety
of methods used to communicate with various target publics? From
the list below check, the information products anticipated in the
public involvement plan.
Brochures
Fact Sheets
Direct Mail Letters
Flyers
Posters
Articles in Other Community or Agency newsletters
Issue Papers and Option Documents
Executive Summaries
Speakers Bureau
Weekly Newspapers
Daily Newspapers
Radio and Television Talk and Public Affairs Programs
Radio and Television News Programs
Slide Program
Slide Tape Program
Films
Other Media
B. Information Products
1. For each public information product, are the issues and
alternatives defined in an accurate, realistic, and
understandable manner? Are the decisions requiring public
involvement clearly stated?
2. Are the environmental impacts and consequences clearly defined
and stated for each alternative?
3. Do explanatory materials contain clear, concise, and factual
information?
4. Are technical and professional terms and government acronyms
defined and explained? Has a glossary of term's been prepared?
5. Have individual information products been pre-tested with
citizens and officials prior to printing and distribution?
6. Are information products provided free of charge to the
public? If there is a cost, is the cost nominal?
7. Do all information materials contain the name, address, and
phone number of a contact person within the agency who can
answer questions and provide information?
-------
-33-
4.4 INFORMATION REPOSITORIES
4.4.1 Focus
Information repositories should allow free and convenient access to
information either required or deemed useful to be made available to the
public. An information repository is a central file where citizens can review
all permit-related documents approved by EPA or a state for public
disclosure. Information in the repositories should be updated as necessary.
4.4.2 Techniques
Select one or more locations early in the permit process. Locations
should be easily accessible to members of the community, and should be open
after work hours. Possible repository sites might include libraries,
government buildings, and shopping centers. Contact individuals at the
selected repository locations in order to:
• Identify special needs of the repositories to keep
contents together (e.g., in a 3-ring binder).
• Discuss how additions will be handled.
• Learn where information will be located.
• Discuss possible special displays at the repositories
to highlight information.
• Discuss methods to have a sign-up sheet for mailing
list development.
• Receive approval from the repositories.
Select and deposit the materials to be included in the repository file.
Potential materials for the file include:
• Permit application;
• Draft permit;
• News releases about the permit and facility;
• A facility description;
• Technical data concerning the facility and relevant
permit issues;
• Non-technical descriptions of the facility and
relevant permit issues;;
• RCRA fact sheets;
-------
-34-
• Pertinent Federal Register notices;
• Copies of orders and decrees;
• Information concerning the RCRA permit process and
opportunities for public involvement;
• Any reference materials relevant to the facility
(e.g., maps, chemical references, etc.);
• Announcements of all public involvement activities;
• Transcript of public hearing, agendas, handouts;
• Responsiveness summary;
• A list of agency personnel (with addresses and
telephone numbers) from whom further information can be
requested;
• Any other documents that are part of the
administrative record.
Combine .these materials in a 3-ring binder or any similar format. Deliver to
repositories wit-h instructions on how to add future information. Display
materials should also be developed and delivered as part of the repository.
Publicize the existence of the repository. Notify local government officials,
citizens groups, the local media, and individuals on the mailing list of the
repository files' locations and hours of access.
4.4.3 Evaluation
A. Have information repositories been established? In central
locations? Are there convenient access hours?
B. Are the appropriate documents available at the repositories?
C. Are the files kept current?
D. Have the existence and location of the repositories been
adequately publicized?
4.5 PUBLIC NOTICES
4.5.1 Focus
Public notices are intended to stimulate interest in and increase
attendance at upcoming meetings and hearings. Other communication devices,
discussed in the public meeting and public information sections, should also
be used. Just publishing a public notice in a local newspaper, however, does
-------
-35-
not guarantee that the public will be adequately notified of public events.
Direct mail and one-to-one telephone contact, for example, work effectively if
the goal is to generate attendance at public meetings.
4.5.2 Techniques
A. Public notices must be seen to be effective. They may be in the
form of letters, newspaper advertisements, posters, or other
graphic formats. They should entice readers so that they are
read. Using eye-catching headlines or photographs, or
personalizing issues, helps to do this. Notices should explain
why it is important to attend the meeting or hearing and what
influence or responsibility attendees will have. The notice
should highlight issues to be covered at the event, decisions to
be made, and the potential impact of decisions. Avoid the use of
a strict legal notice format, such as those in the legal notices
section of newspapers; these notices are rarely seen or read by
the primary audiences of public involvement programs. Public
notices should be distributed so that they are highly visible to
the targetted audiences.
B. Distribution should occur at least 30, but preferably 45, days in
advance of the meeting or hearing. Respect the requirement for 45
days notice when a public hearing on a draft permit or tentative
denial is to be held. This length of time allows busy people to
schedule the event in their calendars, and to prepare comments and
testimony. A reminder notice five to seven days in advance is
also helpful.
C. Keep public notices brief and to the point. Conceptualize issues
from the public's point of view. Present the information in
language familiar to lay people; avoid the use of jargon,
government acronyms, and complex technical terms.
D. Notices should highlight the environmental and health issues of
concern, the implications of the issues, and the decisions to be
made.
E. The notice should indicate how participation in the event will
relate to subsequent decisions and the resolution of issues.
F. Where possible, use graphics to capture the attention of the
audience, to tell a story, and to increase recall.
G. If possible, have public information specialists and graphic
designers prepare the notice. If this is not possible, have an
information specialist review the notice.
H. Whenever possible, pre-test public notices with the public before
their distribution. Make sure the public receives the message
intended by the agency.
-------
-36-
I. Distribute the notice through direct mail to organizations and
individuals with a potential.interest in the meeting or hearing.
1. In one major survey of how people who attended meetings and
hearings heard about the event, the largest number said they
received something in the mail that told them about the
gathering. The second most common response was that someone
told them about the event. Word-of-mouth proved to be an
effective communications channel. Less than five percent of
those surveyed said they saw a notice in the newspaper or
heard about it on radio or television.
2. Consider the use of a telephone network to initiate the
word-of-mouth communications system. This is especially
effective in small communities and in neighborhood organizing.
J. Distribute the notice widely to the print and broadcast med'ia.
1. Provide a camera ready copy, to newspapers for placement as a
display advertisement or as a free calendar announcement.
"Run-of-paper" or display advertising rates are higher than
classified rates applied to legal matters. Display
advertising is generally more expensive, but is more visible
and effective. If budgetary constraints make display ads
prohibitively expensive, legal notices can be used.
2. Provide a slide of the notice to television stations for them
to use as a background image when announcing the event.
3. For radio and television, include a public service spot
announcement or press release, along with the notice, to
increase the likelihood of the notice getting "air time."
4.5.3 Evaluation
A. Was the public notice part of an overall plan of notification and
information? Were the elements of the plan, such as the use of
advertisements, public service spots, and public speaking events,
well coordinated?
B. Did the public notice appear 30-45 days before the event, allowing
adequate time for the public to prepare?
C. Was the public notice attractively designed? Did it capture the
reader's eye, and quickly communicate the intent of the event?
D. Was the method of distribution relevant to the community? Did it
build upon existing communication channels?
E. Did notices reach all of the potentially affected individuals and
organizations? How was distribution coordinated? Were both
opponents and proponents included in the distribution?
-------
-37-
F. Was the notice displayed prominently in the media and posted in
visible locations at least 30-45 days in advance of the event?
G. Did a press release accompany the notice? Were other media events
organized, such as briefing reporters or preparing feature
articles?
H. Did the notice emphasize why the event was to be held? Did it
identify the important decisions, issues, and program impacts?
I. Did the notice stress the importance of citizen attendance and
participation? Did it explain how participation would affect
decisions and choices?
J. Did the written notice include:
1. An identification of issues under consideration?
2. A description of alternative courses of action?
3. A brief listing of applicable laws and regulations?
4. An identification of locations where relevant documents were
obtainable?
5. The names of individuals to contact for additional information?
4.6 PUBLIC MEETINGS
4.6.1 Focus
Public meetings are one means of establishing a dialogue with a
community. The goal in any form of dialogue, such as meetings and workshops,
is to encourage an exchange of views and open exploration of issues,
alternatives, and consequences.
Public meetings must be preceded by the timely distribution of
information. They should occur sufficiently in advance of decision-making to
make certain that the public's opinions are considered and to permit response
to public views prior to agency actions.
Meetings should be held at times and places that encourage attendance and
participation. Whenever possible, they should be held during non-work hours,
such as evenings and weekends, and at locations accessible by public
transportation.
4.6.2 Techniques
Public meetings are agency-sponsored gatherings, open to the general
public, and held to inform or involve the public in planning and
-------
-38-
decision-making. If a quescion-and-answer period is included, they allow for
two-way communication, and generate interest and participation in a project.
They should be used selectively, integrated with other public involvement
techniques, and designed to meet specific objectives.
A. Planning
1. Identify the agency's objectives, expectations, and desired
results for the meeting.
2. Identify the audience's objectives, expectations, and desired
results.
3. Match the composition and size of the group invited to attend
a meeting with agency objectives.
4. Decide on the level of participation and involvement expected,
and choose the meeting structure and format that can best meet
agency objectives for dialogue.
Then, choose the specific methods and techniques for
discussion, planning, problem-solving, and decision-making.
5. Choose a meeting location, keeping in mind necessary room
arrangements, equipment and supply requirements, and
accessibility by public transportation-.
6. Identify the-roles and responsibilities of various staff
members and of local officials or citizens who will
participate in the meeting.
7. Make sure that everyone who wants to speak has an opportunity
to do so.
B. When to Use
1. When the agency wants to inform people, clear up
misunderstandings on agency actions or plans, or generate
public discussion on proposals, plans, or recommendations.
2. When the agency wants to reach a large number of people at
once, both directly (at the meeting) and indirectly through
follow-up media coverage in local and regional newspapers, and
on radio and television.
3. When the agency wants to encourage comment and debate among
various groups interested in the facility's permit and to
encourage more community dialogue.
4. When community interest on an issue is high.
-------
-39-
5. When participants in a project feel the need to share
information and ideas with the rest of the community.
6. When an agency seeks' to communicate with an audience larger
and more diverse than can be included in workshops.
7. If the sole purpose of conducting a public meeting is to
educate the public, consider whether the public meeting is the
most effective technique. The use of newsletters, fact
sheets, slide programs, or sending public speakers to the
regularly scheduled meetings of organized groups, may prove
more successful.
4.6.3 Evaluation
A. Did the staff or participants have a good reason for holding this
meeting? What was the goal of the meeting? Was the goal clearly
stated? Did the goal of the agency match that of the audience?
Was the goal of the meeting attained?
B. Did the meeting precede and relate to a key decision point? Was
the audience aware of this fact?
C. Was attendance at the meeting consistent with the meeting's goals?
D. Did the staff provide written background material? What products
were provided to attendees? Examples:
• Executive Summary
• Technical Summary
• Fact Sheet
• Newsletter
• Technical Report
• Maps and Graphs
• Other
E. How long was the program? Was the agenda followed closely? Was
the program just right in length, too long, or too short? Did the
audience remain attentive for the entire program?
F. Were the moderator, speakers, and supporting staff appropriate for
meeting the session's goals?
G. Was the informational program well presented? Was the speaker(s)
well informed? Did audio-visual materials contribute to the
informational aspects of the program? Was the informational
program well balanced, too technical, or not detailed enough?
H. Did the sponsoring agency ask attendees to evaluate the meeting?
1. If so, were the attendees representative of the affected
community?
-------
-40-
2. If so, did the attendees seem to understand the purpose of the
meeting? Plan? Project? Timetable? The public's role? The
timing of the key decision points? How the public's comments
would influence decisions? The government agencies involved?
Costs? The source of funds?
I. Did the public receive complete answers to their questions?
J. Did a staff member take notes at the meeting for use in permit
development and in a responsiveness summary?
K. Was formal public notice sent 30-45 days prior to the meeting?
Did the notice clearly state: (check)
• Purpose
• Date and Place
• . Time
• Directions to the meeting site
• Parking, transportation, and other supporting information
4.7 PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.7.1 Focus
While hearings are the most familiar form of dialogue, they should not
serve as the only forum for citizen input. When used, they should occur at
the end of a process that has given the public earlier access to information
and opportunities for involvement.
4.7.2 Techniques
A. Information
At the beginning of the hearing, the agency must inform the audience of:
• The issues involved in the decisions to be made;
• The considerations the agency will take into account
under laws and regulations;
• The agency's tentative conclusions, if any; and
• The information the agency solicits from the public.
Certain regulations require the preparation of a formal hearing record,
such as a verbatim transcript or an audio tape recording. Hearing records
must be left open for at least 10 days to receive additional public comment,
and be available for inspection and copying.
-------
-41-
Public hearings provide highly structured opportunities for hearing and
collecting public testimony on projects and issues. Public hearings are most
likely to be held during the public comment period on the draft permit, at
which time they often serve to encourage the preparation of written comments
by the public.
Holding a public hearing does not mean that an agency has conducted a full
public involvement program. Under normal circumstances, many other public
participation events must occur prior to a hearing so that the public has had
an opportunity to gain considerable knowledge and understanding of the issues
in advance and thereby be able to offer informed comments at the hearing.
While public hearings are formal events, a variety of hearing formats
exist. A format should be chosen that meets the needs and conditions of the
project.
B. Procedures
1. Begin with an opening statement that includes a summary of
major recommendations or conclusions, a description of the
public involvement effort, and explanation of the hearing
rules.
2. Consider having a question-and-answer period so that issues
are clarified and proposals explained. Questions can be taken
in the hearing room or in an adjacent room.
3. Accept public testimony scheduled in advance, but avoid giving
one category of testimony the "best" time periods, which may
alienate general citizens who may also want to speak. Set a
time limit for oral testimony (such as five or ten minutes)
and encourage participants to submit longer written testimony.
4. Have an additional period of testimony for those who did not
schedule their remarks in advance. Consider taking them in
the order in which they signed up at the hearing, or schedule
blocks of time for particular points of view. When many
people sign up at once, names can be drawn at random.
5. End with a closing statement in which the schedule for
additional hearings, the length of the comment period,
procedures for providing additional testimony, and a statement
on how to view or obtain copies of the complete hearing record
(if one has been prepared), are described.
Note: A public hearing is a type of public meeting. Consequently, much
of the material in the preceding section on effective meetings applies here.
Please see that section for further information.
-------
-42--
6. Attempt to hold to a set schedule for those participants who
have signed up in advance to speak at the hearing.
7. Have some type of registration card available at the hearing
for people who wish to speak but did not pre-register.
4.7.3 Evaluation
A. Was the purpose of the hearing stated to the public in
attendance? Were the issues clearly stated to the public? Was
the purpose of the hearing fulfilled?
B. Were hearing notices sent out 30-45 days in advance? Did
participants indicate that they were notified well in advance?
Did they receive reminders a week or two before the hearing?
C. Were notices sent to a cross section of the population? To whom?
• Officials
• Organized Groups
• Affected Citizens
• Others
D. Were any significant groups omitted? If so, which ones?
E. Were communication efforts beyond public notices used to reach
people? Which techniques were used?
• Direct mail letters
• Posters in prominent places
• Phone calls to opinion leaders
• Media or publicity events
• Other
F. Were background information documents available to the public at
least 30 days before the hearing? What was provided?
• Executive summary
• Fact sheets
• ...Copies of full technical reports
• Newsletters
• Other
G. Did participants at the hearing seem to have a sufficient
knowledge of the issues discussed? Had the public read the
educational materials prepared in advance of the hearing?
According to the participants, were the materials helpful in
clarifying issues or explaining proposals?
H. How many hearings were conducted? Were some hearings held after
working hours? Were hearings conducted at one location or at
-------
-43-
several? Would hearing participants prefer to have hearings
scheduled at a different time, place, or location, in the future?
I. Was the hearing organized so that there was advance scheduling of
speakers? Did all those who wished to speak have an opportunity
to do so? Did the speakers seem to represent a balance of
perspectives?
J. Were the hearing examiners attentive to the various speakers
throughout the length of the hearing? Did they just receive
testimony silently, or did they respond to points raised by the
various people presenting testimony? What was their appropriate
role for this hearing?
K. Was a hearing transcript prepared? Was it an accurate reflection
of the hearing's events? Did citizens know in advance that their
comments would be part of a formal hearing transcript?
L. Was an "open record period" announced and explained to the
public? Was additional testimony submitted to the agency during
the open period?
M. Was the hearing record made available to the public? Was a
summary of the hearing record made available to the public? To
the media? How did citizens and officials request copies of the
transcript, if they desired one?
N. Did the agency prepare a responsiveness summary following the
hearing? Did the summary fairly reflect the points of view stated
in written and oral testimony?
4.8 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARIES
4.8.1 Focus
A responsiveness summary is a document that summarizes the comments made
by the public and states specific agency responses to the comments. A
responsiveness summary is used to inform citizens of how their comments
affected agency decisions. It keeps the public informed about the status of
the permitting process. It provides decision-makers and reviewers with an
overview of public reaction and concern. It provides the public with a device
to track the consequences of involvement.
Responsiveness summaries should be brief and concise documents summarizing
the comments and responses of various publics and government agencies.
Complex issues and comments should be broken, down into component elements.
Similar comments from several groups or individuals should be re-phrased into
a single comment with a single response, unless this would obscure important
variations. Comments should be rephrased where necessary for clarity or
conciseness. Organize the responsiveness summary so that participants can
-------
-44-
find their comments easily and logically. Do not avoid negative points of
view; the responsiveness summary should contain an honest assessment of public
comments.
Some of the benefits derived through preparing responsiveness summaries
include the following:
A. Responsiveness summaries aid in determining if program and
public participation objectives are being met.
B. They provide feedback to citizens on their comments and
interpretation.
C. They help to determine if public information products are
being read, understood, and used in a timely and meaningful
manner.
D. They provide insight into the degree of success of public
hearings and meetings.
E. They provide a check on the ability of innovative
participation and information techniques to inform and elicit
meaningful comments.
F. They can be used in a mid-course assessment of the public
involvement effort; this review may suggest changes for the
remaining phases:
G. The final responsiveness summary gives the participating
public a chance to provide the agency with an evaluation of
the public involvement effort.
H. They provide opportunities to organize the issues raised by
the public and to view them from a new perspective.
I. They help to document the decision-making process.
4.8.2 Techniques
A. The responsiveness summary (or similar report) must explain
the type of participation activity conducted, identify
participants and their affiliation, describe matters on which
the public was consulted, summarize viewpoints, comments,
criticisms and suggestions, disclose the agency's process in
reaching a decision, set forth the agency's specific responses
in modifying proposed actions or rejecting public proposals,
and the reasons for such actions.
B. The final responsiveness summary should describe:
-------
-45-
1. The number and effectiveness of meetings,
mailings, public notices, and hearings at which
the public was informed or consulted about the
project.
2. The numbers and kinds of diverse interests which
were involved in the project (e.g., What
organizations and special interest groups
provided advice?).
3. The extent to which citizen's views were taken
into account in decision-making (eg., Were
comments used or rejected? Why?)
•
4. The specific changes, if any, in project design
or scope (e.g., What changes in permit
conditions occurred as a result of citizen
input?)
4.8.3 Evaluation
A. Did the responsiveness summary provide a reasonable
description of the events, a summary of comments and points of
view represented, and a summary of the responses of the agency?
B. Did the responsiveness summary provide adequate depth'to the
comments and responses? Would someone not present at the
event(s) have a clear idea of what transpired?
C. Is there an indication that the public had an impact on the
permit? If so, how is this impact expressed in the
responsiveness summary?
D. Who are the organizations and individuals cited in the
summary? Do they represent a good mix of community leaders,
business interests, government agencies, potentially impacted
neighbors, and the other major targetted publics? Are any key
groups or individuals unrepresented, and if so, why?
E. Do the comments suggest a strong and coordinated opinion from
a particular perspective, such as abutters to a facility's
site? Should these organized and vocal views receive more
attention than some others?
F. Did the comments suggest a sound understanding of the issues?
Did the public education program contribute to a better
understanding of the issues?
G. Does the summary suggest that citizens and officials had ample
opportunity to express their views and perspectives?
-------
H. Does the summary indicate that citizens and officials had
adequate notice of meetings and hearings?
I. Do the responses to comments seem complete and reasonable? Do
they make a strong and convincing argument for decisions or
directions taken? Are they responsive to the difficult issues
raised by the public?
J. Did the preparers of the summary use a design and format that
makes it easy for the reader to find key issues, and
differentiate between comments and responses?
K. Did the preparers of the summary include aids such as an
introductory description of the purpose of the summary, a
brief description of the facility as a part of the
introduction, and an outline of the organization of the
summary?
L. Did the summary include copies of sign-in sheets,
notifications, handout material, agendas, and questionnaires
and evaluations? Were they helpful, or just extraneous
material in the summary? Would a brief description of the
materials have proved more useful to the reader?
M. How was the responsiveness summary distributed? Was it sent
to affected decision-makers? To those people who made
comments? . To the people who attended hearings or meetings?
To potentially impacted groups and individuals? To
information repositories and libraries?
N. Was notice of its availability sent to the news media and the
editors of newletters with a potential interest in the project?
0. Was the length of the summary short enough so that people
might, in fact, read it? On the other hand, did it seem like
a long and weighty government report destined to be placed on
a shelf and not read?
-------
-47-
5. SPECIAL ISSUES
[Reserved]
5.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS
5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN INCINERATOR CERTIFICATION
5.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
5.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN SITING NEW FACILITIES
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A provides a suggested format for public involvement plans.
While this format is intended to provide direction, strict adherence is not
required. As is the case with public involvement in general, the format
should be used flexibly, allowing for adaptation and creativity.
Appendix B contains samples of both required and suggested RCRA permit
public involvement materials. Here again, the format and content of these
samples is intended to be illustrative, not prescriptive. The reader may use
any ideas or language contained within the samples, either verbatim or
paraphrased. These samples have not, however, been reviewed for content, and
are intended solely to familiarize the reader with these types of public
involvement materials.
-------
APPENDIX A
FORMAT FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLANS
A. Overview of Public Involvement Plan
Purpose: This section should provide a general introduction to the
document by briefly stating the purpose of the public involvement plan
and the distinctive or central features of the public involvement effort
• planned for this specific facility. It should also note any special
circumstances of the community and the facility that the plan has been
designed to address. This statement should not be a repetition of
general program goals (e.g., "Keep the community informed").
Length: One paragraph.
B. Capsule Facility Description
Purpose: This section should provide a reader unfamiliar with the
facility with the historical, geographical, and technical details
necessary to understand why the facility has been targetted for expanded
public involvement.
Suggested topics: Facility location and proximity to other landmarks;
history of facility use and ownership; date and-type of any releases;
public's perception of any threat to public health or environment, posed
by the facility; the permitting process to date; and responsibility for
developing permit (e.g., state or federal).
Length: One page.
C. Community Background
Purpose: This section should provide an understanding of the community
and its involvement with the facility. It should be divided into three
parts:
1. Community Profile: a discussion of the economic and political
structure of the community, and key community issues and interests.
2. Chronology of Community Involvement: a discussion of how the
community has reacted to the facility and its owners or operators in
the past, actions taken by citizens, and attitudes toward government
roles and responsibilities.
3. Key Community Concerns: an analysis of the major concerns of the
community regarding the perceived risks or problems posed by the
facility.
In all three sections, but particularly in the last, the focus should be
on 'the community's perceptions of the facility and its effects on the
community.
-------
A-2
Length: May vary between three to seven pages, depending on the history
and level of community involvement and concern regarding the facility.
D. Highlights of Public Involvement Program for the Facility
Purpose: This section should provide concrete details on public
involvement approaches to be taken at the facility. These approaches
should follow directly and logically from Section C's discussion of the
community and its perceptions of the problems posed by the facility.
This section should not restate the goals or objectives of public
involvement in RCRA permitting in general. Instead, it should develop a
strategy for communicating with a specific community. The most effective
avenues for communicating with the public that were identified in the
field assessment should be emphasized.
Suggested topics:
• Resources to be used in the public involvement program (e.g.,
local organizations, meeting places);
• Key individuals or organizations which will play a role in
public involvement activities;
• Areas of sensitivity that must be considered in conducting
public involvement efforts.
E. Publi'c Involvement Techniques and Timing .
Purpose: This section should state what public involvement activities
will be conducted at the facility, and when they should be implemented.
This section should also suggest additional techniques that might be
conducted at the facility, depending on circumstances as the permit
process proceeds, and when in the process they are likely to be most
effective.
Length: Two to three pages. Matrix format may be suitable for this
section.
Appendices
• Mailing List of Interested Parties and Key Contacts
• Suggested Locations for Meetings and Information Repositories
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLES OF WRITTEN MATERIALS AND PUBLICATIONS
-------
Statement Of Basis
STATEMENT OF BASIS
Columbus Steel Drum Co.
OHD 000-723-676
This is a statement of basis for the Draft Hazardous Waste Permit for the
subject facility. It briefly describes the derivation of the conditions
of the draft permit and the reasons for them. Under 40 CFR 124.7 (Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 124.7), the Statement of
Basis is sent to the applicant and to any other person Mho requests it.
A. FACILITY DESCRIPTION
1. RCRA Activities
Columbus Steel Drum is located in Blacklick, Ohio at 1385 Blatt Blvd.
Columbus Steel Drum is primarily a reconditioner of used steel drums,
but operates, as an extension of its business, a small hazardous
waste storage facility. The hazardous waste that is stored originates
either from (1) residues found at the bottoms of incoming "empty" drums,
or (2) spent solvents used to clean out the drums. Hazardous waste
storage occurs only in closed drums in a specially-designated drum
storage area, or in one underground storage tank. The wast.es involved
are considered "hazardous" under Federal law because they are either
"Ignitable" (a regulatory term roughly meaning " very flammable") or
because they contain lead and/or cadmium. Lead and cadmium are elements
found in some of the paints used on the incoming barrels, and these
elements can be toxic if ingested at sufficiently high concentrations.
This draft permit includes all of the necessary Federal requirements to
ensure that the wastes handled will pose no threat to public health or
the environment. No burial, or disposal of wastes in any manner, occurs
on-site.
2. Permit Actions Other Than RCRA
a. Water
Columbus Ste.el Drum does not require a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit as all of their process and sani-
tary wastewater is discharged to the public sewer owned and operated
by the City of Gahanna.
-------
-2-
b. Air
Columbus Steel Drum has applied for and received Ohio air permits from
the Central District Air Pollution Control Agency limiting the
discharge of air emissions from four point sources. These are:
1) drum lining line;
2) drum exterior coating line;
3) lid coating line; and
4) oxidizer.
c. Other Federal Acts Considered
Columbus Steel Drum will not require other permits to satisfy any
other Federal Acts. The facility will not have an adverse effect
on the historical, architectural, archeologlcal or cultural
characteristics of the properties either listed or eligible for listing
on the National Register for Historical Places.
B. PERMIT APPLICATION
The permit application cited herein 1s the August 29, 1983, permit
application as amended on November 22, 1983, January 4, 1984, January 10,
1984, January 23, 1984, February 1, 1984, February 22, 1984, and March 30,
1984.
C. PURPOSE OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS
The purpose of the permitting process is to afford the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), interested citizens and
other governmental agencies the opportunity to evaluate the ability
of the applicant to comply with the applicable hazardous wa.ste manage-
ment requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The U.S. EPA is required to prepare a draft permit which
sets forth all the applicable requirements which the Agency intends
to require the Permittee to comply during the ten year duration of
the permit.
-------
-3-
D. PROCEDURES FOR REACHING A FINAL DECISION
Under Section 7004(b) of RCRA and 40 CFR §124.10, the public is given
forty-five days to review the application and comment on the draft
permit conditions prior to EPA taking any final permitting action on
the application for a hazardous waste management permit. The comment
period will begin on the date of publication of the public notice in a
major local newspaper of general circulation. When the Regional Admini-
strator of the U.S. EPA makes his final permit decision, notice will be
given to the applicant and each person who has submitted written comments
or requested notice of the final permit decision. If none of the comments
received requested a change in the draft permit conditions, the permit will
become effective immediately upon issuance of the permit. If comments
received during comment period requested changes in the draft permit
conditions, then the final permit will become effective thirty (30) days
after service of notice of the decision or at a later date if review is
under 40 CFR §124.19.
The issuance of a Hazardous Waste Permit will be coordinated by both U.S.
EPA and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). At this time,
each Agency has regulations which require a permit to be issued for all
facilities which treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. If the
state receives final authorization for the hazardous waste program, the
the state will assume the administration of the Federal hazardous permitting
program and this permit.
E. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PERMIT CONDITIONS
The attached Section provides a brief summary of the permit conditions
in the draft permit. The column titled "Regulation" provides
the regulatory authority for the permit condition specified in
the column titled "Permit Condition."
-------
Permit
Condition Subject
I. STANDARD CONDITIONS
I.A. Effect of Permit
I.B. Permit Actions
Regulation
(*0
I.C.
I.D.I.
I.D.2.
1.0.3.
I.D.4.
I.D.5.
1.0.6.
1.0.7.
I.0.8.
1.0.9.
I.0.10.
I.D.ll.
1.0.12.
1.0.13.
1.0.14.
1.0.15.
SeverabHUy
Duty to Comply
Duty to Reapply
Permit Expiration
Need to Halt or Reduce
Activity not a Defense
Duty to Mitigate
Proper Operation and
Maintenance
Duty to Provide Information
Inspection and Entry
Monitoring and Records
Reporting Planned Changes
(Not Used)
Anticipated NoncompHance
Transfer of Permits
Compliance Schedules
Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
§270.4 & 270-.30(g)
§270.30(f), 270.41,
§270.42, 270.43,
§264.112 &
§264.343(d)
Standard Practice
§270.30(a)
§270.30(b) &
270.10(h)
§270.51
§270.30(c)
§270.30(d)
§270.30(e)
§270.30(h) &
§264.74(a)
§270.30(1)
§270.30(J)
§270.30(1)(1)
§270.30(1)(2)
§270.30(1)(3),
270.40 &
264.12(C)
§270.30(1)(5) i
270.33
§270.30(1)(6) &
264.56(d)(1)U)
-------
PermU Regulation
Condition Subject (40 CFR)
1.0.16. Other Noncompllance §270.30(1)(10)
1.0.17. Other Information §270.30(1)01)
I.E. Signatory Requirement §270.11 & 270.30(k)
I.F. Confidential Information §270.12
I.G. Not Used
I.H. Documents to be Maintained at §264.13(b),
Facility Site 264.16(d),
§264.53(a),
264.122(3),
§264.142(a),
264.73, §264.15(b)
-------
Permit
Condition
II. GENERAL
II. A.
II. 8.
II. C.
II. 0.
II. E.
II. F.
II. 6.
II. H.
II. I.I.
II. I. 2.
II. I. 3.
II. I. 4.
II. I. 5.
II. J.I.
II. 3. 2.
II. 3. 3.
II. 3. 4.
U.K.
II. L.I.
ILL. 2.
Subject
FACILITY CONDITIONS
Design and Operation of Facility
Required Notice (Not Applicable)
General Waste Analysis
Security
General Inspection Requirements
Personnel Training
General Requirements for Ignltable,
Reactive and Incompatible Waste
Location Standards (not applicable)
Required Equipment
Testing and Maintenance of Equipment
Access to Communications or Alarm System
Required Aisle Space
Local Authorities
Implementation of Contingency Plan
Copies of the Contingency Plan
Amendments to the Contingency Plan
Emergency Coordinator
Manifest System
Operating Record
Biennial Report
Regulation
(40 CFR)
§264.31
§264.13
§264.14
§264.15
§264.16
§264.17
§264.32
§264.33
§264.34
§264.35
§264.37
§264.51
§264.53
§264.54
§264.55
§264.71, §264.72,
§264.76,
§270.30(1)(7),
§270.30(1)(8)
§264.73
§264.75,
5270.30(1)
-------
Permit Regulation
Condition Subject (40 CFR)
II.M.I. Closure Performance Standard §264.111
II.M.2. Amendment to Closure Plan §264.112(b)
II.M.3. Notification of Closure §264.112(c)
II.M.4. Time Allowed for Closure §264.113
II.M.S. Disposal or Decontamination of Equipment §264.114
II.M.6. Certification of Closure §264.115
II.N. Closure Cost Estimate §264.142
II.0. Financial Assurance for Facility Closure §264.143
II.P. Liability Requirements §264.147
II.Q. Incapacity of Owners or Operators, §264.148
Generators or Financial -Institutions
-------
Permit Regulation
Condition Subject (40 CFR)
III. STORAGE IN CONTAINERS
III.A. Waste Identification §270.13(1)
III.B. Condition of Containers . §264.171
III.C. Compatibility of Wastes with Containers §264.172
III.D. Management of Containers §264.173
III.E. Containment §264.175
III.F. Special Requirements for Ignltable or §264.176
Reactive Waste
III.6. Special Requirements for Incompatible §264.177
Waste
-------
Permit Regulation
Condition Subject (40 CFR)
IV. STORAGE IN TANKS
IV.A. Waste Identification . §270.13(1)
IV.B. Design of Tanks §264.191
IV.C. General Operating Requirements §264.192
IV.0. Special Requirements for Ignltable §264.198
or Reactive Waste
IV.E. Special Requirements for Incompatible §264.199
Waste
-------
Letter To Library To Set Up Repository
Ms. Ruth Berman
Head Librarian
New London Public Library
406 South Pearl Street
New London, Wisconsin 54961
Dear Ms. Berman:
Per my telephone conversation on June 3, 1985, with Ms. Vicki Crznarich,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region V,
will receive comments on the permit application and U.S. EPA's draft
permit for Curwood, Incorporated which is located in New London.
Please make the items listed below available for public review at the
New London Public Library as soon as they are received. I am requesting
that you complete the enclosed verification form in order for our Agency
to be assured that these materials were received.
- A copy of the Curwood Incorporated permit application
- A copy of the U.S. EPA, Region V, draft permit for Curwood
- A copy of the U.S. EPA, Region V, Fact Sheet for Curwood
- A copy of the Public Notice to be published in the New London
Star-Press and Appleton Post Cresent on June 27, 1985,
advising the availability of these materials at the Library
- A copy of the U.S. EPA, Region V, pertinent Public Participation
Regulations
Please retain the materials on file for public access until further
notice. Enclosed are self-addressed, stamped labels and envelopes
to be used for the return of these materials upon notice.
Thank you very much for your cooperation in assisting our effort to
serve the public. Please contact me at (312) 886-3715, if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Christine Klemme
Environmental Protection Assistant
Enclosures
-------
Public Notice (Without Corrective Action)
NOTICE OP DRAFT PERMIT AND PUBLIC HEARING
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
6TH AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106 .
Date of this Notice: December 26, 1982 Public Notice No: RCRA 2002
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes
to issue a permit for the storage and incineration of hazardous
waste to the Union Carbide Corporation for its facility which is
located on 437 MacCorkle Avenue, SW, South Charleston, WV 25303.
The EPA permit is to be issued under the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. This facility has been assigned EPA
identification Number WVD 98 055 4885.
A draft permit which contains conditions for the operation of a
hazardous waste storage and incineration facility has been proposed
by EPA. The permit conditions are proposed and are open to comment
from the public.
•Persons wishing to comment on the draft permit must submit such
comments in writing or provide comments at the public hearing
described below. Written comments must be sent to the Environmental
Protection Agency, 6th & Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19106,
Attention: Joan Henry (3AW32) and must be received by EPA on or
before February 11, 1983.
This- is to notify the public that a hearing to receive comments
on the permit will be held by EPA.on January 27, 1983 in the South
Charleston High School located at 1 Eagle Way, South Charleston, WV
at 7:00 p.m.
All comments should address the appropriateness of the decision
to prepare a draft permit or the appropriateness af any condition of
the draft permit. All comments must raise reasonably ascertainable
issues and should be accompanied by all reasonably available
arguments, factual grounds and supporting material. It is EPA's
present intent to limit comments at the hearing to a maximum of five
minutes per speaker so persons wishing to participate in the hearing
are encouraged to prepare written material to be submitted along
with any oral comments.
All written comments received by the above date and all comments
received at the hearing will be considered in the formulation of
final determination regarding the permit. After considering all
co^-aents and the requirements and policies in RCRA and its
implementing regulations, the. EPA Regional Administrator will make a
decision regarding permit issuance.
-------
The administrative record, including the application, all
data submitted by the applicant, the fact sheet, the draft
permit, naps showing the exact facility location, and comments
received, may be reviewed and copied at EPA Region III, 6th &
Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19106, between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. A copying machine will
be provided for public use at a charge per page. Any person
desiring further information, copies of portions of the
administrative record, or an appointment to review the record
should contact Joan Henry at the above address or call (215)
597-8751.
An additional copy of the application, draft permit and fact
sheet will be available for review at the West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources,
1201 Greenbrier Street, Charleston, WV 25311.
-------
Public Notice For Corrective Action
PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING TENTATIVE DETERMINATION
OF CONFORMITY WITH CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
AND AMENDMENT OF PART 8 APPLICATION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region V, is
hereby giving notice of its tentative determination that there have been
NO uncorrected releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to
the environment, from any current or previous solid waste management
units, at the site on which CECOS International, Incorporated Processing
Center currently operates a storage and treatment facility at 4879 Spring
Grove Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45232.
This tentative determination is one'of the steps U.S. EPA is undertaking
to fulfill its obligations under the recently enacted (November 8, 1984)
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA; the Amendments).
Section 206 of the Amendments requires that all hazardous waste management
permits issued after November 8, 1984, must require corrective action for
all releases of hazardous waste or constituents from any solid waste
management unit at a treatment, storage or disposal facility seeking a
permit. It further requires that permits iss^d must contain schedules of
compliance for such corrective action (where such corrective action cannot
be completed prior to the issuance of the permit) and assurances of
financial responsibility for completing such corrective action.
U.S. EPA gave notice to the public of a draft permit for CECOS International,
Incorporated's Processing Center on August 31, 1984, and held a public
hearing on the draft permit on October 2, 1985. The technical review of
the permit application, coupled with the above public participation activities
constituted the whole of the application review process prior to HSWA.
A final determination by U.S. EPA concerning any releases of hazardous waste
for hazardous constituents to the environment will also decide whether
or not an additional condition is placed in any final RCRA permit. Should
U.S. EPA determine that such releases have occurred, any permit issued to
CECOS International, Incorporated's Processing Center would require that
corrective action be taken to address such releases, to prevent any threat
to public health and the environment. Should U.S. EPA determine that
such releases have not occurred, no such corrective action requirement
would be necessary.
Today's tentative determination is based on a review of files and documents
readily available to U.S. EPA. The review has not discovered any evident
of any such releases to the environment.
Comments are hereby solicited from the public as to whether any such
releases have ever occurred at this site. Comments must be in writing,
and should provide factual information (type of release, location, date)
which would cause U.S. EPA to modify today's tentative determination.
Comments must be postmarked no later than September 30, 1985, and be
addressed to Ms. Christine Klemme, Solid Waste Branch, 5 HS-JCK-13,
230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
This notice also serves to amend the Part B application. CECOS International,
Incorponted's Processing Center will increase the capacities of the multi
media filters to 22,500 gallons and the activated carbon absorbers to
15,000 gallons in the wastewater treatment system. This increase in
capacities will enable CECOS to treat a maximum of 360,000 gallons of
wastewater per day.
-------
Joint EPA/West Virginia Public Notice
JOE7T PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT UNDER
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
in conjunction with the
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Hazardous Waste/Groundwater Branch
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, West Virginia 25311
Date of this Notice: June 28, 1965
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the West
Virginia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) propose to issue a permit for
storage and incineration of hazardous waste to Union Carbide Technical Center
which is located at 3200 Kanawha Turnpike, South Charleston, W, 25303. The
EPA permit is to be issued under the authority of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA) while the State permit is to be issued under authority of the
West Virginia Code Chapter 20, Article 5E. The facility has been assigned EPA
permit number WVD 06 068 2291.
The State of West Virginia is authorized to operate a hazardous waste
management program in lieu of the Federal program for those portions of RCRA
in effect at the time of the authorization which was prior to the enactment of
HSWA.
HSWA imposes additional requirements on hazardomt waste management
facilities which will be administered and enforced by EPA until the State of
West Virginia receives additional authorization for those requirements.
Therefore, EPA, the Department of Natural Resources and Air Pollution Control
Commission will determine whether to issue permits to Union Carbide. APCC
announced its tentative determination to issue a permit to Union Carbide on
May 16, 1985.
Facility Description
Union Carbide Corporation has applied to West Virginia for a permit to
operate a hazardous waste incinerator, and two container storage areas at
their South Charleston Technical Center. The incinerator is used to dispose
of many small bottles of waste laboratory chemicals and drums of waste
solvents generated by pilot plant washing operations. In addition, the
incinerator is used to dispose of bags of experimental polyurethane foam which
are non-hazardous waste.
The Union Carbide Corporation Technical Center incinerator is a Brule1
Model FG4-T20 with three chambers. The incinerator is equipped with two
auxiliary fuel burners and a liquid/gas burner. The auxiliary fuel burners
-------
are natural gas burners and are able Co provide a cocal of 3 MM Bcu/hr while
che chird burner will be used Co burn ignicable wasce (D001) and/or natural
gas and can provide up Co 5 MM Btu/hr. The incineracor is also equipped wich
a quench (for cooling che combusion gases) and a packed bed scrubber (for
removing HCL and oarciculace from che gases).
The two storage units include a hazardous waste container storage area
which will be used to score drums of waste and laboratory samples and a
refrigerated bunker used to store relatively small quantities of reactive and
ignitable materials under controlled temperature conditions.
DNR Tentative Decision
DNR will issue a permit for the hazardous waste incinertor and two storage
units.
EPA Tentative Decision
EPA will issue a separate permit wich the following requirements: The
permit includes "boilerplate" requirements which must be in all EPA permits
per regulation 40 CFR 9270.30. In addition, it addresses Section (3004u) of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, concerning Continuing
Releases at Permitted Facilities. A permit issued by the Administrator or
authorized representative after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 shall require corrective action for all
releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from any solid waste
management unit at a facility seeking a Detroit regardless of the time at which
waste was placed in such units. The Permittee is required by the draft permit
Co locate all present and former solid wastes management units on the facility
property and determine whether there have been or are releases of anv
hazardous constituents from these units and submit a preliminary assessment to
EPA within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this permit. If any
release has occurred or is occurring, the facility will be required to
undertake any activity necessary to clean up these releases.
The preliminary assessment includes requirements to:
1. Identify all solid waste management units (SWMU) on a topographic map,
2. Provide construction design information for each SWMU.
3. Provide information on the waste handled at the SWMU and other
operational data.
4. Provide data and descriptions of a potential release or evidence of
no release.
5. Complete a site investigation of the units identified.
6. Submit the preliminary assessment site investigation report to EPA
within 30 days.
-------
Public Participation
Persons wishing to comment on the draft permit, permit application or
object to permit issuance must submit their comments in writing. Duplicate
copies of comments"should be sent to the:
Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attention: Robin Cole (3HW31)
and
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Hazardous Waste/Groundwater Branch
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
Attention: Kim Fetty
All comments received within 45 days of this public notice will be
considered in the formulation of the final determinations regarding the
permits.
In the event the Regional Administrator (EPA) or the Chief (Division of
Water Resources) receives written notice of opposition to the draft permit and
a request for a public hearing within the comment period referenced above, a
hearing shall be scheduled at a location convenient to the nearest population
center to the proposed facility. Any person requesting a hearing must raise
all reasonably ascertainable issues and must include all reasonable available
arguments, factual grounds and supporting material. If a public hearing is
required, public notice will be given at least 30 days before the hearing.
Any requests for a public hearing should be addressed to the Regional
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 841 Chestnut
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107 and/or the Chief, Division of Water Resources,
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, 1201 Greenbrier Street,
Charleston, WV 25311.
The EPA administrative record, including the application, all data
submitted by the applicant, the fact sheet, the draft permit, maps showing the
exact facility location, and comments received, may be reviewed and copied at
EPA Region III, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. A copying machine will be
provided for public use at a charge per page. Any person desiring further
information, copies of portions of the administrative record, or an
appointment to review the record should contact Joan Henry at the above
address or call (215) 597-7259.
A copy of the State Administrative record, including the application,
draft permit and fact sheet will be available for review at the West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, Public
Information Office, 1201 Greenbrier Street, Charleston, WV 25311. Any person
desiring further information should contact Kim Fetty at the above address or
call (304) 348-7861.
-------
After consideration of all written comment and of the requirements and
policies in RCRA and appropriate regulations, the EPA Regional Administrator
and the WDNR Chief, Division of Water Resources, will make their decisions
regarding the permit issuance. If the determinations are substantially
unchanged from those announced by this notice, the EPA Regional Administrator
and the Chief will so notify all persons submitting written comments. If the
determinations are substantially changed, the EPA Regional Administrator and
the Chief will issue a joint public notice indicating the revised
determinations.
-------
Joint EPAIPennsylvania Public Notice
JOINT NOTICE OF PREPARATION 0? A
HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE PERMIT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION' AKD RECOVERY ACT
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
in conjunction with the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
90 E. Union Street
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
Date of this Notice: August 9, 1934
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER)
each has reviewed a permit application for storage of hazardous
waste from Allied Corporation - Chemical Sector - Pottsville
Plant, Pottsville, PA 17901. EPA has made a tentative
determination to issue its permit. DER is still reviewing the
application. Both EPA and DER will consider all public
comments made at this time when deciding whether to grant or
deny the permit. The EPA draft per.-p.it was prepared under the
authority of the Resource Conservation" and Recovery Act (RCRA) ,
and the DER fact sheet was prepared under the authority of the
Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act of 1930. The proposed
facility has been assigned EPA draft Permit Number PAD 06 977
6185.
The Role of DER
The State of Pennsylvania is in the process of applying to
EPA for Final Authorization of the State's hazardous waste
management program. Until Final Authorization occurs, both DER
and EPA will operate parallel programs, jointly review permit
applications and issue permits, or deny permit applications
jointly where possible. After that, all facilities will
operate exclusively under State-issued permits.
Allied Corporation - Chemical Sector - Pottsville Plant
Application
Allied Corporation - Chemical Sector - Pottsville Plant has
applied for a RCRA hazardous waste permit to operate a
container storage facility at Westwood Road in Pottsville, PA.
-------
This facility will store hazardous waste in containers in a
single storage shed, wastes stored in the shed will consist of
PVC Dry Blend Organic Liquid, Maintenance Oils and Solvents,
and Nylon Extrusion Wastes.
The drums of hazardous waste will be collected and stored
at this facility until sufficient quantities have been
accumulated for removal. The storage capacity of the facility
is 192 55 gallon drums (10,560 gallons).
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Persons- wishing to comment on the EPA draft permit, DER
fact sheet or permit application should submit their comments
in writing. Duplicate copies of comments should be sent to:
Sherman L. Latchaw
Facilities Management Section (3BW32)
EPA Region III .
and
David J. Lamereaux
Regional Solid Waste Manager
PA DER
at the addresses indicated above.
• All persons, including the applicant, who believe any
condition of the EPA draft permit is inappropriate or that a
tentative decision to prepare a draft permit is inappropriate,
must raise all reasonably ascertair.able issues and submit all
reasonably available arguments and factual grounds supporting
their position, including all supporting material, by the close
of the public.comment period. All supporting materials shall
be included in full and may not be incorporated by reference,
unless they are already part of the EPA administrative record
in this permit action or consist of State or Federal statues
and regulations, EPA documents of general applicability, or
other generally available reference materials. Commenters
shall make supporting material not already included in the
administrative record available to EPA/DER. All comments must
be received within the 45-day period ending September 24, 1984.
In the event EPA and DER receive written objection to the
draft permit conditions or permit application and a request for
a public hearing within the comment period referenced above, a
hearing shall be scheduled at a location convenient to the
population center nearest to the proposed facility. Public
notice of the public hearing shall be given at least 30 days
before the hearing.
-------
PERMIT APPLICATION FILES
EPA's administrative record, including the application, all
data submitted by the applicant, the EPA draft permit and fact
sheet and maps showing the exact facility location, and
comments received, may be reviewed and copied at EPA, Region
III, Sixth and Walnut Streets, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106, between the hours of 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM
Monday through-Friday. A copying machine will be provided for
public use at a charge per page. Any person desiring further.
information, copies of portions of the administrative record,
or an appointment to review the record should contact Joan
Henry at the above address or call (215) 597-8751.
Similar information will be available' for review at the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 90 E. Union
St., Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701 between the hours of 8:00
AM and 4:00 PM Monday through Friday. Any person desiring
further information should call Mr. David Lamereaux, Regional
Solid Waste Manager, Wilkes-Barre at (717) 826-2516.
Copies of the permit application are also available at the
Schuylkill County Planning Commission Courthouse, Pottsville,
PA and the Norwegian Township Board of Supervisors, Maple
Avenue, Mar Lin, PA.
Any relevant comments received within 45 days of .the date
of this joint public notice will be considered in the
formulation of final determinations regarding the permits.
After consideration of all written comments and of the
requirements and policies in RCRA and appropriate State
regulations, EPA and DER will make their final decision to
either issue, modify or deny the permit. At that time, EPA and
DER will notify the applicant and each person who has submitted
written comments or requested notice of the final permit
decision. The final EPA permit decision will become effective
thirty (30) days after the service of notice of the decision
unless a later date is specified or review or appeal to the
Administrator of EPA is requested under 40 CFR §124.19. If no
comments requested a change in the draft permit, the final
permit will become effective immediately upon issuance. The
final DER permit action will be published in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin and th5,s action by the Department may be appealable to
the Environmental Hearing Board, Third Floor, 221 North Second
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101, (717) 787-3483), by any
aggrieved person pursuant to Section 1921-A of the
Administrative Code of 1929, 71 P.S. Section 510-21; and the
Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S., Chapter 5A. Appeals
must be filed with the Environmental Hearing Board within
thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of this action
unless the appropriate statute provides a different time
period. Copies of the appeal form and the regulations
-------
governing practice and procedure before the Board nay be
obtained from the Board. This paragraph does not, in and of
itself, create any right of appeal beyond that permitted by
applicable statutes and decisional law.
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Continents are requested only on the storage facility
described above. Comments outside the scope of this permit
will not be accepted nor acted upon.
-------
Public Service Announcement Cover Letter, Script,
And Verification Form
Ref: 8AW-WM
KQIL Radio
P.O. Box 320
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Dear Linda Sparks
Enclosed please find a purchase order from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to place a radio broadcast with your station. The announcement
gives public notice regarding a period of review for a hazardous waste permit
at the University of Colorado. The announcement should be aired on June 14
1984.
We have enclosed the announcement to be aired. Please return the
enclosed verification form in the self-addressed envelope, in order to receive
payment and to allow EPA to document the time and place of the radio
advertisement.
If you need further information or find that the announcement must be
changed in any way, please call Mrs. Pat Urquhartat (303)844-6258.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Al Broach
Purchasing Agent
Enclosures
-------
RADIO ANNOUNCEMENT
(TO BE AIRED ON STATION KQIL ON JUNE 14, 1984)'
FOR A PERIOD OF 45 DAYS ENDING ON JULY 30, 1984, ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY
SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS AND MAY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY'S TENTATIVE DECISION TO DENY A HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT FOR
USE OF WASTE PILES AT THE GARY REFINING COMPANY'S FRUITA, COLORADO, SITE. A
REQUEST FOR A HEARING MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST SPECIFY THE ISSUES TO BE
RAISED. COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND REQUESTS FOR A HEARING SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO
LAWRENCE A WAPENSKY, U.S. EPA REGION VIII, WASTE MANAGEMENT BRANCH, 1860
LINCOLN STREET, DENVER, COLORADO, 80295.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, WHICH CONTAINS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND OTHER
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GARY REFINING COMPANY PERMIT DENIAL, IS
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS AT THE U.S. EPA LIBRARY,
1860 LINCOLN STREET, DENVER, COLORADO, AND AT THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ROOM 232, 222 SOUTH 6TH STREET, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO.
-------
VERIFICATION OF BROADCAST
This is to verify that a Public Announcement on the Environmental
Protection Agency's notice of denial of a hazardous waste storage permit for
Gary Refining Company was broadcast on KQIL on the following dates:
Signature
Date
-------
Public Notice Of Facility Closing
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^ REGION VIII
' SBO'1
1860 LINCOLN STREET
DENVER. COLORADO 80295
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION VIII
PUBLIC NOTICE OF FACILITY CLOSURE
UNDER THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Faci lity Closing
Name : Laramie Energy Technology Center, North Site (LETC)
EPA I.D. #: WY2890031874
Location: One mile North of Laramie on U.S. Highway 30
P.O. Box 3395 University Station
Laramie, Wyoming 82071
LETC operated a facility, which was identified on the RCRA Part A permit
application, for storing hazardous waste in containers, with a proposed
capacity of 500 gallons for 68 different hazardous wastes. The largest
quantities of hazardous waste anticipated to be stored at the facility were
benzene, toluene, and cyclbhexane.
Public Comments
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces that until
May 24, 1985, public comment will be accepted on the LETC closure plan, in
accordance with hazardous waste regulations (40CFR 265.112 (d)). Accordina to
these regulations, the EPA Regional Administrator will approve, modify, or
disapprove the plan. Comments, questions, and written communications should
be directed to Lawrence Wapensky, U.S. EPA Region VIII, Waste Management
Branch, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado^ 80295, telephone number
(303) 293-1662.
The closure plan and supporting documents are available for review during
regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the U.S. EPA Library,
1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado, at the offices of the Department of
Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Herschler Building,
122 West 25th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and the Albany County Public Library,
310 South 8th Street, Laramie, Wyoming.
-------
Public Hearing Registration Forms
xvEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM
NAME.
ADDRESS.
CITY ZIP.
Do you represent a municipality, agency or group?
DYes Which?
DNo
Are you already on our mailing list?
DYes
DNo
&EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM
NAME.
ADDRESS.
CfTY _ ZIP.
Do you represent a municipality, agency or group?
DYes Which?
DNo
Do you want to submit Do you want to make
written comments? make verbal comments today?
DYes OYes
DNo DNo
-------
SUGGESTED DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE INCLUDED IN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
• EPA INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS
• Inspection Reports
• Sampling and analytical data
• Photographs
• Expert Witness Statements
• Statements/interviews with Facility's current or
former employees
• Informants' tips or citizen complaints corroborated
by supporting information
• REPORTS AND INTERNAL EPA DOCUMENTS USED IN
GENERATING OR SUPPORTING ENFORCEMENT ACTION
• Relevant correspondence between EPA and Respondent
• Records of conferences and telephone calls between
EPA and Respondent
Note: Deliberative documents are exempt from
disclosure under the FOIA
• RCRA SOURCES
• RCRA Part A and part B Permit Applications
• SWMU Response to Reauthorization Statutory Interpretation
• Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluations (CMEs)
• Exposure Information Report
• RCRA Biennial Reports
• RCRA Waste Manifests
• RCRA Facility Assessment (if available)
• RCRA Facility Investigation (if conducted)
• Corrective Measures Study (if conducted)
• Responses to RCRA Section 3007 Information Requests
• Information Obtained Through RCRA Section 3013 Orders
-------
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN EPA & STATE OR
OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES RE: ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
AT FACILITY
CERCLA SOURCES
• Notifications of Reportable Quantities under
Section 103(c)
• Responses to Section 104 Information Requests
• CERCLA Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI)
• Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation
• CERCLA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS)
OTHER FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM SOURCES
• NPDES Permits and Permit Applications
• Clean Air Act Permits and Permit Applications
• TSCA/OSHA Inspections
• DOD Installation Restoration Program Reports
STATE INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
• Aerial Photography
• State/Local Well Permits
• U.S. Geologic Survey and State Hydrogeologic Maps
• Utilities Re: Population Data
• Airports/ Weather Bureaus Re: Local Climate
COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH REGIONAL HEARING
CLERK OR PRESIDING OFFICER
-------
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SECTION 3008 (h) ORDER
JURISDICTION
FINDINGS OF FACTS
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DETERMINATIONS
WORK TO BE PERFORMED
LEGAL PROVISIONS
PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS
-------
COMPONENTS OF SECTION 3008fh) ORDER
I. JURISDICTION
II. APPLICABILITY
III. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DETERMINATIONS
VI. WORK TO BE PERFORMED
VII. QUALITY ASSURANCE
VIM. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PARTICIPATION
IX. [CORRECTIVE MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION]
X. REPORTING
XI. ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE ACCESS
XII. SAMPLING AND DATA/DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
XIII. RECORD PRESERVATION
XIV. PROJECT COORDINATOR
XV. NOTIFICATION
XVI. [REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERSIGHT COSTS]
XVII. DELAY IN PERFORMANCE/PENALTIES
XVIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
XIX. FORCE MAJEURE AND EXCUSABLE DELAY
-------
COMPONENTS OF SECTION 3008(h) ORDER ( CONTD)
XX. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
XXI. OTHER CLAIMS AND PARTIES
XXII. OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS
XXIII. INDEMNIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES
XXIV. [FINANCIAL ASSURANCE]
XXV. SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION
XXVI. RESPONDENTS RIGHT TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
XXVII. RESPONDENTS OPPORTUNITY FOR INFORMAL CONFERENCE
(if unilateral)
XXVIII. WAIVER OF HEARING (if order on consent)
RESPONDENTS RIGHT TO A HEARING (if unilateral)
XXIX. TERMINATION AND SATISFACTION
XXX. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER
-------
CHECKLIST OF SECTION 3008(h) ORDER COMPONENTS
I. CAPTION
Respondent, facility, city, state, region
Whether unilateral or on consent .
EPA Docket number
II. JURISDICTION
Statement of jurisdiction
Delegation of authority to issuing official
Respondent's waiver of defense to validity of
order
III. APPLICABILITY
Parties bound
Copy of order to respondent's contractor, etc.
Notice of order to successors in interest
IV. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Objective of order (e.g., RFI, CMS, CMI)
V. FINDINGS OF FACT
Identify Respondent
Name
Status (e.g., corporation, partnership)
- Nature o business
Role (e.g., owner/operator)
Describe facility
- Address of facility
Nature of facility
Facility size, layout and operations
Specify property boundaries
Specify current and past uses of units
Describe information that establishes the
elements of Section 3008(h) —
l. There is or has been a release
2. Of hazardous wastes or Appendix VIII
hazardous constituents
-1-
-------
3. Into the environment
4. From a facility
Hazardous waste management units
Other solid waste management units
Contamination beyond the facility
boundary
5. Subject to interim status under Section
3005(e)
6. The response is necessary to protect human
.health or the environment (the level of
information will depend on the level of
response ordered)
Quantities or concentrations of
hazardous waste or constituents
Migration potential
Actual or potential receptors (i.e.,
humans, wildlife, vegetation)
Threat posed by hazardous waste or
hazardous constituents to human or
environmental receptors (e.g., toxic,
carcinogenic, flammable, etc.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DETERMINATIONS
Based on the Findings of Fact and the
administrative record, EPA (or the RA) has made
the following conclusions of law and
determinations —
1. Respondent is a person (Section 1004(15))
2. Respondent is the owner/operator of a
facility subject to interim status (Section
3005(6))
3. There is or has been a release
4. Of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents
5. From a Respondent's facility
6. Actions required by Order are necessary to
protect human health or the environment
-2-
-------
VI. WORK TO BE PERFORMED
Activities to be suspended, if applicable
State with specificity which of the following
actions are to be performed —
Interim Measures
Preliminary Investigation
RCRA Facility Investigation
Corrective Measure Study
Corrective Measure Implementation
Specify compliance schedule with firm
deliverables tied to detailed Scope of Work to be
attached to the Order and specifically
incorporated in Order by reference
Specify points at which EPA will review and
approve/disapprove plans, activities, etc.
Specify the following, as appropriate —
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
- Sampling and Data/Document Availability
Sample Numbers, Locations
Sampling and Analytical Techniques
Monitoring Requirements
Health and Safety Procedures
- Operation and Maintenance Procedures
VII. LEGAL PROVISIONS
Record Preservation
EPA's right to access "facility when activity is
being conducted
Owner/operator's user of "best efforts" to obtain
off-site access, if applicable
EPA's right to take split samples
EPA's right to halt work, if necessary
Delay in Performance/Penalties
Dispute Resolution
Force Majeure and Excusable Delay
-3-
-------
Reservation of Rights — Compliance with Order
does not relieve owner/operator of obligations
under RCRA and other applicable laws
Other Claims and Parties
Actions shall be consistent with other applicable
laws
Indemnification of the United States
Reimbursement of Oversight Costs
Financial Assurance
Termination and Satisfaction
Effective Date of Order
VIII. PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS
Subsequent Modification
Progress Reports
Public Comment and Participation
Respondent's right to.a hearing (if unilateral)
Respondent's right to review administrative record
Respondent's opportunity for an informal
conference (Note that request for conference does
not stay 30-day period for requesting a hearing)
Project Coordinators
Notification — EPA contact person
Signatures
-4-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
February 9, 1987
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Draft RCRA Section 3008 (h) Model Con^eivt Order
FROM:
TO:
Lloyd S. Guerci, Director
RCRA Enforcement Division
RCRA Enforcement Branch Chiefs
RCRA Enforcement Section Chiefs
Regions I - X
Enclosed for comment is a draft RCRA section 3008(h)
model consent order.
This draft order contains general language that
should be included in consent orders. It does not include
technical language on scopes of work for RCRA Facility
Investigations (RFIs) and Corrective Measure Studies (CMSs)
or interim'measures. For mod.el technical language, you should
refer to other guidance documents, as applicable. In particular,
you should be using the RFI/CMS guidance and draft interim
measures guidances in developing the technical provisions of
orders.
This draft may be used on an interim basis in developing
consent orders. Please provide your comments by February 23
to Jackie Tenusak of the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
(WH-527).
Thank you.
cc: Office of Regional Counsel
Waste Branch Chiefs
Regions I - X
- Gene Lucero
Peter Cook
Steve Heare
Susan Bromm
Mark Gilbertson
John Cross
Michael Kilpatrick
-------
DRAFT
UNITED STATES
ENVIRDtWENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(REGION (*Nuiriber)
IN THE MATTER OF'
(*NanB of Owner/Operator)
(*Nane, address and
EPA l.D.# of Facility)
RESPONDENT.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ON CONSENT
U.S. EPA Docket No.
(*Number)
Proceeding under Section
3008(h) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§6928(h).
[All Orders should include provisions dealing with Jurisdiction, Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Determinations, and the requirements of the
Order itself. It is of utmost importance that you develop an administrative
record that will support the facts alleged in the order. Each of these
provisions will vary somewhat from Order to Order as discussed below. The
provision dealing with the actual activities ordered (Section VI) is
generally the most individualized section of an order.]
I. JURISDICTION
This Administrative Order on Consent (Order) is issued pursuant to the
authority vested in the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (hereinafter EPA) by Section 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
canmonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6928(h). The authority vested in the Administrator has been
delegated to the Regional Administrators by EPA Delegation Nos. 8-31 and 8-32
dated April 16, 1985.
-------
-2-
This Administrative Order on Consent is issued to (corporate/individual
name) (Respondent) Owner/Operator of (*Name and address of Facility).
Respondent consents to (or agrees not to contest) EPA's jurisdiction to issue
this Order and waives any defense to the validity of this Order.
II. APPLICABILITY
1. This Consent Order shall apply to and be binding upon (Respondent)
and its officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns,
and upon all persons, independent contractors, contractors, and consultants
acting under or for (Respondent).
2. No change in ownership or corporate or partnership status relating
to the Facility will in any way alter (Respondent's) responsibility under
this Consent Order.
3. (Respondent) and EPA shall provide a copy of this Consent Order
to all contractors, subcontractors, laboratories, and consultants retained
to conduct or monitor any portion of the work performed pursuant to this
Consent Order within one (1) week of the effective date of this Consent
Order or date of such retention.
4. Respondent shall give notice of this order to any successor in
interest prior to transfer of ownership or operation of the Facility.
III. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
In entering into this Consent Order, the mutual objectives of EPA and
(Corporate/individual name) are: [Describe objective of Order, e.g., to
evaluate thoroughly the nature and extent of the release of hazardous
waste and hazardous constituents and to gather necessary data to support
the Corrective Measure Study.]
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent is a company doing business in the State of (*State)
and is a person as defined in section 1004(15) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6903(15),
and (cite appropriate State regulation if the State has been authorize
pursuant to RCRA Section 3006).
2. Respondent is (a generator and) an owner and/or operator of a
hazardous waste management facility located (location) (Facility). Respondent
engaged in (treatment, storage, or disposal) of hazardous waste at the
Facility subject to interim status requirements (40 CFR Part 265) (and, if
the State has been authorized pursuant to RCRA Section 3006, as those terms
are defined in appropriate state regulations), (specify type of operation—
landfill, incinerator etc.).
-------
-3-
3. Respondent operated its Facility as a hazardous waste management
facility [on and after November 19, 1980, or the date of any statutory or
regulatory change rendering the facility subject to interim status
requirements as a facility], the applicable date which renders facilities
subject to the interim status requirements under Sections 3004 and 3005 of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §§6924, 6925.
4. [Pursuant to Section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6930, Respondent notified
EPA of its hazardous waste activity. In its notification dated (Date), Respondent
identified itself as a (generator of hazardous waste and/or an owner/operator
of a treatment, storage, and/or disposal facility).]
5. In its (Name of Facility submission/notification or Part A or Part B
permit application) dated (date), Respondent identified itself as handling
the following hazardous wastes at the Facility:
Example
(a) Hazardous wastes exhibiting the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity or EP toxicity identified at 40 CFR §261.20-§261.24;
(D001-D017)
(b) Hazardous wastes from non-specific sources identified at 40 CFR
§261.31; (FC01-F028)
(c) Hazardous wastes from specific sources identified at 40 CFR §261.32;
(K001-K106)
(d) Commercial chemical products, manufacturing chemical intermediates,
off-specification commercial chemical products, or manufacturing chemical
intermediates identified at 40 CFR §261.33(e); (PCO1-P123); and
(e) Commercial chemical products, manufacturing chemical intermediates,
off-specification commercial chemical products, or manufacturing chemical
intermediates [identified at 40 CFR §261.33(f) (U001-U249]
[Note: Include finding (if applicable) that by filing
a Part A permit application etc., the Facility achieved
interim status]
6. Respondent's Facility includes:
[Note: Describe location and units regulated under RCRA
Subtitle C and other Solid Waste Management Units
generally. Note lack of liners on land disposal units.
Attach and incorporate by reference a copy of a facility
map from Permit application if available. Focus on and
provide more detail on the unit(s) where a release has
occurred and which are the specific subjects of this Order.
Include material relating to:
0 Size of facility
0 Facility layout
0 Number and type of units and operating status
-------
-4-
0 Specific wastes received at specific units
0 Geological conditions
0 Ground-water flow conditions.]
[Note: Where probative, this information should help to
establish a connection between the units and any release
of hazardous waste/constituents from them. Examples of
where this information might be obtained are: a Part A,
Part B, Exposure Information Report, Inspection Reports,
etc. constitutents]
7. Documentation of Release
[Note: After having described the facility, it is necessary
to establish and document that a release of hazardous wastes
or Appendix VIII hazardous constituents into the environment
from the facility has occurred. In addition, there should
be a discussion that supports the premise of the Order that
the response (as described and required in Section VI below),
is necessary to protect human health or the environment.)
Sources of release information can be:
0 Results of an inspection (RFA, CME, CEI);
0 Company submittal of a ground-water assessment
report;
0 Other data/information submitted by Respondent
(e.g., Part B submittal, exposure information
report) or developed by EPA (e.g., sampling!
analyses); and
0 Knowledge of disposal into units not designed,
constructed or operated to prevent releases.]
Example
Ground-water monitoring wells have been installed at Respondent's
Facility. Wells (number/identification code) are up-gradient from (describe
disposal unit/s). Wells (number/identification code) are down gradient from
(describe disposal unit/s). Samples of ground water from these wells have been
analyzed to determine contamination of ground water. Samples were collected by
EPA personnel from ground-water monitoring wells, #8, #16, #24, #32. The
results were as follows:
Well # Sampling Date Organics Concentration
8 Aug. 14, 1985 Phenol 40,000 ppm
-------
-5-
16 Aug. 17, 1985 Phenol 20,000 ppm
24 Sept. 9, 1985 phenol 32,000 ppm
32 Sept. 9, 1985 phenol 10,000 ppm
[NOTE: The chart should be concise, although multiple
charts can be used if sufficient information is available.
Only applicable data needed to support the Order should be
included, some of which could be an attachment to the
Order. Information such as chain of custody sheets, log
analysis reports, QA/QC reports should not be attached to
the Order or referenced. However, these forms should be
identified and maintained in the administrative record.
Data other than ground-water data, e.g., soil and air,
should be used if available. Such data should provide
information comparable to that provided in the above table,
i.e., medium sampled, location and dates of sampling, the
substances found, and their concentrations. Further,
Respondent's results can be used in lieu of EPA's if
they support the Agency's case and are deemed reliable.]
8. The hazardous wastes and/or hazardous- constituents may further migrate,
from the Facility into the environment in the following pathways:
[NOTE: The next steps link the release of hazardous wastes
or hazardous constituents to human or environmental concerns.
It is important to define migration pathways. It is also
important to note and distinguish between actual and potential
receptors - human, wildlife, vegetation, etc.
Example
[NOTE: The following is an example which can be
modified as appropriate depending upon the level
of certainty concerning the nature and extent of
contamination and whether a remedy has been devised/
implemented for the facility.]
9. The hazardous wastes and/or hazardous, constituents identified in
paragraphs five and seven above have the following characteristics
(describe carcinogenic/toxic characteristics).
[Note: The Order is further strengthened by, and should
include, a description of the toxic, carcinogenic, and
hazardous properties of the contaminants. In particular,
if the Order requires extensive activies (e.g., removal of
materials or closure of units), then the documentation of
migration pathways and potential affects must support the
more extensive activity required.]
-------
-6-
10. Respondent's Facility is located (Describe residences, aquifers,
domestic water supplies, river/lake used for recreational purposes, wells
(including number and type of use), fragile environment, etc. and their
distance and location with respect to the facility.
[NOTE: health and environmental concerns are very broad
and include aquifers that may be used some day.]
11. Releases from Respondent's Facility (are likely to/have) migrate(d)
toward (Describe potential and actual receptors).
12. The Regional Administrator, EPA Region (Number), has concluded
that the actions ordered below are necessary to protect human health or
the environment.
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DETERMINATIONS
Based on the Findings of Fact set out above, and the administrative
record, the Regional Administrator of EPA has made the followina conclusions
of law and determinations:
1. Respondent is a "person" within the meaning of Section 1004(15)
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6903(15);
2. Respondent is/was the owner or operator of a facility that has
operated or is operating subject to section 3005(e) of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. section 6952(e)..
3. Certain wastes and constituents thereof found at the facility are
hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents thereof as defined by
section 1004(5) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. section 6903(5). These are
also hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents within the meaning
of section 3001, of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6921 and 40 C.F.R. Part 261.
4. There is or has been a release of hazardous wastes and/or hazardous
constituents into the environment from Respondent's Facility.
5. The actions required by this Consent Order are necessary to protect
human health or welfare or the environment.
VI. WORK TO BE PERFORMED
[NOTE: This is an example which should be modified as
appropriate depending upon the situation at the facility.]
-------
-7-
Pursuant to Section 3008(h) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928(h), Respondent
agrees and is hereby ordered to perform the following acts in the manner
and by the dates specified herein. All work undertaken pursuant to this
Order shall be performed in a manner consistent with, at a minimum, [the
Interim Measures Plan (IM), RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Corrective
Measures Study (CMS) plan, Corrective Measures Implementation Program Plan
(CMI), RCRA and its substantive implementing regulations, and applicable
EPA guidance documents such as the "RCRA Ground-water Monitoring Technical
Enforcement Guidance Document" (October 1986).] (Note where any of these
documents are referenced, they are to be incorporated by reference and
attached.)
[ 1.[ Within (number) days of the effective date of this Consent Order,
(Respondent) shall submit to EPA a plan for the implementation of interim
measures (IM). The plan and activities conducted pursuant to this Consent
Order are subject to approval by EPA and shall be performed in a manner
consistent with the scope of work contained in Attachment (number). [This
attachment will require specific activities to be performed which mitigate
a potential threat to human health and/or the environment and/or are
consistent with and integrated into any long term solution at the facility.
A facility specific program of interim measures can be developed using the
Draft Interim Measures-Guidance and sections from the Scope of Work for the
Corrective Measure Implementation in the RCRA Corrective Action Plan.]
Attachment (number) to this Consent Order is incorporated as if fully set
forth herein. The Interim Measures Plan shall be developed in accordance
with, at a minimum, RCRA, its implementing substantive regulations, and EPA
guidance documents.]
2. [The activities called for in the Interim Measures Plan shall be
designed to mitigate a potential threat to human health and/or the environment
and/or consistent with and integrated into any long term solution at the
facility. The plan shall include explicit detailed tasks for the implementation
of Interim Measures including: the objectives of the interim measures;
design, construction, operation, and maintenance requirement; and schedules
for design, construction and monitoring.]
3. [Within (number) days of the effective date of this Consent Order,
Respondent shall submit to EPA a plan for a RCRA Facility Investigation
(RFI) and Corrective Measure Study (CMS) (the "Work Plan"). The Work Plan
and activities conducted pursuant to this Consent Order are subject to
approval by EPA and shall be performed in a manner consistent with the
scope of work contained in Attachment (number). Attachment (number) to
this Consent Order is incorporated as if fully set forth herein* The Work
Plan shall be developed in accordance with, at a minimum, RCRA, its
implementing substantive regulations, and EPA guidance document (Specify).]
4. [The Work Plan shall be designed to define the presence, magnitude,
extent, direction, and rate of movement of any hazardous wastes and hazardous
constituents, within and beyond the Facility boundary. The Work Plan shall
include explicit detailed tasks explaining how (Respondent) will determine:
(1) the presence or absence of hazardous wastes and hazardous constituents;
-------
-8-
(2) the nature and extent, and the rate of movement of contamination on and
off the (Respondent's) property; (3) the possible routes of migration of
hazardous wastes and hazardous constituents on and off the facility including
characterization of the geology and hydrology of the facility which delineates
possible routes of migration; (4) the extent and potential for migration of
hazardous wastes and hazardous constituents through each of the environmental
media; and (5) corrective measure alternatives to remediate the observed
and potential contamination. The Work Plan shall include a specific schedule
for implementation of all activities described in the Work Plan.]
5. [In accordance with Section (number) herein, the Work Plan will
include: (1) a Project Management Plan; (2) a Data Collection Quality
Assurance Plan with supporting graphics and flow charts; (3) a specific
Data Management for each site/source or interpretation with cross reference;
(4) a Health and Safety Plan; (5) a schedule for implementation of the Work
Plan, including preparation and submission of preliminary and final reports
to EPA; and [(6) a Community Relations Plan.] The submission of the final
report on the corrective measures study in the schedule shall be targeted
within (number) months of the date of this order.]
6. [Within (number) days of the effective date of this Consent order,
(Respondent) shall submit to EPA a Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI)
Program Plan. The Program Plan and activities conducted pursuant to this
Consent Order are subject to approval by EPA and shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the Scope of Work contained in Attachment (number).
Attachment (number) to this Consent Order is incorporated as if fully set
forth herein. The Program Plan shall be developed in accordance with, at a
minimum, RCRA, its implementing substantive regulations, and EPA guidance
documents. (Specify)]
7. [The Program Plan shall be designed to facilitate the design,
construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of the corrective
measures at the Facility. In accordance with Section (number) herein, the
Program Plan will include: (1) a Program Management Plan; [(2) a Community
Relations Plan;] (3) Design Plans and Specifications; (4) an Operation and
Maintenance Plan; (5) a Cost Estimate; (6) a Project Schedule; (7) a Health
and Safety Plan; and (8) a Construction Quality Assurance Plan.]
0 The operation of the corrective measure shall be targeted for within
(number) months of the date of this order. ]
8. EPA shall promptly review the proposed plans and inform (Respondent)
in writing of its approval or disapproval of the Plans or any part thereof.
In the event of any disapproval, EPA shall specify the deficiencies and
reasons for disapproval and any necessary modifications. Within (number)
days of receipt of such disapproval, (Respondent) shall have the opportunity
to meet with EPA to discuss problems with the Plans and to propose alternative
-------
-9-
or suggestions to resolve them. Within (number) days of this meeting or the
receipt of EPA's disapproval of the Work Plan, whichever is later, (Respondent)
shall amend, making the changes to the Plans required by EPA, and resufcmit
the Work Plan. The EPA approved plans shall be deemed incorporated into
and part of this Consent Order. The final EPA approval of corrective
measures, is subject to consideration of public comment by EPA pursuant to
paragraph VII.
9. Within (number) days of approval or modification by EPA of the
Work Plan, (Respondent) shall commence work and implement the tasks required
by the Plans, in accordance with the requirements, specifications and
schedules stated in the Plans as. approved or modified by EPA.
10. (Respondent) shall provide preliminary and final IM, RFI/CMS
and CMI reports to EPA in accordance with the schedule contained in the
approved Plans.
11. EPA shall review any preliminary or final reports, and notify
(Respondent) in writing of EPA's approval or disapproval of the report
or any part thereof. In the event of any disapproval, EPA shall specify
in writing the deficiencies and reasons for such disapproval and any
necessary modifications. Within (number) days of receipt of such disapproval,
(Respondent) shall have the.-opportunity to meet with EPA to discuss the
problems with the report(s) and to propose alternatives or suggestions to
resolve them. Within (number) days of the date of this meeting or the
receipt of EPA's disapproval of any report, whichever is later, (Respondent)
shall amend and resubmit a revised report, making the changes to the
reports required by EPA, and resubmit the work plan. EPA approved reports
shall be deemed incorporated into and part of this Consent Order.
12. (Numbers) copies of all documents, including preliminary and
final reports, EPA approvals, EPA disapprovals, and other correspondence
to be submitted pursuant to this Consent Order shall be hand delivered or
sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Project Coordinator
designated pursuant to Section (Number) of this Consent Order.
13. Consistent with the objectives of this order, EPA may determine
that certain tasks, including investigatory work or engineering evaluation,
are necessary in addition to the tasks and deliverables included in the
Plans. If EPA determines that such additional work is necessary, EPA
shall request in writing that (Respondent) perform the additional work
and shall specify the basis and reasons for EPA's determination that the
additional work is necessary. Within (Number) days after the receipt of
such request, (Respondent) shall have the opportunity to meet with EPA to
discuss the additional work EPA has requested and to propose alternatives.
Within (Number) days of this meeting or the receipt of EPA's request for
additional work, whichever is later, (Respondent) shall notify EPA in
writing of its decision whether or not to undertake the additional work.
Any additional work performed by (Respondent) under this paragraph
shall be performed in a manner consistent with this Consent Order.
-------
-10-
14. All work performed pursuant to this Consent Order shall be under
the direction and supervision of a professional engineer or geologist with
expertise in hazardous waste site investigations and remediation. By or on
the effective date of this Consent Order, (Respondent) shall notify EPA in
writing of the name, title, and qualifications of the engineer or geologist,
and of any contractors or subcontractors and their personnel to be used in
carrying out the terms of this Consent Order.
VII. QUALITY ASSURANCE
Throughout all sample collections and analysis activities, (Respondent)
shall use EPA-approved quality assurance, quality control, and chain-of-
custody procedures, which shall be part of proposed and approved Plans.
In addition, (Respondent) shall:
1. Follow the EPA guidance for sampling and analysis contained in
the document entitled (Title).
2. Consult with EPA in planning for, and prior to, field sampling
and laboratory analysis.
3. Inform the EPA Project Coordinator in advance which laboratories
will be used by (Respondent) and ensure that EPA personnel and EPA-authorized
representatives have reasonable access to the laboratories and personnel used
for analyses.
4. Ensure that laboratories used by (Respondent) for analyses perform such
analyses according to EPA methods (SW-846) Title) (date) or other methods
deemed satisfactory to EPA. If methods other than EPA methods are to be
used, (Respondent) shall submit all protocols to be used for analyses to
EPA for approval within (Number) days prior to the commencement of analyses.
5. Ensure that laboratories used by (Respondent) for analyses
participate in a quality assurance/quality control program equivalent to
that which is followed by EPA. As part of such a program, and upon request
by EPA, such laboratories shall perform analysis of a reasonable number of
known samples provided by EPA to demonstrate the quality of the analytical data.
6. Use the EPA guidance to evaluate all data to be used in the (Plans)
including what is collected prior to EPA approval of the (Plan) required by
Section (Number) of this Consent Order. This evaluation shall be provided
to EPA as part of the (Plan) required by Section (Number) of this Consent
Order, and shall be updated as necessary.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PARTICIPATION
[NOTE: Public involvement in the review of Administrative
Orders on Consent is an important aspect of the corrective
action process. If, however, prompt action is required to
address an iminent threat to human health or the environ-
ment, the provision should be modified. A sample provision
outlining the public contnent process is provided below.]
-------
-11-
[1. Following proposed modification or proposed approval by EPA of
a Corrective Measure Study Final Report, EPA shall make both the RCRA
Facility Investigation Final Report and the Corrective Measure Study Final
Report and EPA's justification for selecting the proposed remedy available
to the public for review and comment for at least (number) days.
2. Following the public review and comment period, EPA shall notify
(Respondent) which alternative corrective measure is selected, if any.
If the Corrective Measure proposed and tentatively selected by EPA after
review of the Corrective Measure Study Final Report is not the corrective
measure approved by EPA after consideration of public comments, EPA shall
inform (Respondent) in writing of the reasons for such decision.]
3. Final agency action shall occur when (Respondent) is subject to
a final order directing respondent to implement the measures in the Corrective
Measure Study Final Report.
[ IX. CORRECTIVE MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION]
[ If (Respondent) has complied with the terms of this consent Order, after
selection of the corrective measure, EPA shall provide a (number) day
period for negotiation of a new administrative order on consent [or a
judicial consent decree] for implementation of the corrective measure. If
agreement is not reached during this period, EPA reserves all rights it
has to implement the corrective measure or other remedial response and to
take any other appropriate actions under RCRA, CERCLA or any other available
legal authority.]
X. REPORTING
Beginning with the month following the effective date of this order,
(Respondent) shall provide EPA with written progress reports for
each month, by the tenth day of the following month. At a minimum,
these progress reports shall: (1) describe the actions, progress, and status
of projects which have been taken toward achieving compliance with this
Consent Order; (2) describe all plans and activities completed during the
past month, as well as the actions which are scheduled for the next month.
(3) identify any requirements under this Order that were not completed as
provided and any problem areas and anticipated problems areas in complying
with this Consent Order; and (4) include the results of sampling and tests
and other data generated pursuant to the Work Plan(s).
XI. ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE ACCESS
[NOTE: Provisions requiring the respondent to give EPA
and its designated representatives access to the site and
to relevant records must be included in the Order. Such
provisions should also set forth, as deemed necessary, the
Respondent's responsibilities with respect to gaining access
to third party property. The following composite provision
incorporates most of the relevant requirements.]
-------
-12-
1. EPA and/or any EPA representative, including EPA contractors,
are authorized to enter and freely move about all property at the Facility
for the purposes of, inter alia; interviewing Facility personnel and
contractors; inspecting records, operating logs, and contracts related to
the Facility; reviewing the progress of the Respondent in carrying out the
terms of this Order; conducting such sampling and tests as EPA or its
representative deem necessary; using a camera, sound recording, or other
documentary type equipment; and verifying the reports and data submitted
to EPA by the Respondent. The Respondent shall permit such persons to
inspect and copy all records, files, photographs, documents, and other
writings, including all sampling and monitoring data, that pertain to work
undertaken pursuant to this paragraph, and shall comply with all approved
health and safety plans.
2. To the extent that work required by the Vvbrk Plan must be done on
property not owned or controlled by (Respondent), (Respondent) will use
its best efforts to obtain site access agreements from the present owner(s)
of such property within (number) days of approval of the Work Plan. Best
efforts as used in this Section shall include, at a minimum, a certified
letter from (Respondent) to the present owners of such property requesting
access agreements to permit (Respondent) and EPA and its authorized
representatives to access such property. Any such access agreement shall
be incorporated by reference into this Order. In the event that agreements
for site access are not obtained within (number) days of the effective date
of this Consent Order, (Respondent) shall notify EPA regarding both the
lack of and its failure to obtain such agreements within (number) .days
thereafter. In the event that EPA obtains access, (Respondent) shall
undertake EPA approved work on such property. Nothing in this section
limits or otherwise affects EPA's right of access and entry pursuant to
applicable law, including RCRA and CERCLA.
XII. SAMPLING AND DATA/DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
[NOTE: Site-specific sampling and analysis requirements must
be included in the Order, as well as provisions requiring
the respondent to give EPA and its designated representa-
tives access to the site and relevant records. The following
is a sample provision.]
1. (Respondent) shall make available to EPA all results of sampling,
tests, or other data generated by or on its behalf with respect to the
implementation of this Consent Order. (Respondent) shall submit these
results in the progress reports described in Section (Number) of this
Consent Order. Similarly, upon request, EPA will make available to
(Respondent) the results of sampling or tests generated pursuant to this
Order by EPA within (number) days after any such results or data pass EPA
quality assurance review.
2. (Respondent) shall notify EPA at least (number) days before
conducting any well drilling, installation of equipment, or sampling. At
the request of EPA, (respondent) shall provide or allow EPA or its authorized
representative to take split samples of all samples collected by (Respondent
-------
-13-
pursuant to this Consent Order. Similarly, at the request of (Respondent),
EPA shall allow (Respondent) or its authorized representatives to take
split or duplicate samples of all samples collected by EPA under this
Consent Order. EPA shall notify (Respondent) at least (Number) days before
conducting any sampling under this Consent Order.
3. All information and data shall be available to the public except
to the extent that it is confidential business information. Disputes over
confidentiality shall be covered by 40 CFR Part 2. Environmental
contamination data shall not be deemed confidential.
XIII. RECORD PRESERVATION
(Respondent) agrees that it shall preserve, during the pendency of
this Consent Order and for a minimum of (Number) years after its termination,
all records and documents in its possession or in the possession of its
divisions, employees, agents or consultants or contractors which relate in
any way to this Consent Order or to hazardous waste management and disposal
at the Facility. At the conclusion of (Number) years (Respondent) shall
then make such records available to EPA for inspection or EPA's retention
or shall provide copies of any such records to EPA.
(Respondent) further agrees that within 5 days of the effective date of
this Order or of retaining or employing an agent, consultant or contractor,
whichever comes first, (Respondent) will enter into an agreement, to be
confirmed in writing within 15 days, with its agents, consultants and/or
contractors whereby its agents, consultants and/or contractors will be required
to maintain and preserve during the pendency of this Order and for a minimum
of (number) years after its termination, all records and documents within
their respective possession which relate in any way to this Order or to
hazardous waste management and disposal at the facility.
XIV. PROJECT COORDINATOR
1. On or before the effective date of this Consent Order, EPA and
(Respondent) shall each designate a Project Coordinator. Each Project
Coordinator shall be responsible for overseeing the implementation of this
Consent Order. The EPA Project Coordinator will be EPA's designated
respresentative. To the maximum extent possible, all conmunications between
(Respondent) and EPAr and all documents, reports, approvals, and other
correspondence concerning the activities performed pursuant to the terms
and conditions of this Consent Order, shall be directed through the Project
Coordinators.
2. The parties agree to provide at least (Number) days written notice
prior to changing Project Coordinators.
3. The absence of the EPA Project Coordinator from the Facility shall
not be cause for the stoppage of work.
-------
-14-
XV. NOTIFICATION
Unless otherwise specified, reports, notices or other submissions
required under this Consent Order shall be in writing and shall be sent to:
[EPA Project Coordinator] [Facility Project Officer]
US EPA, Region (Number) Address
Address
[XVI. REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERSIGHT COSTS]
[Beginning fron the effective date of this Order, EPA shall submit to
the Respondent (period of time) accounting and an explanation of all
oversight costs incurred with respect to this Order during the previous
year. Within (Number) calendar days of each such accounting and explanation,
the Respondent shall remit a certified or cashiers check to the EPA for the
EPA for the amount of such costs.
Payments to EPA shall be made to the order of the Treasurer of the
United States of America, and shall be forwarded to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, [(Address) (Include appropriate post office box address)]
[XVII. DEIAY IN PERFORMANCE/STIPULATED PENALITIES
[NOTE: This provision includes both stipulated and
statutory penalties. Provisions covering stipulated
penalties may vary in dollar amounts and time frame
depending upon the circumstances. Different stipulated
penalty amounts may be set for different types of
requirements under the Order, with the amount related to
the importance of the task. Stipulated amounts may, and
usually should include escalators as the length of non-
compliance time continues. Short grace periods may be
negotiated into the provision. The following is a sample
provision.]
1. Unless excused under Paragraph (number), "Force Majeure and
Excusable Delay," for each day that some work product or task completion
called for in the Work Plan is overdue, or for which (Respondent) fails to
submit a report or document or otherwise fails to achieve the requirements
of this Consent Order, (Respondent) shall pay the sums set forth below as
stipulated penalties, except as provided in paragraph (number) of this
section. Stipulated penalties shall accrue in the following amounts:
a. For failure to commence work as prescribed in this Consent Order
and EPA approved plans and reports under this order: ($) per day
for one to seven days of delay, and ($) per day for each of delay,
or part thereof, thereafter;
-------
-15-
b. For failure to submit any preliminary and final reports, at the
time required pursuant to this Consent Order: (?) for the first one
to seven days of delay, and ($) for each day of delay thereafter;
c. For failure to submit other deliverables required by this Consent
Order: (?) for the first one to seven days, and ($) for each
seven-day delay, or part thereof, thereafter;
d. For other failure to comply with provisions of this Consent Order
after notice by EPA of noncompliance: ($) for the first one to
seven days, and ($) for each seven-day delay, or part thereof,
2. Any stipulated penalties paid pursuant to this Consent Order shall
be payable within (number) days after (Respondent's) receipt of written demand by
EPA, shall be paid by certified or cashier's check made payable to the
United States Treasury, and shall be remitted to:
Regional Waste Management Division Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region (#)
Address
A letter describing the basis for the penalties shall accompany the
check. Copies of the transmittal of payment shall be sent to the Office of
Regional Counsel, US EPA, Region (number), Address.
3. The stipulated penalties set forth in -this Section do not preclude
EPA from pursuing any other remedies or sanctions which may be available to
EPA by reason of (Respondent's) failure to comply with any of the requirements
of this Consent Order, nor shall payment of said penalties relieve (Respondent)
of the responsibility to comply with this Consent Order.
4. Should (Respondent) fail to comply with a time requirement of any
task required by this Consent Order, the period of noncompliance shall
terminate upon (Respondent's) performance of said requirement.
5. If (Respondent) disputes the basis for imposition of stipulated
penalities, the issue shall be resolved under the Dispute'Resolution
procedures of Section (number) of this Consent Order.
XVIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
1. If (Respondent) disagrees, in whole or in part, with any EPA
disapproval or other decision or directive made by EPA pursuant to this
Consent Order, (Respondent) shall notify EPA in writing of its objections
and the bases therefore with (number) calendar days of receipt of EPA's
disapproval, decision or directive. EPA and (Respondent) shall then have
an additional (number) calendar days from EPA's receipt of (Respondent's)
objections to attempt to resolve the dispute. If agreement is reached,
the resolution shall be reduced to writing, signed by representatives of
each party and incorporated into this Consent Order.
If the parties are unable to reach agreement within this (Number) day
period, EPA shall provide a written statement of its decision to
(Respondent), which shall be incorporated into this Consent Order.
-------
-16-
XIX. FORCE MAJEURE AND EXCUSABLE DELAY
[NOTE: Provisions excusing the respondent from compliance
with the performance schedule upon occurrence of events
beyond the respondent's control (force majeure) are common
and may be included in the Order to facilitate negotiations.
The following paragraph is an example of such a provision.]
1. (Respondent) shall perform the requirements under this Consent
Order within the time limits set forth or approved or established herein,
unless the performance is prevented or delayed solely by events which
constitute a force majeure. A force majeure is defined as any event arising
from causes not reasonably foreseeable and beyond the control of (Respondent)
including its consultants and contractors, which could not be overcome by
due diligence and which delays or prevents performance by a date required
by this Consent Order. Such events do not include unanticipated or increased
costs of performance, changed economic circumstances, or normal precipitation
events.
2. (Respondent) must notify EPA in writing (number) days after it
becomes aware of events which it knows or should know constitute a force
majeure. Such notice shall estimate the anticipate length of delay, including
necessary demobilization and remobilization, its cause, measures taken or
to be taken to minimize the delay, and an estimated time table for implementation
of these measures. Respondent shall adopt all reasonable measures to
avoid and minimize the delay. Failure to comply with the notice provision
of this section shall be grounds for EPA to deny (Respondent) an extension
of time for performance.
3. If (Respondent) demonstrates to EPA that the delay has been or
will be caused entirely by circumstances not reasonably foreseeable and
beyond its control including its consultants and contractors, which could
not have been overcome by due diligence, the time for performance for that
element of the Work Plan shall be extended for a period equal to the delay
resulting from such circumstances. This shall be accomplished through
written amendment to this Consent Order pursuant to Section XXVI. Such an
extension does not alter the schedule for performance or completion of
other tasks required by the Work Plan unless these are also specifically
altered by amendment of the Consent Order or underlying plan. In the event
that EPA and (Respondent) cannot agree that any delay or failure has been
or will be caused entirely by circumstances not reasonably foreseeable and
beyond the control of (Respondent), which could not have been overcome by
due diligence, or if there is no agreement on the length of the extension,
the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the Dispute Resolution
provisions of Section (number) of this Consent Order.
-------
-17-
XX. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
[NOTE: To ensure abatement of the threats posed by site
conditions, EPA's right to take action in the future or to
require the Respondent to take appropriate future action
should be preserved as much as possible. For example, the
Respondent may satisfactorily perform the actions required
of it by the Order, but those actions may prove ultimately
to be insufficient to remedy the problem. To address such
instances, the Agency must reserve its right to reinstitute
legal action. The following is a sample provision.]
1. EPA expressly.reserves all rights and defenses that it may have,
including the right both to disapprove of work performed by (Respondent)
and to request that (Respondent) perform tasks in addition to thse stated
in the Work Plan.
2. Compliance by (Respondent) with the terms of this Consent Order
shall not relieve (Respondent) of its obligations to comply with RCRA or
any other applicable State or federal law.
3. EPA reserves the right to take any enforcement action pursuant to
CERCLA, RCRA, or any other available legal authority, including without
limitation, the right to seek injunctive relief, including actions to
compel implementation of corrective measures to compel compliance with
this Order, for cost recovery, for monetary penalties, and for punitive
damages.
4. EPA serves the right to perform any portion of the work consented
to herein or any additional site characterization, feasibility study, and
response/corrective actions as it deems necesary to protect public health
or welfare or the environment. Absent an immediate hazard, EPA will not
perform work consented to herein if respondent is performing said work in a
timely and satisfactory manner. [EPA may exercise its authority under
CERCLA to undertake removal actions or remedial actions at any time.] In
any event, EPA reserves it right to seek reimbursement from (Respondent)
for such additional costs incurred by the United States. Notwithstanding
compliance with the terms of this Consent Order, (Respondent) is not released
from liability, if any, for the costs of any response actions taken by EPA.
XXI. OTHER CLAIMS AND PARTIES
Nothing in this Consent Order shall constitute or be construed as a
release from any claim, cause of action or demand in law or equity against
any person, firm, partnership, or corporation not a signatory to this
Consent Order for any liability it may have arising out of or relating in
any way to the generation, storage, treatment, handling, transportation,
release, or disposal of any hazardous constituents, hazardous substances,
hazardous wastes, pollutants, or contaminants found at, taken to, or taken
from the Facility.
-------
-18-
XXII. OTHER APPLICABLE IAWS
All actions required to be taken pursuant to this Consent Order shall
be undertaken in accordance with the substantive requirements of all
applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
XXIII. INDEMNIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
(Respondent) agrees to indemify and save and hold harmless the United
States Government, its agencies, departments, agents, and employees, from
any and all claims or causes of action arising from or on account of acts
or omissions of (respondent) or its agents, independent contractors,
receivers, trustees, and assigns in carrying out activities required by
this Consent Order. This indemnification shall not be construed in any
way as affecting or limiting the rights or obligations of (Respondent)
or the United States under their various contracts.
[XXIV. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE]
[NOTE: To ensure that required corrective actions are
successfully completed by the respondent, EPA may require
the establishment of some form of financial assurance. If
the respondent proves unable or unwilling to undertake the
actions prescribed in the Order, the Agency will then have
access to funds with which to undertake the required action.
The financial assurance may take one or more of several
forms depending on a number of factors, including the
reliability and the financial security of the respondent.
These forms of financial assurance may include a performance
or surety bond, liability insurance, an escrow performance
guarantee account, or a trust fund.]
XXV. SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION
1. This Consent Order may be amended by mutual agreement of EPA and
(Respondent) Such amendments shall be in writing, shall have as their
effective date the date on which they are signed by both parties, and
shall be incorporated into this Consent Order.
2. Any reports, plans, specifications, schedules, and attachments.
required by this Consent Order are, upon approval by EPA, incorporated into
this Consent Order. Any non-compliance with such EPA-approved reports,
plans, specifications, schedules, and attachments shall be considered a
failure to achieve the requirements of this Consent Order and shall subject
(Respondent) to the penalty provisions included in Section (number) of
this Consent Order and other sanctions.
-------
-19-
3. No informal advice, guidance, suggestions, or comments by EPA
regarding reports, plans, specifications, schedules, and any other writing
submitted to (Respondent) will be construed as relieving (Respondent) of
its obligation to obtain written approval, if and when reguired ty this
Consent Order.
XXVI. TERMINATION AND SATISFACTION
The provisions of this Consent Order shall be deemed satisfied upon
(Respondent's) receipt of written notice from EPA that (Respondent) has
demonstrated, to the satisfaction of EPA, that the terxs of this Consent
Order, including any additional tasks which, subject to the limitations
set forth herein, (Respondent) has agreed to undertake, have been
satisfactorily completed. EPA shall issue such notice after receipt of
notice by (Respondent) that it has completed the requirements of the
Consent Order.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
NOV -4 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:. Draft Guidance on the \Jse of Stipulated Penalties in
Hazardous Waste Consent Decreles
FROM: John S. Winder, Jr.
Assistant Enforcement Cbansei1
TO: Addressees
, oVcM-Waste
I have attached for your review and comment Draft Guidance
on the Use of Stipulated Penalties in Hazardous Waste Consent
Decrees. This document is designed to assist in the drafting
of stipulated penalties provisions in EPA consent decrees for
RCRA and CERCLA cases and to ensure the en: :>rceability o.f those
provisions. The comments which were submic-.ed previously by the
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OPWE; and the Department
of Justice have been incorporated herein.
Please address your comments to Carolyn Tillman of my
staff, Mail Code LE-134S, Room 3219L, FTS 475-8205, by Monday,
November 24, 1986. After your comments have been incorporated,
we will circulate a final draft for review.
Attachment
cc: Edward E. Reich, Associate Enforcement Counsel for waste
Addressees;
Gene A. Lucero, Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
John Cross, Chief, Guidance and Oversight Branch, Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement
David T. Buente, Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,
U.S. Department of Justice
Nancy Firestone, Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,
U.S. Department of Justice
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Office of Regional Counsel,
Regions I-X
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Guidance on the Use of Stipulated Penalties
in Hazardous Waste Consent Decrees
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Appropriate Use of Stipulated
Penalties
1. In general 3
2. When Penalties May/May Not Accrue 5
a. Force Majeure Event 5
b. Grace Period 6
c. Dispute Resolution Period 6
d. Period of Correction by
Defendant 7
e. Missed Interim Deadlines 8
R. Appropriate Amount of Stipulated
Penalties
1. In general 8
2. Fixed Amount vs. Sliding Scale 10
3. Per Diem Increases in Size of
Penalty 10
4. Sharing Penalties with the State 11
C. Collection of Stipulated Penalties
1. In general 11
2. Contempt Actions and Use of
Other Remedies 12
3. Limitations Period for Demanding
Penalties 13
4. Procedure for Collecting Penalties 14
5. To Whom Penalties Are Payable 14
D. Sample Stipulated Penalties Provisions 15
Attachments 1 and 2
-------
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on the Use of Stipulated Penalties in Hazardous
Waste Consent Decrees
FROM: Thomas L. Adams, Jr.
Assistant Administrator
TO: Offices of Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
INTRODUCTION
This document provides guidance on the use of stipulated
penalties in hazardous waste consent decrees. J_/ Stipulated
penalties are .fixed sums of money that -a defendant agrees to
pay for violating the terms of a decree. Since these monies
are totally forfeited if a violation occurs, such penalties
can be 'an effective enforcement tool for compelling compliance
with a consent decree and minimizing future violations of and
disputes over the terms of the decree.
This document supplements existing guidances and incor-
porates more recent experiences in negotiating consent decrees.
The primary sources of the information contained herein are
the "Guidance for Drafting Judicial Consent Decrees" (Court-
ney M. Price, October 19, 1983), "Drafting Consent Decrees
in Hazardous Waste Imminent Hazard Cases" (Courtney M. Price,
V This guidance does not apply to Administrative Orders on
~~ Consent since the relevant statutes currently provide high
per diem penalties for violations of Administrative Orders.
-------
- 2 -
Jack W. McGraw, May 1, 1985), "Division of Penalties with State
and Local Governments" (Courtney M. Price, October 30, 1985),
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),
and each of the EPA hazardous waste consent decrees filed to
date. Based on the review of those guidance documents and a
review and evaluation of each consent decree, this document has
been prepared to assist in drafting the stipulated penalties
section of future EPA hazardous waste consent decrees.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Since stipulated penalties can be effective in assuring
timely coinpliance with the terms of a consent decree, it is
important that this section of the decree be carefully drafted
to protect the Agency's enforcement interests.. To understand
how stipulated penalties provisions have been drafted in the
past, the consent decrees noted above were reviewed to evaluate
their stipulated penalties provisions. Of the 58 hazardous
waste consent decrees negotiated to date, 39 contained a sec-
tion on stipulated penalties. -The remaining 19 decrees can
be characterized generally as agreements in which the defendant
would pay civil penalties or response costs, and/or would
conduct only limited remedial activities. The 39 decrees with
stipulated penalties (see Attachment 1) required remedial
work of a more long-term nature. The chart in Attachment 2
summarizes the stipulated penalties section of those decrees.
-------
- 3 -
As the chart indicates, there is much variation in the
content of the stipulated penalties section of these decrees.
Some of the stipulated penalties provisions are fairly compre-
hensive, addressing a wide range of concerns, while others
give little information beyond the amount of the penalty to
be assessed. Since the stipulated penalties section should be
clearly drafted to ensure ease of enforcement, the following
guidelines should be used in drafting this section of the
decree. While these recommendations should be followed in most
cases, it is recognized that individual cases may vary, and
one's bargaining position may ultimately dictate the character
of such provisions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Appropriate Use of Stipulated Penalties
1. In General
As a general rule, all types of consent decrees should
include stipulated penalties if the decrees contain prospective
obligations for the defendant. Consent decrees entered under
SARA, however, are required to contain stipulated penalties.
Section 121(e)(2) of SARA provides that:
...Each consent decree shall also contain stipulated
penalties for violations of the decree in an amount
not to exceed $25,000 per day, which may be enforced
by either the President or the State. Such stipulated
penalties shall not be construed to impair or affect
the authority of the court to order compliance with
the specific terms of any such decree. (Emphasis added).
-------
Section 122(1) of SARA also p
violations of administrative orders and consent decrees:
(1) CIVIL PENALTIES - A potentially responsible
party which is a party to an administrative order
or consent decree entered pursuant to an agreement
under this section or section 120 (relating to
Federal facilities) or which is a party to an
agreement under section 120 and which fails or
refuses to comply with any term or condition
or the order, decree or other agreement shall be
subject to a civil penalty in accordance with .
section 109.
In the context of a CERCLA consent decree with mandated stipulated
penalties, both the stipulated penalties contained in the Consent
Decree and the Section 122(1) penalties may be assessed for
violation of the terms of a Consent Decree. In those instances
where the stipulated penalty amounts contained in the consent
decree are sufficiently high to effectively deter non-compliance
with the Consent Decree V, however, it may be appropriate to
waive 122(1) penalties. **/
V See discussion § C.2., pp. 12-13, infra.
**/ It should be noted that the stipulated penalties language
in Section 121 on its face applies only to CERCLA consent
decrees. However, the analysis regarding waiver of Section 122(1)
penalties also applies to CERCLA administrative orders that
contain stipulated penalties. If a CERCLA administrative order
does not contain stipulated penalties, Section 122(1) civil
penalties will apply by operation of law.
-------
- 4 -
Even consent decrees which primarily involve a "cash out"
(i.e., where the defendant pays a fixed sum of money to absolve
himself of his remedial obligations) may warrant the inclusion
of stipulated penalties. For example, if a1 defendant agrees to
pay his cash out share in installments, stipulated penalties
should be used to penalize late payments. If a case arises in
which the defendant must perform certain tasks in addition to
cashing out (such as providing site access or security), stipu-
lated penalties should be imposed to ensure that the defendant
performs.
Stipulated penalties are applicable to noncompliance with
a decree as a whole, or noncompliance with only specified
requirements. Most commonly they are applicable to delays in
performance; whether it is performance of any requirement of
the decree, or only specified performances. The types of vio-
olations for which stipulated penalties apply will necessarily
depend on the value the negotiator places on the activity to
be performed.
Stipulated penalties are also applicable where the defen-
dant makes a poor quality attempt at performance. If a consent
decree requires" the performance of a task and the Agency deter-
mines that the defendant's performance is inadequate, stipulated
penalties may be assessed for failure to perform. It is recom-
mended that Agency standards be used where applicable. In any
event, the Agency should reserve the right to determine whether
-------
- 5 -
the quality of the defendant's performance constitutes "compli-
ance" with the standard; whether it is an Agency standard or
some other standard agreed to by the parties during the nego-
tiation process (such as "generally accepted engineering prac-
tices"). Furthermore, the burden of proof on such issues
should rest with defendant.
2. When Penalties May/May Not Accrue
Usually stipulated penalties begin to accrue on the date
in which complete performance of a particular task is due.
The accrual of such penalties may be stayed, however, during
designated periods or by the occurrence of certain events.
The various reasons for not assessing stipulated penalties are
noted below.
a. Force Majeure Event
One of the most common reasons for the nonaccrual of stip-
ulated penalties is the occurrence of a force majeure event. A
force majeure event is one which is beyond the control of the
defendant (such as an act of God or an act of war).£/ Since
penalties generally do not accrue during this period, the
definition of a force majeure event should be narrowly drawn
and the burden placed on the defendant to show that a force
£/ Twenty-one of the 39 consent decrees surveyed specifically
stated that stipulated penalties would not accrue during the
period of noncompliance caused by a force raajeure event.
-------
- 6 -
majeure event has occurred.2/
b. Grace Period
Many decrees provide for a fixed period immediately fol-
lowing notification of a violation in which the defendant has
the opportunity to explain his noncompliance and/or correct it,
and during which stipulated penalties will not accrue. The
length of the grace periods noted to date have ranged from 3 to
30 days. It may be acceptable to include a limited grace
period in the stipulated penalties provision to allow time for
the correction of violations due to a force majeure event.
However, the length of the grace period should be proportioned
to fit the length of time reasonably calculated to correct the
violation. In most cases, 7 days would be an acceptable grace
period.
c. Dispute Resolution Period V
Usually the obligation to perform a disputed activity is
stayed when the defendant files a petition with the Court to
£/ Some decrees may reference the staying of stipulated penal-
ties due to a force majeure event in the "Force Majeure" sec-
tion of the-decree. However, it is recommended that the staying
of penalties be addressed in the stipulated penalties section
of the decree.
V Some decrees may reference the staying of stipulated penal-
ties in the "Dispute Resolution" section. As noted in foot-
note 3 above, it is recommended that the staying of stipulated
penalties during the dispute resolution period be addressed in
the stipulated penalties section of the decree.
-------
- 7 -
dispute a charge or resolve some disagreement. This often
stays the assessment and payment of stipulated penalties at
that point as well. Although this practice is discouraged, in
the event of a stay, it should be clearly indicated that if the
defendant loses the dispute, all penalties which accrued during
the period of dispute resolution will be due.
If the dispute involves the selection of a remedy follow-
ing the performance of an RI/FS by the defendants for a CERCLA
cleanup action, a significant amount of time is often needed to
settle such disputes. For those instances, the stipulated
penalties section may be drafted in a manner that allows the
Agency to waive the penalties accrued during th.e pendency of
the dispute.
d. Period of Correction by Defendant
A typical stipulated penalties provision might indicate
that "penalties will accrue until the violation is corrected
by the defendant." Sometimes it is uncertain, however, whether
such a statement means that penalties will cease to accrue on
the day the defendant begins to correct the violation, or
whether they continue to accrue through the last day of correc-
tion. Indeed, one of the decrees surveyed specifically provided
that penalties cease to accrue upon initial demonstration by
the defendant of compliance with the applicable requirements of
the Decree.
-------
- 8 -
It is preferable that stipulated penalties accrue through
the final day of correction in order to foster the Agency's
interest in timely compliance. It is necessary, therefore,
to explicitly state this in the decree.
e. Missed Interim Deadlines
Three of the decrees surveyed provided that penalties for
interim deadline violations would not be sought if the defendant
met the final completion date. Since in many instances the
final deadline is the most important, it may not be unreasonable
to stay the penalties for violations of interim milestones.
It should be clear to the defendant, however, that if the final
deadline is missed, the penalties for interim deadline violations
will be sought in addition to those which would accrue after
the final deadline. The "Guidance for Drafting Judicial Consent
Decrees," at 24, notes that interim deadline penalties can be
collected up front and placed into an escrow account. This prac-
tice should be followed to encourage prompt compliance. The
escrow agent should be authorized to turn account monies over
to the Agency in the event that the final completion date is
missed.
B. Appropriate Amount of Stipulated Penalties
1 . In general
Since stipulated penalties are intended to assure compli-
ance, they should necessarily be large enough to provide economic
-------
- 9 -
incentives, to the defendant to comply with the terms of the
consent decree. The consent decrees surveyed contained stipu-
lated penalties ranging from as low as $100 per day to as high
as 35,000 per day. It was evident from the survey that no
conclusions could be drawn regarding the specific amount which
applied to specific types of violations. Nonetheless, in
setting the amount, one should generally take into consid-
eration the gravity of the violation, the financial condition
of the defendant, the economic savings from noncompliance, the
degree of harm or danger to the public or environment, the
reliability of the defendant based on previous cooperation or
experience, the potential for future or continuing violations,
and the probable effectiveness of a particular size penalty.
See, e.g., SARA § 109(a)(3).
As noted on page 3, supra, SARA provides for stipulated
penalties as large as $25,000 per day. In addition, Section
122(1) provides that civil penalties may be assessed in accor-
dance with Section 109 for failure to comply with a consent
decree. Based on those two sections of the reauthorized Act,
it is clear that Congress favors a strong penalty policy in
this area. In particular, it is critical that the Agency set
the penalty high enough to discourage nonconpliance (i.e., refu-
sal to do the work) based on purely economic considerations.
-------
-10-
2. Fixed Amount vs. Sliding Scale
Each stipulated penalties provision should state a fixed
amount per day to be imposed. This "sum certain" puts the
defendant on notice of the potential extent of his obligation
before a violation occurs.£/ Although a sliding scale approach
(i.e. "defendant shall pay u£ t£ $5000/day") was used in 9 of
the consent decrees surveyed, this approach should be avoided
since it makes the penalty subject to negotiation. That in
turn destroys the economy of using stipulated penalties since
the parties must then negotiate the ultimate amount.
3. Per Diem Increases in Size of Penalty
Although the sliding scale approach should not be utilized,
a decree can provide that .the per diem amount of the penalty
will increase with each incremental increase in the period of
noncompliance. For example, a fixed penalty of $5,000 per day
might increase to $10,000 per day after the 15th day of noncom-
pliance, and $15,000 per day after the 30th day. Fourteen of the
consent decrees surveyed provided for such escalating penalties.
Presumably escalating penalties will give the defendant added
incentive to come into compliance, and it is recommended that
they be used whenever possible.
£/ To the extent that EPA reserves its rights to seek penal-
ties under SARA § 109 or civil contempt orders, however,
the "sum certain" argument is really only an indication of
the minimum amount for which a consent decree violator may
be liable.
-------
-11-
4. Sharing Penalties with the State
Statutory penalties may be shared with a State if the
State has actively participated in the litigation, actively
sought such penalties, and State law provides independent
authority for the State to obtain civil penalties:
The penalties should be divided in a proposed
consent decree based on the level of partici-
pation and the penalty assessment authority of
the state or locality. The division should
reflect a fair apportionment based on the tech-
nical and legal contributions of the participants,
within the limits of each participant's statutory
entitlement to penalties.
"Division.of Penalties with State and Local Governments" (Court-
ney M. Price, October, 30, 1985) at 3. Similarly, stipulated
penalties may be shared with a State,£/ although the criteria
for statutory penalties set out above should be used only as a
guide in determining how to share stipulated penalties with a
State. Since stipulated penalties are negotiated, the Agency
should have greater flexibility in sharing them with a State.
C. Collection of Stipulated Penalties
1. In general
Since Agency policy encourages aggressive post-settlement
enforcement, it is essential to the integrity of the enforce-
ment program that stipulated penalties be collected whenever
£/ Section 121 of SARA appears to support this position since
it gives the State the authority to enforce the stipulated
penalties section. See discussion at page 3, supra.
-------
-12-
noncompliance occurs.^/ Subject to paragraph "2" below, every
effort shall be made to collect stipulated penalties both to
deter future noncorapliance by defendants and to maintain the
Agency's enforcement credibility. The Agency thus will not
hesitate to initiate a judicial action to enforce the stipu-
lated penalties provision of consent decrees.
2. Contempt Actions and Use of Other Remedies
If the defendant disagrees with the determination that
a violation has occurred, the Agency's right to collect stipu-
lated penalties is usually determined by the dispute resolution
process. If the defendant loses in dispute resolution but
refuses to pay, the Agency may collect stipulated penalties by
filing a contempt" action. See, 'United States v. City of Miami,
664 F.2d 435, 439 (5th Cir. 1981). Despite this remedy, a
contempt suit to collect stipulated penalties is not the
sole remedy for violations of a decree. There may be times
when the Agency will prefer other or additional remedies, such
as use of the court's equitable powers or its own right to
~I_J The need for improved post-settlement enforcement was
recognized recently in a study by the United States General
Accounting Office (GAO) on governmental oversight of cleanup
efforts by responsible parties. That study indicates that in
many of the settled cases examined pursuant thereto, provisions
for the assessment of high penalties for noncorapliance are not
being enforced by the Agency. (See "Hazardous Waste—Responsible
Party Clean Up Efforts Require Improved Oversight" (GAO, May
1986, pp. 29-30).)
-------
-13-
collect higher penalties under applicable statutes. See, e.g. ,
SARA § 109, RCRA § 3008. Thus, to preserve the Agency's rights
each section on stipulated penalties should state that these
penalties are "in addition to, and not in lieu of" the Agency's
right to other sanctions for violations of the decree.^/
3. Limitations Period for Demanding Payments
One of the decrees surveyed contained a limitations per-
iod for demanding the payment of stipulated penalties. The
decree stated that if the plaintiff neither made written demand
for stipulated penalties nor gave written notice of the intent
to make such a demand within 120 days of the date it discovered
or should have discovered the noncompliance, then the plaintiff
would be deemed to have waived any claim for penalties based
upon that noncompliance. The burden of proving a waiver was
placed upon the defendant.
Hazardous waste consent decrees should not contain a
limitations period for demanding stipulated penalties. The
Agency should have the right to demand stipulated penalties for
any.noncompliance discovered at any time during the term of the
decree. The burden of proving a waiver will be placed upon the
defendant in any event, and the Agency should not have to
defend its actions every time the defendant believes that a
demand has been untimely made.
_' See, however, the discussion regarding SARA § 122(1)
penalties at page 3A, supra.
-------
-14-
4. Procedure for Collecting Penalties
A consent decree should not require that the Court be
petitioned in order to collect penalties. Although many of
the decrees provided that penalties were payable upon written
demand, others required that the plaintiff first petition the
Court for relief. This latter requirement is4unnecessary and
unduly burdensome.
Forfeiture is the best method of collecting penalties, and
should be provided for in the decree. Under this procedure,
upon notice of a violation the defendant will have a stated
number of days to pay the penalty, petition the Court for a
force majeure determination, or to move the issue into dipute
resolution.
Each decree should also state that the invocation of the
dispute resolution procedure by the defendant must be done "in
good faith," and that the Agency will seek additional remedies
if frivolous attempts to challenge penalty assessments occur.
Moreover, the decree should state that the defendant bears the
burden of establishing good faith.
5. To Whom Penalties Are Payable
The stipulated penalties section should indicate to whom
monies are payable. This is particularly important for actions
brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) , 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et_
seq. (as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
-------
1 S-
Act of 1986), since the "Superfund" is partially replenished
by monies paid under that statute. Although monies owed to
the general Treasury are paid to the "Treasurer of the United
States," it is recommended that stipulated penalties collected
pursuant to CERCLA violations be made payable to the Superfund.£/
All penalties should be paid by certified check, contain the
complete and correct address of the defendant, and reference
the case name and civil action number.
D. Sample Stipulated Penalties Provisions
The following stipulated penalties provisions are offered
as a guide in drafting this section of the decree:
. STIPULATED PENALTIES
1. .Defendant shall pay stipulated penalties to the United
States [and/or the State of ]£/ for failure to comply with
[Paragraphs of] this Consent Decree. Compliance by Defen-
dant shall include complete adherence to [EPA standards of work
quality or the standards mutually agreed upon during negotia-
£/ This recommendation is supported by the guidance memorandum
on "Remittance of Fines and Civil Penalties" (Courtney M.
Price, April 15, 1985) which indicates that "all EPA Superfund
billings" should go into a lockbox bank specifically designated
for Superfund monies. In addition, since Section 107(c)(3) of
CERCLA directs that punitive damages go into the Superfund, it
is arguable that CERCLA stipulated penalties should be deposited
there as well.
The address for the CERCLA lockbox is:
EPA - Superfund
P.O. Box 371003M
Pittsburg, PA 15251
£_/ Bracketed provisions are optional.
-------
-16-
1Oons] and Co the specified time schedules and implementation
schedules submitted by Defendant and approved by Plaintiff and
this Court under this Decree. [If Defendant fails to meet
interim deadlines, but meets the final completion date for the
work to be performed herein, the penalties for missed interim
deadlines may be excused. However, such penalties will be
collected at the time of violation, pursuant to the procedures
outlined in this section, and placed into an escrow account
established by Defendant. The escrow agreement shall direct
the escrow agent to deliver stipulated penalties to Plaintiff
upon written statement by Plaintiff that the final completion
date for all work has not been met],
2. Upon Plaintiff's determination that Defendant has
failed to comply with the requirements of this Decree, Plain-
tiff shall give Defendant written notification of the same and
describe the noncompliance. [The notification shall require
Defendant to explain and correct the noncompliance within 7
days of receipt, or pay stipulated penalties]. Said notice
shall also indicate the amount of penalties due.
3. [If the noncorapliance is not corrected within 7 days],
all penalties owed to the United States [or State] under this
section sha-ll be payble upon demand by EPA [or the appropriate
State Agency] within 30 days of receipt of the notification of
noncompliance. Such penalties shall be paid by certified check
to the Treasurer of the United States [or Treasurer of the
State, or the EPA Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund] and
mailed to [the appropriate Federal or State postal address].
4. All penalties begin to accrue on the day that complete
performance is due, and continue to accrue through the final day
of correction of the noncompliance.
5. Neither the filing of a petition to resolve a dispute
nor the payment of penalties shall alter in any way Defendant's
ultimate obligation to complete the performance required here-
under.
6. Defendant may dispute Plaintiff's right to the stated
amount of penalties by filing a petition with the Court in accord
with Section (the "Dispute Resolution" section) herein,
within 30 days of receipt of the notification of noncompliance.
[Penalties shall accrue but will not be demanded during this
period. If Defendant loses upon resolution, however, Plaintiff
has the right to collect all penalties which accrued prior to
and during the period of dispute.] Defendant bears the burden
of proving that any dispute brought under this subsection is a
-------
-17-
good faith dispute. If it is found that Defendant has not in-
voked the dispute resolution provisions in good faith, Plaintiff
reserves the right to seek additional or other sanctions against
Defendant.
7. [No penalties shall accrue for days [grace period]
for violations of this Decree caused by events beyond the
control of Defendant as identified in Section herein ("Force
Majeure" section)]. Defendant has the burden of proving force
majeure or compliance with this Decree.
8. If Defendant refuses to pay stipulated penalties,
Plaintiff may institute contempt proceedings in the U.S. Dis-
trict Court for relief. However, nothing in this section
shall be construed as prohibiting, altering, or in any way
limiting the ability of Plaintiff to seek any other remedies
or sanctions available by virtue of Defendant's violation of
this Decree or of the statutes and regulations upon which it
is based.
9. The following stipulated penalties shall be payable per
violation per day to the United States [and/or State] for any
noncorapliance identified in subparagraph 1 above:
Amount/Day Period of Noncompliance
$10,000 1st thru 14th day
$15,000 15th thru 30th day
$25,000 31st day and beyond
10. No payments made under this section shall be tax deduc-
tible.
11. This section shall remain in full force and effect for
the term of this Decree.
-------
Attachment: 1
Hazardous Waste Consent Decrees Containing Stipulated Penalties
1. A& F Materials, Inc. (C.A. No. 83-3123)
2. Aerojet-General Corp. & Cordova Chen. Co. (1986)
3. Automated Ind. Disposal and Salvage Co., Inc. & Lipton
Investment Service Co. (1980)
4. BASF Wyandotte Corp. & Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc. (C.A.
80-73699) . .
5. Berlin Farro Liquid Incineration, Inc. (1984)
6. Broderick Development Corp. (May 21, 1986)
7. Chemcentral/Detroit Corp. (C.A. No. 80-73730)
8. Chemical Recovery Systems, Inc. (No. C80-1858)
9. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., Oakbrook, 111. (Docket
Nos. TSCA-V-C-307, RCRA V-W-85R-019)
10. Denver, City and County of (84-JM-1507) .
11. Diamond Shamrock Corp. (Docket No. V-W-3013-2, July 14,
1983)
12. Dusek, Franklin J., et: al. (C.A. No. CAB-80-110)
13. Energy Systems Co. (ENSCO), 1981
14. Environmental Conservation and Chemical Corp. et al.
(C.A. No. IP831419C)
15. Environmental Waste Removal, Inc. (C.A. No. 82-291)
16. Fike Chemicals, Inc. (C.A. No. 80-2497)
17. Gulf Coast Lead Co., (C.A. No. 80-1127, CIV-T-K)
18. Hillsborough, County of (Case No. 80-1128)
19. Lloyd L. Hodges, et al. (C.A. No. H-80-472)
20. Homestake Mining Co. (1983)
21. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., et al. (C.A. No. 79-988)
-------
- 2 -
22. Ilco, Inc., et al. (C.A. No. CV85-H-823-5)
23. Melvyn Ingalls, et al. (C.A. No. 85-0282-GT (IEG))
24. Inmont Corp., et al. (1985)
25. Kin-Buc, Inc., et al. (C.A. No. 79.514)
26. Lancaster Metals Science Corp.
27. Alvin F. Laskin & Poplar Oil Co. (C.A. No.
C79-7594)
28. Steve Martell, et al. (No. H-80473)
29. Metate Asbestos Corp., et al. (No. CIV-83-309)
30. Midwest Solvents Recovery, Inc., et al. (C.A. No. H-79-566)
31. Occidental Petroleum Corp., et al. (No. CIV S-79-989
MLS)
32. Petro-Processors of La. (C.A. No. 80-358-B)
33. Reilly Tar (1986)
34. Seymour Recycling Corp., et al. (C.A. No. IP-80-457-C)
35. Solvents Recovery Service of New England, Inc. (CA No.
H-79-704 JAC)
36. Spectron, Inc. & Paul J. Mraz (C.A. File No. HM-80-1552)
37. Vertac Chemical Corp., et al. (No. Cr-C-80-110)
38. W. R. Grace Co. (C.A. No. 80-748-C)
39. Western Processing Co., Inc., e_t al. (No. C83-252M)
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
STIPULATED PENALTIES PROVISIONS IN HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSENT DECREES
(in alphabetical order)
Decree Amt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
Reason for no accrual
of stip. penalties
Other Reme-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
A&F Ma- $1000
terials
$1000
Aeroj et
(7-day
grace
period)
(14-day
grace
period)
$2!>00
for days
8-30;
$5000
there-
after
$1,000
for days
15-45;
$2500
there-
after
Yes Failure to meet sched.
for phazes I and III as
per Attacliment; failure
to notify OSC
Failure to meet monitoring
reqmts of Phase IV of
Attachment
Yes Failure to comply with
time reqmts of section
on Protection of Drink-
Water Sources
Failure to comply with
time reqmts for submission
of RI/FS workplan/re-
port and design report;
initiation of selected or
differing remedy; notify-
ing Ps of changes to exist-
ing and currently planned
facilities; submission of
reports and monitoring
plans for existing and
currently planned facili-
ties; Order to Ct regard-
ing this Decree; notif.
of intent to grant land
Yes
No stip. pen. accrue it
pert, is timely and in
accord w/generally ac-
cepted scientific prac-
tices; If P neither
makes written demand for
pen. nor gives notice of
intent to make such demand
w/in 120 days of date P
discovers or should have
discovered noncompl., P
deaned to have waived
claim for pen. for that
noncompl.
Yes
D has burden of
proving P waived
claim for pen.; dis-
putes subject to
disp. resol. proc.;
pen. payable to
EPA Haz. Subst.
Resp. Trust Fund
-------
Decree Amc/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-2-
Reasbn tor no accrual
of stip. penalties
Other Reme-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
Auto- $100
Ind.
Failure to comply w/prov.
of Decree
BASF $500 Yes
for days
1-30;
$1000
there-
after
Berlin $1000 Yes
Farro
Brod- $500
ertck
(3-day $750
grace
period)
$750
Failure to comply w/sched.
tor awarding contracts,
completing final grading,
seeding and mulching shal-
low-rooted vegetation, com-
mencing and monitoring sara-
ling progran, and final
certif. that all work is
completed
Each day on which D fails
to complete properly the
pert', of work in Attach-
ment
Failure to submit monthly
progress report
Failure to submit review
and documentation of phase
I activities per sched.
Failure to submit quality
assurance/control sampling
and laboratory analysis
plans per sched.
Force majeure; modifi-
cation by Court; notifi-
cation of nature, cause
and antic, length of de-
lay
Yes
Force majeure, exclud-
ing increased costs;
missed interim comple-
tion dates if final
date met; timely writ-
ten notif. of delays
to OSC, SK, and Trus-
Trustee
Force majeure; modifica-
tion by Ct
No
Yes
Pen. payable upon
demand by EPA; U.S.
may take into acc't
magn. and dur. oL
viol., and any
mitig. lactors
Pay upon demand co
U.S. Trsr and Acty
Gen. of State
Disputes to be sub-
mitted to Ct tor
resol.; D has bur-
den ot proving
torce majeure
Pay to KPA Haz.
Subst. Kesp. Trust
Flind; disputes sub-
ject to disp. re.sol.
proc.; pen. payable
w/in 30 days ot
ten denand by P; P
has non-Ct-review-
able option to de-
mand pen.
-------
Decree Amt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-3-
Reason for no accrual
of stip. penalties
Other Rane-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
Brod- $750
erick
(cont.)
$1uOO
$1000
Chen- Up to
central $500
for days
1-30;
$1000
there-
after
Yes
Chem.
Recov.
Sys.
Not to
exceed
$1500
CWM,
Oak-
hrook,
111.
$5uOO for
1 -time
viol.; or
$5000/wk
for cont.
Failure to implement EPA-
approved sampling and qual-
ity assurance plan per.
sched.
Failure to begin field stud-
ies or lab analysis per
sched.
Failure to submit phase 2
or 3 reports per sched.
Noncompl. with any sched.
set forth in plans approved
under this Consent Jgmt
Timely notif. of EPA and
State of cause, nature
and antic, length of
delay
Yes
Failure to comply w/prov.
of Decree
Failure to comply w/lls
H and I (implem. of ini-
tial and continuing
groundwater programs;
closure of ponds)
No, except
spec. pert.
or inj. re-
lief for im-
minent arid
D has burden ot
proving EPA or btate
abused discretion
in assessing pen.;
pen. payable w/in 30
days upon daiiand by
EPA or State
Pen. payable upon
demand by EPA and
upon appropriate
Motion and Order
ot Ct; i.n exercis-
ing discretion to
have Ct impose pen. ,
EPA shal I. take into
acc't magn. and due.
ot viol., and any
other mitig. tactors
EPA must notify D
in writing ot rion-
compl.
-------
Decree Amt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-4-
Reason for no accrual
of stip. penalties
Other Kane-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
CWM,
Oak-
brook ,
111.
(cont.)
(15-day
grace
period)
viol, (not
to exceed
$5000 for
1st month)
of cont.
viol.)
$500
$100
subst. en-
dangennent
Denver, $3000
City &
Co. of
(total
pen.
not to
exceed
$5000
per day)
(7-day
grace
period)
Diam.
Sham-
rock
$1000
$500
Up to
$500
Failure to implement emer-
gency procedures
Failure to submit
PCB status report
Failure to comply w/pro-
hibition against pumping
groundwater
Failure to comply w/sched-
ules for groundwater treat-
ment plan
Failure to comply w/report-
ing and notice reqmts, and
reqmts to pay money
Delays in timely achieve-
ment of reqmts of this Or-
der to give certain notices,
submit RAP, implan. plan,
interim and final reports,
and copies of log sheets
D moves Ct for hearing
to prove compl. or
force majeure; D files
petition w/in 7 days of
receipt of demand for
payment
Yes
Timely notif. ot EPA and
State describing nature,
cause, and anti. length
of delay; matters for
which D is only secon-
darily liable; force
majeure (excluding in-
creased costs)
Yes
Pay to EPA Haz.
Subs t. Kesp. Trus I.
Fund; iiab. tor pen.
accrues thru tenni-
pen. payable w/30
days ot receipt ot
written demand, un-
less D moves Ct tor
hearing (pen. then
due w/30 days ot
jud. resoi.)
Disputes to be re-
solved via disp.
resol. proc.; pen.
payable upon dtsnand
to U.S. Trsr
-------
Decree Amt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-5-
Reason tor no accrual
of stip. penalties
Other Reme-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
Dusek
$100
for days
1-30;
$300 for
days 31-
60; $500
there-
after
ENSCO
(14-day
grace
period)
$1 ,000
for days
15-60;
$2000
thereaf-
ter
Envir.
Cons.
&
Chem.
Envir.
Waste
Removal
$1000
$200
for days
1-30;
$350
for days
31-45;
$500
for days
46-60;
$1000
there-
after
Failure to complete actions
req'd by Decree w/in times
specified
Yes
Late completion of'each of
major subparts of Action
Plan
Failure to complete pro-
perly perf. of work in ac-
cord w/sched. in Attach-
ment (incl. removal and
disposal off-site of
wastes and debris de-
tailed in Attachment)
Each day that D fails to
meet reqmts of 11s 3 and
4 or payment sched. in
II 9 (i.e., ranoval of en-
tire outdoor waste pile
at site, and transporta-
tion and disposal ot same)
Payment ot stip.
pen. shall not
excuse pert.
Missed interim dates it
final completion date
met; timely notif. of
delays caused by force
majeure (excluding in-
creased costs)
Force majeure (incl.
notif. of nature,
cause.and antic.
length ot delay; delays
caused by unreas. risk
to health or safety
of people or envir.
Yes
Disputes to be sub-
mitted to Lit; D has
burden of proving
torce majeure
Payable to U.S.
Trsr
-------
Decree Amt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-6-
Reasoh tor no accrual
ot stip. penalties
Other Reme-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
Fike
Chan.
(30-day
grace
period)
Gulf
Coast
Lead
$350
Not to ex-
ceed $100
for days
1-30;
$250
for
days
31-60;
$500
there-
after
Hills- $300
boro,
Co. of
(30-day $500 for
grace days
period 31-60;
$1000
Hodges
there-
after
Up to
$500
Viol, of each reqmt of
Decree; Ds are late taking
action req'd under Decree
or meeting any sched. tor
remedial action
Failure to comply w/prov.
of Decree as determined
by Ct
Force-rnajeure
Failure to meet deadlines
in Part IV-A (cap and cover
reqmts)
Part IV-B (drainage ditch
reqmts), or Part IV-F
(County water supply)
Failure to comply with any
prov. of Decree
Yes
Yes
P may institite
contanpt proc.
in U.S. Dist. Ct;
D may petition Ct
it believes P has
breached; pen. pay-
able to U.S. Trsr
Pen. payable upon
demand by EPA to
recogn. envtr. tund
or envir'ly bene-
ticial project
approved by EPA;
P shall take into
ace't magn. and
dur. of viol, and
any ml tig. factors
Pen. payable
promptly to U.S.
Disputes to be sub-
mitted to Ct; bur-
den ot proving torce
majeure on D; pen.
payable upond demand
by EPA
-------
Decree Amt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-7-
Keason tor no accrual
ot stip. penalties
Other Rane-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
Home- $1000
stake lor days
Mining 1-10;
$5000
there-
after
Hooker
Ilco
Up to
$5000
$1000
Ingalls, $100
Melvyn for days
1-7;
$200
for days
8-14;
Viol, of any reqmt of
this Agreement
Yes
Unjustifiable failure to
comply w/prov. of this
Judgment
Delay in completing fully
and properly the pert', of
work or otherwise viola-
ting terms of Decree
F'ailure to make timely
payments as specified
b'orce majeure; Order ot
Ct; failure ot EPA/State
to use best ettorts to
assist D in obtaining
all authorizations which
D unable to obtain and
which prevent implem. ot
this Jgmt; not it", of na-
ture, cause, and antic.
length of delays
force majeure (excluding
increased costs)
No
Yes
Pen. payable tol-
lowing Order ot Ct
as petitioned by P;
in determining
ant ot pen. to
assess., acc't shall
be taken ot economic
savings to Ds, de-
gree or seriousness
ot noncompl. (and
other mitig. tac-
tors); Terms ot this
•il terminate 8 yrs.
atter ettective
date ot this Jgmt
Pay to Trsr., U.S.;
Ds subject to Ct's
contempt powers tor
any and alL viol.
of Decree; Ds have
burden ot proving
torce majeure or
cump L.
Pen. payable to U.S.
Trsr by tind ot: suc-
ceeding month; Upon
payment, notice to
be given to KPA arid
DOJ
-------
Decree Amt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-8-
Reason tor no accrual
of stip. penalties
Other Kane-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
Ingalls,
Melvyn
(cont.)
Inmont
Corp.
$300
for days
15-21;
$400
for days
22-28;
$500
there-
after
$500
Yes Failure to comply
w/any deadline
Kin-Buc $1000
Lan- $1000
caster
Laskin $100
&
Poplar
$100
$100
Each day of noncompl.
w/sched. for construction
of cover and containment
systan on mound, as ex-
tended or altered by weath-
er, Gt or EPA
Failure to achieve tasks
by dates specified in 11
1 and dates set forth in
plan approved therein
Each viol, of Part IV-B
[CWA and NPUES viol.]
Each viol, of Part
[TSCA PCB viol.]
IV-C
Each viol, of Part IV-F
[Submission of quarterly
progress reports]
Force majeure; successful
challenge to final Agency
action; notification of
nature, cause, and anti-
cipated length of delay
Force inajeure; acts by
third parties
Yes
Force Majeure; initial
demonstration by D of
compl. w/applicable
reqmts of Decree
Yes
Pay to U.S. Trsr
and Trsr or State
Pen. payable upon
application to Ct
Pay to U.S. Trsr
only upon motion to
Ct
Pay to U.S. Trsr
w/in 30 days ot
danand by P; it IJ
tails to comply
w/applicable reqmt
w/180 days, obliga-
te pay pen. shall
cease 180 days after
effective date ot
limitation
-------
Decree Amt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-9-
Reason tor no accrual
of stip. penalties
Other Kane-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
Martell
$1000
for days
1-30;
$1500
there-
after
Metate $500
Asbestos
Corp.
(10-day
grace
period)
Midwest
Solvent
Recovery
(7-day
grace
period)
Occi-
dental
Petro-
leum
$1000
Up to
$5000
State
or
U.S.
Failure to comply w/any
sched. set forth in plans
approved pursuant to this
Partial Consent Jgmt
Yes
Delays in completing pro-
perly the work; noncompl.
w/maintenance prov. of
Technical Appendix
Noncompl. w/major mile-
stones set out in Exhibit;
delays in meeting other
sched. in Decree
Unjustifiable failure to
comply w/prov. of this
Stip.
Force majeure; delays
caused by order of OSC
Force majeure; modif.
of Decree by Ct
Yes
Force majeure; Order of
Ct; notit. of nature,
cause, and antic, length
of delay; D's ability to
obtain permits, etc.
No
D may petition Ct
tor relief; U has
burden of proving
P abused discretion
in assessing pen.;
pen. payable w/30
days of demand by
EPA
Pen. shall survive
Decree
Pen. payable w/in
14 days of demand
by EPA
Disputes to be sub-
mitted to Ct tor
resol.; in assessing
pen., P may take in-
to acc't economic
savings to D, degree
or seriousness of
noncompL., dur., de-
gree of endangermeut
to human health or
envir., and any
mitig. factors; pen.
payable upon peti-
tion by P and Order
of Ct
-------
Decree AiPt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-10-
Reason tor no accrual
ot stip. penalties
Other Rene-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
Petro- Not to
Proc. exceed
of $1000
La. for days
1-30;
$5000
there-
after
Reilly $500
Tar for days
1-30;
(15-day $1500
grace there-
after
$750
for days
1-30;
$1500
thereafter
Yes Occurrence of any delay
in completion of closure
plan or supplanental
plan ordered by or imple-
mented pursuant to this
Decree
Yes Failure to make timely
submittals under Decree
All other failures to com-
ply w/Decree
Ct finds otherwise for
good cause shown that
no pen. should be paid
Yes
Filing of petition to
dispute determination
that submittal has not
been made; missed in-
terim milestones it
final completion date
met
Yes, incl.
use ot Ct's
equitable
and inher-
ent powers
Pay to U.S. Trsr
and Trsr ot State
w/in 30 clays ut
Ct order
Payable w/in 30 days
ot receipt ot writ-
ten notif. to Haz.
Subst. Kesp. Trust
Fund or linvir. Kesp.
Compl. blind ot Trsry
of State; ail pay-
ments accrue from
date on which pert.
was to have been
made; ail pen. cease
to accrue upon com-
pletion ot req'd
pert.; tiiing ot pe-
tition does not toil
accrual ot pen. from
IrLrst day ot viol.,
but does stay obiig,.
to make payments;
Despite tiling ot
petition, D sti.fl
oblig. to pert.; D
shall not assert as
defense invafidity
ot these prov.; no
payments tax deduc-
t ib Le
-------
Decree Amt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-11-
Keason. for no accrual
ot stip. penalties
Other Reme-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
Seymour
Recy-
cling
Corp.
$1000
Failure to complete pert'.
of work in accord w/Exhibit
F'orce majeure (exclud.
increased costs); notif.
of nature, cause, and
antic, length of delay
Disputes to he sub-
mitted to Gt for
resol.
Solv. $1 uO
Recov. for days
Serv. 1-15;
of N.E. $500
for days
16-45;
$1000
there-
after
Spec- No less
tron than $200;
no more
(30-day than $500
grace
period)
Vertac $500
Chan. for days
Corp. 1-15;
$1000
for days
15-45;
$3.000
there-
after
Yes
Failure to comply w/time
reqmts of Decree , incl.
unplem. sched. submitted
by D
Failure to comply w/each
reqmt of Decree; delays
in taking action req'd
under Decree or under
any sched. for remedial
action
Any failure to comply
w/time reqmts of Decree,
incl. any implem.
sched. submitted by D
Force majeure; modifi-
cation by Ct
Yes
Pay to U.S. Trsr
Force majeure
Force majeure
Yes
P may institute
contempt proc.
in U.S. Dist. Ct;
D may petition
Ct it believes P
has breached Decree;
Pen. payable w/in
15 days to U.S. Trsr
upon written demand
Payable to U.S.
Trsr or State Ijept
ot Poll. Control
& Ecology upon Order
of Ct
-------
Decree Amt/Day
Pen.
Shared
w/State
Violations to which stipu-
lated penalties apply
-12-
Reason tor no accrual
ot stip. penalties
Other Reme-
dies Allowed
Miscellaneous
W. R. $2500
Grace
Delays in taking action
req'd under Decree
West. $1000
Proc.
Co.
Delay in completing pro-
perly the perf. of work
by 11/30/84, provided that
treatment and discharge
cont. until 4/1/85
Force majeure (excluding
increased costs); notit.
of nature, cause, and
anticip. length of delay;
secondary liability, ex-
cept if Ct orders other-
wise
In assessment ot
pen., magn. and
dur. ot delay and
any other initig.
factors shall be
taken into acc't
D lias burden oi.
proving force ma-
jeure; Disputes not
informally resolved
are submitted to Ct;
Despite pen.; D
still oblig. to perf,
ail work
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
HAT 8B64
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Final RCRA Civil Penalty Policy /")
/
Courtney M.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance
Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator for Solid "Waste
and Emergency Response
Addressees
Attached is the Final RCRA Civil Penalty Policy which is
being issued jointly by our Offices.
In response to comments received from both Headquarters
and Regional Offices on the January 31, 1984, Second Draft,
the following changes- have been made:
0 the Potential for Harm section has been rewritten
and new examples have been included to better
explain the concepts of major, moderate and minor;
0 the penalties listed in the matrix have been altered
slightly in order to fill the gaps between each cell;
0 the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy provides for the
calculation of the economic benefit of non-compliance.
The economic benefit formula included in the policy
takes into account two types of costs, avoided and
delayed. Definitions and examples of these terms
have been included. The IRS interest rates to be
used in the formula have been included for the
years 1980-1984;
0 the cut-off below which no economic benefit analysis
needs to be conducted has been reduced from $10,000
to 32,500 because the lower figure is more appropriate
for the RCRA program;
-------
FINAL
RCRA CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
May 8, 1984
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Relationship to Agency Penalty Policy 3
III. Summary of the Policy 3
IV. Administrative Record 5
V. Determination of Gravity-Based Penalty 5
A. Potential for Harm 6
B. Extent of Deviation from Requirement 8
C. Penalty Assessment Matrix 10
VI. Multiple and Multi-Day Penalties 11
A. Assessing Multiple Penalties 11
B. Assessing Multi-Day Penalties 12
VII. Effect of Economic Benefit of Noncorapliance ..12
A. Types of Economic Benefit 14
B. Calculation of Economic Benefit • 14
VIII. Adjustment Factors and Effect of Settlement 16
A. Adjustment Factors 16
(1) Good faith efforts to comply/lack of good
faith (Degree of Cooperation/noncooperation).17
(2) Degree of willfulness and/or negligence 17
(3) History of noncompliance 18
(4) Ability to pay 20
(5) Other unique factors 20
B. Effect of Settlement 21
IX. Appendix: Penalty Computation Worksheet 22
X. Hypothetical Applications of the Penalty Policy 24
-------
RCRA CIVIL PENALTY 'POLICY
I. INTRODUCTION
To respond Co che problem of improper management of hazardous
waste, Congress amended che Solid Waste Disposal Ace with che
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. Although
the Act has several objectives, Congress' overriding purpose in
enacting RCRA was to establish the statutory framework for a
national system that would ensure the proper management of
hazardous waste.
Section 3008(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928(a), provides that
if any person is in violation of a requirement of Subticle C,
che Administrator of the Environmental Proceccion Agency (EPA)
may, among other options, issue an order requiring compliance
immediately or within a specified time period. Section 3008(c),
42 U.S.C. §6928(c), provides that any order issued may assess a
penalty, taking into account:
0 the seriousness of the violation, and
0 any good faith efforts Co comply with the applicable
requirements.
Section 3008(g) further provides EPA with the authority to assess
civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day of violation.
This document sets forth the Agency's policy for assessing
administrative penalties under RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.*/
The purpose of the policy is to assure that RCRA civiT~penalties
are assessed in a fair and consistent manner; that penalties are
appropriate for the gravity of the violation committed; that
economic incentives for noncompliance wich RCRA are eliminated;
Chat persons are deCerred from commicting RCRA violations; and
that compliance is achieved.
The policy provides internal guidelines Co aid EPA
compliance/enforcement personnel in assessing appropriace
penalties. It also provides a mechanism whereby compliance/
enforcement personnel may, within specified boundaries, exercise
discretion in negotiating administrative consent agreements and
orders, and otherwise modify che proposed penalcy when special
circumstances warrant it. The policy will be supplemented as
necessary.
*/ Because there is no RCRA judicial civil penalty policy,
compliance/enforcement personnel may rely on this
administrative civil penalcy policy in assessing penalties in
judicial cases.
-------
- 2 -
This document does noc discuss whether assessment of an
administrative civil penalty is the correct enforcement .
response to a particular violation. Rather, this document
focuses on determining what the proper civil penalty should be
once a decision has been made that a civil penalty is the proper
enforcement remedy to pursue. For guidance on when to assess
administrative penalties, consult the following:
0 Guidance on Developing Compliance Orders Under Section
3008 of RCRA, July 7, 1981;*/
0 RCRA; Section 3005(e); Continued Operation of Hazardous
Waste Facilities by Owners or Operators Who Have
Failed to Achieve Interim Status, July. 31, 1981;
0 Guidance on Developing Compliance Orders Under Section
3008 of RCRA; Enforcement of Ground-Water Monitoring
Requirements at Interim Status Facilities, January 22,
1982;*/
0 Guidance on Developing Compliance Orders Under Section
3008 of RCRA; Enforcement of the Financial Responsibility
Requirements Under Subpart H of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265,
October 6, 1982;*/
0 Guidance on Developing Compliance Orders Under Section
3008 of RCRA; Failure to Submit and Submittal of
Incomplete Part B Permit Applications, September 9, 1983.
The discussions of specific penalty assessments set out in the
second and fifth guidances, above, are superseded by this docu-
ment. The portions of these guidances which do not address
specific penalty assessments remain operative.
The RCRA Civil Penalty Policy is immediately applicable and
should be used to calculate penalties for all RCRA administrative
actions instituted after the date of the policy, regardless of
the date of violation.
*/ These three guidances classify RCRA violations as either
Class I, II, or III, and state that Section 3008 compliance
orders should generally be issued to address Class I, Class II,
and continued or flagrant Class III violations. The Agency is in
the process of developing a RCRA enforcement response policy which
could change the current scheme for classifying and responding to
violations. Compliance/enforcement personnel should continue to
rely on the existing guidance until the new enforcement response
policy is issued.
-------
- 3 -
The procedures set out in this document are intended solely
for the guidance of government personnel. They are not intended
and cannot be relied upon to create rights, substantive or'proce-
dural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United
States.' The Agency reserves the right to act at variance with
this policy and to change it at any time without public notice.
II. RELATIONSHIP TO AGENCY PENALTY POLICY
The RCRA Civil Penalty Policy sets forth a system of penalty
assessment consistent with the established goals of the Agency's
new civil penalty policy which was issued on February 16, 1984.
These goals consist of:
0 Deterrence;
0 Fair and equitable treatment of the regulated
community; and
0 Swift resolution of environmental problems.
The RCRA penalty policy also adheres to the Agency policy's
framework for assessing civil penalties by:
0 Calculating a preliminary deterrence amount
consisting of a gravity component;
0 Determining any economic benefit of noncompliance;
and
0 Applying adjustment factors to account for
differences between cases.
III. SUMMARY OF THE POLICY
The penalty calculation system consists of (1) determining a
gravity-based penalty for a particular violation, (2) considering
economic benefit of noncompliance where appropriate, and
(3) adjusting the penalty for special circumstances. Two
factors are considered in determining the gravity-based penalty:
0 potential for harm; and
0 extent of deviation from a statutory or regulatory
requirement.
These two factors constitute the seriousness of a violation
under RCRA, and have been incorporated into the following penalty
matrix from which the gravity-based penalty will be chosen:
-------
- 4 -
MATRIX
Extent of Deviation from Requirement
Potential
for
Harm
MAJOR
MODERATE
MINOR
MAJOR
325,000
to
20,000
$10,999 •
to
8,000
$2,999
to
1 ,500
MODERATE
$19,999
to
15,000
$7,999
to
5,000
$1 ,499
to
500
MINOR
$14,999
to
11 ,000
$4,999
to
3,000
$499
to
100
Where a company has derived significant savings by its.
failure to comply with RCRA requirements, the amount of economic
benefit from noncompliance gained by the violator will be
calculated and added to the gravity-based penalty. A formula
for computing economic benefit is included.
After determining the appropriate penalty based on gravity
and, -where appropriate, economic benefit, the penalty may be
adjusted upwards or downwards to reflect particular circumstances
surrounding the violation. The factors that should be considered
are:
0 Good faith efforts to comply/lack of good faith;
0 Degree of willfulness and/or negligence;
0 History of noncompliance;
0 Ability to pay; or
0 Other unique factors.
These factors (with the exception of factors which increase the
penalty such as history of noncompliance) generally will be
-------
considered after proposing the penalty in the complaint, i.e..
during the settlement stage. However, the Regions have the
discretion to apply the adjustment factors when determining the
initial penalty, if the information supporting adjustment is
available.
The policy also discusses the appropriate assessment of
multiple and multi-day penalties.
A detailed discussion of the policy follows. In addition,
this document includes a few hypothetical cases where the step-
by-step assessment of penalties is illustrated. The steps
included are choosing the correct penalty cell on the matrix,
calculating the economic benefit of noncompliance, where appro-
priate, and adjusting the penalty assessment before and after
issuance of the complaint.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
In order to support the penalty proposed in the complaint,
compliance/enforcement personnel must include in the case file an
explanation of how the proposed penalty amount was calculated.
The case file must also include a justification of any adjust-
ments made after issuance of the complaint. In ongoing cases,
the assessment rationale would be exempt from the mandatory
disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act,
5 U.S.C.' 552, because producing such records would interfere
with enforcement proceedings, 40 CFR §2.118(a)(7). Nevertheless,
the Agency may elect to release penalty information after a com-
plaint has been issued. Once an enforcement action has been
completed, the justification of the penalty assessment would
no longer be exempt from disclosure.
A penalty computation worksheet to be included in the case
file is attached. (See: Appendix.)
V. DETERMINATION OF GRAVITY-BASED PENALTY
RCRA Section 3008(c) states that the seriousness of the
violation must 'be taken into account in assessing penalties. The
gravity-based penalty is determined according to the seriousness
of the violation. The seriousness of a violation is based on two
factors which are used to assess the appropriate gravity-based
penalty:
0 potential for harm; and
0 extent of deviation from a statutory or regulatory
requirement.
-------
- 6 -
A. Potential for Harm
The RCRA requirements were promulgated in order to prevent
harm to human health and the environment. Thus, noncompliance with
any RCRA requirement could result in a situation where there is a
potential for harm. The potential for harm resulting from a viola-
tion may be determined by:
0 the likelihood of exposure to hazardous .waste posed
by noncompliance, or
0 the adverse effect noncompliance has on the statu-
.tory or regulatory purposes or procedures for
implementing the RCRA program.
By answering questions like the following/"compliance/
enforcement personnel can determine_ the likelihood of exposure
in a particular situation:
0 What.is the quantity of waste?
0 Is human life or health potentially threatened
by the violation?
0 Are animals potentially threatened by the
violation?
0 Are any environmental media potentially threatened
by the violation?
There may be violations where the likelihood of exposure
resulting from the violation is small, difficult to quantify, or
nonexistent, but which nevertheless may disrupt the RCRA program
(e_.£_*_, failure to comply with financial requirements). This
disruption may also present a potential for harm to human health
or the environment, due to the adverse effect noncompliance can
have on the statutory or regulatory purposes or procedures for
implementing the RCRA program.
For each of the above considerations -- likelihood of exposure
and adverse effect on implementing the RCRA program -- the emphasis
is placed on the potential harm posed by a violation rather than on
whether harm actually occurred. The presence or absence of direct
harm in a noncorapliance situation is something over which the vio-
lator may have no control. Such violators should not be rewarded
by assessing lower penalties when the violations do not result in
actual harm.
Compliance/enforcement personnel should evaluate whether the
potential for harm is major, moderate, or minor in a particular
-------
- 7 -
situation. The 'degree of potential harm represented by each
category is defined as:
°. MAJOR (1) violation poses a substantial likelihood
of exposure to hazardous waste; and/or
(2) the actions have or may have a substantial
adverse effect on the statutory or regulatory purposes
or procedures for implementing the RCRA program.
0 MODERATE (1) the violation poses a significant likeli-
hood ToT~exposure to hazardous waste; and/or
(2) the actions have or may have a significant
adverse effect on the statutory or regulatory purposes
or procedures for implementing the RCRA program.
0 MINOR (1) the violation poses a relatively low like-
lihood of exposure to hazardous waste; and/or
(2) the actions have or may have an adverse
effect on the statutory or regulatory purposes or
procedures for implementing the RCRA program.
The following examples illustrate the difference between
major, moderate, and minor potential for harm.
Example 1 - Major Potential for Harm
40 CFR §265.143 requires that owners or operators of hazardous
waste facilities establish financial assurance for closure of their
facilities. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that
funds will be available for proper closure of facilities. Under
§265.143(a)(2), the wording of a trust agreement establishing
financial assurance for closure must be identical to the wording
specified in 40 CFR §264.151(a)(1). Failure to word the trust
agreement as required may appear inconsequential. However, even a
slight alteration of the language could change the legal effect of
the financial instrument so that it would no longer satisfy the
intent of the regulation. When the language of the agreement
differs from the requirement such that funds would not be available
to .close the facility properly, the lack of identical wording
would have a substantial adverse effect on the regulatory scheme.
This violation would be assigned to the major potential for harm
category.
Example 2 - Moderate Potential for Harm
Under 40 CFR §262.34, a generator may accumulate hazardous
waste on-site for 90 days or less without having interim status
or a permit provided that among other requirements, each container
-------
- 8 -
or tank of waste is labeled or marked clearly with the words,
"Hazardous Waste." In a situation where a generator is storing
compatible waste, has labeled half of its containers, and has
clearly.identified its storage area as a hazardous waste storage
area, there is some indication that the unlabeled containers
hold hazardous waste. However, because there is a chance that
the unlabeled containers could be removed from the storage area,
and that without labels the Agency would not know if the waste
had been stored for more than 90 days, this situation poses a
significant likelihood of exposure to hazardous waste (although
the likelihood is not as great as it would be if neither the
storage area nor any of the containers were marked) . The
moderate potential for harm category would be appropriate in
this case.
_^_ Minor Potential for Harm-
Owners or operators of hazardous waste facilities must, under
40 CFR §265.53, submit a copy of their contingency plans to all
local police departments, fire departments, hospitals, and State
and local emergency response teams that may be called upon to
provide emergency services. If a facility has a complete contin-
gency plan, including a description of arrangements agreed to by
local entities to coordinate emergency services (§265.52), but
failed to submit copies to all of the local entities, there is a
potential for harm. However, because a complete plan exists and
arrangements with- all of the local entities have been agreed to,
the likelihood of exposure and adverse effect on the implementa-
tion of RCRA would be relatively low. The minor potential for
harm category would be -appropriate in this situation.
B. Extent of Deviation from Requirement
The "extent of deviation" from RCRA or its regulatory
requirements relates to the degree to which the violation renders
inoperative the requirement violated. In any violative situation,
a range of potential noncorapliance with the subject requirement
exists. In other words, a violator may be substantially in com-
pliance with the provisions of the requirement or it may have
totally disregarded the requirement (or a point in between). As
with potential for harm, extent of deviation may be either major,
moderate, or minor. In determining the extent of deviation, the
following definitions should be used:
0 MAJOR the violator deviates from the requirements of
the regulation or statute to such an extent that there is
substantial noncompliance.
-------
- 9 -
0 MODERATE Che violator significantly deviates from
the requirements of the regulation or statute but
some of the requirements are implemented as intended.
0 ' MINOR the violator deviates somewhat from the
regulatory or statutory requirements but most of the
requirements are met.
A few examples will help demonstrate how the evaluation
procedure described above is used to select a category:
Example 1 - Closure Plan
40 CFR §265.112 requires that owners or operators of
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities have a written
closure plan. This plan must identi.fy the steps necessary to
completely or partially close the facility at any point during
its intended operating life and to completely close the facility
at the end of its intended operating life. Possible violations
of the requirements of this regulation range from having no
closure plan at all to having a plan which is somewhat inadequate
(e.g. , failure to include a schedule for final closure, while
complying with the other requirements). These violations might
be assigned to the "major" and "minor" categories respectively.
A violation between these extremes might involve failure to
modify a plan for increased decontamination activities as a
result of a spill on-site.
Ex_ampJ._e_ 2__-_ Failure _to Maintain Adequate Security
40 CFR §265.14 requires that owners or operators of
treatment, storage and disposal facilities take reasonable care
to keep unauthorized persons from entering the active portion of
a facility where injury could occur. Generally, a physical bar-
rier must be installed and any access routes conscientiously
controlled.
The range of potential noncompliance with the security
requirements is quite broad. In a particular situation, the
violator may prove to have totally failed to supply any security
systems. Total noncompliance with regulatory requirements such
as this would result in classification into the major category.
In contrast, the violation may consist of a small oversight such
as failing to lock an access route on a single occasion. Obviously,
the degree of noncorapliance in the latter situation is less signi-
ficant. With all other factors being equal, the less significant
noncompliance should draw a smaller penalty assessment. In the
matrix system this is achieved by choosing the minor category.
-------
- 10 -
C. Penalty Assessment Matrix
Each of the above factors — potential for harm and extent
of deviation from a requirement — forms one of the axes of the
penalty assessment matrix. The matrix has nine cells, each
containing a penalty range. The specific cell is chosen after
determining which category (major, moderate, or minor) is appro-
priate for the potential for harm factor, and which category is
appropriate for the extent of deviation factor. The complete
matrix is illustrated below:
Extent of Deviation from Requirement
Potential
for
Harm
MAJOR
MODERATE
MINOR
MAJOR
$25,000
to
20,000
$10,999
to
8,000
$2,999
to
1 ,500
MODERATE"
$i9,r°9
to
15,000
$7,999
to
5,000
$1 ,499
to
500
MINOR
$14,999
to
11 ,000
$4,999
to
3,000
$499
to
100
The lowest cell (minor potential for harm/minor extent of
deviation) contains a penalty range from $100 to $499. Provi-
sion for this low range of penalties has been made because the
assessment of low penalties has proven to be an effective com-
pliance tool. The highest cell (major potential for harm/major
extent of deviation) is limited by the maximum statutory penalty
allowance of $25,000 per day of violation.
The selection of the exact penalty amount within each cell
is left to the discretion of compliance/enforcement personnel in
any given case. Compliance/enforcement personnel should be
careful to consider the seriousness of the violation only in
selecting the penalty amount within the range. The reasons the
violation was committed, the intent of the violator, and other
factors related to the violator are not considered at this point
they will be considered at the adjustment stage.
-------
- 11 -
VI. MULTIPLE AND MULTI-DAY PENALTIES
A. Assessing Multiple Penalties
In certain situations, EPA may -find that a particular firm
has violated several RCRA regulations. A separate penalty should
be assessed for each violation that results from an independent
act (or failure to act) by the violator and is substantially
distinguishable from any other charge in the complaint for which
a penalty is to be assessed. A given charge is independent of,
and substantially distinguishable from, any other charge when it
requires an element of proof not needed by the others. In many
cases, violations of different sections of the regulations consti-
tute independent and substantially distinguishable violations.
For example, failure to implement a groundwater monitoring program,
40 CFR §265.90, and failure to have a written closure plan, 40 CFR
§265.112, are violations which result from different sets of
circumstances and which pose separate risks. In the case of a
firm which has violated both of these sections of the regulations,
a separate count should be charged for each violation. For penalty
purposes, each of the violations should be assessed separately and
the amounts totalled.
It is also possible that different violations of the same
section of the regulations could constitute independent and sub-
stantially distinguishable violations. For example, in the
case of a firm which has open containers of hazardous waste in
its storage area, 40 CFR §265.173(a), and which also ruptured
different hazardous waste containers while moving them on site,
40 CFR §265.173(b), there are two independent acts. The viola-
tions result from two sets of circumstances (improper storage
and improper handling) and pose distinct risks. In this situa-
tion, two counts with two separate penalties would be appropriate.
For penalty purposes, each of the violations should be assessed
separately and the amounts totalled.
Multiple penalties also should be assessed where one company
has violated the same requirement in substantially different
locations. An example of this type of violation is failure to
clean up discharged hazardous waste during transportation, 40 CFR
§263.31. A transporter who did not clean up waste discharged in
two separate locations during the same trip should be charged with
two counts. In these situations, the separate locations present
separate and distinct risks to public health and the environment.
Thus, separate penalty assessments are justified.
-------
- 12 -
In general, multiple penalties are not appropriate where the
violations are not independent or substantially distinguishable.
Where a charge derives from or merely restates another charge, a
separate penalty is not warranted. If an owner/operator of a
storage facility failed to specify in his waste analysis plan the
parameters for which each hazardous waste will be analyzed, 40 CFR
§265.13(b)(1), and failed to specify the frequency with which the
initial analysis of the waste will be repeated, 40 CFR §265.13(b)
(4), he has violated the requirement that he develop an adequate
waste analysis plan. The violations result from the same factual
event (failure to develop an adequate plan), and pose one risk
(storing waste improperly due to inadequate analysis). In this
situation, both sections violated should, be cited in the complaint,
but one penalty, rather than two, should be assessed. The fact
that two separate sections were violated will be taken into account
in choosing higher "potential for harm" and "extent of deviation"
categories on the penalty matrix.
B. Assessing Multi-Day Violations
RCRA provides EPA with the authority to assess civil penalties
of up to $25,000 per violation per day, with each day that non-
cotnpliance continues to be assessed as a separate violation.
Multi-day penalties should generally be calculated in the case of
continuing egregious violations. However, per day assessment may
be appropriate in other cases.
In the case of continuing violations, the Agency has the
authority to calculate penalties based on the number of days of
violation since the effective date of the requirement and up to
the date of coming into compliance. The gravity-based penalty
derived from the penalty matrix should be multiplied by the number
of days of violation.
VII. EFFECT OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE
The new Agency civil penalty policy mandates the consideration
of the economic benefit of noncorapliance to a violator when penal-
ties are assessed. In accordance with the goals of the Agency
policy, the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy sets forth a system for
calculating the economic benefit of noncompliance with RCRA
requirements.
An "economic benefit component" should be calculated and
added to the gravity-based penalty when a violation results in
significant economic benefit to the violator. The following are
examples of regulatory areas which should undergo an economic
benefit analysis:
-------
- 13 -
0 Groundwater monitoring
0 Financial requirements
0 Closure/post-closure
0 Waste determination
0 Waste analysis
0 Clean-up of discharge
0 Part B submittals
For many RCRA requirements, the .economic benefit of
noncompliance may be difficult to quantify or relatively insig-
nificant. Examples of these types of violations are failure
to submit a report or failure to maintain records. In general,
compliance/enforcement personnel need not calculate the benefit
component where it appears that the amount of that component is
likely to be less than $2,500. This figure is more appropriate
for the RCRA. program than the $10,000 cut-off in the Agency
policy because .of the amount.of economic benefit associated with
many RCRA violations.
It is generally the Agency's policy not to settle cases
(i.e., the penalty amount) for an amount less than the economic
benefit of noncompliance. However, the new Agency civil penalty
policy does set out three general areas where settling the total
penalty amount for less than the economic benefit may be appro-
priate. The RCRA policy has added a fourth exception for cases
where ability to pay is a factor. The four exceptions are as
follows:
0 the economic benefit component consists of an
insignificant amount (i.e.. less than $2,500);
0 there are compelling public concerns that would
not be served by taking a case to trial;
0 it is highly unlikely that EPA will be able to
recover the economic benefit in litigation;
0 the company has documented an inability to pay the
total proposed penalty.
If a case is settled for less than the economic benefit
component, a justification must be included in the case file.
-------
- 14 -
A. Types of Economic Benefit
Compliance/enforcement personnel should examine cwo types of
economic benefit from noncompliance in determining the economic
benefit component:
0 Benefit from delayed costs; and
0 Benefit from avoided costs.
.Delayed costs are expenditures which have been deferred by
the violator's failure to comply with the requirements. The
violator eventually will have to spend the money in order to
achieve compliance. Delayed costs are the equivalent of capital
costs. Examples of violations which result in savings from
delayed costs are:
0 Failure to install ground-water monitoring
equipment;
0 Failure to submit a Part B permit application;
and
0 Failure to develop a waste analysis plan.
Avoided costs are expenditures which are nullified by the
violator's failure to comply. These costs will never be incurred.
Avoided costs are the equivalent of operating and maintenance
costs. Examples of violations which result' in savings from avoided
costs are:
0 Failure to perform annual and semi-annual
ground-water monitoring sampling and analysis;
8 Failure to follow the approved closure plan in
removing waste from a facility, where reremoval
is not possible; and
0 Failure to perform waste analysis before adding
waste to tanks, waste piles, incinerators, etc.
B. Calculation of Economic Benefit
Because the savings that are derived from delayed costs differ
from those derived from avoided costs, the economic benefit from
delayed and avoided costs are calculated in a different manner.
For avoided costs, the economic benefit equals the cost of complying
with the requirement, adjusted to reflect income tax effects on the
-------
- 15 -
company. For delayed costs, Che economic benefit: does noc equal
che cose of complying wich che requirements, since Che violator
will eventually have to spend the money to achieve compliance.
The economic benefit for delayed costs consists of the amount
of interest on the unspent money that reasonably could have
been earned by the violator during noncompliance. If noncompli-
ance has continued for more than a year, compliance/enforcement
personnel should calculate the economic benefit of both the
delayed and avoided coses for each year.
The following formula is provided to help calculate the
economic benefit component:
Economic
Benefit - Avoided Costs (1-T) + (Delayed Costs x Interest Rate)
In the above formula, T represents the firm's marginal tax
rate. In the absence of specific information regarding the
violator's tax status, compliance/enforcement personnel should
assume that the company's marginal tax rate is 46%, the Federal
corporate tax rate for firms whose before-tax profits are
greater than $100,000. Thus, compliance/enforcement personnel
should assume that T =• .46..
Compliance/enforcement personnel should calculate interest by
using the interest race charged by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) for delinquent accounts. The IRS interest rates for 1980
through 1984 are as follows:
2/1/80 - 1/31/82 12%
2/1/82 - 12/31/82 20%
1/1/83 - 6/30/83 16%
7/1/83 - 6/30/84 11%
Interest rates for years other than Chose lisced above are
available from your local IRS office.
The economic benefit formula provides a reasonable estimate
of the economic benefit of noncompliance. If a respondent
believes chat the economic benefit it derived from noncompliance
differs from the estimated amount, it should present information
documenting its actual savings to compliance/ enforcement person-
nel at the settlement stage.
See Section X of this document -for hypothetical applications
of the economic benefit formula. The Agency plans to develop
additional guidance on calculating the economic benefit of
noncompliance, including identifying sources of cost information
-------
- 16 -
for various regulatory areas, and providing an Agency methodology
for computing economic benefit. For this reason, the economic
benefit formula set out in this document is for interim use
only.
VIII. ADJUSTMENT FACTORS AND EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT
A. Adjustment Factors
As mentioned in Section V of this document, the seriousness
of the violation is considered in determining the gravity-based
penalty. The reasons the violation was committed', the intent of
the violator, and other factors related to the violator are not
considered in choosing the appropriate penalty from the matrix.
However, any system for calculating penalties must have enough
flexibility to make adjustments that reflect legitimate dif-
ferences between similar violations.' RCRA §3008(c) states that
in assessing penalties, EPA must take into account any good
faith efforts to comply with the applicable requirements. The
new Agency civil penalty policy sets out several other adjust-
ment factors to consider. These include the degree of willful-
ness and/or negligence, history of noncompliance, ability to
pay, and other unique factors.
The adjustment factors can increase, decrease or have no
effect on the penalty amount to be paid by the violator. Note,
however, that no upward adjustment can result in a penalty greater
than the statutory maximum of $25,000 per day of violation. Adjust-
ment of a penalty may take place before issuing the proposed penalty
in the complaint, or after assessment of the proposed penalty (as
part of the settlement process). Most factors, in practice, will
be considered at the settlement stage with the burden of proof for
mitigation on the respondent. However, penalties may be adjusted
before determining the proposed assessment if the necessary
information is available. Compliance/enforcement personnel should
use whatever information on the violator (and violation) is avail-
able at the time of initial assessment. Issuance of a complaint
should not be delayed in order to collect additional adjustment
information. The history of noncompliance factor should be used
only to increase a penalty; the ability to pay factor should
be used only to decrease a penalty. Justification for adjustments
must be included in the case file.
In general, these adjustment factors will apply only to the
gravity-based penalty derived from the matrix, and not to the
economic benefit component if calculated. (See Section VII of this
document for exceptions.)
Application of the adjustment factors is cumulative, i.e.,
more than one factor may apply in a case. For example, if the
base penalty derived from the matrix is $9,500, and upward
-------
- 17 -
adjustments of 10% will be made for both history of noncompliance
and degree of willfulness and/or negligence, the total adjusted
penalty would be $11,400 ($9,500 + 20%).
The following discussion of the factors to consider is
consistent with the new Agency civil penalty policy. For the
purposes of simplification, the percentage ranges for the adjust-
ment factors in the Agency policy have been altered slightly for
use in the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy.
At this stage of the RCRA program it is difficult to
determine what types of non-monetary alternatives or alternative
payments would foster the goals of the program. As compliance/
enforcement personnel gain more experience in enforcing RCRA,
use of these alternatives may prove to be advantageous to the
public interest. Until such time, these alternatives, as set
forth in the new Agency civil penalty policy, are not an option
under the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy.
(1) Good faith efforts to comply/lack of good faith
(Degree of cooperation/noncooperation.)
Under §3008(a) of RCRA, good faith efforts to .comply with
the requirements must be considered in assessing a penalty.
Good faith can be manifested by the violator promptly reporting
its noncompliance. Assuming such self-reporting is not required
by law, this behavior can result in mitigation of the penalty.
Prompt correction of environmental problems also can constitute
good faith. Lack of good faith, on the other hand, can result
in an increased penalty. Compliance/enforcement personnel have
discretion to make adjustments up or down by as much as 25% of
the gravity-based penalty. Adjustments may be made in the 26%-40%
range of the gravity-based penalty, but only in unusual circum-
stances. No downward adjustment should be made if the good .
faith efforts to comply primarily consist of coming into
compliance.
(2) Degree of willfulness and/or negligence
Section 3008(d) of RCRA provides for criminal penalties
for "knowing" violations. However, there may be instances of
culpability which do not meet the criteria for criminal action'.
In cases where administrative civil penalties are sought for
actions of this type, the penalty may be adjusted upward for
willfulness and/or negligence. Conversely, although RCRA is a
strict liability statute, there may be instances where penalty
mitigation may be justified based on the lack of willfulness
and/or negligence.
-------
- 18 -
In assessing the degree of willfulness and/or negligence,
the following factors should be considered, as well as any others
deemed apropriate:
0 how much control the violator had over the events
constituting the violation;
0 the forseeability of the events constituting the
violation;
0 whether the violator took reasonable precautions
against the events constituting the violation;
0 whether the violator knew or should have known of
the hazards associated with the conduct;
0 whether the violator k"new of the legal requirement
which was violated.
It should be noted that this last factor, lack of knowledge
of the legal requirement, should never be used as a basis to
reduce the penalty. To do so would encourage ignorance of the
law. Rather, knowledge of the law should serve only to enhance
the penalty.
The amount of control which the violator had over how quickly
the violation was remedied also is relevant in certain circum-
stances. Specifically, if correction of the environmental problem
was delayed by factors which the violator can clearly show were
not reasonably foreseeable and out of his control, the penalty
may be reduced.
Subject to the above guidance, compliance/enforcement
personnel have discretion in all cases to make adjustments up or
down by as much as 25% of the gravity-based penalty. Adjustments
in the 26-40% range may be made, but only in unusual circumstances.
(3) History of noncompliance (upward adjustment only)
Where a party previously has violated RCRA or State hazardous
waste law at the same or a different site, this is usually clear
evidence that the party was not deterred by the previous enforce-
ment response. Unless the previous violation was caused by
factors entirely out of the control of the violator, this is an
indication that the penalty should be adjusted upwards.
Some of the factors the compliance/enforcement personnel
should consider are the following:
-------
- 19 -
0 how similar the previous violation was;
0 how recent the previous violation was;
0 the number of previous violations;
0 violator's response to previous violation(s)
in regard to correction of problem.
A violation generally should be considered "similar" if the
Agency's or State's previous enforcement response should have
alerted the party to a particular type of compliance problem. A
prior violation of the same or a different RCRA or State requirement
would constitute a similar violation.
For purposes of the section, a "prior violation" includes
any act or omission for which a formal enforcement response has
occurred (e.g., EPA or State notice of violation, warning letter,
complaint, consent agreement, final order, or consent decree).
It also includes any act or omission for which the violator has
previously been given written notification, however informal,
that the Agency believes a violation exists.
In the case of large corporations with many divisions or
wholly-owned subsidiaries, it is sometimes difficult to deter-
mine whether a previous instance of noncompliance should trigger
the adjustments described in this section. New ownership often
raises similar problems. In making this determination, compliance/
enforcement personnel should ascertain who in the organization had
control and oversight responsibility for compliance with RCRA or
other environmental laws. In those cases the violation will be
considered part of the compliance history of that regulated party.
In general, compliance/enforcement personnel should begin
with the assumption that if the same corporation was involved, the
adjustments for history of noncompliance should apply. In addi-
tion, compliance/enforcement personnel should be wary of a party
changing operators or shifting responsibility for compliance to
different persons or entities as a way of avoiding increased
penalties. The Agency may find a consistent pattern of noncom-
pliance by many divisions or subsidiaries of a corporation even
though the facilities are at different geographic locations.
This often reflects, at best, a corporate-wide indifference to
environmental protection. Consequently, the adjustment for
history of noncompliance probably should apply unless the violator
can demonstrate that the other violating corporate facilities are
independent.
Subject to the above guidance, compliance/enforcement
personnel have discretion to make upward adjustments by as much
as 25% of the gravity-based penalty. Adjustments for this factor
in the 26-40% range may be made, but only in unusual circumstances.
-------
- 20 -
(4) Ability to pay (downward adjustment only)
The Agency generally will not request penalties that are
clearly beyond the means of the violator. Therefore EPA should
consider the ability of a violator to pay a penalty. At the
same time, it is important that the regulated community not see
the violation of environmental requirements as a way of aiding a
financially troubled business. EPA reserves the option, in
appropriate circumstances, to seek penalties that might put a
company out of business. It is unlikely, for example, that EPA
would reduce a penalty where a facility refuses to correct a
serious violation. The same could be said for a .violator with a
long history of previous violations. That long history would
demonstrate that less severe measures are ineffective.
The burden to demonstrate inability to pay rests on the
respondent, as it does with any mitigating circumstances. Thus,
a company's inability to pay usually will be considered at the
settlement stage, and then only if the issue is raised by the
respondent. If the respondent fails to provide sufficient infor-
mation, then compliance/enforcement personnel should disregard
this factor in adjusting the penalty. The National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC) has developed the capability to
assist the Regions in determining a firm's ability to pay.
When it is determined that a violator cannot afford the
penalty prescribed by this policy, or that payment of all or a
portion of the penalty will preclude the violator from achieving
compliance or from carrying out remedial measures which the
Agency deems to be more important than the deterrence effect of
the penalty (e.g., payment of penalty would preclude proper
closure/post-closure), the following options may be considered:
0 Consider a delayed payment schedule. Such a
schedule might even be contingent upon an. increase
in sales or some other indicator of improved
business.
* Consider an installment payment plan with interest.
0 Consider straight penalty reductions as a last -
recourse.
The amount of any downward adjustment of the penalty is
.dependent on the individual financial facts of the case.
(5) Other unique factors
This policy allows an adjustment for unanticipated factors
which may arise on a case-by-case basis. Compliance/ enforcement
personnel have discretion to make adjustments by as much as 25% of
-------
- 21 -
Che gravity-based penalty for such reasons. Adjustments for
these factors in the 26-40% range may be made, but only in.unusual
circumstances.
B. Effect of Settlement
The Consolidated Rules of Practice for the assessment of
civil penalties incorporates the Agency policy of encouraging
settlement of a proceeding at any time as long as the settlement
is consistent with the provisions and objectives of RCRA and its
regulations, 40 CFR S22.18(a). If the respondent believes that
it is not liable or that the circumstances of its case justify
mitigation of the penalty proposed in the complaint, the Rules
of Practice allow it to request a settlement conference.
In many cases, the fact of a vidlation will be less of an
issue than the amount of the penalty assessed. The burden always
is on the violator to justify any mitigation of the assessed
penalty. The mitigation, if any, of the penalty assessed in the
complaint should follow the guidelines in the Adjustment Factors
section of this document. The consent agreement must include a
general statement of the reasons for mitigating the proposed
penalty. Specific percentage reductions for individual factors
need not be included.
-------
- 22 -
IX. APPENDIX
PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET
Company Name:
Regulation Violated
Asessments for each violation should be determined
on separate worksheets and totalled.
(If more space is needed, attach separate sheet.)
Part I - Seriousness of Violation Penalty
1. Potential for Harm:
2. Extent of Deviation:
3. Matrix Cell Range:
Penalty Amount Chosen:
Justification for Penalty
Amount Chosen:
4. Per-Day Assessment:
Part II - Penalty Adjustments
Percentage Change* Dollar Amount
1. Good faith efforts
to comply/lack of
good faith:
2. Degree of willfulness
and/or negligence:
3. History of
noncompliance:
4. Other unique factors:
5. Justification for
Adjustments:
* Percentage adjustments are applied to the dollar
amount calculated on line 4, Part I.
-------
- 23 -
PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (cone.)
6. Adjusted Per-day
Penalty (Line 4,
Part I + Lines
1-4, Part II):
7. Number of Days of
Violation:
8. Multi-day Penalty
(Number of days x
Line 6, Part II):
9. Economic Benefit of
Noncompliance:
Justification:
10. Total (Lines 8+9, Part II)
11. Ability to Pay Adjustment:
Justification for
Adjustment:
12. Total Penalty Amount
(must not exceed $25,000
per day of violation):
-------
- 24 -
X. HYPOTHETICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE PENALTY POLICY
(1)(A) Violation: By notification dated August 15, 1980, Company
A-informed EPA that it conducts activities at its facility
involving hazardous waste. In its notification, Company A
indicated that it only generated hazardous waste. A 1983
inspection revealed that Company A was also storing
hazardous waste, and had been since 1979. Company A had
not filed a Part A Permit Application and was thus operating
without a permit or interim status, in violation of §3005
of RCRA. In addition, Company A was in violation of §3010
of RCRA by failing to notify EPA that it was storing
hazardous waste. Failure to notify and operating without a
pemit or interim, status constitute independent and substan-
tially distinguishable violations. Each violation should
be assessed separately and the amounts totalled. The
inspectors indicated that Company A's storage area was
secure and that, in general, the facility was well managed.
However, there were a number of violations of the interim
status standards. The complaint issued to Company A
assessed penalties for the Part 265 violations as well as
the statutory violations. This example will discuss the
§3005 and §3010 violations only.
(B) Seriousness: (i) Failure to Notify: Potential for Harm.
Moderate - EPA was prevented from knowing that hazardous
waste was being stored at the facility. However, because
Company A notified EPA that it was a generator, EPA did
know that hazardous waste was handled at the facility.
The violation may have a significant adverse effect on the
statutory purposes or procedures for implementing the RCRA
program. Extent of Deviation. Moderate - although
Company A did not notify EPA that it stored hazardous waste,
it did notify the Agency that is was a generator. Company A
significantly deviated from the requirement, but part of
the requirement was implemented as intended, (ii) Operating
without a permit. Potential for Harm. Moderate - although
Company A was operating without a permit or interim status,
its facility generally was well managed. However, there
were a number of Part 265 violations. This situation may
pose a significant likelihood of exposure which may have a
significant adverse effect on the statutory purposes for
implementing the RCRA program. Extent of Deviation.
Major - substantial noncompliance with the requirement
because Company A did not notify EPA that it stored
hazardous waste, and did not submit a Part A.
-------
- 25 -
(C) Gravity-based Penalty: (i) Failure to notify. Moderate
potential for harm and moderate extent of deviation lead
one to the cell with the range of $5,000 to $7,999. The
mid-point is $6,500. (ii) Operating without a permit.
Moderate potential for harm and major extent of deviation
lead one to the cell with the range of $8,000 to $10,999.
The midpoint is $9,500. (iii) Total penalty: $6,500 +
$9,500 - $16,000.
(D) Settlement adjustment: Company A raised and documented
that it had cash flow problems. It did not convince EPA
that the penalty should be mitigated. An installment plan
was accepted by both parties as a means of payment. Penalty
remained at $16,000.
(2)(A) Violation: Company B failed to -prevent unknowing entry of
persons onto, the active portion of its surface impoundment
facility. The fence surrounding the area had several holes.
40 CFR S265.14.
(B) Seriousness: Potential for Harm. Major - some children
already have entered the area; potential for harm due to
exposure to waste may be substantial because of the lack of
adequate security around the site. Extent of Deviation.
Moderate - there is a fence, but it has holes.Significant
degree of deviation, but part of the requirement was imple-
mented.
(C) Gravity-based Penalty: Major potential for harm and
moderate extent of deviation yield the penalty range of
$15,000 to $19,999. The midpoint is $17,500.
(D) Pre-complaint Adjustment: During the inspection of the
facility, EPA discovered that the operator of Company B
had been made aware of the above occurrence more than
three months earlier, but had failed to repair the fence
or increase security in that area. The penalty is
adjusted upwards 25% for willfulness and/or negligence.
$17,500 + $4,375 - $21,875. [Penalty calculation using
the Penalty Computation Worksheet follows this hypothetical.]
(E) Settlement Adjustment: Company B gave evidence at
settlement of labor problems with security officers and
reordering and delivery delays for a new fence. Company
B was very cooperative and stated that a new fence
had been installed after issuance of the complaint and that
-------
- 26 -
security would be provided for by another company in the
near future. Even though the company was very cooperative,
its actions were only those required under the regulations.
No justification for mitigation for good faith efforts to
comply exists. No change in $21,875 penalty.
-------
- 27 -
PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET
Company Name :
Regulation Violated
Asessments for each violation should be determined
on separate worksheets and totalled.
(If more space is needed, attach separate sheet.)
Part I - Seriousness of Violation Penalty
1 . Potential for Harm:
2. Extent of Deviation: fV\ o
-------
- 28 -
PENALTY COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (cone.)
6. Adjusted Per-day
Penalty (Line 4,
Part I + Lines
1-4, Part II): "
7. Number of Days of
Violation:
8. Multi-day Penalty
(Number of days x
Line 6, Part II):
9. Economic Benefit of
Noncompliance:
Justification:
10. Total (Lines 8 + 9, Part II): * 3
11. Ability to Pay Adjustment:
Justification for /vl/A
Adjustment:
12. Total Penalty Amount
(must not exceed $25,000
per day of violation) :
-------
- 29 -
(3)(A) Violation: A 1984 inspection of Company C's land disposal
facility revealed that Company C had failed to implement a
ground-water monitoring system by November 1981 as required
under 40 CFR §265.90. The facility had taken no steps -to
implement a system: it failed to install monitoring wells
(§265.91), and to obtain and analyze samples (§265.92); no
outline of a ground-water quality assessment program had
been prepared (§265.93); and no records were kept nor
reports submitted to the Agency (§265.94). All of the
violations arise from the same set of circumstances.
Because ..Company C did not install wells, no sampling and
analysis could occur. Without sampling and analysis,
Company C did not have information with which to prepare a
quality assessment program outline, keep records, or submit
reports to the Agency. Therefore, the violations are not
independent and substantially -distinguishable in this
situation. [See: Assessing Multiple Penalties]. A single.
penalty assessment is appropriate, with each section of the
regulations that was violated cited in the complaint.
(B) Seriousness: Potential for Harm. Major - the violation
could pose a substantial likelihood of exposure and could
have a substantial adverse effect on the purposes for
implementing the RCRA program. Extent of Deviation. Major -
none of the requirements were implemented asintended.
(C) Gravity-based Penalty: Major potential for harm and major
extent of deviation yield the cell with the penalty range
of 320,000 to $25,000. The mid-point is $22,500.
(D) Economic Benefit of Noncompliance: Ground-water monitoring
has been identified as an area for which an economic benefit
component may be significant. The following estimates of
the costs of complying with the ground-water monitoring
requirements are taken from a January 1982 report prepared
for EPA by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., entitled, Development
of Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements and Costs for
Current RCRA Regulatory Requirements. Contract No. 68-01-5838
First Year Costs
Cost of ground-water quality assessment $2,000
plan outline and ground-water sampling
and analysis plan (COP)
Cost of wells (COW), 1 upgradient and 3 $9,000
downgradient
Cost of sampling (COS) $1,640
-------
- 30 -
Cost of analysis (COA) $11,360
Cost of report (COR), report for $3,200
determining system needs, not report
required Under §265.94
TOTAL . $27,200
Second Year Costs
Cost of sampling and cost of analysis -• $1 ,900
(COS, COA), assuming no contamination
found
Assumptions: geology is unconsolidated material; hollow-
stem auger drilling; PVC construction material; ground-
water' sampling by hand bailing; wells dug 50 ft. deep;
estimated costs remained constant over time.
COP, COW, COR, and first year COS and COA are delayed costs.
Company C eventually will make these expenditures in order
to achieve compliance. Second year and subsequent COS and
COA are avoided costs. Company C has permanently avoided
incurring these costs.
Calculation of Economic Benefit Component
For each year of noncompliance (1981-1984), the economic
benefit component should be calculated using the formula
set out in Section VII:
Economic
Benefit = Avoided Costs (1-T) + (Delayed Costs x Interest Rate)
1981: By November 1981, Company C was required to implement
its ground-water monitoring system by installing
wells, obtaining and analyzing samples at least
quarterly, and preparing a quality assessment program
outline.
Delayed costs = $27,200
Avoided costs = SO
IRS interest rate = 12%
Assume T = .46
Economic Benefit = SO + ($27,200 x 12%)
= $3,264
-------
- 31 -
1982: Company C still had not implemented its ground-
water monitoring system. In addition, it had not
obtained and analyzed samples at least annually or
semi-annually, depending on the indicator parameter.
Delayed costs = $27,200
Avoided costs = $1 ,900
IRS interest rate = 20%
Assume T = .46
Economic Benefit = $1,900 (1-.46) + ($27,200 x 20%)
= $6,466
1983: Company C still had not implemented its ground-
water monitoring system. In addition, it had not
obtained and analyzed samples at least annually or
semi-annually, depending on the indicator parameter.
Delayed costs = $27,200
Avoided costs = $1,900
IRS interest rate = 13.5% (the average of 16% and 11%)
Assume T = .46
•Economic Benefit = $1,900 (1-.46) + ($27,200 x 13.5%)
= $4,698
Total Economic Benefit = $3,264 + $6,466 + $4,698
= $14,428
Penalty proposed .in complaint = gravity-based penalty +
economic benefit component
= $22,500 + $14,428
= $36,928
Because noncompliance continued over a three year period,
the proposed penalty does not exceed $25,000 per day of
violation.
(E) Settlement Adjustment: Company C did not request a
settlement conference but did comply with the Compliance
Order and paid the proposed penalty.
(4)(A) Violation: Pursuant to §3007(a) of RCRA, EPA sent a
letter to Company D requesting that it furnish informa-
tion relating to hazardous waste. Specifically, five
separate records were requested. The letter required a
response to EPA within 14 calendar days of Company D's
receipt of the letter. One month after Company D
received EPA's information request, it submitted three
of the five documents requested. EPA sent a second
letter requesting the two remaining documents. Company
D failed to respond to the request.
-------
- "32 -
(B) Seriousness: Potential for Harm. Moderate - Based on
Che nature of the information requested, EPA determined
that Company D's failure to submit information relating
to. hazardous waste to EPA as requested may have a signi-
ficant adverse effect on the purposes and procedures
for implementing the RCRA program. Extent of Deviation.
Moderate - Company D did submit some of the information
requested. It significantly deviated from the require-
ment, but part of the requirement was implemented as
intended.
(C) Gravity-based Penalty: Moderate - potential for harm
.and moderate extent of deviation yield the penalty range
of $5,00.0 to $7,999. The midpoint is $6,500.
(D) Pre-Assessment Adjustments - On two previous occasions
at different facilities, Company D failed to respond
completely to §3007 requests for different information.
In those cases, EPA issued administrative complaints with
proposed penalties of $6,500 and $8,125 respectively.
Both cases resulted in Consent Agreements and Final
Orders which were entered into before EPA requested the
information in the present case. The penalty is adjusted
upwards 50% for history of noncompliance. .$6,500 +
$3,250 = $9,750. Compliance/enforcement personnel
determined that the penalties assessed in the previous
cases had failed to deter Company D from repeated
noncompliance with RCRA. For this reason, a multi-day
penalty of $9,750 per day from the date the information
was due to EPA was assessed.
(E) Settlement Adjustment: Company D failed to convince EPA
that any penalty mitigation was justified. Settlement
negotiations broke down and the case went to an
administrative hearing.
(5)(A) Violation: Company E's Part B Permit Application was called
in by EPA in 1983. Company E, a land disposal facility,
failed to submit its Part B by the date specified when the
application was called-in. EPA issued a Notice of-Deficiency
requiring submission of a complete Part B within 30 days.
EPA also issued a warning letter stating that failure to
submit a complete Part B application is a violation of
40 CFR §270.10(a) which may result in the assessment of
civil penalties and the initiation of procedures to termi-
nate the facility's interim status. Company E sent EPA a
one-page response several weeks after the date stipulated
in the Notice of Deficiency. The response was seriously
incomplete. Thus, Company E failed to submit a complete
Part B in violation of 40 CFR §270.10(a).
-------
- 33 -
(B) Seriousness: Potential for Harm. Moderate - inspections of
Company E's facility have revealed a generally well-managed
operation. However, failure to carry out the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR §270.14-270.29 could pose a significant
likelihood of exposure in this situation. The violation could
have a significant adverse effect on the procedures for
implementing the RCRA program. Extent of Deviation. Major -
Part B application was seriously incomplete.
(C) Gravity-based Penalty: Moderate potential for harm and
major extent of deviation lead one to the cell with the
range -of $8,000 to $10,999. The mid-point is $9,500.
(D) Eco.nomic Benefit of Noncompliance: Failure to submit or
submittal of an incomplete Part B application has been
identified as an area for which_an economic benefit component
may be significant. In a document prepared by EPA's Office
of Solid Waste requesting clearance from the Office of
Management and Budget to call in Part B applications, it was
estimated that the cost of preparing a Part B for a land
disposal facility was approximately $150,000. The document,
entitled, FY 1984 Burden Hours for RCRA Land Disposal
Permitting Standards is dated November 18,1983.
The economic benefit component should'be calculated using
the formula set out in Section VII:
Economic
Benefit = Avoided Costs (1-T) + (Delayed Costs x Interest Rate)
Failure to submit a complete Part B is a delayed cost.
Company E eventually will spend the money in order to
achieve compliance. No avoided costs are associated with
this violation. The economic benefit should be calculated
for a one year period. The IRS interest rate for 1983 is
13.5% (the average of 16% and 11%).
Economic Benefit = $0 + ($150,000 x 13.5%)
= $20,250
Penalty proposed in complaint = gravity-based penalty +
economic benefit component
= $9,500 + $20,250
= $29,750
Because noncompliance continued over a period of several
months, the proposed penalty does not exceed $25,000 per
day of violation.
-------
- 34 -
(E) Settlement Adjustment: At the settlement conference,
Company E raised and documented that it was in a poor.
financial state and would be unable to pay the full penalty.
Company E also told the Agency that it intended to cease
handling hazardous waste. Because of the company's
inability to pay, and because of the Agency's desire that
Company E put what money it has into proper closure and
post-closure care at its facility, the penalty was reduced
to $5,000. . A Compliance Order was issued putting.Company E
on a schedule for closing its facility in accordance with
its approved closure plan.
-------
POSSIBLE RCRA INTERIM MEASURES
CONTAINERS - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
LANDFILL - WASTE PILE
GROUND WATER - SURFACE WATER RELEASE
TANKS - GAS MIGRATION CONTROL
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS • OTHER
-------
INTERIM MEASURES
CONTAINERS
• Overpack/Re-drum
• Construct Storage Area/Move to Storage Area
• Segregation
• Sampling and Analysis
• Treatment, Storage and/or Disposal
• Temporary Cover
TANKS
• Overflow/Secondary Containment
• Leak Detection/Repair/Partial or Complete Removal
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
• Reduce Head
• Remove Free Liquids and or Highly Mobile Wastes
• Stabilize/Repair Side Walls, Dikes or Liner(s)
• Temporary Cover
• Run-off/Run-on Control (Diversion of Collection Devices)
• Sample and Analysis to Document the Concentration of
Constituents Left in Place When a Surface Impoundment
Handling Characteristic Wastes is Clean Closed
• Interim Ground-water Measures (See Ground-water Section)
LANDFILL
• Run-off/Run-on Control (Diversion or Collection Devices)
• Reduce Head on Liner and/or in Leachate Collection System
• Inspect Leachate Collection/Removal System or French Drain
• Repair Leachate Collection/Removal System or French Drain
• Temporary Cap
• Waste Removal (See Soils Section)
• Interim Ground-water Measures (See Ground-water Section)
WASTE PILE
• Run-off/Run-on Control (Diversion of Collection Devices)
• Temporary Cover
• Waste Removal (See Soils Section)
• Interim Ground-water Measures (See Ground-water Section)
-------
SOILS
• Sampling/Analysis/Disposal
• Run-off/Run-on Control (Diversion or Collection Devices)
• Temporary Cap/Cover
GROUND WATER
• Delineation/Verification of Gross Contamination
• Sampling and Analysis
• Interceptor Trench/Sump/Subsurface Drain
• Pump and Treat/ln-situ Treatment
• Temporary Cap/Cover
SURFACE WATER RELEASE (Point and Non-point)
• Overflow/Underflow Dams
• Filter Fences
• Run-off/run-on Control (Diversion or Collection Devices)
• Regrading/Revegetation
• Sample and Analyze Surface Waters and Sediments or Point
Source Discharges
GAS MIGRATION CONTROL
• Barriers/Collection/Treatment/Monitoring
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
• Truck Wash (Decontamination Unit)
• Re-vegetation
• Application of Dust Supressant
OTHER TYPES OF ACTIONS
• Fencing to Prevent Direct Contact
• Extend Contamination Studies to Off-site Areas if Permission is
Obtained as Required Under Section §3004(v)
• Alternate Water Supply to Replace Contaminated Drinking Water
• Temporary Relocation of Exposed Population
• Temporary or Permanent Injunction
• Suspend or Revoke Authorization to Operate Under Interim
Status
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 2 4 l9Pi
MEMORANDUM
SOLID WASTE AMD EMERGEMCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Request for Garments on a Draft Corrective Action
Interim Measures
FROM: .Lloyd Guerci, Director
RCRA Enforcement Division, OWPE (WH-527)
Bruce wed die,
Permit & State Program Division, OSW (WH-563)
TO: ' RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
On December 10, 1985, the RCRA Enforcement Division transmitted
to you a copy of a draft §3008(h) Corrective Action Model Order.
developed at Headquarters and asked for year ccrrre-ts Dy December 20,
1985. Today we are transmitting one of the companion documents
which was also noted in the December 10 era: ami c. til.
The document is tentatively titled Corrective Action Interim Measures and
is designed to provide a review of response actions available under
§3008(h) as well as permits to quickly address problems while other detailed
investigations or analyses are ongoing. Interim measures should be designed
and implemented as an initial remedial activity in a multi-phased order or
as the action in the first of a series of orders which feed into an operating
permit, post-closure permit or interim status closure plan.
You will note that this document does not address the questions of
trigger levels for corrective action or levels of clean-up to be achieved.
We solicit your comments on these two key subjects. To date we at Headquarters
have seen a wide" variety of proposed requirements in Corrective Action Orders
and Referrals. Clean-up levels have ranged from background, to a specified
percentage reduction in total volatile organics, to the establishment
of ACLs, to no specif-ied clean-up levels. Activities have ranged from
sweeping contaminated floors or parking lots to excavation of solid waste
management units. Several actions have called for soil sampling and
sediment/surface water sampling from point source and non-point source
discharges.
-------
We request that staff frcm both enforcement and permitting develop a
coordinated set of comments from the Regional program offices. To allow for
an expedited turnaround for the final document, we are requesting that you
submit your comments to each of us within two weeks. In the interim, Regions
are encouraged to continue to develop both administrative orders and judicial
referrals under the r.ew corrective action authority and co proceed with
corrective ?.ction activities, including preliminary assessments or site
investigations.
attachments
cc: RCRA Section Chiefs
..**
-------
DRAFT
JAN 24 I9S6
RCRA § 3 0 0 8 ( h ) CORRECT I V e ACTION
R I M M " A S '.] R F: S
-------
STRATEGY
por _,,., ; •; ; "CP-ATIOM OF
INTERIM MEASURES
IM
CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERS
-------
Interim Measures Strategy
Background
Section 3008('n) gives EPA authority to issue Administrative
Orders or seek judicial relief requiring corrective action or
such other response measures deemed necessary to protect human
health or the environment, based on information that a release
has or is occurring into the environmenc from a facility. This
authority provides for the broad applicability of corrective
actions and response measures.
Extensive and time consuming investigations may be required
to develop a comprehensive corrective action plan (RI equivalent)
for a facility. During this period the release could continue
unabated which would allow the spread of contamination or the
continuance of conditions that may endanger or impact human health
or the environment. Therefore, interim measures pursuant to
corrective action orders or permits, should be considered and
where appropriate directed.
Implementation Strategy
1. OWPE (HO) ^iil review ex^cin.) L^HCL.'-. guidance and CERCLA
case files to develop a comprehensive list of possible
interim measure's.
2. OWPE (HQ) will provi'.i- c:ie Re.j ions .vi-.i the list of i n c.-a r i TI
measures together with model order language as needed for each
interim measure to assist in the development of corrective
action orders.
3. Regions should consider interim measures for all corrective
action orders and initiate them for facilities where a
release that threatens human health or the environment
has been identified. Implementation of interim measures
should be consistent with priorities, as necessary to
protect human health or the environment, based on information
that a release has or is occurring at an interim status
facility.
4. Regions should integrate interim measures where appropriate,
as initial phase(s) of corrective action orders.
5. Interim measures are independent of the comprehensive
corrective action plan. They may, in fact, add additional
costs or work to the comprehensive corrective action. This
should not be a justification for not implementing an interim
measure. To decide what interim measure is appropriate, both
technical judgement and potential threat evaluation should be
considered.^ If the release poses a minimal threat to human
1 An example of hazardous constituent specific health effects
is attached. Similar data sheets can be found for other
constituents in "Chemical, Physical and Biological Properties
of Compounds Present at Hazardous Waste Sites", September 1985.
-------
health or the environment, a comprehensive and sometimes
expensive interim me'asure (e.g. pump and treat) might not
be necessary or appropriate. Interim measures should be
consistent with and integrated into a.ny lona tarm remedy (e.g
an operating permit, post-closure permit or interim status
:losure) to the maximum o-cr.ent possible.
Types of Interim Measures
Corrective action orders should incorporate actions (interim
measures) necessary to protect human health or the environment.
Interim measures are actions that should be taken to prevent releases
or additional contamination, prevent or reduce the further spread
of contamination, and reduce, abate or remove the exposure threat
presented by releases. During a selection of an interim measure,
Regions should consider the magnitude of the potential threat to
human health or the environment. The Agency's authority to seek
relief by ordering an owner/operator to perform specified activities
is directly correlated to the protection of human health and the
environment standard. Therefore, if the threat is minimal or the
risk has yet to be determined, simple monitoring of ground water,
surc?ice water, soil c - •=. i r m.--y :,e the types of a c t i ^T-S ordered.
For example, if a release co ground wacer is minimal ana che
aquifer is not used b/ the n'•; .i r !•> y population, a program to pump
and treat may not be appropriate. If che chreat is greater or as
more information becon-?s -available through initial or additional
sampling and analysis, more serious actions should be contemplated
either by incorporating actions into a single "phased" order or
by issuing separate orders.
Attached is a list of some possible interim measures. It
was compiled from removal actions and past CERCLA remedial
guidance.
-------
DECISION CRI'i£kiA '
-------
Decision Criteria.
Regional staff must r^vi^w the pertinent facts about the
source and nature of the r-?L:.^ie or threat of reloa^e .ind !?..r;ed on
the magnitude of the potential threat to hurmn health and environment,
decide if interim •vj.isurss are ap ^copri ?. te .
To determine when 2 potential threat to human healtn or tlvj
environment exis'ts as a result of a release, the enforcement official/
permit writer, should consider factors such as site location, type of
release and its scope. The foliowinn questions may help the Regional
staff in determining these factors.
1. What is the location (e.g., residential area, schools, hospitals,
near vital ecology or protected natural resource)?
2. Is the release widespread and/or migrating rapidly?
(a) What factors could decrease or intensify the extent
of contamination?
(b) How is It snL.;:.n:. : i .-,-•:•:-. direction'.' •"•.t vhst rr-;t-.-?
3. Whit type of wastes or c-j -\ •=,--. i. tuent.s are present
(e.g., volatile organics, rr.etals, etc)?
(a) What are the char ic': 3 r is t ics ( ignitab le , reactive,
corrosive, biohazard, radioactive, etc.) of the waste?
(b) What is the background level of each waste or constituent?
4. What are the estimatad quantities released?
5. What are the known effects of human exposure (short- and long-term
effects)?
6. Has human exposure actually occurred?
(a) What kind (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, skin contact)?
(b) What is or will be the exposure pathway (e.g., air,
drinking water, food)?
(c) Are there reports of illness, injury, death?
(d) How many people are or will be affected?
-------
7. Is human exposure imminent?
(a) What kind (e.g., inhalation, inqestion, skin contact)?
(b) What is or will be the exposure pathway (e.g., air,
drink inn water, food)?
(c) When is it likely to1 occur?
'8. What are the characteristics of the exposed popuLi t ion( 3)
(how many, infants, nursing home residents)?
. 9. Has there been an evironmental impact?
(a) What evironmental attributes have been impacted! e .g. ,
ground water, air, surface water)?
(b) What are the known short-term and long-term effects
on the evironment of the released waste or constituent?
(c) What natural resource effects have occurred/been
demonstrated (e.g., fish kills)?
(d) What are the known ecological effects?
10. Is there a threat to the environment?
(a) When is this threat likely to materialize (days, weeks,
months)?
(b) What are the projected effects?
11. If response is delayed, how will the situation deteriorate?
.•*'>••-. i.
-------
i:-;T:-:K[.-I MEASURES
-------
INTERIM MEASURES
Containers
a) Overpack/re-drum
b) Construct storage area/move to storaae area
c) Seq-.-o-ia: .on
d) Sample/analyze and dispose
e) Excavation/disoosal
f ) T.;mpo rai / cap
Surface Impoundments
a) Reduce head
b) Portvcve r.?*e liquids and/or hiahly mobile wastes
c) Stabilize/repair side walls/increase freeboard/geotextile
d) In-Situ solidification
e) Cover (control air release or overflow due to rain)
f) Interim ground water measures
g) Runoff/run on control (diversion or collection devices)
h) Document the concentration of constituents-; _left in place
.:.:•.- - : ..••_•;.•? • -:.j . .- i-iv.-it •.:••.• :. L -, 7 '._• I": a r vj (• rr i s t i c was t"s
is clear, closed*
Landfill
a) Runoff/run on control (diversion or collection devices)
b) Reduce head on liner and/or in. leachate collection system
c) Repair leachate collection/removal system or french drain
d) Install new leachate collection/removal system or french
drain
e) Temporary cap/cover (asphalt, synthetic or clay)
f) Interim ground water measures
g) Excavation/disposal
Waste Pile
a) Runoff/run on control (diversion or collection devices)
b) Cover (polymeric membrane, geotextile or clay
c) Solidification
d) Interim ground water measures
e) Removal of the waste pile for proper storage
f) Excavation/disposal
When this type of surface impoundment is clean closed,
there may be constituents left in place. Some of these
constituents may present a potential threat to human
health or the environment (e.g. corrosive waste may
contain heavy metals).
-------
Ground Water
a) Sampling and analysis
b) Delineation of plume
c) Interceotor trench/ suno/french drain
•d) P'-iT.p and - reac/ i n-s i tu treatment
e) Cut-off //alls (slurry or b-en-.oni t3 ^
f) Iriti.:ce c-j ••/•? lopnont of AGT-s
Surface Water Release
a) Overflow/underflow dams
b) Filter fences
c) Runoff/run on control (diversion or collection devices)
d) Regrading/revegetation
e) Cover with geotextile
f) Sample and analyze surface waters and sediments
Tanks
a) Leak or cracks detection/ repair
b) Relining
c) Partial or complete removal
d) Pipeline removal or reo lacoinen t
e) Secondary containment
Gas ".in ration Carve:":!
a) Pipe v.3nc3
b) Trench vents
c) Gas barriers
d) Gas collection system
e) Gas treatment system
f) Gas recovery
Particulate Emissions
a) Truck wash (decontamination unit)
b) Re-vegetation
c) Application of dust supressent
Other Types of Actions
a) Fencing to prevent direct contact
b) Alternate water supply to replace contaminated
drinking water
c) Temporary relocation of people
d) Extent of contamination studies into off-site areas
if permission is obtained as required under Section §3004(v)
e) Other actions necessary to protect human health
or the environment
-------
INTERIM MEASURES LANGUAGE
TO INCLUDE IN
CORRECTIVE ACTION•ORDERS
-------
CONTAINERS
(1) Within days, submit a plan ho EPA which details
procedures for sampling and analysis of wastes in
(every container or specified containers). Upon
reciept of EPA's comments on the plan, Respondant
shall incorporate those comments and implement the
plan. The plan shall be based on the sampling and
analytical techniques described in SV7-846 (and other
documents listed by EPA) .
(2) Within days, examine every container to detect any
deterioration or leakage. Overpack or redrum each leaking
and each substantially ••••• •;.-.; -.-^ntJiner that -ay loak
to prevent further or : .• •: • '.•-•-.-•.age .
(3) Within days, designate or construct a storage area
that meets the standards of 40 CFR §264 and is large
enough for all containers. The area must have an
impervious base and be constructed to collect releases.
Consolidate and place containers that do not require
overpacking or redrumming and those that are redrummed
or overpacked in a temporary on site storage area approved
by EPA.
(4) Within days, place containers in a well ventilated
covered structure with appropriate secondary containment
in accordance with Part 264 Subpart I requirements.
-------
5) If the content of the containers is not known, within davs ,
submit a plan to EPA to sample and analyze to determine .
the proper treatment, storage and/or disposal techniques.
6) Within days, remove and dispose of significantly contaminated
soils (residue of spills or leaks from containers) largely
afc or near surface. (List specific areas). After removal
of contaminated soil, the remaining soil shall be sampled
and analyzed in accordance with a plan submitted to EPA
by the Respondant within days.
Significantly contaminated areas should be identified
on a case by case basis by EPA.
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(1) Within days, reduce the he-ad in- thu surface impoundment
to a level :f in and mint^in that level. To reduce -he
head, punp materials to increase the nreeboard to inches.
Store or dispose of the pumped materials in a manner
that complies with applicable standards of RCRA and if
appropriate, the Clean Water Act.
(2) Within days, submit a plan to select a method for
stabilization (solidification, fixation, reduction of
free liquids etc.) of the waste. Within days incorporate
EPA's comments into the plan and implement the.revised plan.
(3'' Within days, -;ub ::;:.•: _-; _)L.v; to pl.i.:-* 3 temporary 'ccv^r
over the surface irnpo_:n-.::"c-nt to reduce infiltration of
precipitation and control air releases. The plan should
include the design of a cover and method of application
that assures that precipitation runs off and does not
allow ponding on the cover, the cover must have a
permeability no greater than , and is compatible
with the chemical and physical characteristics of the
waste being covered, local climate and the other design
characteristics of the unit including any berms, dikes or
other appurtenances. within days incorporate EPA's
comments into the plan and implement the revised plan.
-------
(4) Within days, submit a plan to document the levels
of the concentrations of hazardous waste or constituents
left in place when a surface impoundment handling
characterise ic v/astas .is clean closed.* Within days,
incorporate EPA's comments into the plan and implement
the revised plan.
When this type of surface impoundment is clean closed,
there may be constituents left in place. Some of these
constituents may present a potential threat to human
health or the environment (e.g. corrosive waste may
contain heavy metals).
-------
LANDFILLS AND WASTE PILES
(1) Within days, submit a plan to place a cap (temporary)
over the landfill or waste pile to prevent surface water
infiltration, control water and wind erosion or dispersion,
and isolate and contain contaminated wastes and volatiles.
The plan should include the design and method of application
that assures that precipitation runs off and the cap has a
permeability no greater than and is compatible with
the chemical and physical characteristics of the waste
being covered, local climate and hydrogeology. Within
days incorporate EPA's comments into the plan and implement
the revised plan.
(2; Within days, subrni . :i pi-.i.: co uxj ivate material ana
designate or construct a storage area that meets the
standards of 40 CFR §265 and large enough for all the
excavated waste or transport to an approved RCRA facility,
taking into consideration:
(a) density of solid waste in a landfill
(b) amount of solid waste in a landfill
(c) 'the settlement to the fill
(d) chemical composition and hazards presented by
the waste
(e) the bearing capacity of the fill
(f) decomposition rate of the waste
(g) proper packaging of the waste
-------
Within days incorporate EPA's comments into the plan
and implement the revised plan.
(3) Within days, submit a plan for the installation of
devices to control suirca-:"1 runoff so r.h.v. (h. doivs not
contribute to leachate generation or erosion of covered
materials. The plan should include the design of diversion
and collection devices to effect run-on control. These
devices can consist of, but not limited to: dikes and
berms, ditches, diversions, waterways, bench terraces,
chutes and downpipes. Within days incorporate EPA's
comments into the plan and implement the revised plan.
(4) Within cays, reduce tho head on chvi iln^r a.id'/'^r in
the leachacj coil-ice ion sysU-s.n t .7 ,=) L •/ •- .-1 oc in and
maintain that level. Store or dispose of removed leachate
in a manner that complies with applicable standards of RCRA.
(5) Within days, inspect the leachate collection system
and repair, replace, or upgrade if necessary. Record all
data collected or observations made and maintain this
record as part of the facility operating record. If the
observations or data collected demonstrate that leachate
collection system is not functioning to the degree necessary
to meet the requirements of Part 265, submit the inspection
record to EPA within days for review and comment and to
revise Part B of the facility's permit application.
-------
G?.OU\TD uATER
(1) Within days, sub-nit a plan r.o •.lotermine the extent of
the contamination and to delin---at.; the plum-). Activity
can be directed to-varcis section.-; >:. plu^e t-ireateni nq
sensitive areas (list areas). The plan will include sampling
and analysis of the following parameters: (list parameters)
' Within days incorporate EPA's comments into the plan
and implement the revised plan.
(2) Within days, submit a plan tor t;".e installation at
impermeable barriers to divert qround water flow away
from a waste disposal area, awiy from a sensitive
environmental area or populated area, or to contain
contaminated ground wat«r .ILJC nt ing' d rom the waste area.
Within days incorporate EPA's comments into the plan
and implement the revised plan.
(3) Within days, submit a plan for the installation of
a system to capture the plur.io of contaminants based on
the hydrogeology of the site and the type and amount of
contaminants present in the ground water. The plan
should include methods to be used to pump the ground
water in order to lower the water table -50 that:
(a) contaminated ground water does not discharge
to a receiving stream that is hydraulically
connected;
-------
(b) ground water is not in direct contact with
the waste site;
(c) co prevent leaky aquifers from conta-i ina t i-vr;
other aquifers.
Within days incorporate EPA1s comments into th plan
and implement the revised plan.
(4) Within days, submit a plan for the installation of
a system to include enough number of extraction and
injection wells that will allow water within the plume
to be pumped, treated and reintrouduced into the aquifer.
The pVan shouM includo a around water treatment system
to address the specific ground water contamination problems.
Within. d_v.-- in.-:orno ra te EPVs comments and implement
the revised nlan.
(5) Within days, submit a plan to establish interim
concentration levels to monitor the impact of pumping,
injection, slurry wall construction, etc. on the hydrogeology
of the site for the purpose of establishing ACLs or MCLs.
Within days incorporate EPA's comments into the plan and
implement the revised plan.
-------
SURFACE WATER RELEASE
(1) Within days, .submit a plan to select a grading technique
to control infiltration, detain or promote runoff. within
days incorporate EPA's comments into the plan and implement
the revised plan.
(2) Within days, submit a plan to install filter fences
in order to prevent further spread of contamination to
surface waters. Filter fences will be constructed of
materials that will contain the contaminants in the
water. Within days incorporate EPA's comments into tho
plan and implement the revised plan.
(3) Within days, submit a plan to establish a vegetative
cover to stabilize the surface of the hazardous disposal
site. The plan will address the following factors:
(a) cover soil characteristics (grain size,
organic content, nutrient and Ph levels
and water content
(b) local climate
(c) site hydrogeology
(d) species compatibility with other plants
selected to be grown on the site, resistance
to insect damage and disease, and suitability
for future land use.
Within days, incorporate EPA's comments into the plan
and implement the revised plan.
-------
Owner/operator will maintain vegetation and repair/replant
as necessary.
(4) Within days, submit a plan for the installation of
J.i version anrl :•?]. leot ion device.". Tc-.°se devices can
consist of, but but not limited to: dikes and berms,
ditches, diversions, waterways, bench terraces, chutes
and downpipes. Within days of reciept incorporate
EPA's comments and implement the revised plan.
(5) Within days, submit a plan which details procedures
for sampling analyzing surface waters or sediments which
'nave received (point source or non-point source) discharges
from units (list units). Within days of reciept,
\ncorporata EPA's comments and implement the plan.
-------
TANKS
(1) Increase inspection frequency or change inspection
procedures co detect leaks or cracks and repair or replace
them.
(2) Within days, inspect valves and pipes (especially
joints and connectors) and repair or replace them.
(3) Within days, remove part of the.waste to prevent overflow
in the tank.. Monitor liquid level, place a lap on the
tank or install a larger or secondary tank to handle
overflow as necessary.
(4) Within days, submit a plan do:: a comple'te repair/
removal/replacement of tanks that present structural
failure (e.g. leaks/cracks). Within days incorporate
EPA's comments and implement the revised plan.
(5) Within days, submit a plan for the design, construction
' and installation of dikes or other drainage control
systems to prevent further spread of contamination due
to releases from the tank. Within days incorporate
EPA's comments and implement the revised plan.
-------
GAS MIGRATION CONTROL
Within days, submit a plan for the design and installation
of a gas migration control syscem to control lateral and
vertical migration of gases or vapors'. The gas migration
control system will include, but not limited to:
(1) pipe vents and/or;
(2) trench vents and/or;
(3) gas barriers and/or;
(4) gas collection system and/or;
(5) gas treatment system and/or;
(6) gas recovery
Within days incorporate EPA1s"comments into the plan and
implement same.
-------
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
(1) Within days, develop and install decontamination units
to provide for the effective cleaning of vehicles and
personnel entering contaminated areas in order to prevent
further .spread of contamination.
(2) Within days, establish a short term vegetative cover
to stabilize contaminate surfaces.
(3) Within days, apply a dust suppressant to prevent spread
of contamination due to the wind. Water is the most
common dust suppressant used. It is inappropriate to
i!."_- co \ I..-M: - od ioucnar.- j.;^ ; oil ';r .idzar'ious waste to
control v, ind d !.-;:>•:-r3 i rn .
-------
OTHER ACTIONS
(1) Within iv/s, submit a plan to collect and analyze
samples to determine extant of contamination outside
facility boundaries where permission is obtained as
required by Section §3004(v).
(2) Within days provide alternative water supplies to
the affected community.
(3) Within days install security fencinq, warning signs
or other measures t--. ii.-r.it access to the site.
(5) Within clays develoo a public awareness proaram to
reduce o'r control c •;n-.;c;rri and counter unfounded rumors.
-------
Attachment from -'Cnemical, Physical and 3ioloaical Properties
of Compounds Present at Hazardous Waste Sites", Seotenber 1985
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Summary
Tetrachloroethylene (PCZ, perchloroethylene) induced liver
tumors when administered orally to mice and was found to be
mutagenic using a microbial assay system. Reproduction toxicity
was observed in pregnant rats and mice exposed to high concentra-
tions. Animals exposed by inhalation to tetrachloroethylene
exhibited liver, kidney, and central nervous system damage.
CAS Number: 127-18-4
Chemical Formula: C2C14
IUPAC Name: Tetrachloroethene
Important Synonyms and Trade Names: Perchloroethylene, PCE
Chemical and Physical Properties
Molecular Weight: 165.83
Boiling Point: 121°C
Melting Point: -22.7°C
Specific Gravity: 1.63
Solubility in Water: 150 to 200 mg/liter at 20°C
Solubility in Organics: Soluble in alcohol, ether, and benzene
Log Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient: 2.88
Vapor Pressure: 14 mm Hg at 20°C
Transport and Fate
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) rapidly volatiziles into the
atmosphere where it reacts with hydroxyl radicals to produce
HC1, CO, CO- and carboxylic acid. This is probably the most
important transport and fate process for tetrachloroethylene
in the environment. PCE will leach into the groundwatex, espe-
cially in soils of low organic content. In soils with high
levels of organics, PCE adsorbs to these, materials and can
Tetrachloroethylene
Page 1
October 1985 Cciament Associates
-------
be bioaccumulated to some degree. However, it is unclear if
tetrachloroethylene bound to organic material can be degraded
by microorganisms or-raust be desorbed to be destroyed. There
is some evidence that higher organisms can metabolize PCE.
Health Effects
Tetrarhloroethylene was found to produce liver cancer
in male and female mice when administered orally by gavage
(NCI 1977). Unpublished gavage studies in rats and mice per-
formed by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) showed hepato-
cellular carcinomas in mice and a slight, statistically insig-
nificant increase in a rare type of kidney tumor. NTP is
also conducting an inhalation carcinogenicity study. Elevated
mutagenic activity was found in Salmonella strains treated
with tetrachloroethylene. Delayed ossification of skull bones
and sternebrae were reported in offspring of pregnant mice
exposed to 2,000 rag/m of tetrachloroethylene for 7 hours/day.
on days 6-15 of gestation. Increased fetal resorptions were
observed after exposure of pregnant rats to tetrachloroethylene.
Renal toxicity and hepatotoxicity have been noted following
chronic inhalation exposure of rats to tetrachloroethylene
levels of 1,356 mg/m . During the first 2 weeks of a subchronic
inhalation study, exposure to concentrations of 1.,622 ppm
(10,867 mg/m ) of tetrachloroethylene produced signs of central
nervous system depression, and cholinergic stimulation was
observed among rabbits, monkeys, rats, and guinea pigs.
Toxicity to Wildlife and Domestic Animals
Tetrachloroethylene is the most toxic of the chloroethylenes
to aquatic organisms but is only moderately toxic relative
to other types of compounds. The limited acute toxicity data
indicate that the LC value for saltwater and freshwater species
are similar, around 10,000 ng/liter; the trout was the most
sensitive (LC5Q » 4,800 ug/liter). Chronic values were 840
and 450 ug/liter for freshwater and saltwater species, respec-
tively, and an acute-chronic ratio of 19 was calculated.
No information on the toxicity of tetrachloroethylene
to terrestrial wildlife or domestic animals was available in
the literature reviewed.
J. Mennear, NTP Chemical Manager; personal communication, 1984
Tetrachloroethylene
Page 2
October 1985
-------
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (NI03H).
1983. Registry of TOxic Effects of Chemical Substances.
Data. Base. Washington, D.C. October 1983
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA). 1979. Health
Assessment Document cor Ie cracnio: _>e c.ny iene ( Pcrcr.l;: ; . -_-. yl -
ene). External Review Draft No. 1, April 1979.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGZNCY f.'SiPA). 1979. Water-
Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants.
Washington, D.C. December 1979. EPA 440/4-79-029
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA). 1980. Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for TetrachloroethyIene. .Office
of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards
Division, Washington, D.C. October 1980. EPA 440/5-80-073
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA). 1984. Health
Effects Assessment for Tetrachloroethylene. Final Draft.
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincirnati,
Ohio. September 1984. ECAO-CIN-H009
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA). 19SS. Health
Assessment Document for Chloroform. Office of Health.
and Environmental Assessment, Washington, .D.C. September
1985. EPA 600/8-84/004F
VERSCHUEREN, K. 1977. Handbook of Environmental Data, on Organic-
Chemicals. Van Nostrand Reinhold .Co., New .York. 659 pages
WEASTV R.E., ed. 1981. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
62nd ed. CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio. 2,332 pages
Tetrachloroethylene
Page 4
October 1985
-------
RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION (RFI) COMPONENTS
1
DESCRIPTION
OF CURRENT
CONDITIONS
II
PRE-INVESTIGATION
EVALUATION OF
CORRECTIVE MEASUSRES
TECHNOLOGIES
III
RR
WORKPLAN
REQUIREMENTS
IV
FACILITY
INVESTIGATION
• FACILITY BACKGROUND
•NATURE AND EXTENT
OF CONTAMINATION
• IMPLEMENTATION AND
INTERIM MEASURES
• PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
• DATA COLLECTION QUALITY
ASSURANCE PLAN
• DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN
• HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
• COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
• ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
• SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION
• CONTAMINATION
CHARACTERIZATION
• POTENTIAL RECEPTOR
IDENTIFICATION
INVESTIGATION
ANALYSIS
•DATA ANALYSIS
• PROTECTION STANDARDS
VI
LABORATORY AND
BENCH-SCALE
OPERATIONS
VII
REPORTS
• PRELIMINARY AND WORKPLAN
• PROGRESS
•DRAFT AND FINAL
As outlined in Corrective Action Plan. 11/14/86
-------
CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY (CMS) COMPONENTS
VIII
IDENTIFICATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE
CORRECTIVE MEASURE
ALTERNATIVE OR
ALTERNATIVES
IX
EVALUATION OF
THE CORRECTIVE
MEASURE ALTERNATIVE
OR ALTERNATIVES
JUSTIFICATION AND
RECOMENDATION
OF THE CORRECTIVE
MEASURE OR
MEASURES
XI
REPORTS
DESCRIPTION OF
CURRENT SITUATION
ESTABLISHMENT OF
CORRECTIVE ACTION
OBJECTIVES
SCREENING OF
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
TECHNOLOGY
IDENTIFICATION OF
THE CORRECTIVE
MEASURE ALTERNATIVE
OR ALTERNATIVES
TECHNICAL/
ENVIRONMENTAL/
HUMAN
HEALTH/
INSTITUTIONAL
COST ESTIMATE
TECHNICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
HUMAN HEALTH
PROGRESS
DRAFT
FINAL
As outlined in Corrective Action Plan. 11/14/86
-------
CORRECTIVE MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION (CMI) COMPONENTS *
XII
CORRECTIVE
MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM PLAN
PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
PLAN
XIII
CORRECTIVE
MEASURE
DESIGN
•DESIGN PLANS AND
SPECIFICATION
• OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE PLAN
• COST ESTIMATE
• CONSTRUCTION
QUALITY ASSURANCE
OBJECTIVES
• HEALTH AND
SAFETY PLAN
• DESIGN PHASE
XIV
CORRECTIVE
MEASURE
CONSTRUCTION
• RESPONSIBILITY
AND AUTHORITY
> CONSTRUCTION
QUALITY ASSURANCE
PERSONNEL •
QUALIFICATIONS
• INSPECTION
ACTIVITIES
• SAMPLING
REQUIREMENTS
• DOCUMENTATION
XV
REPORTS
PROGRESS
DRAFT
FINAL
As outlined in Corrective Action Plan. 11/14/86
-------
9902.3
SERA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:9902
TITLE: RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
APPROVAL DATE: November 14, 1986
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 1986
ORIGINATING OFFICE^^
S FINAL
D DRAFT
LEVEL OF DRAFT
D A — Signed by AA or OAA
08 — Signed by Office Director
DC — Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
SWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
United States Envirc— :--•:' °rrs: :-- —
^ Wei.-...'..,.-... ....... -
V>CrA OSWER Directive Initiation Reauest
1. Directive Number
9902.3
2. Originator Information
Nam* of Contact Parson
Mark Hi Ibertson
3. Till*
RCRA Correction Action Plan
Mail Cod*
WH-527
Office
OWPE/RCRA Enf. Div.
Telephone Number
382-4849
4. summary oi Direct /inctua» tintf statemant of purport The RCRA Corrective Action Plan is intended to aid
the Regions and States in determining ana directing the specific work which must be
performed .as part of a complete corrective action program. It provides a technical frame
work for use during the development of Corrective Action Orders and corrective action
permit requirements.
5. Keywords
RCRA, Corrective Action, RCRA
Corrective Pleasure incerpreuauiun
Facility Investigation, Corrective Measure Study,
6*. Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directives)? Q Yes \K\ No What directive (numtttr. titlil
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directives)? Q Yes Q No Whet Directive (number, titlt)
7.. Draft Laval
DA — Signed by AA/OAA E 8 - Signad'by Office Director D C — For Review & Comment D In Development
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
8. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator '
A^-nWu y. ^W
9. Name and Title of Approving Official
Oat*
)i-n-£&
Data
OSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
9902.3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV I 4 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Final Corrective Action Plan'
FROM: Gene A. Lucero, Director
Office of Waste Programs
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9902
TO:
Addressees
Attached is the interim final guidance document entitled the Corrective
Action Plan (CAP). The CAP will assist you in development of Corrective
Action Orders (§ 3008(h)) and corrective action requirements in permit
applications and permits (§ 3004(u)&(v)). The purpose of the CAP is to
aid Regions and States in determining and directing the specific work the
owner/operator or respondent must perform, as part of a complete corrective
action program. The CAP should be used as a technical framework during
the development of Corrective Action Orders and corrective action permit
requirements. As specific, detailed guidance is issued by EPA Headquarters,
the CAP will be modified to reflect and incorporate these documents.
The CAP provides a framework for the development of a site-specific
schedule of compliance to be included in a permit or a compliance schedule
in a Corrective Action Order. It does so by laying out scopes of work
for the three essential phases of a complete corrective action program.
These three phases and their objectives are as follows:
Phase I . - RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) - to evaluate
thoroughly the nature and extent of the release
of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents
and to gather necessary data to support the
Coirrective Measure Study.
Phase II - Corrective Measures Study (CMS) - to develop
and evaluate a corrective measure alternative or
alternatives and to reccmmend the final correc-
tive measure or measures.
Phase III - Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) - to
design, construct, operate, maintain and monitor
the performance of the corrective measure or
measures selected.
-------
9902.3
-2-
The CAP is consistent with existing guidance documents as well as
those currently under development at Headquarters. These documents are
listed below:
Existing;
0 §3008(h) Policy Guidance on Interim Status Corrective
Action Authority (10/85);
0 Draft Interim Measure Guidance (12/85);
0 Draft §3008,(h.) Model Order (12/85);
0 Draft National RCRA Corrective Action Strategy (9/86); and
0 RCRA Facility Assessment Guidance (10/86).
Under Development:
0 RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Guidance - will provide
the Owner/ Operator [Respondent] with various levels of
investigation technigues to choose from in developing a
site-specific work plan to fully characterize releases.
0 Corrective Measure (CM) Guidance - will provide the Owner/
Operator [Respondent! with criteria and technical
information for evaluating and selecting the measure or
measures that will meet specific clean-up levels.
The CAP provides an overall model for a corrective action compliance
schedule. The scopes of work contained in the CAP should not be considered
"boilerplate", but rather as a "menu" of possible activities to be required
on a site-specific basis. Only those tasks and reports necessary and
appropriate to the specific situation should be required of the Owner/Operator
[Respondent]. we also encourage the Regions to make available to the
Owner/Operator [Respondent] existing model plans that are relevant to RCRA
activities. For example, the "Occupational Safety and Health Guidance
Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activites Operating Safety Guidelines"
contains a model that can be used for the Health and Safety Plan outlined
in the CAP.
A RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) will have been conducted at the
facilities that are to receive permits, and for seme facilities which are
issued §3008(h) Orders. The results of the RFA should be used as the basis
for focusing the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) compliance schedules
for individual sites, and should provide the necessary data for completion
of the "background information" components of the CAP.
-------
9902.3
-3-
Finally, we feel it is necessary to stress the importance of site-
specific technical detail in the development of Corrective Action Orders
and corrective action permit requirements. Each facility has unique
characteristics and circumstances affecting it that need to be incorporated
into any requirements for corrective action. Without this up-front
detail, many owner/operators or respondent will provide us with submittals
which lack the technical detail necessary to perform a thorough corrective
measure program. In addition to providing a detailed scope of work, the
Agency should also propose a site-specific time-frame for completion of
the work. Enforcement of permit conditions or requests for relief in an
Order is always easier when very specific detail is included. Without a
detailed schedule of compliance in a permit or a compliance schedule in
a Corrective Action Order, we can expect untimeliness in submittals and
actions.
It was also intended that the model scopes of work in the CAP foster
timely, concise submissions by Owner/Operators. Therefore, when modifying
these scopes of work with site-specific information, the scopes of work
should only require that information which is necessary for the subject
facility, thereby minimizing, the number and length of Owner/Operator
submitions and our review time. (In general, the average length of
individual Owner/Operator submittals should not exceed 20 pages, excluding
appendices.)
Please note that the CAP addresses comments by lead Regions. We
would appreciate additional comments based upon your experiences in
using the CAP. Should you have any questions with regard to this document,
you may call Anna Buonocore (FTS 382-4829), Mark Gilbertson (FTS 382-4849)
or Peter Ornstein (ETS 382-5618).
Attachment
ADDRESSEES:
Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors - Regions I-X
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs - Regions T-X
Enforcement Section Chiefs - Regions I-X
Permit Section Chiefs - Regions I-x
Regional Counsels - Regions I-X
Lloyd Guerci, OWPE
Steve Heare, OWPE
Sylvia Lowrance, OWPE
Frank Russo, OWPE
Peter Cook, OWPE
Bruce Weddle, OSW
Dave Pagan, OSW
Terry Grcgan, OSW
George Dixon, OSW
Art Day, OSW
-------
9902.3
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
INTERIM FINAL
November 1986
-------
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
0 INTRODUCTION
0 RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION
Task I: Description of Current Conditions
Task II: Pre-Investigation Evaluation of Corrective Measure
Technologies
Task III: RFI Workplan Requirements
Task IV: Facility Investigation
Task V: Investigation Analysis
Task TV: Laboratory and Bench-Scale Studies
Task VII: Reports
0 CORRECTIVE MEASURE STUDY
Task VIII: Identification and Development of the Corrective
Measure Alternative or Alternatives
Task IX: Evaluation of the Corrective Measure Alternative or
Alternatives
Task X: Justification and Recommendation of the Corrective
Measure or Measures
Task XI: Reports
0 CORRECTIVE MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
Task XII: Corrective Measure Implementation Program Plan
Task XIII: Corrective Measure Design
Task XIV: Corrective Measure Construction
Task XV: Reports
-------
S.-S02.3
-1-
INTRODUCTION
The objective of a Corrective Action Program at a hazardous waste management
facility is to evaluate the nature and extent of the release of hazardous
waste or constituents; to evaluate facility characteristics; and to
identify, develop, and implement the appropriate corrective measure or
measures adequate to protect human health and the environment. The follow-
ing bullets identify components necessary-to assure a complete corrective
action program. It should be recognized that the detail required in each
of these steps will vary depending on the facilty and its complexity:
0 Locate the source(s) of the release(s) of contaminants (e.g. regulated
units, solid waste management units, and other source areas)
0 Characterize the nature and extent of contamination both within
the facility boundaries and migrating from the facility. This would
include defining the pathways and methods of migration of the hazardous
waste or constituents, including the media, extent, direction, speed,
complicating factors inflencing movement, concentration profiles,
etc.
0 Identify areas and populations threatened by releases from the facility
0 Determine short and lonq term, present and potential threats of releases
from the facility on human health and/or the environment
0 Identify and implement a interim measure or measures to abate the
further spread of contaminants, control the source of contamination,
or otherwise control the releases themselves
0 Evaluate the overall integrity of containment structure and activities
at the site intended for long-term containment
0 Identify, develop, and implement a corrective measure or.measures to
prevent and remediate releases of hazardous waste or constituents frcm
the facility
0 Design a program to monitor the implementation, maintenance and
performance of any interim or final corrective measure(s) to ensure
that human health and. the environment are being protected
The purpose of the Corrective Action Plan (CAP)is to aid Regions and
States in determining and directing the specific work the owner/operator
or respondent must perform, as part of a complete corrective action
program. The Corrective Action Plan is a document specifically intended
.to assist. Regipns and States in the development of Corrective Action
Orders (§ 3008(h)) and corrective action requirements in permit applications
and permits (§ 3004(u)&(v)). It does so by laying out scopes of work for
the three essential phases of a complete corrective action program which
can be used to formulate facility-specific scopes of work for a order or
-------
990-2.3
-2-
permit. These three phases and their objectives are as follows:
Phase T - RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) - to evaluate
thoroughly the nature and extent of the release
of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents
and to gather necessary data to support the
Corrective Measure Study.
Phase II - Corrective Measures Study (CMS) - to develop
and evaluate corrective measure alternative or
alternatives and to reconmend the final correc-
tive measure or measures.
Phase III - Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) - to
design, construct, operate, maintain and monitor
the performance of the corrective measure or
measures selected.
Users of the CAP should understand that it is designed to identify actions
that facility owner/operator or respondent must take as part of a
corrective action program. It does not identify the steps that remain
the responsibility of the regulatory agency. To clarify this interaction
between the facility owner/operator or respondent, Figure 1 represents
the flowchart of owner/operator or respondent submittals and Agency
actions for the three.phases of the CAP.
The CAP scopes of work should not be considered "boilerplate." The
scopes of work in the CAP are models and must be modified, enhanced or
sections deleted based on site-specific situations. Information generated
from investigations such such as RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs) should
be used to tailor the scope of work to address facility-specific situations.
The following are some examples where site-specifics reguire modification
to the CAP model scopes of work.
0 If the contamination problem at a facility is merely a small soil
contamination problem, then the CAP should be scaled down accordingly.
0 In complicated contamination situations, the Health and Safety Plan
and Community Relations Plans may need to be comprehensive. However,
in simple contamination situations, these plans may be very brief.
0 If site-specifics conditions reguire more detail than what has been
scoped out in any particular section of the CAP, then the CAP should
be enhanced accordingly.
0 If there is sufficient information on a site to preclude an air release,
then it would not be necessary to reguire the owner/operator or respond-
ent to perform an air contamination characterization. The air
contamination characterization work under the RFI (Task IV, C, 4)
should be deleted.
-------
-3-
Fioure 1.
.1302.3
QWNES/QPESATQB
RESPONDENT
AGENCY
KCRA FACILITY
INVESTIGATHIN
3008 (h)'
ORDER
— > j
^ •
y
?FI Workplan ^^- £
1
(RFI RI
^port I .^ "i
j -**
t
Corre
Meai
Stu
1
r»ts Pf
ctive
dy
t
>nnrt. 1
^ fappR'bvflL'a1|
•^SSSSSSSSiKSiSSSSSi??'
^w^^*^^^$^^'^f£^M}4^^£fX^^
i Cleanup
^f APPROVAL & Requirements
| Established
•':^XJAAA>^>0^^^ti^y«XMWi<^^i^f^V^VUnV'xVMy^^^«^XUV
,_t
| OVERSIGHT |
•^^SS$JS^^ftx^iKx$^S^:^5^^^^5*<1*SSlJ:^s^
| Select
IflPPROVflL 8 Corrective
>,
"\'.'f
8
Si
•::t
i
/
'1
<&
g
<\'.
•::-:
y c
> 2
F W
CJ
^
Measure(i)
{ Public
(Participation
^
<*-^
J3008(h)
Amended
G JOKDES
MI Workplan
I APPROVAL ft 1;
I OVERSIGHT |
'/Design & ^
Construction
Operation &
Maintenance
\Monitoring
V
-------
9902.3
-4-
If interim measures are underway, scheduled or contemplated at a
facility, then the Interim Measures section under the RFI (Task I, C)
should be modified to specifically reference the interim measures.
If possible, the CAP should focus the owner/operator or respondent on
specific solid waste management units and other areas of interest, as
well as known waste management activity areas (i.e. waste recycling
units, wastewater treatment tanks).
If only one corrective measure alternative is appropriate for a given
situation, and it would not be necessary to reguire the owner/operator
or respondent to further investigate the possibility of other corrective
measure alternatives, then the scopes of work (citations) would be
modified to reflect this situation.
Finally, it is necessary to stress the importance of site-specific
technical detail in the development of Corrective Action Orders and
corrective action permit reguirements. When the scope of work is specific
to the facility, it is easier to enforce. Each facility has unigue
characteristics and circumstances affecting it that need to be incorporated
into any reguirements for corrective action. Without this many owner/operators
or respondents will provide us with submittals which lack the necessary
information to perform a corrective measure program. In addition to
providing a adequate scope of work, the Agency should also propose a
site-specific time-frame for completion of the work.
-------
9902.3
-5-
SCOPE OF KTORK FOR A RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION (RFI)
AT
[SPECIFY FACILITY NAME]
PURPOSE
The purpose of this RCRA Facility Investigation is to determine the nature
and extent of releases of hazardous waste or constituents from requlated
units, solid waste management units, and other source areas at the facility
and to gather all necessary data to support the Corrective Measures
Study. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall furnish all personnel,
materials, and services necessary for, or incidental to, performing the
RCRA remedial investigation at [specify facility name].
[NOTE: This scope of work is intended to foster timely, concise submissions
by Owner/Operators. To achieve this goal, it is important when using
the model scope of work to consider facility specific conditions. This
scope of work should be modified as necessary to require only that infor-
only
:ion.]
nation necessary to complete the RCRA Facility Investigation
SCOPE
The RCRA Facility Investigation consists of seven tasks:
Task I: Description of Current Conditions
A. Facility Background
B. Nature and Extent of Contamination
C. Implementation of Interim Measures
Task II: Pre-Investigation Evaluation of Corrective Measure Technologies
Task III: RFI Workplan Requirements
A. Project Management Plan
B. Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan
C. Data Management Plan
D. Health and Safety Plan
E. Community Relations Plan
Task W: Facility Investigation
A. Environmental Setting
B. Source Characterization
C. Contamination Characterization
D. Potential Receptor Identification
-------
9902.3
-6-
Task V: Investigation Analysis
A. Data Analysis
B. Protection Standards
Task VI: Laboratory and Bench-Scale Studies
Task VII: Reports
A. Preliminary and Workplan
B. Progress
C. Draft and Final
-------
9902.3
-7-
TASK I; DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall submit for U.S. EPA approval
a report providing the background information pertinent to the facility,
contamination and interim measures as set forth below. The data gathered
during any previous investigations or inspections and other relevant data
shall be included.
A. Facility Background
The Owner/Operator's [Respondent's] report shall summarize the regional
location, pertinent boundary features, general facility physiography,
hydrcgeolcgy, and historical use of the facility for the treatment,
storage or disposal of solid and hazardous waste. The Owner/Operator's
[Respondent's] report shall include:
1. Map(s) depicting the following:
a. General geographic location;
b. Property lines, with the owners of all adjacent property clearly
indicated;
c. Topography and surface drainage (with a contour interval of
[number] feet and a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet) depicting all
waterways, wetlands, floodplains, water features, drainage
patterns, and surface-water containment areas;
d. All tanks, buildings, utilities, paved areas, easements,
rights-of-way, and other features;
e. All solid or hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal
areas active after November 19, 1980;
f. All known past solid or hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal areas regardless of whether they were active on
November 19, 1980;
g. All known past and present product and waste underground tanks
or piping;
h. Surrounding land uses (residential, ccmmercial, agricultural,
recreational); and
i. The location of all production and ground-water monitoring wells.
These wells shall be clearly labeled and ground and top of
casing elevations and construction details included (these elev-
ations and details may be included as an attachment).
All maps shall be consistent with the requirements set forth in
40 CFR §270.14 and be of sufficient detail and accuracy to locate
and report all current and future work performed at the site;
-------
9902.3
-8-
2. A history and description of ownership and operation, solid and
hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage and disposal activities
at the facility;
3. Approximate dates or periods of past product and waste spills,
identification of the materials spilled, the amount spilled, the
location where spilled, and a description of the response actions
conducted (local, state, or federal response units or private"
parties), including any inspection reports or technical reports
generated as a result of the response; and
4. A summary of past permits requested and/or received, any enforcement
actions and their subsequent responses and a list of documents and
studies prepared for the facility.
B. Nature and Extent of Contamination
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare and submit for U.S. EPA
approval a preliminary report describing the existing information on
the nature and extent of contamination.
1. The Owner/Operator's [Respondent's] report shall summarize all
possible source areas of contamination. This, at a minimum,
should include all regulated units, solid waste management units,
spill areas, and other suspected source areas of contamination.
For each area, the Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall identify
the following:
a. Location of unit/area (which shall be depicted on a facility
map);
b. Quantities of solid and hazardous wastes;
c. Hazardous waste or constituents, to the extent known; and
d. Identification of areas where additional information is
necessary.
2. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare an assessment and
description of the existing degree and extent of contamination.
This should include:
a. Available monitoring data and qualitative information on
locations and levels of contamination at the facility;
b. All potential migration pathways including information on
geology, pedology, hydrogeolcgy, physiography, hydrology,
water quality, meterology, and air quality; and
c. The potential impact(s) on human health and the environment,
including demography, ground-water and surface-water use, and
land use.
-------
9902.3
-9-
C. Implementation of Interim Measures
The Owner/Operator [Respondent's] report shall document interim
measures which were or are being undertaken at the facility. This
shall include:
1. Objectives of the interim measures: how the measure is mitigating
a potential threat to human health and the environment and/or
is consistent with and integrated into any long term solution
at the facility;
2. Design, construction, operation, and maintenance requirements;
3. Schedules for design, construction and monitoring; and
4. Schedule for progress reports.
-------
9902.3
-10-
TASK II: PRE-INVESTIGATION EVALUATION OF CORRECTIVE MEASURE TECHNOLOGIES
Prior to starting the facility investigation, the Owner/Operator
[Respondent] shall submit to EPA a report that identifies the potential
corrective measure technologies that may be used on-site or off-site for
the containment, treatment, remediation, and/or disposal of contamination.
This report shall also identify any field data that needs to be collected
•in the facility investigation to facilitate the evaluation and selection
of the final corrective measure or measures (e.g., compatibility of
waste and construction materials, information to evaluate effectiveness,
treatability of wastes, etc.).
-------
9902.3
-11-
TASK III; RFI WORKPIAN REQUIREMENTS
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare a RCRA Facility Investigation
(RFI) Workplan. This RFI Workplan shall include the development of several
plans, which shall be prepared concurrently. During the RCRA Facility
Investigation, it may be necessary to revise the RFI Vtorkplan to increase
or decrease the detail of information collected to acccmodate the facility
specific situation. The RFI Vforkplan includes the following:
A. Project Management Plan
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare a Project Management Plan
which will include a discussion of the technical approach, schedules,
budget, and personnel. The Project Management Plan will also include a
description of gualifications of personnel performing or directing the
RFI, including contractor personnel. This plan shall also document
the overall management approach to the RCRA Facility Investigation.
B. Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare a plan to document all
monitoring procedures: sampling, field measurements and sample analysis
performed during the investigation to characterize the environmental
setting, source, and contamination, so as to ensure that all information,
data and resulting decisions are technically sound, statistically valid,
and properly documented.
1. Data Collection Strategy
The strategy section of the Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan
shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. Description of the intended uses for the data, and the necessary
level of precision and accuracy for these intended uses;
b. Description of methods and procedures to be used to assess the
precision, accuracy and completeness of the measurement data;
c. Description of the rational used to assure that the data
accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a
population, parameter variations at a sampling point, a process
condition or an environmental condition. Examples of factors
which shall be considered and discussed include:
i) Environmental conditions at the time of sampling;
ii) Number of sampling points;
iii) Representativeness of selected media; and
iv) Representativeness of selected analytical parameters.
-------
9902.3
-12-
d. Description of the measures to be taken to assure that the following
data sets can be compared to each other:
i) RFI data generated by the Owner/Operator over some time period;
ii) RFI data generated by an outside laboratory or consultant versus
data generated by the Owner/Operator;, ,,
iii) Data generated by separate consultants or laboratories; and
iv) Data generated by an outside consultant or laboratory over some
time period.
e. Details relating to the schedule and information to be provided in
quality assurance reports. The reports should include but not be
limited to:
i) Periodic assessment of measurement data accuracy, precision,
and completeness;
ii) Results of performance audits;
iii) Results of system audits;
iv) Significant quality assurance problems and recommended
solutions; and
v) Resolutions of previously stated problems.
2. Sampling
The Sampling section of the Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan
shall discuss:
a. Selecting appropriate sampling locations, depths, etc.;
b. Providing a statistically sufficient number of sampling sites;
c. Measuring all necessary ancillary data;
d. Determining conditions under which sampling should be conducted;
e. Determining which media are to be sampled (e.g., ground water,
air, soil, sediment, etc.);
f. Determining which parameters are to be measured and where;
g. Selecting the frequency of sampling and length of sampling period;
h. Selecting the types of sample (e.g., composites vs. grabs) and
number of samples to be collected;
-------
9902.3
-13-
i. Measures to be taker, to prevent contamination if the-sampling
equipment and cross contamination between sampling points;
j. Documenting field sampling operations and procedures, including;
i) Documentation of procedures for preparation of reagents.or
supplies which becone an integral part of the sample (e.q.,
filters, and adsorbing reagents);
ii) Procedures and forms for recording the exact location and
specific considerations associated with sample acquisition;
iii) Documentation of specific sample preservation method;
iv) Calibration of field devices;
v) Collection of replicate samples;
vi) Submission of field-biased blanks, where appropriate;
vii) Potential interferences present at the facility;
viii) Construction materials and techniques, associated with
monitoring wells and piezometers;
ix) Field equipment listing and sample containers;
x) Sampling order; and
xi) Decontamination procedures.
k. Selecting appropriate sample containers;
1. Sample preservation; and
m. Chain-of-custody, including:
i) Standardized field tracking reporting forms to establish sample
custody in the field prior to and during shipment; and
ii) Pre-prepared sample labels containing all information necessary
for effective sample tracking.
3. Field Measurements
The Field Measurements section of the Data Collection Quality Assurance
Plan shall discuss:
a. Selecting appropriate field measurement locations, depths, etc.;
b. Providing a statistically sufficient number of field measurements;
-------
9902.3
-14-
c. Measuring all necessary ancillary data;
d. Determining conditions under which field measurement should be
conducted;
e. Determining which media are to be addresssed by appropriate field
measurements (e.g., ground water, air, soil, sediment, etc.);
f. Determining which parameters are to be measured and where;
g. Selecting the frequency of field measurement and length of field
measurements period; and
h. Documenting field measurement operations and procedures, including:
i) Procedures and forms for recording raw data and the exact
location, time, and facility-specific considerations
associated with the data acquisition;
ii) Calibration of field devices;
iii) Collection of replicate measurements;
iv) Submission of field-biased blanks, where appropriate;
v) Potential interferences present at the facility;
vi) Construction materials and techniques associated with
monitoring wells and piezometers use to collect field
data;
vii) Field equipment listing;
viii) Order in which field measurements were made; and
ix) Decontamination procedures.
4. Sample Analysis
The Sample Analysis section of the Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan
shall specify the following:
a. Chain-of-custody procedures, including:
i) Identification of a responsible party to act as sample
custodian at the laboratory facility authorized to sign
for incoming field samples, obtain documents of shipment,
and verify the data entered onto the sample custody records;
ii) Provision for a laboratory sample custody log consisting of
serially numbered standard lab-tracking report sheets; and
-------
9902.3
-15-
iii) Specification of laboratory sample custody procedures for
sample handling, storage, and disperseraent for analysis.
b. Sample storage procedures and storage times;
c. Sample preparation methods;
d. Analytical procedures, including:
i) Scope and application of the procedure;
ii) Sample matrix;
iii) Potential interferences;
iv) Precision and accuracy of the methodology; and
v) Method detection limits.
e. Calibration procedures and frequency;
f. Data reduction, validation and reporting;
g. Internal guality control checks, laboratory performance and
systems audits and frequency, including:
i) Method blank(s);
ii) Laboratory control sample(s);
iii) Calibration check sample(s);
iv) Replicate sample(s);
v) Matrix-spiked sample(s);
vi) "Blind" quality control sample(s);
vii) Control charts;
viii) Surrogate samples;
ix) Zero and span gases; and
x) Reagent quality control checks.
[A performance audit will be conducted by U.S. EPA on the laboratories
selected by the Owner/Operator [Respondent]. This audit must be completed
and approved prior to the facility investigation.]
h. Preventive maintenance procedures and schedules;
-------
9902.3
-16-
i... Corrective action (for laboratory problems); and
j. Turnaround time.
C. Data Management Plan
The Owner/Operator [Respondent! shall develop and initiate a Data
Management Plan to document and track investigation data and results.
This plan shall identify and set up data documentation materials and
procedures, project file reauirements, and project-related progress
reporting procedures and documents. The plan shall also provide
the format to be used to present the raw data and conclusions of the
investigation.
1. Data Record
The data record shall include the following:
a. Unique sample or field measurement code;
b. Sampling or field measurement location and sample- or measurement
type;
c. Sampling or field measurement raw data;
d. Laboratory analysis ID number;
e. Property or component measured; and
f. Result of analysis (e.g., concentration).
2. Tabular Displays
The following data shall be presented in tabular displays:
a. Unsorted (raw) data;
b. Results for each medium, or for each constituent monitored;
c. Data reduction for statistical analysis;
d. Sorting of data by potential stratification factors (e.g.,
location, soil layer, topography); and
e. Summary data.
-------
9902.3
-17-
3. Graphical Displays
The following data shall be presented in graphical formats (e.g.,
bar graphs, line graphs, area or plan maps, isopleth plots,
cress-sectional plots or transects, three dimensional graphs,
etc.):
a. Display sampling location and sampling grid;
b. Indicate boundaries of sampling area, and areas where more data
are required;
c. Displays levels of contamination at each sampling location;
d. Display geographical extent of contamination;
e. Display contamination levels, averages, and maxima;
f. Illustrate changes in concentration in relation to distance from
the source, time, depth or other parameters; and
g. Indicate features affecting intramedia transport and show
potential receptors.
D. . Health and Safety Plan
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare a facility Health and
Safety Plan.
1. Major elements of the Health and Safety Plan shall include:
a. Facility description includinq availability of resources
such as roads, water supply, electricity and telephone
service;
b. Describe the known hazards and evaluate the risks associated
with the incident and with each activity conducted;
c. List key personnel and alternates responsible for site safety,
responses operations, and for protection of public health;
d. Delineate work area;
e. Describe levels of protection to be worn by personnel in
work area;
f. Establish procedures to control site access;
g. Describe decontamination procedures for personnel and equipment;
-------
9902.3
-18-
h. Establish site emergency procedures;
i. Address emergency medical care for injuries and toxicological
problems;
j. Describe requirements for an environmental surveillance program;
k. Specify any routine and special training required for respbnders; and
1. Establish procedures for protecting workers from weather-related
problems.
2. The Facility Health and Safety Plan shall be consistent with:
a. NIOSH Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous
Waste Site Activities (1985);
b. EPA Order 1440.1 - Respiratory Protection;
c. EPA Order 1440.3 - Health and Safety Requirements for Employees
engaged in Field Activities;
d. Facility Contingency Plan;
e. EPA Standard Operating Safety Guide (1984);
f. OSHA regulations particularly in 29 CFR 1910 and 1926;
g. State and local regulations; and
h. Other EPA guidance as provided.
E. Ccmmunity Relations Plan
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare a plan, for the
dissemination of information to the public regarding investigation
activities and results.
-------
9902.3
-19-
TASK IV; FACILITY INVESTIGATION
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct those investigations
necessary to: characterize the facility (Environmental Setting); define
the source (Source Characterization); define the degree and extent of
contamination (Contamination Characterization); and identify actual or
potential receptors.
The investigations should result in data of adeguate technical guality to
support the development and evaluation of the corrective measure
alternative or alternatives during the Corrective Measures Study.
The site investigation activities shall follow the plans set forth in
Task III. All sampling and analyses shall be conducted in accordance
with the Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan. All sampling locations
shall be documented in a log and identified on a detailed site map.
A. Environmental Setting
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall collect information to supplement
and verify existing information on the environmental setting at the
facility. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall characterize the
following:
1. Hydrogeology
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct a program to evaluate
hydrogeologic conditions at the facility. This program shall
provide the following information:
a. A description of the regional and facility specific geologic
and hydrcgeolcgic characteristics affecting ground-water
flow beneath the facility, including:
i) Regional and facility specific stratigraphy: description
of strata including strike and dip, identification of
stratigraphic contacts;
ii) Structural geology: description of local and regional
structural features (e.g., folding, faulting, tilting,
jointing, etc.);
iii) Depositional history;
iv) Identification and characterization of areas and amounts
of recharge and discharge.
v) Regional and facility specific ground-water flow pat-
terns; and
vi) Characterize seasonal variations in the ground-water
flow regime.
-------
9902.3
-20-
b. An analysis of any topographic features that might influence
the ground-water flow system. (Note: Stereographic analysis
of aerial photographs may aid in this analysis).
c. Based on field data, test, and cores, a representative and
accurate classification and description of the hydrogeologic
units which may be part of the migration pathways at the -
facility (i.e., the aquifers and any intervening saturated
and unsaturated units), including:
i) Hydraulic conductivity and porosity (total and effective);
ii) Lithology, grain size, sorting, degree of cementation;
iii) An interpretation of hydraulic interconnections between
saturated zones; and
iv) The attenuation capacity and mechanisms of the natural
earth materials (e.g., ion exchange capacity, organic
carbon content, mineral contect etc.).
d. Based on field studies and cores, structural geology and
hydrogeologic cross sections showing the extent (depth,
thickness, lateral extent) of hydrogeologic units which may
be part of the migration pathways identifying:
i) Sand and gravel deposits in unconsolidated deposits;
ii) Zones of fracturing or channeling in consolidated or
unconsolidated deposits;
iii) Zones of higher permeability or low permeability that
might direct and restrict the flow of contaminants;
iv) The uppermost aguifer: geologic formation, group of .
formations, or part of a formation capable of yielding
a significant amount of ground water to wells or
springs; and
v) Water-bearing zones above the first confining layer
that may serve as a pathway for contaminant migration
including perched zones of saturation.
e. Based on data obtained from ground-water monitoring wells
and piezometers installed upgradient and downgradient of the
potential contaminant source, a representative description of
water level or fluid pressure monitoring including:
i) Water-level contour and/or potentiometric maps;
ii) Hydrologic cross sections showing vertical gradients;
-------
9902.3
-21-
iii) The flow system, including the vertical and horizontal
components of flow; and
iv) Any temporal changes in hydraulic gradients, for examole,
due to tidal or seasonal influences.
f. A description of marinade influences that may affect the
hydrogeolcgy of the site, identifying:
1) Active and inactive local water-supply and production wells
with an approximate schedule of pumping; and
ii) Marmade hydraulic structures (pipelines, french drains,
ditches, unlined ponds, septic tanks, NPDES outfalls,
retent ion ajreas, etc.).
2. Soils
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct a program to characterize
the soil and rock units above the water table in the vicinity of the
contaminant release(s). Such characterization shall include but not be
limited to, the following information:
a. SCS soil classification;
b. Surface soil distribution;
c. Soil profile, including ASTM classification of soils;
d. ' Transects of soil stratigraphy;
e. Hydraulic conductivity (saturated and unsaturated);
f. Relative permeability;
g. Bulk density;
h. Kirosity;
i. Soil sorptive capacity;
j. Cation exchange capacity (CEC);
k. Soil organic content;
1. Soil pH;
m. Particle size distribution;
n. Depth of water table;
o. Moisture content;
p. Effect of stratification on unsaturated flow;
q. Infiltration
r. Evapotranspiration;
s. Storage capacity;
t. Vertical flow rate; and
u. Mineral content.
3. Surface Water and Sediment
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct a program to characterize
the surface - water bodies in the vicinity of the facility.
Such characterization shall include, but not be limited to, the
following activities and information:
-------
9902.3
-22-
a. Description of the temporal and permanent surface-water bodies
including:
i) For lakes and estuaries: location, elevation, surface
area, inflow, outflow, depth, temperature stratification,
and volume;
ii) For impoundments: location, elevation, surface
area, depth, volume, freeboard, and purpose of impoundment;
iii) For streams, ditches, drains, swamps and channels: location,
elevation, flow, velocity, depth, width, seasonal
fluctuations, and flooding tendencies (i.e., 100 year
event);
iv) Drainage patterns; and
v) Evapotranspiration.
b. Description of the chemistry of the natural surface water and
sediments. This includes determining the pH, total dissolved
solids, total suspended solids, biological oxygen demand,
alkalinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen profiles, nutrients
(NH-j, NO-j'/NO^", PC>4 ), chemical oxygen demand, total organic
carbon, specific contaminant concentrations, etc.
c. Description of sediment characteristics including:
i) Deposition area;
ii) Thickness profile; and
iii) Physical and chemical parameters (e.g., grain size,
density, organic carbon content, ion exchange
capacity, pH, etc.)
Air
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall provide information characterizing
the climate in the vicinity of the facility. Such information shall
include, but not be limited to:
a. A description of the following parameters:
i) Annual and monthly rainfall averages;
ii) Monthly temperature averages and extremes;
iii) Wind speed and direction;
iv) Relative humidity/dew point;
-------
9902.3
-23-
v) Atmospheric pressure;
vi) Evaporation data;
vii) Development of inversions; and
viii) Climate extremes that have been known to occur in the vicinity
of the facility, including frequency of occurrence.
b. A description of topographic and manmade features which
affect air flow and emission patterns, including:
i) Ridges, hills or mountain areas;
ii) Canyons or valleys;
iii) Surface water bodies (e.g. rivers, lakes, bays, etc.);
iv) Wind breaks and forests; and
v) Buildings.
B. Source Characterization
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall collect analytic data to
completely characterize the wastes and the.areas where wastes
have been placed, collected or removed including: type; quantity;
physical form; disposition (containment or nature of deposits); and'"
facility characteristics affecting release (e.g., facility security,
and engineered barriers). This shall include quantification of
the following specific characteristics, at each source area:
1. Unit/Disposal Area characteristics:
a. Location of unit/disposal area;
b. Type of unit/disposal area;
c. Design features;
d. Operating practices (past and present);
e. Period of operation;
f. Age of unit/disposal area;
g. General physical conditions; and
h. Method used to close the unit/disposal area.
2. Waste Characteristics:
a. Type of waste placed in the unit;
i) Hazardous classification (e.g., flammable, reactive,
corrosive, oxidizing or reducing agent);
ii) Quantity; and
iii) Chemical composition.
-------
9902.3
-24-
b. Physical and chemical characteristics;
i) Physical form (solid, liquid, gas);
ii) Physical description (e.g., powder, oily sludge);
iii) Temperature;
iv) pH;
v) General chemical class (e.g., acid, base, solvent);
vi) Molecular weight;
vii) Density;
viii) Boiling point;
ix) Viscosity;
x) Solubility in water;
xi) Cchesiveness of the waste;
xii) Vapor pressure.
xiii) Flash point
, •
c. Migration and dispersal characteristics of the waste;
i) Sorption;
ii) Biodegradability, bioconcentration, biotransformation;
iii) Photodegradation rates;
iv) Hydrolysis rates; and
v) Chemical transformations.-
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall document the procedures used in
making the above determinations.
C. Contamination Characterization
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall collect analytical data on
ground-water, soils, surface water, sediment, and subsurface gas
contamination in the vicinity of the facility. This data shall be
sufficient to define the extent, origin, direction, and rate of
movement of contaminant plumes. Data shall include time and location
of sampling, media sampled, concentrations found, and conditions
during sampling, and the identity of the individuals performing the
sampling and analysis. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall address
the following types of contamination at the facility:
1. Ground-water Contamination
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct a Ground-water
Investigation to characterize any plumes of contamination at the
facility. This investigation shall at a minimum provide the
following information:
-------
9902.3
-25-
a. A description of the horizontal and vertical extent of any
immiscible or dissolved plume(s) originating from the facility;
b. The horizontal and vertical direction of contamination movement;
c. The velocity of contaminant movement;
d. The horizontal and vertical concentration profiles of Appendix
VIII constituents in the plume(s);
e. An evaluation of factors influencing the plume movement; and
f. An extrapolation of future contaminant movement.
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall document the procedures used in
making the above determinations (e.g., well design, well construction,
geophysics, modeling, etc.).
2. Soil Contamination •
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct an investigation
to characterize the contamination of the soil and rock units
above the water table in the vicinity of the contaminant
release. The investigation shall include the following
• • information:
a. A description of the vertical and horizontal extent of
contamination.
b. A description of contaminant and soil chemical properties
within the contaminant source area and plume. This includes
contaminant solubility, speciation, adsorption, leachability,
exchange capacity, biodegradability, hydrolysis, photolysis,
oxidation and other factors that might affect contaminant
migration and transformation.
c. Specific contaminant concentrations.
d. The velocity and direction of contaminant movement.
e. An extrapolation of future contaminant movement.
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall document the procedures
used in making the above determinations.
3. Surface-Water and Sediment Contamination
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct a surface-water
investigation to characterize contamination in surface-water
bodies resulting from contaminant releases at the facility.
-------
9902.3
-26-
The investigation shall include, but not be limited to, the
following information:
a. A description of the horizontal and vertical extent of any
immisicible or dissolved plume(s) originating from the facility,
and the extent of contamination in underlying sediments; -
b. The horizontal and vertical direction of contaminant movement;
c. The contaminant velocity;
d. An evaluation of the physical, biological and chemical factors
influencing contaminant movement;
e. An extrapolation of future contaminant movement; and
f. A description of the chemistry of the contaminated surface
waters and sediments. This includes determining the pH,
total dissolved solids, specific contaminant concentrations,
etc.;
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall document the procedures
used in making the above determinations.
Air Contamination
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct an investigation
to characterize the particulate and gaseous contaminants
released into the atmosphere. This investigation shall
provide the following information:
a. A description of the horizontal and vertical direction
and velocity of contaminant movement;
b. The rate and amount of the release; and
c. The chemical and physical composition of the contaminants(s)
released, including horizontal and vertical concentration
profiles.
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall document the procedures
used in making the above determinations.
5. Subsurface Gas Contamination
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct an investigation
to characterize subsurface gases emitted from buried hazardous
waste and hazardous constituents in the ground water. This
investigation shall include the following information:
-------
9902.3
-27-
a. A description of the horizontal and vertical extent of
subsurface gases mitigation;
b. The chemical composition of the gases being emitted;
c. The rate, amount, and density of the gases being emitted;
and
d. Horizontal and vertical concentration profiles of the
subsurface gases emitted.
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall document the procedures
used in making the above determinations.
D. Potential Receptors
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall collect data describing the
human populations and environmental systems that are susceptible to
contaminant exposure frcm the facility. Chemical analysis of biological
samples may be needed. Data on observable effects in ecosystems may
also be obtained. The following characteristics shall be identified:
1. Local uses and possible future uses of ground water:
a. Type of use (e.g., drinking water source: municipal or
residential, agricultural, domestic/non-potable, and
industrial); and
b. Location of groundwater users including wells and discharge
areas.
2. Local uses and possible future uses of surface waters draining
the facility:
a. Domestic and municipal (e.g. potable and lawn/gardening
watering);
b. Recreational (e.g. swimming, fishing);
c. Agricultural;
d. Industrial; and
e. Environmental (e.g. fish and wildlife propagation).
3. Human use of or access to the facility and adjacent lands,
including but not limited to:
a. Recreation;
b. Hunting;
c. Residential;
d. Conmercial;
e. Zoning; and
f. Relationship between population locations and prevailing
wind direction.
-------
9902.3
-28-
4. A description of the biota in surface water bodies on,
adjacent to, or affected by the facility.
5. A description of the ecology overlyinq and adjacent to
the facility.
6. A demographic profile of the people who use or have access
to the facility and adjacent land, including, but not limited to:
age; sex; and sensitive subgroups.
7. A description of any endangered or threatened species near
the facility.
-------
9902.3
-29-
TASK V: INVESTIGATION ANALYSIS
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare an analysis and summary of
all facility investigations and their results. The objective of this
task shall be to ensure that the investigation data are sufficient in
quality (e.g., quality assurance procedures have been followed) and quantity
to describe the nature and extent of contamination, potential threat to
human health and/or the environment, and to support the Corrective Measures
Study.
A. Data Analysis
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall analyze all facility investigation
data outlined in Task TV and prepare a report on the type and extent
of contamination at the facility including sources and migration pathways.
The report shall describe the extent of contamination (qualitative/quan-
titative) in relation to background levels indicative for the area.
B. Protection Standards [where applicable]
1. Ground-water Protection Standards
For regulated units the Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall provide
information to support the Agency's selection/development of
Ground-water Protection Standards for all of the Appendix VIII
constituents found in the ground-water during the Facility Investi-
gation (Task W).
a. The Groundwater Protection standards shall consist of:
i) for any constituents listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 264.94,
the respective value given in that table (MCL) if the
background level of the constituent is below the given
in Table 1; or
ii) the background level of that constituent in the ground-
water; or
iii) a U.S. EPA approved Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL).
b. Information to support the Agency's subsequent selection of
Alternate Concentration Limits (ACL's) shall be developed by
the Owner/Operator [Respondent] in accordance with U.S. EPA
guidance. For any proposed ACL's the Owner/Operator [Respondent]
shall include a justification based upon the criteria set
forth in 40 CFR 264.94(b).
-------
9902.3
-30-
c. Within [insert number] days of receipt of any proposed ACL's.
The U.S. EPA shall notify the Owner/Operator [Respondent]
in writing of approval, disapproval or nodifications, the
U.S. EPA.shall specify in writing the reason(s) for any
disapproval or nodification.
d. Within [insert number] days of receipt of the U.S. EPA's -
notification or disapproval of any proposed ACL, the
Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall amend and submit revisions
to the U.S. EPA.
2. Other Relevant Protection Standards
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall identify all relevant and
applicable standards for the protection of human health, and the
environment (e.g. National Mbient Air Quality Standards,
Federally-approved state water quality standards, etc.).
-------
9902.3
-31-
TASK VI; LABORATORY AND BENCH-SCALE STUDIES
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct laboratory and/or bench
scale studies to determine the applicability of a corrective measure
technology or technologies to facility conditions. The Owner/Operator
[Respondent] shall analyze the technologies, based on literature review,
vendor contracts, and past experience to determine the testing requirements.
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall develop a testing plan identifying
the types(s) and goal(s) of the study(ies), the level of effort needed,
and the procedures to be used for data management and interpretation.
Upon completion of the testing, the Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall
evaluate the testing results to assess the technology or technologies
with respect to the site-specific guestions identified in the test plan.
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare a report summarizing the
testing program and its results, both positive and negative.
-------
9902.3
-32-
"TASK vii; REPORTS
A. Preliminary and Workplan
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall submit to the EPA reports or. Tasks
I and II when it submits the RCRA Facility Investigation VJorkpIan.(Task III).
B. Progress
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall at a minimum provide the EPA with
signed, [monthly, bimonthly] progress reports containing:
1. A description and estimate of the percentage of the RFI completed;
2. Summaries of all findings;
3. Summaries of all changes made in the RFI during the reporting
period;
4. Summaries of all contacts with representative of the local community,
public interest groups or State government during the reporting
period;
5. Summaries of all problems or potential problems encountered during
the reporting period;
6. Actions being taken to rectify problems;
7. Changes in personnel during the reporting period;
8. Projected work for the next reporting period; and
9. Copies of daily reports, inspection reports, laboratory/ monitoring
data, etc.
C. Draft and Final
Upon EPA approval, the Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare a RCRA
Facility Investigation Report to present Tasks IV-V. The RCRA Facility
investigation Report shall be developed in draft form for U.S. EPA review.
The RCRA Facility Investigation Report shall be developed in final format
incorporating comments received on the Draft RCRA Facility Investigation
Report. Task VI shall be submitted as a separate report when the Final
RCRA Facility Investigation Report is submitted.
[number] copies of all reports, including the Task I report, Task II report,
Task III workplan, Task VI report and both the Draft and Final RCRA Facility
Investigation Reports (Task IV-V) shall be provided by the Owner/Operator
[Respondent] to U.S. EPA.
-------
-33-
9902.3
[THE FOLLOWING FACILITY SUBMISSION. SUMMARY MAY BE PIACFD IN THE BODY
OF THE ORDER OR PEFMIT AND REMOVED FROM THE SCOPE OF WORK. NOT ALL OF
THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW MAY RE REOUIRED AT EACH FACILITY.]
Facility Submission Summary
A summary-of the information reporting requirements contained in the
RCRA Facility Investigation Scope of Work is presented below:
Facility Submission
Due Date
Description of Current Situation
(Task I)
Pre-Investigation Evaluation of Corrective
Measure Technologies
(Task II)
RFI Workplan
(Task III)
Draft RFI Report
(Tasks IV and V)
Final RFI Report
(Tasks IV and V)
Laboratory and Bench-Scale Studies
(Task VI)
Progress Reports on Tasks I through VI
t DATE ]
t DATE ]
t DATE ]
t NUMBER ] days after
RFI Worknlan Approval
t NUMBER ] days after
EPA comment on Draft
RFI Report
Concurrent with Final
RFI Report
[ MONTHLY, BI-MONTHLY ]
-------
9902.3
-34-
SCOPE OF WORK FOR A CORRECTIVE MEASURE STUDY
AT
[SPECIFY FACILITY NAME]
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Corrective Measure Study (CMS) is to develop and evaluate
the corrective action alternative or alternatives and to reccmmend the
corrective measure or measures to be taken at [specify facility name].
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] will furnish the personnel, materials,
and services necessary to prepare the corrective measure study, except
as otherwise specified.
[Note: This scope of work is intended to foster timely, concise submissions
by Owner/Operators. To achieve this goal, it is important when using the
model scope of work to consider facility specific conditions. This scope
should be modified as necessary to require only that information necessary
to complete the Corrective Measure Study.]
SCOPE
The Corrective Measure Study consists of four tasks:
Task VIII: Identification and Development of the Corrective Measure
Alternative or Alternatives
A. Description of Current Situation
B. Establishment of Corrective Action Objectives
-C. Screening of Corrective Measures Technologies
D. Identification of the Corrective Measure Alternative or
Alternatives
Task IX: Evaluation of -the Corrective Measure Alternative or Alternatives
A. Technical/Environmental/Humah Health/Institutional
B. Cost Estimate
Task X: Justification and Recommendation of the Corrective Measure or
Measures
A. Technical '
B. Environmental
C. Human Health
Task XI: Reports
A. Progress
B. Draft
C. Final
-------
9902.3
-35-
TASK VIII; IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION
ALTERNATIVE OR ALTERNATIVES
Based on the results of the RCRA Facility Investigation and consideration of
the identified Preliminary Corrective Measure Technologies (Task II),
the Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall identify, screen and develop the
alternative or alternatives for removal, containment, treatment and/or
other remediation of the contamination based on the objectives established
for the corrective action.
A. Description of Current Situation
The Owner/Operator -[Respondent] shall submit an update to the
information describing the current situation at the facility and
the known nature and extent of the contamination as documented by
the RCRA Facility Investigation Report. The Owner/Operator [Respondent]
shall provide an update to information presented in Task I of the
RFI to the Agency regarding previous response activities and any
interim measures which have or are being implemented at the facility.
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall also make a facility-specific
statement of the purpose for the response, based on the results of
the RCRA Facility Investigation. The statement of purpose should
identify the actual or potential exposure pathways that should be
addressed by corrective measures.
B. Establishment of.Corrective Action Objectives
The Owner/Operator [Respondent], in conjunction with the U.S. EPA,
shall establish site specific objectives for the corrective action.
These objectives shall be based on public health and environmental
criteria, information gathered during the RCRA Facility Investigation,
EPA guidance, and the requirements of any applicable Federal statutes.
At a minimum, all corrective actions concerning ground water releases
from regulated units must be consistent with, and as stringent as,
those required under 40 CFR 264.100.
C. Screening of Corrective Measure Technologies
The Owner/Operator-.[Respondent] shall review the results of the RCRA
Facility Investigation and reassess the technologies specified in
Task II and to identify additional technologies which are applicable
at the facility. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall screen the
preliminary corrective measure technologies identified in Task II
of the RCRA Facility investigation and any supplemental technologies
to eliminate those that may prove infeasible to implement, that
rely on technologies unlikely to perform satisfactorily or reliably,
or that do not achieve the corrective measure objective within a
reasonable time period. This screening process focuses on eliminating
those technologies which have severe limitations for a given set of
waste and site-specific conditions. The screening step may also
eliminate technologies based on inherent technology limitations.
-------
-36- 9902.3
Site, waste, and technology characteristics which are used to screen
inapplicable technologies are described in more detail below:
1. Site Characteristics
Site data should be reviewed to identify conditions that may
limit or promote the use of certain technologies. Technologies
whose use is clearly precluded by site characteristics should be
eliminated from further consideration;
2. Waste Characteristics
Identification of waste characteristics that limit the effectiveness
or feasibility of technologies is an important part of the screening
process. Technologies clearly limited by these waste characteristics
should be eliminated from consideration. Waste characteristics
particularly affect the feasibility of in-situ methods, direct
treatment methods, and land disposal (on/off-site); and
3. Technology Limitat ions
During the screening process, the level of technology development,
performance record, and inherent construction, operation, and
maintenance problems should be identified for each technology
considered. Technologies that are unreliable, perform poorly,
or are not fully demonstrated may be eliminated in the screening
process. For example, certain treatment methods have been developed
to a point where they can be implemented in the field without
extensive technology transfer or development.
D. Identification of the Corrective Measure Alternative or Alternatives
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall develop the Corrective measure
alternative or alternatives based on the corrective action objectives
and analysis of Preliminary Corrective Measure Technologies, as
presented in Task II of the RCRA Facility investigation and as
supplemented following the preparation of the RFI Report. The
Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall rely on engineering practice to
determine which of the previously identified technologies appear
most suitable for the site. Technologies can be combined to form
the overall corrective action alternative or alternatives. The
alternative or alternatives developed should represent a workable
number of option(s) that each appear to adequately address all site
problems and corrective action objectives. Each alternative may
consist of an individual technology or a combination of technologies.
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall document the reasons for
excluding technologies, identified in Task II, as supplemented in
the development of the alternative or alternatives.
-------
9902.3
-37-
TASK IX: EVALUATION OF THE CORRECTIVE MEASURE ALTERNATIVE OR ALTERNATIVES
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall describe each corrective measure
alternative that passes through the Initial Screening in Task vill and
evaluate each corrective measure alternative and it's components. The
evaluation shall be based on technical, environmental, human health and
institutional concerns. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall also
develop cost estimates of each corrective measure.
A. Technical/Environmental/Human Health/Institutional
The [Owner/ Operator] Respondent shall provide a description of each
corrective measure alternative which includes but is not limited to the
following: preliminary process flow sheets; preliminary sizing and type
of construction for buildings and structures; and rough quantities of
utilities required. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall evaluate each
alternative in the four following areas:
1. Technical;
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall evaluate each corrective
measure alternative based on performance, reliability,
implementability and safety.
a. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall evaluate performance based
on the effectiveness an useful life of the corrective measure:
i) Effectiveness shall be evaluated in terms of the ability
to perform intended functions, such as containment, diversion,
removal, destruction, or treatment. The effectiveness of
each corrective measure shall be determined either through
design specifications or by performance evaluation. Any
specific waste or site characteristics which could potentially
impede effectiveness shall be considered. The evaluation
should also consider the effectiveness of combinations of
technologies; and
ii) Useful life is defined as the length of time the level of
effectiveness can be maintained. Most corrective measure
technologies, with the exception of destruction, deteriorate
with time. Often, deterioration can be slowed through proper
system operation and maintenance, but the technology eventually
may require replacement. Each corrective measure shall
be evaluated in terms of the projected service lives of its
component technologies. Resource availability in the future
life of the technology, as well as appropriateness of the
technologies, must be considered in estimating the useful
life of the project.
-------
9902.3
-38-
b. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall provide information on
the reliability of each corrective measure including their
operation and maintenance requirements and their demonstrated
reliability:
i) Operation and maintenance requirements include the frequency
and complexity of necessary operation and maintenance.
Technologies requiring frequent or complex operation and
maintenance activities should be regarded as less reliable
than technologies requiring little or straightforward
operation and maintenance. The availability of labor
and materials to meet these requirements shall also be
considered; and
ii) Demonstrated and expected reliability is a way of measuring
the risk and effect of failure. The Owner/Operator
[Respondent] should evaluate whether the technologies
have been used effectively under analogous conditions;
whether the combination of technologies have been used
together effectively; whether failure of any one technology
has an immediate impact on receptors; and whether the
corrective measure has the flexibility to deal with
uncontrollable changes at the site.
c. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall describe the implement-
ability of each corrective measure including the relative
ease of installation (constructability) and the time required
to achieve a given level of response:
i) Constructability is determined by conditions both internal
and external to the facility conditions and include such
items as location of underground utilities, depth to water
table, heterogeneity of subsurface materials, and location of
the facility (i.e., remote location vs. a congested urban
area). The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall evaluate
what measures can be taken to facilitate construction
under these conditions. External factors which affect
implementation include the need for special permits or
agreements, equipment availability, and the location of
suitable off-site treatment or disposal facilities; and
ii) Time has two components that shall be addressed: the time
it takes to implement a corrective measure and the time
it takes to actually see beneficial results. Beneficial
results are defined as the reduction of contaminants to
some acceptable, pre-established level.
-------
9902.3
-39-
d. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall evaluate each corrective
measure alternative with regard to safety. This evaluation
shall include threats to the safety of nearby communities
and environments as well as those to workers during implement-
ation. Factors to consider are fire, explosion, and exposure
to hazardous substances.
2. Environmental;
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall perform an Environmental
Assessment for each alternative. The Environmental Assessment
shall focus on the facility conditions and pathways of
contamination actually addressed by each alternative. The
Environmental Assessment for each alternative will include, at a
minimum, an evaluation of: the short- and long-term beneficial
and adverse effects of the response alternative; any adverse
effects on environmentally sensitive areas; and an analysis of
measures to mitigate adverse effects.
3. Human Health; and
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall assess each alternative
in terms of the extent of which it mitigates short- and long-term
potential exposure to any residual contamination and protects human
health both during and after implementation the corrective measure.
The assessment will describe the levels and characterizations of •
contaminants on-site, potential exposure routes, and potentially
affected population. Each alternative will be evaluated to
determine the level of exposure to contaminants and the reduction
over time. For management of mitigation measures, the relative
reduction of impact will be determined by comparing residual
levels of each alternative with existing criteria, standards, or
guidelines acceptable to EPA.
4. Institutional.
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall assess relevant institutional
needs for each alternative. Specifically, the effects of Federal,
state and local environmental and public health standards,
regulations, guidance, advisories, ordinances, or cotmunity
relations on the design, operation, and timing of each alternative.
B. Cost Estimate
The Owner/Operator -[Respondent] shall develop an estimate of the
cost of each corrective measure alternative (and for each phase or
segment of the alternative). The cost estimate shall include both
capital and operation and maintenance costs.
-------
9902.3
-40-
1. Capital costs consist of direct (construction) and indirect
(nonconstruction and overhead) costs.
a. Direct capital costs include:
i) Construction costs: Costs of materials, labor
(including fringe benefits and worker's compensation),
and equipment required to install the corrective
measure.
ii) Equipment costs: Costs of treatment, containment,
disposal and/or service equipment necessary to implement
the action; these materials remain until the corrective
action is complete;
iii) Land and site-development costs: Expenses associated with
purchase of land and development of existing property; and
iv) Buildings and services costs: Costs of process and
nonprocess buildings, utility connections, purchased
services, and disposal costs.
b. Indirect capital costs include:
i) Engineering expenses: Costs of administration, design,
construction supervision, drafting, and testing of
corrective measure alternatives;'
ii) Legal fees and license or permit costs: Administrative
and technical costs necessary to obtain licenses and
permits for installation and operation;
iii) Startup and shakedown costs: Costs incurred during
corrective measure startup; and
iv) Contingency allowances: Funds to cover costs resulting
from unforeseen circumstances, such as adverse weather
conditions, strikes, and inadequate facility
character izat ion.
2. Operation and maintenance costs are post-construction costs
necessary to ensure continued effectiveness of a corrective
measure. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall consider the
following operation and maintenance cost components:
-------
9902.3
-41-
a. Operating labor costs: wages, salaries, training, overhead,
and fringe benefits associated with the labor needed for
post-construction operations;
b. Maintenance materials and labor costs: Costs for labor,
parts, and other resources required for routine maintenance
of facilities and equipment;
c. Auxiliary materials and energy: Costs of such items as chemicals
and electricity for treatment plant operations, water and sewer
service, and fuel;
d. Purchased services: Sampling costs, laboratory fees, and
professional fees for which the need can be predicted;
e. Disposal and treatment costs: Costs of transporting, treating,
and disposing of waste materials, such as treatment
plant residues, generated during operations;
f. Administrative costs: Costs associated with administration
of corrective measure operation and maintenance not included
under other categories;
g. Insurance, taxes, and licensing costs: Costs of such items
as liability and sudden accidental insurance; real estate
taxes on purchased land or rights-of-way; licensing fees for
certain technologies; and permit renewal and reporting costs;
h. Maintenance reserve and contingency funds: Annual payments
into escrow funds to cover (1) costs of anticipated replacement
or rebuilding of equipment'and (2) any large unanticipated
operation and maintenance costs; and
i. Other costs: Items that do not fit any of the above categories.
-------
9902.3
-42-
TASK X: JUSTIFICATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CORRECTIVE
MEASURE OR MEASURES
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall justify and recommend a corrective
measure alternative using technical, human health, and environmental
criteria. This recommendation shall include summary tables which allow
the alternative or alternatives to be understood easily. Tradeoffs -
among health risks, environmental effects, and other pertinent factors
shall be highlighted. The U.S. EPA will select the corrective measure
alternative or 'alternatives to be implemented based on the results of
Tasks IX and X. At a minimum, the following criteria will be used
to justify the final corrective measure or measures.
A. Technical
1. Performance - corrective measure or measures which are most
effective at performing their intended functions and maintaining
the performance over extended periods of time will be given
preference;
2. Reliability - corrective measure or measures which do not reguire
frequent or complex operation and maintenance activities and
that have proven effective under waste and facility conditions
similar to those anticipated will be given preference;
3. Implementability - corrective measure or measures which can be
constructed and operating to reduce levels of contamination to
attain or exceed applicable standards in the shortest period of
time will be preferred; and
4. Safety - corrective measure or measures which pose the least
threat to the safety of nearby residents and environments as
well as workers during implementation will be preferred.
B. Human Health
The corrective measure or measures must comply with existing U.S. EPA
criteria, standards, or guidelines for the protection of human health.
Corrective measures which provide the minimum level of exposure to
contaminants and the maximum reduction in exposure with time are
preferred.
C. Environmental
The corrective measure or measures posing the least adverse impact
(or greatest improvement) over the shortest period "of time on the
environment will be favored.
-------
9902.3
-43-
TASK XI: REPORTS
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare a Corrective Measure Study
Report presenting the results of Task VIII through X and recommending a
corrective measure alternative, [number] copies of the preliminary
report shall be provided by the Owner/Operator [Respondent].
A. Progress
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall at a minimum provide the EPA
with signed, [monthly, bimonthly] progress reports containing:
1. A description and estimate of the percentage of the CMS completed;
2. Summaries of all findings;
3. Summaries of all changes made in the CMS during the reporting
period;
4. Summaries of all contacts with representative of the local
community, public interest groups or State government during the
reporting period;
5. Summaries of all problems or potential problems encountered during
the reporting period;
6. Actions being taken to rectify problems;
7. Changes in personnel during reporting period;
8. Projected work for the next reporting period; and
9. Copies of daily reports, inspection reports, laboratory/ monitoring
data, etc.
B. Draft
The Report shall at a minimum include:
1. A description of the facility;
a. Site topographic map & preliminary layouts.
2. A summary of the corrective measure or measures;
a. Description of the corrective measure or measures and rationale
for selection;
b. Performance expectations;
c. Preliminary design criteria and rationale;
d. General operation and maintenance reguirements; and
e. long-term monitoring requirements.
-------
9902.3
-44-
3. A summary of the RCRA Facility Investigation and impact on the
selected corrective measure or measures;
a. Field studies (ground-water, surface water, soil, air); and
b. Laboratory studies (bench scale, pick scale).
4. Design and Implementation Precautions;
a. Special technical problems;
b. Additional engineering data required;
c. Permits and regulatory requirements;
d. Access, easements, right-of-way;
e. Health and safety requirements; and
f. Community relations activities.
5. Cost Estimates and Schedules;
a. Capital cost estimate;
b. Operation and maintenance cost estimate; and
c. Project schedule (design, construction, operation).
[number] copies of the draft shall be provided by the Owner/Operator
[Respondent] to U.S. EPA.
C. Final
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall finalize the Corrective Measure
Study Report incorporating ccmments received frcm EPA on the Draft Corrective
Measure Study Report.
-------
9902.3
-45-
[THE FOLLOWING FACILITY SUBMISSION SUMMARY MAY BE PLACED IN THE BODY
OF THE ORDER OR PERMIT MD REMOVED FROM THE SCOPE OF WORK. NOT ALL OF
THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW MAY BE REQUIRED AT EACH FACILITY.]
Facility Submission Summary
A summary of the information reporting requirements contained in the -
Corrective Measure Study Scope of Work is presented below:
Facility Submission
Due Date
Draft CMS Report
(Tasks VIII, IX, and X)
Final CMS Report
(Tasks VIII, IX, and X)
Progress Reports on Tasks VIII, IX, and X
[ NUMBER ] days
after submittal of
the Final RFI
[ NUMBER ] days
after Public and
EPA comment on the
Draft CMS
[ MONTHLY, BI-MONTHLY ]
-------
9902.3
-46-
SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE CORRECTIVE MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
AT
[SPECIFY FACILITY NAME]
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Corrective Measure Implementation (CMI) program is to
design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the performance of the
corrective measure or measures selected to protect human health and the
environment. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] will furnish all personnel,
materials and services necessary for the implementation of the corrective
measure or measures.
[Note: This scope of work is intended to foster timely, concise submissions
by Owner/Operators. To achieve this goal, it is important when using the
model scope of work to consider facility specific conditions. This scope
should be modified as necessary to require only that information necessary
to complete the Corrective Measure Implementation.]
SCOPE
The Corrective Measure Implementation program consists of four tasks;
Task XII: Corrective Measure Implementation Program Plan
A. Program Management Plan
B. Connunity Relations Plan
Task XIII: Corrective Measure Design
A. Design Plans and Specifications
B. Operation and Maintenance Plan
C. Cost Estimate
D. Project Schedule
E. Construction Quality Assurance Objectives
F. Health and Safety Plan
G. Design Phases
Task XIV: Corrective Measure Construction
A. Responsibility and Authority
B. Construction Quality Assurance Personnel Qualifications
C. Inspection Activities
D. Sampling Requirements
E. Documentation
Task XV: Reports
A. Progress
B. Draft
C. Final
-------
9902.3
-47-
TASK XII: CORRECTIVE MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM PLAN
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare a Corrective Measure
Implementation Program Plan. This program will include the development and
implementation of several plans, which require concurrent preparation.
It may be necessary to revise plans as the work is performed to focus
efforts on a particular problem. The Program Plan includes the following:.
A. Program Management Plan
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare a Program Management Plan
which will document the overall management strategy for performing the
design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of corrective
measure(s). The plan shall document the responsibility and authority of
all organizations 'and key personnel involved with the implementation.
The Program Management Plan will also include a description of
qualifications of key personnel directing the Corrective Measure
Implementation Program, including contractor personnel.
B. Community Relations Plan
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall revise the Community Relations
Plan to include any changes in the level of concern of information needs
to the community during design and construction activities.
1. Specific activities which must be conducted during the design stage
are the following:
a. Revise the facility Community Relations Plan to reflect knowledge
of citizen concerns and involvement at this stage of the process;
and
b. Prepare and distribute a public notice and an updated fact sheet at
the completion of engineering design.
2. Specific activities to be conducted during the construction stage
could be the following: Depending on citizen interest at a
facility at this point in the corrective action process, community
relations activities could range from group meetings to fact
sheets on the technical status.
-------
9902.3
-48-
TASK XIII; CORRECTIVE MEASURE DESIGN
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare final construction plans
and specifications to implement the corrective measure(s) at the facility
as defined in the Corrective Measure Study.
A. Design Plans and Specifications
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall develop clear and comprehensive
design plans and specifications which include but are not limited to
the following:
1. Discussion of the design strategy and the design basis,..Including;
a. Compliance with all applicable or relevant environmental
and public health standards; and
b. Minimization of environmental and public impacts.
2. Discussion of the technical factors of importance including:
a. Use of currently accepted environmental control measures and
technology;
b. The constructability of the design; and
c. Use of currently acceptable construction practices and techniques.
3. Description of assumptions made and detailed justification of
these assumptions;
4. Discussion of the possible sources of error and references to
possible operation and maintenance problems;
5. Detailed drawings of the proposed design including;
a. Qualitative'flow sheets; and
b. Quantitative flow sheets.
6. Tables listing equipment and specifications;
7. Tables giving material and energy balances;
8. Appendices including;
a. Sample calculations (one example presented and explained
clearly for significant or unique design calculations);
b. Derivation of equations essential to understanding the
report; and
c. Results of laboratory or field tests.
-------
9902.3
-49-
B. Operation and Maintenance Plan
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare an Operation and
Maintenance Plan to cover both implementation and long term maintenance
of the corrective measure. The plan shall be composed of the following
elements:
1. Description of normal operation and maintenance (O&M);
a. Description of tasks for operation;
b. Description of tasks for maintenance;
c. Description of prescribed treatment or operation conditions; and
d. Schedule showing frequency of each O&M task.
2. Description of potential operating problems;
a. Description and analysis of potential operation problems;
b. Sources of information regarding problems; and
c. Common and/or anticipated remedies.
3. Description of routine monitoring and laboratory testing;
a. Description of monitoring tasks;
b. Description of required laboratory tests and their interpretation;
c. Required QA/QC; and
d. Schedule of monitoring frequency and date, if appropriate, when
monitoring may cease.
4. Description of alternate O&M;
a. Should systems fail, alternate procedures to prevent undue hazard;
and
b. Analysis of vulnerability and additional resource requirements
should a failure occur.
5. Safety plan;
a. Description of precautions, of necessary equipment, etc., for
site personnel; and
b. Safety tasks required in event of systems failure.
-------
9902.3
-50-
6. Description of equipment; and
. a. Equipment identification;
b. Installation of monitoring components;
c. Maintenance of site equipment; and
d. Replacement schedule for equipment and installed components.
7. Records and reporting mechanisms required.
a. Daily operating logs;
b. Laboratory records;
c. Records for operating costs;
d. Mechanism for reporting emergencies;
e. Personnel and maintenance records; and
f. Monthly/annual reports to State agencies.
An initial Draft Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted
simultaneously with the Prefinal Design Document, submission and the
Final Operation and Maintenance Plan with the Final Design Documents.
C. Cost Estimate
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall develop cost estimates for the
purpose of assuring that the facility has the financial resources
necessary to construct and implement the corrective measure. The
cost estimate developed in the Corrective Measure Study shall be
refined to reflect the more detailed/accurate design plans and
specifications being developed. The cost estimate shall include
both capital and operation and maintenance costs. An Initial Cost
Estimate shall be submitted simultaneously with the Prefinal Design
submission and the Final Cost Estimate with the Final Design Document.
D. Project Schedule
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall develop a Project Schedule for
construction and implementation of the corrective measure or measures
which identifies timing for initiation and completion of all critical
path tasks. Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall specifically identify
dates for completion of the project and major interim milestones.
. An Initial Project Schedule shall be submitted simultaneously with
the Prefinal Design Document submission and the Final Project Schedule
with the Final Design Document.
-------
-51- 9902.3
E. Construction Quality Assurance Objectives
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall identify and document the
objectives and framework for the development of a construction quality
assurance program including, but not limited to the following:
responsibility and authority; personnel qualifications; inspection
activities; sampling requirements; and documentation.
F. Health and Safety Plan
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall modify the Health Safety Plan
developed for the RCRA Facility Investigation to address the activities
to be performed at the facility to implement the corrective measure(s).
G. Design Phases
The design of the corrective measure(s) should include the phases
outlined below.
1. Preliminary design
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall submit the Preliminary
design when the design effort is approximately 30% complete. At
this stage the Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall have field verified
the existing conditions of the facility. The preliminary design
shall reflect a level of effort such that the technical requirements
of the project have been addressed and outlined -so that they may
be reviewed to determine if the final design will provide an
operable and usable corrective measure. Supporting data and
documentation shall be provided with the design documents defining
the functional aspects of the program. The preliminary construction
drawings by the Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall reflect organization
and clarity. The scope of the technical specifications shall be
outlined in a manner reflecting the final specifications. The
Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall include with the preliminary
submission design calculations reflecting the same percentage of
completion as the designs they support.
2. Intermediate design
Complex project design may necessitate review of the design
documents between the preliminary and the prefinal/final design.
At the discretion of the Agency, a design review may be required
at 60% completion of the project. The intermediate design
submittal should include the same elements as the prefinal design.
3. Correlating plans and specifications
General correlation between drawings and technical specifications,
is a basic requirement of any set of working construction plans
and specifications. Before submitting the project specifications,
the Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall:
a. Coordinate and cross-check the specifications and drawings; and
-------
_52- 9902.3
b. Complete the proofing of the edited specifications and required
cross-checking of all drawings and specifications.
These activities shall be completed prior to the 95% prefinal
submittal to the Agency.
4. Equipment start-up and operator training
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare, and include in
the technical specifications governing treatment systems, contractor
requirements for providing: appropriate service visits by experienced
personnel to supervise the installation, adjustment, startup and
operation of the treatment systems, and training covering appropriate
operational procedures once the startup has been successfully
accomplished.
5. Additional studies
Corrective Measure Implementation may require additional studies to
supplement the available technical data. At the direction of the
Agency for any such studies required, the Owner/Operator [Respondent]
shall furnish all services, including field work as required,
materials, supplies, plant, labor, equipment, investigations,
studies and superintendence. Sufficient sampling, testing and
analysis shall be performed to optimize the required treatment
and/or disposal operations and systems. There shall be an initial
meeting of all principal personnel involved in the development
of the program. The purpose will be to discuss objectives,
resources, communication channels, role of personnel involved
and orientation of the site, etc. The interim report shall
present the results of the testing with the recommended treatment
or disposal system (including options). A review conference
shall be scheduled after the interim report has been reviewed by
all interested parties. The final report of the testing shall
include all data taken during the testing and a summary of the
results of the studies.
6. Prefinal and final design
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall submit the prefinal/Final
design documents in two parts. The first submission shall be at
95% completion of design (i.e., prefinal). After approval of
the prefinal submission, the Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall
execute the required revisions and submit the final documents
100% complete with reproducible drawings and specifications.
The prefinal design submittal and shall consist of the Design
Plans and Specifications, Operation and Maintenance Plan, Capital
and Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate, Project Schedule,
Quality Assurance Plan and Specifications for the Health and
Safety Plan.
-------
9902.3
-53-
The final design submittal consist of the Final Design Plans and
Specifications (100% complete), the Owner/Operator's [Respondent's]
Final Construction Cost Estimate, the Final Operation
and Maintenance Plan, Final Quality Assurance Plan, Final Project
Schedule and Final Health and Safety Plan specifications. The
quality of the design documents should be such that the Owner/Operator
[Respondent] would be able to include them in a bid package and
invite contractors to submit bids for the construction project.
-------
9902.3
-54-
TASK XIV: CORRECTIVE MEASURE CONSTRUCTION
Following EPA approval of the final design, the Owner/Operator [Respondent]
shall develop and implement a construction quality assurance (CQA) program
to ensure, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that a completed corrective
measure(s) meets or exceeds all design criteria, plans and specifications.
The CQA plan is a facilityspecific document which must be submitted to
the Agency for approval prior to the start of construction. At a minimum,
the CQA plan should include the elements, which are summarized below.
Upon EPA approval of the CQA plan the Owner/Operator [Resondent] shall
construct and implement the corrective measures in accordance with the
approved design, schedule and the CQA plan. The Owner/Operator [Respondent]
shall also implement the elements of the approved Operation and Maintenance
plan.
A. Responsibility and Authority
The responsibility and authority of all organizations (i.e. technical
consultants, construction firms, etc.) and key personnel involved
in the construction of the corrective measure shall be described
fully in the CQA plan. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] must identify
a CQA officer and the necessary supporting inspection staff.
B. Construction Quality Assurance Personnel Qualifications
The qualifications of the CQA officer and supporting inspection
personnel shall be presented in the CQA plan to demonstrate that
they possess the training and experience necessay to fulfill their
identified responsibilities.
C. Inspection Activities
The observations and tests that will be used to monitor the construction
and/or installation of the components of the corrective measure(s)
shall be summarized in the CQA plan. The plan shall include the
scope and frequency of each type of inspection. Inspections shall
verify compliance with all environmental requirements and include,
but not be limited to air quality and emissions monitoring records,
waste disposal records (e.g., RCRA transportation manifests), etc.
The inspection should also ensure compliance with all health and
safety procedures. In addition to oversight inspections, the Owner/
Operator [Respondent] shall conduct the following activities:
1. Preconstruction inspection and meeting
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall conduct a preconstruction
inspection and meeting to:
a. Review methods for documenting and reporting inspection data;
b. Review methods for distributing and storing documents and reports;
-------
9902.3
-55-
c. Review work area security and safety protocol;
d. Discuss any appropriate modifications of the construction quality
assurance plan to ensure that site-specific considerations are
addressed; and
e. Conduct a site walk-around to verify that the design criteria,
plans, and specifications are understood and to review material
and equipment storage locations.
The preconstruction inspection and meeting shall be documented
by a designated person and minutes should be transmitted to all
parties.
2. Prefinal inspection
Upon preliminary project completion Owner/Operator [Respondent]
shall notify EPA for the purposes of conducting on prefinal inspection.
The prefinal inspection will consist of a walk-through inspection of
the entire project site. The inspection is to determine whether the
project is complete and consistent with the contract documents and
the EPA approved corrective measure. Any outstanding construction
items discovered during the inspection will be identified and noted.
Additionally, treatment equipment will be operationally tested by the
Owner/Operator [Respondent]. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] will
certify that the equipment has performed to meet the purpose and
intent of the specifications. Retesting will be completed where
deficiencies are revealed. The prefinal inspection -report should
outline the outstanding construction items, actions required to
resolve items, completion date for these items, and date for final
inspection.
3. Final inspection
Upon completion of any outstanding construction items, the Owner/
Operator [Respondent] shall notify EPA for the purposes of conducting
a final inspection. The final inspection will consist of a walk-through
inspection of the project site. The prefinal inspection report will
be used as a checklist with the final inspection focusing on the
outstanding construction items identified in the prefinal inspection.
Confirmation shall be made that outstanding items have been resolved.
D. Sampling Requirements
The sampling activities, sample size, sample locations, frequency of
testing, acceptance and rejection criteria, and plans for correcting
problems as addressed in the project specifications should be presented
in the CQA plan.
-------
9902.3
-56-
E. Documentation
Reporting requirements for CQA activities shall be described in detail
the CQA plan. This should include such items as daily summary reports,
inspection data sheets, problem identification and corrective measures
reports, design acceptance reports, and final documentation. Provisions
for the final storage of all records also should be presented in the CQA
plan.
-------
9902.3
TASK XV: REPORTS
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall prepare plans, specifications, and
reports as set forth in Tasks XII throuagh Task XV to document the design,
construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the corrective
measure. The documentation shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
A. Progress
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall at a minimum provide the EPA
with signed, [monthly, bimonthly] progress reports during the design
and construction phases and [semi-annual] progress reports for
operation and maintenance activities containing:
1. An description and estimate of the percentage of the CMI completed;
2. Summaries of all findings;
3. Summaries of all changes made in the CMI during the reporting
period;
4. Summaries of all contacts with representative of the local community,
public interest groups or State government during the reporting period;
5. Summaries of all problems or potential problems encountered during
.the reporting, period;
6. Actions being ..taken to rectify problems;
7. Changes in personnel during the reporting period;
8. Projected work for the next reporting period; and
9. Copies of daily reports, inspection reports, laboratory/ monitoring
data, etc.
B. Draft
1. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall submit a draft Corrective
Measure implementation Program Plan as outlined in Task XII;
2. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall submit draft Construction
Plans and Specifications, Design Reports, Cost Estimates, Schedules,
Operation and Maintenance plans, and Study Reports as outlined in
Task XIII;
3. The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall submit a draft Construction
Quality Assurance Program Plan and Documentation as outlined in
Task XIV, and
-------
9902.3
-58-
4. At the "conpletion" of the construction of the project, the Owner-
/Operator [Respondent] shall submit a Corrective Measure Implementation
Report to the Agency. The Report shall document that the -project
is consistent with the design specifications, and that the corrective
measure is performing adequately. The Report shall include, but
not be limited to the following elements:
a. Synopsis of the corrective measure and certification of the design
and construction;
b. Explanation of any modifications to the plans and why these
were necessary for the project;
c. Listing of the criteria, established before the corrective
measure was initiated, for judging the functioning of the
corrective measure and also explaining any modification to
these criteria; r
d. Results of facility monitoring, indicating that the corrective
measure will meet or exceed the performance criteria; and
e. Explanation of the operation and maintenance (including
monitoring) to be undertaken at the facility.
This report, should include all of the daily inspection summary
reports, inspection summary reports, inspection data sheets,
problem identification and corrective measure reports, block
evaluation reports, photographic reporting data sheets, design
engineers' acceptance reports, deviations fron design and material
specifications (with justifying documentation) and as-built
drawings.
C. Final
The Owner/Operator [Respondent] shall finalize the Corrective Measure
Implementation Program Plan, Construction Plans and Specifications,
Design Reports, Cost Estimates, Project Schedule, Operation and
Maintenance Plan, Study Reports, Construction Quality Assurance Program
Plan/Documentation and the Corrective Measure Implementation Report
incorporating comments received on draft submissions.
-------
9902.3
-59-
[THE FALLOWING FACILITY SUBMISSION SUMMARY MAY BE PLACED IN THE BODY
OF THE ORDER OR PERMIT AND REMOVED FROM THE SCOPE OF WORK. NOT ALL OF
THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW MAY BE REQUIRED AT EACH FACILITY].
Submission Summary
A summary of the information reporting requirements contained in the
Corrective Measure Implementation Scope of Work is present below:
Facility Submission
Draft Program Plans
(Task XII)
Final Program Plans
(Task XII)
Design Phases
(Task XIII A)
- Preliminary Design (30% completion)
- Intermediate Design (60% completion)
- Prefinal Design (95% completion).
- Final Design (100% completion)
(Task XIII B through G)
- Draft Submittals
- Final Submittals
Additional Studies: Interim Report
(Task XIII F)
Additional Studies: Final Report
(Task XIII F)
Draft Construction Quality Assurance Plan
(Task XIV)
Final Construction Quality Assurance Plan
(Task XIV)
Construction of Corrective Measure(s)
Prefinal Inspection Report
(Task XIV)
Due Date
[ DATE 1
[ NUMBER ] days after
EPA comment on Draft
Program Plans
[ NUMBER ] days after
submittal of Final Program Plan
[ NUMBER ] days after
submittal of Final Program Plan
[ NUMBER ] days after
submittal of Final Program Plan
[ NUMBER ] days after
submittal of Prefinal Design
Concurrent with Prefinal Design
Concurrent with Final Design
[ DATE ESTABLISHED PRIOR
TO FINAL DESIGN ]
[ NUMBER ] days after EPA
comment on Interim Report
Prior to construction
[ NUMBER ] days after EPA
comment on Draft Construction
Quality Assurance Plan
As approved in Final Design
[ NUMBER ] days after
Prefinal Inspection
-------
9902.3
-60-
Facility Submission
Draft CMI Report
(Task XV)
Completion of Construction
Final CMI Report
(Task XV)
Progress Reports for Tasks XII through XIV
Progress Reports During Operation
and Maintenance
Due Date
Upon completion of
construction phase
As approved by EPA in the
Corrective Measure Design
[ NUMBER ] days after EPA
comment on Draft CMI Report
[ MONTHLY, BI-MONTHLY ]
[ SEMI-ANNUAL]
-------
9902.3
-61-
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
for the
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN**
Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCIA; May 1985.
- Provides detailed guidance on the information that should be
collected in performing a CERCLA Remedial Investigation. This
document should be consulted in performing the investigation
portion of the RFI/CMS since most of the RCRA Facility Investigation
data needs are identical to these in CERCLA.
Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA; April 1985.
- Provides a framework for developing, screeningt and selecting a
remedial action under CERCLA. Most of the techniques described
are appropriate for the developing, screening, and selection of
the RCRA Corrective Measures. However, the management and policy
objectives presented in the document (i.e. fulfilling the requirements
of the CERCLA National Contingency Plan) are not appropriate to RCRA
and should be emitted from the Corrective Measure decisionmaking
framework.
Chemical, Physical and Biological Properties of Compounds Present at
Hazardous Waste Sites; EPA/OWPE; September 1985.
- Provides detailed technical 'information of the physical and
toxicolcgical properties of a wide range of chemicals. Such
information should be included in the RCRA Facility Investigation
and should be used in developing Corrective Measures.
Endangerment Assessment Handbook; EPA/OWPE; August 1985.
- Provides guidance on developing a CERCLA (or RCRA 7003) Endangerment
Assessment. The information presented might be useful in assessing
health and environmental effects in the RFI/CMS.
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste; EPA-600/4-79-020;
March 1979.
- Provides test procedures for monitoring waste discharge water
supplies, and ambient waters.
Toxicology Handbook - Principles Related to Hazardous Waste Site Investigations;
EPA/OWPE; August 1985.
- Discusses toxicological principles. Intended as an aid for non-toxicolcgists.
**NOTE: This is not a complete listing of the Agency guidance which
may be relevant to the corrective action process. A number of
documents are presently under development and have not been included.
-------
9902.3
-62-
Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites (Revised); EPA/625/6-85/006; 1985.
- Provides basic reference material on the design and implementation
of remedial action. Althouqh the document is geared towards the CERCLA
RI/FS process, most of the material presented is directly applicable
to the RCRA Corrective Action Plan.
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods;
SW-846; July 1982.
- Provides procedures that should be used to determine whether a waste
is a. hazardous waste as defined by 40 CFR Part 261.
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance; February 1985.
- Provides guidance on developing remedial design and remedial actions
at Superfund sites. Although procedurally focused on satisfying the
NCP, the document provides useful managerial information for implementing
RCRA Corrective Measures.
Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund
Sites; Draft; May 1986.
- Provides technical discussions of CERCLA remedial alternative
screening and case studies which are largely applicable to the
RFI/CMS. The guidance is intended to be consistent with EPA's
Ground Water Protection Strategy and with RCRA.
Construction Quality Assurance for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities;
EPA/530-SW-85-031; July 1986.
- Public guidance on construction guality assurance for hazardous
waste landfills, surface impoundmenets, and wastepiles.
RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document;
Final; EPA/OWPE; September 1986.
- Provides guidance on data collection and well spacing and design for
detection and assessment monitoring of Interim Status facilities.
This guidance should be consulted in both the RCRA Facility Investi-
gation and Corrective Measure stages of the RFI/CMS.
-------
Frfday
December 19, 1986
Part IV
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response; Interim Final Rule
-------
45654 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. S-760]
Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and
Health Administration; Labor.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
SUMMARY: This interim final rule
amends the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA)
standards for hazardous materials in
Subpart H of 29 CFR Part 1910 by adding
a new § 1910.120 containing employee
protection requirements for workers
engaged in hazardous waste operations
including emergency response to
hazardous subsfance incidents.
Coverage includes employees
involved in responses covered by the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 as amended (CERCLA or
"Superfund" Act) [Pub. L 96-510, 42
U.S.C. 9601 et seq, 94 Stat 2767] such as
clean-up of hazardous waste sites,
certain hazardous waste operations
conducted under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1978
as amended (RCRA) [Pub. L 94-560, 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 90 Stat 2795], and
emergency response to incidents
involving the handling, processing and
transportation of hazardous substances.
The issuance of this interim final rule
is mandated by section 128(e) of the
"Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1988" (SARA)
[Pub. L 99-199). The interim final rule
will regulate employee safety and health
at hazardous waste operations and
during emergency response to
hazardous substance incidents until a
final standard, also mandated by section
126 of SARA, is issued by OSHA and
becomes effective. The final OSHA
standard also mandated by section 126
of SARA is the subject of a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking which will be
published shortly.
DATES: Interim rule effective December
19,1986: various start-up dates have
been established in paragraph (p) of the
standard. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed
in the regulations is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of
December 19.1986.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. fames F. Foster, U.S. Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Division of Consumer
Affairs, Room S--1220, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210,
202-523-8151.
This interim final rule was prepared
by Michael B. Moore and Chappell D.
Pierce, Directorate of Safety Standards,
Office of Fire Protection Engineering and
Systems Safety Standards, (202) 523-
7225.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 17,1986, the President
signed into law the "Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986" (SARA) [Pub. L 99-499). As
part of SARA the Secretary of Labor
("Secretary") is directed to issue an
interim final rule within 60 days after
the date of enactment, which i» to •
provide no less protection for workers
engaged in covered operations than the
protections contained in the
Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA), "Health and Safety Requirements
for Employees Engaged in Field
Activities" manual (EPA Order 1440.2)
dated 1981 and the existing OSHA
standards under Subpart C of 29 CFR
Part 1926. SARA also directs the
Secretary to issue, within one year, a
final standard under section 6(b) of the -
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 for the health and safety of
employees engaged in hazardous waste
operations. SARA further indicates that
certain specific areas of employee
protection (i.e., medical surveillance.
personal protective equipment training,
and others) contained in section 126(b)
are relevant to protect employees
engaged in hazardous waste operations.
The interim final rule issued today
becomes effective immediately and will
remain in effect until one year after
issuance of the final OSHA standard,
which will be proposed shortly.
Congress has clearly directed in section
126(e) that these interim final rules
become effective upon issuance and the
standard provides this. Implementation
is to commence immediately, however,
various start-up dates are set forth in
paragraph (p) of the standard which
recognize that full implementation
cannot be completed immediately for
some provisions. In addition OSHA will,
of course, recognize greater feasibility
constraints in the first three months of
the standard and take those constraints
into account in enforcement.
This interim final rule has been
adopted from the language of the EPA
manual entitled "Health and Safety
Requirements for Employees Engaged in
Field Activities" (1981) and the language
of OSHA's safety and health standards
in Subpart C of 29 CFR Part 1926. The
interim final rule also contains language
taken from various documents issued
either jointly or solely by the EPA,
OSHA. the U.S. Coast Guard, and the
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (N1OSH). OSHA has
specifically used the joint OSHA/EPA/
USCG/NIOSH document entitled.
"Occupational Safety and Health
Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste
Site Activities" (Preamble Reference 6),
as an outline in preparing this interim
rule. This four agency manual has been
developed as a result of the
collaborative efforts of professionals
representing the four agencies. These
professionals, who are knowledgeable
in hazardous waste operations, worked
with over 100 experts and organizations
in the development of the criteria
contained in this manual. The manual
was published in October 1985 and is
public information. The manual is a
guidance document for managers
responsible for occupational safety and
health programs at inactive hazardous
waste sites. The manual is intended for
use by government officials at all levels
and contractors involved with
hazardous waste operations. The
manual provides general guidance and
is intended to be used as a preliminary
basis for developing a specific health
and safety program for hazardous waste
operations. Further the major subject
areas listed in SARA section I26(b) are
nearly identical to these major chapters
listed in the manual.
Congress indicated that reasonably
comprehensive protection was intended
for employees at hazardous waste
operations, as discussed below, covering
more than the minimum requirements
specified in the EPA manual (EPA Order
1440.2) and Subpart C of 29 CFR Part
1926. In light of the short period of time
Congress directed for issuance of this
standard, OSHA's utilization of
recognized sources of guidance which
have been created by experts in the area
and utilizing the resources of relevant
agencies is appropriate.
In view of the brief period given for
the issuance of this document, it may be
necessary to issue minor corrections in
the near future.
II. Summary and Explanation of the
Standard
Paragraph fa)—Scope. Application, and
Definitions
In paragraph (a)(l), Scope, OSHA has
defined the scope of the standard to
include:
(i) Hazardous substance response
operations under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 244 / Friday, December 19. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 45655
as amended (CERCLA) including initial
investigations at CERCLA sites before
the presence or absence of hazardous
substances has been ascertained:
(ii) Major corrective actions taken in
clean-up operations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
as amended (RCRA)r
(iii) Operations involving hazardous
waste storage, disposal and treatment
facilities regulated under 40 CFR Parts
264 and 285 pursuant to RCRA except
for small quantity generators and those
employers with less than 90 days
accumulation of hazardous wastes as
defined in 40 CFR 262.34;
(iv) Hazardous waste operations sites
that have been designated for clean-up
by state or local governmental
authorities; and
(v) Emergency response operations for
releases of or substantial threats of
releases of hazardous substances and
post-emergency response operations to
such releases.
Thus this standard will cover
hazardous waste clean-up operations at
CERCLA sites, RCRA sites, emergency
response sites and those sites
designated by State or local
governments. It will also cover other
hazardous waste operations, such as
storage, disposal or treatment of
hazardous waste at RCRA facilities.
OSHA believes that Congress
intended the interim rule to have a
broad scope and application. This is
indicated by the legislative intent as
reflected in the language of SARA. The
language of section 126(e) explicitly
states that the Secretary "shall issue
interim final regulations under this
section..." (emphasis supplied). "Under
this section" refers to the entire section
128 of SARA. And. as previously noted.
section 126(a) mandates safety and
health standards for the protection of
employees engaged in hazardous waste
operations. Thus. OSHA believes
Congress intended the interim final rule
to mirror section 128 and provide
protective provisions to employees
engaged in hazardous waste operations.
The argument is buttressed further by
the fact that section 128(e) states that
the interim final rule shall provide no
less (emphasis added) protection for
workers employed by contractors and
emergency response workers than the
protection contained in the
Environmental Protection Agency
Manual "Health and Safety
Requirements for Employees Engaged in
Field Activities" and exiting standards
under Subpart C of 29 CFR Part 1926.
The two sources cited in section 126(e)
are not a limitation on the scope of the
interim rule. Rather, this language
establishes the minimum amount of
protective provisions, with the broad
parameters of employee protection
delineated by the remainder of section
126.
This interpretation is reinforced
because SARA is a freestanding
statutory provision and not an
amendment to CERCLA. The clear
Congressional intent then is to provide
protection to employees whenever they
deal with hazardous wastes.
The hazards an employee faces at a
RCRA. CERCLA, or emergency response
site are the same hazards. The risk of
exposure is to the same types of
hazardous substances. The scope of the
regulation fulfills the Congressional
mandate: to effectively provide for
employee health and safety at
hazardous waste operations and
emergency response incidents.
As indicated in the application
provisions, different provisions of the
standard apply to clean-up operations.-
regular hazardous waste operations and
emergency response to take into account
relevant differences.
Further the term "hazardous waste
operation" is used in section 126(a) of
SARA. "Hazardous waste" is also a
term used in RCRA and there is no
indication from SARA or its legislative
history that RCRA facilities were to be
excluded from coverage by this interim
rule. This is a further reason why OSHA
has included RCRA hazardous waste
operations under the coverage of this
interim final rule. However, small
quantity generators: employers who
have less than 90 days of hazardous
waste accumulation: and solid waste
disposal operations which do not
involve hazardous waste are not
covered by this interim final rule. Also.
employees at hazardous waste sites
who will not be exposed or do not have
the potential to be exposed to hazardous
substances are not covered by this
interim final rule.
Emergency response employees who
respond or will respond to incidents
involving hazardous substances are
covered by this interim final rule. Public
employees of states that have
agreements with OSHA under section 18
of the OSH Act must issue regulations at
least as effective as these to protect
public employees.
Municipal or other sanitary landfills
that handle domestic wastes are not
covered. Similar waste paper or scrap
metal operations are generally not
covered because of the type of wastes
they handle. But they could be covered
if they have clean-ups for or handle
hazardous wastes meeting the scope
provisions of the standard.
Operations with no exposure to on-
site hazardous substances, i.e.. road
building for site access, construction of
on-site or the setting up of temporary
facilities in the clean zone or the closure
of a RCRA site involving the building of
a clay cap over hazard wastes, are
considered to be construction activities
covered by the standards in 29 CFR Part
1926.
The scope and application provisions
carry out the intent of Congress and are
consistent with good occupational
safety and health policy. Employees
performing clean-up operations under
CERCLA. RCRA (corrective actions) and
post emergency response, generally
those employees likely to have the
highest exposures to hazardous
substances over a longer period, are
covered by virtually all the provisions of
the rule. Employees exposed to
hazardous wastes in routine RCRA
hazardous waste operations, who are
regularly exposed to hazardous wastes
but in a more controlled environment
are covered by the more limited
requirements of paragraph (o) of the
interim final rule. Emergency response
workers, exposed usually for short
periods to often unknown but possibly
high levels of hazardous substances,
have specific provisions directed
towards this situation.
In paragraph (a)(2), Application.
OSHA designates the requirements
which apply to the specific work
activities covered by this interim final
rule. The requirements set forth In
paragraph (1) of this section specifically
apply to the work conducted by
emergency response personnel, such as
fire fighters, emergency medical system
(EMS) employees and police, when they
respond to hazardous substance
incidents.
The requirements set forth in
paragraph (o) of this section specifically
apply to the hazardous waste operations
at RCRA sites which are involved in
disposal, treatment, storage and
handling of hazardous waste. The
exclusion of small quantity operators
and less than 90-day accumulators
excludes from coverage by the interim
rule operators such as dry cleaners and
gas stations which come within the
purview of RCRA but are not hazardous
waste operators in the normal meaning
of the term. The approximately 4,000
RCRA sites where reasonably large
quantities of hazardous wastes are
regularly handled, treated and stored
are covered by the rule. This reflects the
legislative intent, meets the normal
meaning of hazardous waste operations
and covers the type of safety and health
hazards that this regulation is designed
to control.
-------
45656 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
Most of the requirements of the
interim rote apply to d*an-ap activities
of hazardous mbrtanMi or hazardous
wastes at CERCLA attts, corrective
actions at RCRA flitaev and clean-up
operations of hazanbm substances at
emergency incident* after emergency
response personnel have concluded
their duties.
The employer must also comply with
the standards in 23 CFR Parts 1910 and
1926. as well a» with the requirements
specifically covered in this interim rule.
If there is a conflict or overlap, the more
protective provisions are to apply. Since
this interim rule does not cover all of the
hazards present at hazardous waste
operations, other OSHA standards in
Parts 1910 and 1926 apply also. Other
OSHA standards cover many other
hazards, and OSHA wants to make
clear that the other standards continue
to apply. Also, hazardous waste
operators who are not within the scope
of this standard are covered by the Parts
1910 and 1928 standards.
In paragraph (a J(3), Definitions,
OSHA has defined various terms used
in this raJemaking. The definitions for
hazardous substances and hazardous
wastes have been taken from the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulation*. This has been done
to assure conriatency and compatibility
between this interim rale and the rules
and regulations of the EPA and DOT.
The remaining definitions have been
taken for the most part from SARA, the
four agency manual (Reference 8) or
existing OSHA standards.
The term "established permissible
exposure limit" is defined to give
direction as to the appropriate degree of
protection needed to be achieved by
personal protective equipment and other
similar purposes.
Paragraph (b)—General Requirements
In paragraph (b), General
requirements, OSHA sets forth for the
most part a summary of requirements
which are specified in detail in later
paragraphs. The preamble discussion for
later paragraphs sets forth the reasons
for the various provisions. Many of
these requirements are part of the
minimum requirements which Congress
directed OSHA to issue in section 126(e)
of SARA. The EPA manual (EPA Order
1440.2) referenced in section 128(e}
requires extensive training and medical
surveillance programs. Subpart C of 29
CFR Part 1928. also referenced, requires,
in addition, accident prevention
programs (51920.20(b)), use of
appropriate personal protective
equipment (§ 1928.28), sanitation and
illumination requirements (§§ 1926.26
and 1926.27), provisions on safe
handling of toxic substances (§ 1926.21
(b)(5}J, precautions in confined spaces
(§ 1926.21(b)(6)) and similar provisions.
Congress also directed additional
provisions for the proposed regulation,
which are considered relevant for the
interim regulation. These include
engineering controls, maximum
exposure limits and monitoring,
handling requirements, decontamination
procedures and emergency response.
Based on this comprehensive statutory
direction OSHA believes that the intent
of Congress is to have employers
Implement a safety and health program
that will address the recognized serious
hazards to employees involved in
hazardous waste operations. Therefore,
OSHA has incorporated the more
important elements of section 126(b),
along with the mandatory provisions of
section 126(e) of SARA, into this rule.
Each general requirement in paragraph
(b) calls for employer action and directs
the employer to the specific paragraph
of this rule that contains the duties in
greater detail.
OSHA believes that these
requirements are necessary to assure
adequate employee protection to the
known hazards faced by employees. The
language used in these requirements has
been adapted from the various
documents listed in the Reference
section of this preamble.
Three of the subparagraphs in
paragraph (b) do not reference other
paragraphs in the regulation. Paragraph
(b)(l) requires the employer to develop a
safety and health program for hazardous
waste operations. Such programs are
part of the requirements mandated by
SARA for the interim rule. Thus, Subpart
C of 29 CFR Part 1926 requires such a
program in § 1928.20(b) and EPA Order
1440.2 requires training in "safety plan
development" (pg. 5). OSHA's
experience also establishes that a safety
and health program is necessary to
protect employees so that hazards are
assessed and control programs are
systematically laid out. Prior OSHA
section 6(b) health standards require a
compliance plan to set forth a health
program to protect employees from the
hazard.
Paragraph (b)(14) requires compliance
with Subpart P of 29 CFR Part 1926
which covers excavation. OSHA
considers that those provisions already
apply, but they are singled out because
they are particularly important to
monitor since much excavation activity
occurs on hazardous waste sites.
Paragraph (b)(15) requires employers
to notify contractors and subcontractors
of the hazards identified by the
employer at hazardous waste
operations. Sections 12fi(bJ(2) and (e) of
SARA indicate Congress's specific
interest in protecting employees of
contractors and in involving contractors
in the safe operation of hazardous wa»u
sites. This provision assists the
contractor to become aware of the risks
so that the contractor's employees may
be better protected.
Paragraph (d—Site Characterization
and Analysis
For an effective safety and health
program, which Congress dearly intends
for employees, the employer needs to
know the hazards faced by employees in
order to develop and implement
effective control measures. Site
characterization provides the
information needed to identify site
hazards and- to select employee
protection methods. The more accurate,
detailed, and comprehensive the
information available about a site, the
more the protective measures can be
tailored to the actual hazards that the
employees may encounter. Congress
clearly intended that such a requirement
be included. Subpart C of 29 CFR Part
1926 referenced in section 126(e) of
SARA requires "frequent and regular
inspections of the job site" (29 CFR
1928.20(b)(2J). Also section 126(b)(I) of
SARA provides for site analysis. Alao
item #9 of the EPA manual (EPA Order
1440.2) addresses this practice.
Site characterization generally
proceeds in three phases:
1. Prior to site entry, gather
information away from the site, conduct
reconnaissance from the site perimeter
and conduct offsite characterization.
2. Conduct onsite surveys. During this
phase, restrict site entry only to
reconnaissance personnel.
3. Once the site has been determined
safe for commencement of other
activities, continue monitoring to
provide an updated source of
information about site conditions.
It is important to recognize that site
characterization is a continuous process.
At each phase of site characterization,
information shall be obtained and
evaluated to define the potential
hazards of the site. This assessment
shall be used to develop a safety and
health plan for the next phase of work.
In addition to the formal information
gathering that takes place during the
phases of site characterization
described here, all site personnel should
be constantly alert for new information
about site conditions. Other
requirements of this section have been
adopted from reference 6.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 244 / Friday, December 19. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
45657
Paragraph (dj—Site Control.
As part of the employers' site safety
and health plan, this paragraph'requires
the employer to consider site control to
minimize potential contamination of
employees. Several items need to be
considered, such as establishing work
zones, so that employees know the
hazards in different areas and will keep
out of hazardous areas where the
employees' presence is not required. Use
of a buddy system and good site
communications will assist in rescue of
employees who become unconscious.
trapped or otherwise seriously disabled
on site.
Site control is especially important in
emergency situations. Paragraph (d)
describes the basic components of a
program to control the activities and
movements of employees and equipment
at a hazardous waste site.
Several site control procedures can be
implemented to reduce employee
exposure to chemical, physical,
biological, and safety hazards. The
degrees of site control necessary
depends on site characteristics, site size.
and the surrounding community. The
site control program should be
established in the planning stages of a
project and modified based on new
information and site assessments
developed during site characterization.
The appropriate sequence for
implementing these measures should be
determined on a site-specific basis. In
many cases, it will be necessary to
implement several measures
simultaneously.
The text used in this paragraph has
been adapted From Reference 6. Item 9
of the EPA manual (Order 1440.2)
indicates the need for this. In addition
Subpart C of 29 CFR Part 1926 provides
for regular inspection of job sites so
hazards on the site can be controlled.
Paragraph (e)—Training.
The interim final rule includes specific
provisions for initial and review training
of employees before they are permitted
to engage in hazardous waste operations
that could expose them to safety and
health hazards. Both the EPA manual
and 29 CFR 1926.21 and 1926.22 referred
to in section 126(e) of SARA have
training and information requirements.
The EPA manual has specific provisions
for basic, intermediate and advanced
training. It requires 40 hours training for
employees managing uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. 24 hours for
employees engaged in routine activities
and 32 hours for intermediate activities.
Additionally, section 126 generally has
requirements for extensive training
programs. The clear congressional intent
of the interim final rule training
provisions is to provide employees with
the knowledge and skills necessary to
perform hazardous waste clean-up
operations with minimal risk to their
safety and health.
The provisions for employees include
a minimum of 40 hours of initial
instruction off the site, and a minimum
of 3 days of actual field experience
under the direct supervision of a trained
and experienced supervisor, at the time
of job assignment. This amount of
training is specifically directed by
Congress for the interim final rule by its
reference to the EPA manual which
basically requires this amount of
training for hazardous waste operators
and Congress has specifically imposed
these hour and day requirements under
section 126(d) of SARA for the proposed
final standard. There are slight
differences between the EPA manual
and section 126(c) of SARA. But they are
sufficiently slight so that OSHA believes
it appropriate to make the interim final
rule consistent with what Congress
directs for the proposed final rule so that
employers need not make minor
modifications to their training programs
after two years.
In addition there are often many
hazards at a waste site. The employee
needs to be trained to recognize the
hazards and appropriate work practices
to minimize those hazards. The
employee also needs to be well trained
in the use of respirators and other forms
of PPE. Without training those may not
be used effectively and will not provide
adequate protection. An extensive
training program is necessary to achieve
these objectives. The paragraph
specifies these and the other items
needed for effective training to avoid
hazards.
Managers and supervisors directly
responsible for hazardous waste site
operations are to receive the same
training as that of employees and at
least eight additional hours of
specialized training on managing
hazardous waste operations. Since these
people are responsible for directing
others, it is necessary to enhance their
ability to provide guidance and to make
informed decisions. Both the EPA
manual and section 126(e) of SARA
direct eight hours of additional training
for supervisors and managers.
The provisions also state that
employees shall be retrained on an
annual basis on relevant matters such
as review of health hazards and use of
personal protective equipment.
Employees at hazardous waste
operations face serious health and
safety risks. Reminders are needed of
this and of work practices to avoid
hazards. Personal protective equipment
provides much of their protection. If
there is no retraining in the use, care
and maintenance of said equipment.
such equipment is unlikely to be utilized
in a manner to provide adequate
protection. The regulation provides for
eight hours of annual retraining. The
EPA manual for refresher training (item
*10) requires this amount of training.
In all areas of training, whether it be
for general site employees, on-site
supervisors or for the use of specific
equipment, the level of training provided
needs to be consistent with the worker's
job function and responsibilities. The
training information should be presented
clearly and. as a further safeguard.
refresher training should be supplied to
reemphasize the initial training and to
update employees on any new policies
or procedures.
A less detailed training provision is
provided for employees working at
routine operation on RCRA sites. Those
sites will have more stable working
conditions and the hazards will be
better identified and more carefully
controlled. Therefore OSHA believes
not as extensive training is needed for
those employees for the interim rule.
OSHA specifies 24 hours for the
required training based on the EPA
.manual which specifies this as the basic
level of training for most routine field
activities. OSHA in the proposal
document will request comment whether
this or a greater amount of training is
appropriate for the permanent rule.
Paragraph (f}—Medical Surveillance
The interim final rule both includes
specific provisions for baseline and
periodic medical examinations. The EPA
manual referred to in section 126(e) of
SARA has requirements for both initial
or baseline and periodic medical
examinations. The examinations are to
be provided to those routinely exposed
to hazardous substances, to those whose
duties are physically taxing and those
who routinely wear respirators. In
addition section 126(b) provides that
routine medical examinations are to be
provided to workers engaged in
hazardous waste operations. Although
the language is slightly different, the
clear intent is to provide a
comprehensive medical surveillance
program for employees engaged in
hazardous waste operations where it is
medically prudent.
The paragraph states medical
surveillance is to be provided to
employees who have been or are
expected to be exposed to hazardous
substances or health hazards above
established permissible exposure limits
-------
45658 Federal Register / VoL 51. No. 244 / Friday, December 19. 1966 / Rules and Regulations
for 30 oc-mare. d*ya ia a 12-njoath period
or who wear respirators 30 days during
the year. These are the employees who
will be at greater health, oik, and
employees who wear respirators need to
be examined to. detenaine-waether they
can safely do so as a routine matter.
Some dividing tona is nppnWt, because
employees who might be present on a
hazardous waste site only a few days a
year or working in areas such as offices
or the periphery where exposures are
low would not normally benefit from
medical surveillance as their likely
cumulative exposures to toxic chemicals
would be very tow probably not
significantly higher than the general
population. The EPA manual indicates
some dividing line is appropriate
because if directs medical surveillance
only for employees "routinely" exposed
Wearing respirators for any part of
each of 30 days will require medical
surveillance because it indicates routine
exposure to toxic chemicals. There is no
requirement that there be 240 hours of
respirator use before medical
surveillance is reqmred. Similarly being
exposed over established safe levels to
several chemicals each for less than 30
days but totalling more than 30 days pet
year requires medical surveillance. This
indicates routine exposures to
hazardous substances and afoo
combinations of chemicals may cause
synergistic effects (rearing greater
health hazards than an individual
chemical.
OSHA has based many of the details
of medical surveillance on its
experience in issuing health standards
under section 6(b) of the OSH Act and
as directed by section 6(bH7) of the Act
Congress would be knowledgable that
medical surveillance requirements in
these standards represent OSHA's
expert judgement of what is an
appropriate medical surveillance
program.
The appropriate medical tests and
examinations depend on the substances
an employee is exposed to and whether
the employee wears a respirator. As
employees on baaardoo* waste sites
will be exposed to differing substances,
the paragraph can not specifically state
the required tests. Consequently the
paragraph states that the employer
provide to the physician information on
exposures, respirator usa. and duties on
the site. The physician is then to
determine the appropriate medical
surveillance protocol in terms of specific
tests and examinations. By the employer
specifying duties the physician also can
judge whether the employee can handle
the arduousness of the work.
In situations where most of the
employees, on the site have similar
exposures, the protocol may be similar
for all employee*. Where different
groupe of employees on the site have
substantially different exposures,
several different protocols may be
appropriate for the site's workers
depending on exposure*.
There are a number of sources for
guidance oa specific medical
examination protocols. Chapter 5 of
Reference 8 providea such guidance by
groups of chemical* likely to be present
on a site. It references other authorities.
The manual should be supplied to the
physician. It is also a basis for the
medical surveillance program required
by this paragraph. In addition, the EPA
medical monitoring program guidelines
referenced by the EPA manual provides
guidance on specific protocols.
The paragraph requires an initial or
baseline medical examination either
prior to the start up date for employees
who are currently working at hazardous
waste sites or prior to initial assignment
to an area where medical examinations
will be required. The purpose is to take
a detailed medical history and where
possible develop a health baseline prior
to any exposures so as to be able to
evaluate changes which may be
connected to hazardous substance
exposures. In addition the initial
examination will permit evaluation of
whether the employee can appropriately
wear respirators and whether the
employee has preexisting conditions
which would make exposure to
hazardous substances inappropriate. An
initial examination has been required by
other OSHA health standards and is
recommended in Reference 6.
The physician must be informed of
what type of respirators and personal
protective equipment an employee is
likely to wear. The medical examination
is to include appropriate testa to
evaluate the employee's ability to wear
respirators and PPE.
The physician will also specify the
protocol of the periodic examinations.
These may be different from the initial
examination, for example, only an
updated medical history would be
required. The periodic examinations are
required yearly. OSHA's experience in
other health standards has been that
this is an appropriate period and it is
also recommended by Reference 6.
EPA's medical monitoring program
guidelines cross referenced in the EPA
manual recommends baseline annual
examination generally and a termination
examination. It is reasonable to
determine periodically whether
exposures have brought medical
changes and to identify conditions
caused by chemicals at an early stage to
permit more effective treatment. In some
circumstances, the physician may
advise more frequent examinations.
Framing tinny are also to be provided
when the employee brings to the
employer's attention signs or symptoms
indicating possible overexposure to
hazardous substances. The employee is
to be trained in recognizing what
symptoms may indicate substances to
which the employee is exposed.
Examples may be dizziness or rashes.
Examinations are also required, when
medically appropriate, during
emergencies when exposure to higher
levels is possible. For example, a
urinary phenol test is appropriate for
employees exposed to high levels of
benzene in an emergency.
Finally, a medical examination is
required for.empioyeea who have been
required to have medical examinations
upon termination of employment or
reassignment to an area where medical
examinations are not required. This is to
detect conditions which have developed
prior to departure and is recommended
by the EPA program.
The medical examination is to be
provided under the supervision of a
licensed physician, i.e., the person must
be qualified to make medical
judgements. As provided by section
6(b)(7) of the OSH Act, the employer is
to pay the cost of the examination. In
addition provisions are included so that
the employee is not discouraged from
taking the examination. The exam is to
be given at a reasonable time and place.
If given during regular working hours the
employee shall receive the employer's
normal pay for that time. If the exam is
given outside regular working hours, the
employee shall be paid his regular
wages for the time spent taking and
waiting for the examination.
The physician shall make a report to
the employer of medical conditions
which may make the employee at
increased risk to work at the site and
any recommendations on limitations on
use of respirators and other PPE as a
result of the medical conditions. This
will provide guidance for the safe
employment of the employee at the site.
The physician shall not reveal diagnose*
or conditions unrelated to employment.
but shall inform the employee directly of
those conditions and any and all
occupationally related conditions.
The medical paragraph requires that
appropriate records be kept to assist in
future evaluation of the employee's
health. Secondarily, this information
may assist in research on occupational
related disease. Records should be kept
pursuant to the provisions of 29 CFR
1910.20. Full consideration was given in
-------
Federal Regfafer / Vol. 51. No. 244 j Friday. December 19, 198& / Rule* and Regulations 45659
that standard to appropriate retention
periods.
Paragraph (g}—Eagineetifig Controls,
Work Prar.tif.fs, and PeesoaaeJ
Protective Equipment.
Anyone entering a hazardoos waste
site mast be protected against potential
hazards. The purpose of engineering'
controls, work practices, and PPE is to
shield or isolate individuals front the
chemical, physical, and biurogie hazards
that may be encountered1 af a hazardous-
waste- site. Careful selection and use of
adequate engineering'controls; work
practices and PPE should protect any
employee from health and many other
hazards including hazard* to the
respiratory system, skin, eyes, face.
hands, feet, head, body, and hearing.
Requirements of both Sufcpart C of 29
CFR Part 192ft and the EPA manual
mandated to be included1 in the standard
by Congress cover the provision and use
of personal protective equipment. See
for example, 29 CFR 1926.28 and items
7(9), 9fa)f77 and 9fb)f2} of the EPA
manual. In addition existing OSHA
regulations which apply ta hazardous
waste operations, in 29 CFR Partl9M,
Subpart Z require-exposures to various
toxic and hazardous substances to be-
controlled with engineering controls if
feasible, otherwise with PPE. These-
requirements apply now to employers
and workers on Superfund sites
pursuant to EPA regulations in 40 CFR
Part 300. Finally, Congress specified in
section 126(b) that there should be both
PPE and engineering control provisions
for the permanent final standard
Paragraph (g)(l) basically carries over
the existing requirements of Subpart Z.
OSHA regulated toxic and hazardous
substances are to be controlled to the
permissible exposure limit if feasible. If
not feasible they are to be controlled
with PPE
Paragraph (g)(2) provides that to
achieve established permissible.
exposures limits for substances-not
regulated by OSHA, the employer may
use an appropriate combination of
engineering controls, work practices.
and PPE. As these are interim
regulations, preference for engineering
controte where not already required
wouid not be appropriate because of the
limited time frame of this regulation and
the frequent inability to install such
controls in a short period. In addition it
is OSHA'a experience that this is an
appropriate approach based on the
emergency temporary standards it has
issued which are also in effect for a
limited period. OSHA will ask for
comment in these areas in the proposal
document.
Examples of engineering controls
which may be feasible are pressurized
cabs oa materials handling equipment or
pressurized controf rooms, in material*
handling area* However, in many cases
personal protective equipment will be
the only feasible means for providing
protection to employees engaged in
hazardous waste operations. The
selection of personal protective
equipment (PPE) must be based on the
information obtained during the site
characterization and analysis, as is
required by paragraph- fgj(3)fr) of this
standard. Once an estimate of the types
of hazard* and their potential
concentration has been obtained, the
proper respirators and protective
clothing can be selected based on the
performance characteristics of the PPE
relative to the site hazards and work
• conditions, as is required by paragraph
(g)(3)(ii) of the standard. These
requirements are derived from
Reference 6 and are- also supported by a
NIOSH document. "Personal Protective
Equipment for Hazardous Materials
Incidents: A Selection Guide." These
two document also support the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(2)(iu)
and (g)(2)(iv) which: require'positive
pressure respirators with escape
provisions to be used in IDLH
atmospheres and totally-encapsulating
chemical protective suits to be used
where contact of the skin by the
substance would bean IDLH situation.
Proper respirator selection, as
required by this standard and 29 CFR
1910.134, involves providing a sufficient
protection factor through the type of
respirator used, respirator fitting, work
site conditions, and respirator selection
and use program. Proper protective
clothing selection, as required by this
standard, involves choosing protective
clothing made of materials and
construction which will prevent
breakthrough of hazardous substances
by permeation and penetration, or
reduce the level of exposure to a safe
level during the employee's duration of
contact. Information on the performance
characteristics of PPE is available in test
reports and manufacturer's literature.
Appendix B provides non-mandatory
guidelines on classifying substance
hazards as four levels (A. B, C, and D),
and matching four levels of appropriate
protection provided by different
protective ensembles. These guidelines
may be used as a basis for protective
clothing selection, and the selection
further refined when more information is
obtained, as provided for in paragraph
(g)(2)(v) of the standard. (In certain
circumstances, this standard does
specify the appropriate level of
protection. See paragraph (cj(4)(iii)j.
Paragraph fg){3)(vi); cross reference the
existing requirements to select and use,
PPE pursuant to the requirements of 29
CFR 1910. Subpart I.
Paragraph (gj(4) requires totally-
encapsulating suit materials used for
Level A protection (the highest Level of
protection) to provide protection from
the specific hazards which, have been
identified as requiring that level of
protection. The purpose of this
requirement is to be certain that the suit
selected is comprised of materials which
will provide the necessary protection.
since no one material will pravide
protection from all hazards. Paragraphs
(g)(4)(ii) and (g)(4)(iii) require totally-
encapsulating suits to be capable of
maintaining positive air pressure to hefp
prevent inward leakage of hazardous
substances, and to be capable of
preventing inward gas leakage of more
than 0.5 percent. These requirements.
which are based on testing of totally-
encapsulating suits, are included to
establish a minimum level of suit
performance so that their level of
protection can be quantified for proper
selection. The example test methods in
Appendix A for totally-encapsulating
chemical protective suits were taken
from, draft American Society for Testing
and Materials' committee documents.
Paragraph (gj(5) requires a PPE
program to be established. This.
requirement is based upon reference 6.
29 CFR 1926.28, EPA manual items 4 and
7(g), and is included,, since, in most
cases. PPE will be the only protection
feasible for employee protection, and
because the amount of protection
afforded by PPE is dependent upon so
many factors, such as selection, fit. work
duration and conditions, and
decontamination. The PPE program is
required to insure that the level of
protection afforded by PPE is sufficient
and continues to be sufficient for
employee safety during hazardous
waste operations.
Paragraph (h}—Monitoring
It is essential that employers be
provided with accurate information on
employee exposures in order to
implement the correct PPE. engineering
controls, and work practices. Airborne
contaminants can present a significant
threat to employee safety and health.
Thus, identification and quantification
of these contaminants through air
monitoring is an essential component of
a safety and health program at a
hazardous waste site. Reliable
measurements of airborne contaminants
are useful for selecting personal
protective equipment, determining
-------
45660 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 244 / Er'iday, December 19, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
whether engineering controls can
achieve permissible exposure limits and
which controls to use, delineating areas
where protection is needed, assessing
the potential health effects of exposure.
and determining the need for specific
medical monitoring. As mentioned
above, section 126(e) of SARA mandates
the use of PPE by its direction that at a
minimum the requirements of the EPA
manual and Subpart C be followed.
Those include requirements for use of
PPE. But PPE cannot be effectively used
unless monitoring has identified the type
of PPE to be used. This is a further
reason to include this provision in the
interim final rule.
The language of this paragraph was
adapted from reference 6.
Paragraph (i)—Informational Programs
In paragraph (i). Informational
Programs. OSHA is requiring employers,
as part of their safety and health
program, to develop and implement a
site specific safety and health plan for
each hazardous waste operation site.
The site safety and health plan shall
be developed by the employer, utilizing
the other parts of the organizational
plan and the employer's safety and
health program. The site safety and
health plan will address the anticipated
safety and health hazards of each work
operation or activity and the means to
eliminate the hazards or to effectively
control them to prevent injury or illness.
This site safety and health plan is to
include: (1) The names of those
responsible for assuring that safe and
healthful practices and procedures are
followed on the whole site; (2) risk
analysis or systems analysis for specific
work tasks or operations on the site; (3)
employee training assignments both off
site and on-the-job-training on site; (4)
the list of required personal protective
equipment needed for each work task
and operation on site: (5) the employer's
medical surveillance program for the
site: (6) the methods for identification
and characterization of safety and
health hazards on the site including the
monitoring procedures that will be done
throughout the work on site; (7) site
control measures including those for
establishing work zones on the site; (8)
the necessary decontamination
procedures which are matched to the
kinds of anticipated contaminants to be
cleaned from employees and equipment:
(9) the standard operating procedures to
be used by employees on site: and (10)
the contingency plan for emergencies
and confined space entry procedures.
Safety meetings and briefings and site
inspections shall also be mentioned in
the plan as well as the procedures to be
followed in changing or modifying the
plan. -,-, • . • '
The'site1 safety and health plan is
necessary to protect employee health.
There are many hazards at a hazardous
waste operation which need to be
determined and addressed. The plan
provides that this will be done in a
systematic manner so that hazards will
not be missed and so that needed
protective action will not be overlooked.
The approach used has be adapted from
reference 6.
Paragraph (j)—Handling Drums and
Containers
The handling of drums and containers
at hazardous waste sites poses one of
the greatest dangers to hazardous waste
site employees. Hazards include
detonations, fires, explosions, vapor
generation, and physical injury resulting
from moving heavy containers by hand
and working around stacked drums,
heavy equipment, and deteriorated
drums. While these hazards are always
present, proper work practices can
minimize the risks to site personnel.
Handling and storage of hazardous
substances is addressed in item (a) of
the EPA manual.
Containers are handled during
characterization and removal of their
contents and during other operations.
Many of the hazards encountered during
the handling of drums occur during the
handling of containers. The relative size
of a container when compared to the
size of a drum is no indication of the
degree of hazard posed by the container.
They should be treated in accordance
with the level of hazard posed by their
contents not by their size. The language
used in this paragraph was adapted
from Reference 6.
Paragraph (k)—Decontamination
As part of the care of PPE required by
this standard, decontamination is a
necessary practice to properly protect
those employees who may be exposed
to hazardous substances.
Decontamination provisions protect an
employee from being exposed to
hazardous substances which would
otherwise be on the employee's PPE
when it is removed. The standard
requires that a decontamination plan be
developed and implemented before any
employees or equipment may enter
areas on site where potential for
exposure to hazardous substances
exists.
As required by the standard.
decontamination procedures and areas
shall be developed to minimize
hazardous exposures to employees
whose equipment and PPE are being
decontaminated, as well as to
employees who are assisting in the
decontamination of workers and
equipment. These measures are required
since without proper procedures and
decontamination areas, employees may
be unknowingly exposed to hazardous
substances which have contacted, or
otherwise adhered to equipment and
clothing. The standard also requires that
all employees, clothing, equipment and
decontamination fluids and equipment
be decontaminated or disposed of
before leaving a contaminated area.
These provisions are required so that
contaminated persons and materials do
not leave the "hot zone" and thereby
expose other employees and persons to
hazardous substances.
Decontamination methods and
cleaning fluids must be matched to the
particular hazardous substance at the
site in order for the decontamination
procedures to be effective in removing
the hazards from PPE and other
equipment. No one decontamination
fluid will be effective for all hazardous
substances. As required by the standard
the decontamination program must be
effective and it must be monitored by
the site safety and health officer to
maintain its effectiveness. These
requirements are included so that
employees are not exposed to hazardous
substances by reusing PPE and other
equipment which are still contaminated.'
The-language used in this paragraph
was adapted from reference 6.
Paragraph (I)—Emergency Response
Section 126{e) of SARA specifically
discusses protecting "emergency
response workers." in addition in the
EPA manual under items 4 and 9 and in
29 CFR 1926.23 and 1926.24 call for
preparations and planning for
emergencies. Congress made its intent
clear that emergency planning and
response is an important part of any
employer's safety and health program
and indicated that it is to be addressed
in the interim final rule.
In paragraph (1)(1), Emergency
Response. General, OSHA is requiring
employers covered in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii), who are involved in hazardous
waste operations, as part of their on-sile
contingency planning to develop and
implement an emergency response plan.
These employers are to inform all their
employees on the waste site about the
emergency response plan. The plan is to
be available for use prior to the start of
work on the site. The plan will be a part
of the site safety and health plan. The
elements of the emergency response
plan will include: (1) Recognition of
emergencies: (2) methods or procedures
fof alerting employees on site: (3)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, Ncr. 244 / Friday, December ia 1986 / Rules and Regulations 45661
evacuation procedures and routes to
places of refuge or safe distances away
from the danger area: (.4-j means and
methods foe emergency medical
treatment and first aid; (5J line of
authority for employees^ and (ef on-site
decontamination procedures: site
control means and methods for
evaluating the plan.
Employers whose employees will be
responding to hazardous substance
emergency incidents from their tegular
work location or duty station, such as a
fire department, fire brigade or
emergency medical service, will also be
required to have an emergency response
plan. These employees which may be
called upon to respond to hazardous
substance emergency incidents
involving a railroad tank car; motor
carrier tank truck or to a plant location
are considered off-site emergency
response activities under this section.
The emergency response plan is to
include the incident command system
required in paragraph (I)(3) of this
section.
In paragraph (l)(2). Hazardous waste
operations, on-site emergency response*
OSHA is requiring the training of on-site
emergency response personnel to have
the same basic training as for the other
employees involved in on-site hazardous
waste operations plus the training
needed to develop and retain the
necessary skills for anticipated
emergency response activities. Also, the
procedures for handling hazardous
substances cm-site emergency incidents
are to be oriented to the specific site and
made a part of the emergency response
plan.
The requirement of paragraphs (!)(3)
and (1)(4) apply more broadly to all
employers whose employees respond to
off-site emergency incidents. In
paragraph (11(3). Off-site emergency
response. OSHA is mandating that
employers, such as fire departments,
emergency medical and first-aid squads,
fire brigades, etc., conduct monthly
training sessions for their employees
totalling 24 hours annually.
Note.—OSHA does not have jurisdiction
over stale and local government employees.
OSHA state plan states must issue
regulations as effective as these to cover
slate and local government employees in the
state.
Training activities, such as breathing
apparatus uae. training, hose handling
and preplanning may be used as training
subjects for the monthly sessions
provided hazardous substance incident
operations are included in the
presentation, discussion or drill. These
training sessions and drills must involve
at least 24 hours of training on an
annual basis.
The incident command system shall
be established by these employers for
the incidents that will be under their
control and shall be interfaced with the
other organizations OP agencies who
may respond to such arr incident. The
National Transportation Safety Board,
as a result of its investigation of
hazardous materials incidents, has
consistently recommended that better
state and local emergency response
planning be done to reduce the loss of
life and property and that a system
using a command post and on-scene
commander be implemented. (See
Special Investigation Report. On-scene
Coordination Among Agencies at
Hazardous Materials Accidents, NTSB-
HZM-79-3. September 13,1979; and
Multiple Vehicle Collisions and Fire,
Caldecott Tunnel near Oakland,
California, NTSB/HAR-83/01, National
Transportation Safety Board.
Washington, DC. April 7.198Z for
further information.) Where available.
state and local district emergency
response plans shall be utilized in
developing the incident command
system and the emergency response
plan to assure compatability with the
other emergency responding agencies or
employers.
In paragraph (1)(4), Hazardous
materials teams, OSHA is requiring
employers, who utilize specially trained
teams involved in intimate contact with
controlling or handling hazardous
substances, to provide special training
for the affected employees in such areas
as care and use of chemical protective
clothing, techniques and procedures for
stopping or controlling leaking
containers and decontamination of
clothing and equipment for anticipated
hazardous substance incidents. The
employer is to make available to each
team member a physical examination by
a licensed physician and to implement a
medical surveillance program in
accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (f) of this section.
In paragraph (1)(5), OSHA is requiring
employers covered in paragraphs (a)(2)
(i) and (ii) of this section, who will be
involved in cleaning up hazardous waste
after the emergency response activities
are concluded, to comply with the same
requirements that apply to others
involved with hazardous waste clean-up
operations. These hazardous waste
clean-up operations will be typically
done by special contractors and not by
those agencies involved in responding to
the initial emergency incident
Paragraph (m)—Illumination
OSHA is required by SARA in section
126(e) to cover lighting of the worksite.
In paragraph (m), Illumination. OSHA
requires certain minimum illumination
levels for work areas that are occupied
by employees. Section 126(e) of SARA
requires as a minimum the inclusion of
the requirements of Subpart C of 29 CFR
Part 1928. Section 1926.26 of that
Subpart requires the amount of
illumination set forth in this paragraph.
Paragraph (n)—Sanitation for
Temporary Worksites
In paragraph (n), Sanitation for
temporary worksites, OSHA sets
minimum requirements for potable and
non-potable water supplies, toilet
facilities, and other areas related to
sanitation at temporary workplaces.
OSHA is mandated by SARA in section
126(e) to include sanitation requirements
in the interim final rule since it requires
the incorporation of provisions of
Subpart C.
Paragraph (o)—Operations Conducted
Under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRAJ
OSHA is providing a separate
paragraph for operations conducted at
worksites involving hazardous waste
storage, disposal and treatment
operating under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA). This separate paragraph of
requirements is appropriate because
RCRA site operations, (not including'
major corrective actions and their
associated hazards which are like
CERCLA sites and are covered by the
main part of the standard) generally are
different from the operations and
hazards found on a CERCLA clean-up
site. For example, RCRA sites covered
by this paragraph tend for the most part
to be fixed on-going operations
involving the receiving, processing.
storage, treatment, and disposal of
hazardous wastes or substance from
outside sources. CERCLA sites on the
other hand are temporary emergency
clean-up operations involving often
undefined and substantial quantities of
hazardous substances.
Consequently hazards should be
better controlled and more routine and
stable for the RCRA sites covered by
this paragraph and so less extensive
requirements are appropriate.
Paragraph (pj—Start-up Dates
Section 126(e) of SARA directs that
these interim final regulations take
effect on issuance. Consequently, these
regulations do become effective on
issuance. However, completion of
-------
•••''•I •
45662 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 244 / Friday',', December 19, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
implementation for some provisions is
not feasible immediately. For these
provisions, commencemesl of
implementation must begin immediately,
but completion of full compliance is
required as soon as possible or feasible
but in no case later than a specified
date, which is no longer than three
months.
It is OSHA's judgment that all
provisions can be fully implemented by
the periods specified. OSHA also
believes that the immediate
effectiveness provisions specifically
apply to the mandatory requirements.
OSHA does not believe that Congress
intended that work at current hazardous
waste operations stop until
implementation of all requirements can
be feasibly completed. This paragraph
so indicates. However, for new sites,
these requirements can be completed in
advance. It is not OSHA's intention that
emergency actions necessary to protect
the public safety and health be
prevented because in a particular
circumstance it is not feasible to carry
out particular requirements of this
standard in the time needed to respond
to the emergency.
III. References
1. Superfund Amendments and
Reaulhorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Pub. L.
99-199.
2. Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation and Liability Act of
ISlWi ICF.RCLA or "Superfund"). Pub. L. 9fv-
510. December 11.1980. 94 Slat. 2767.
3. Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (RCRA). Pub. L. 94-580. October
21. 197(5. 90 Slat. 2795.
4. "Health and Safety Requirements for
Kinployees Engaged in Field Activities".
Knvirunmencil Protection Agency Order
1440.2. t'.S. Environmental Protection
Api-ncy. |uly 12. 1981.
5. Subp;irts C and D of 29 CFR Part 1926.
11.' Occupational Safety and Health
(.'.iiMjiice Manual for Hazardous Waste Site
Activities.". Occupation!!! Safety and Health
Administration. Environmental Protection
Aiienuy. U.S. Ccast Guard, and National
Ir.slitiiSit for Occupational Safety and Health.
DHHS (NIOSH1 Publication No." 85-115.
Oclut:er U'8S.
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and
Environmental Impact Analysis
OSHA anticipates that this interim
final standard will have a significant
impact upon employers and their
employees who work at CERCLA sites
and at some RCRA sites: and who
respond to emergency clean-ups of
hazardous substance spills. OSHA has
had little time since the enactment of
SARA to collect information concerning
these industries. As a result, the
currently available information is
insufficient for OSHA to .use to estimate
the potential benefits and costs that
would occur as a consequence of
compliance with this interim final rule.
OSHA is collecting additional
information to be used in conjunction
with the1 information from the comments
that will be received in response to
publication of the proposed rule
covering hazardous waste operations.
This information will be sufficient for
OSHA to provide a complete Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the final rule that
will govern hazardous waste operations.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis.
The requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act are not applicable to this
interim final rule, under 5 U.S.C, 603(a),
because notice and comment proposed
rulemaking under the Administrative
Procedures Act. or any other statute, is
not required.
Environmental Impact Analysis. The
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq).
as implemented by the regulations (40
CFR Part 1500) of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), requires
that federal agencies assess their
regulatory actions to determine if there
is a potential for a significant impact on
the quality of the human environment
and, if necessary, to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
In accordance with these
requirements and DOL NEPA
Compliance Procedures (29 CFR Part 11.
Subpart B. section 11.10(a)(4)), OSHA
has determined that due to the
compressed rulemaking schedule
imposed by the Congress in issuing the
interim regulation, no environmental
impact statement will be prepared for
this interim rule.
In similar situations, for example.
when an emergency temporary standard
(ETS) has been issued, the courts have
held that NEPA does not require
advance preparation of an
environmental statement for an ETS
(Dry Color Manufacturing Association
v. U.S. Department of Labor: 486 F. 2d
98.107 [3rd Cir. 1S73J). This interim final
standard is similar in nature to an ETS
issued for relatively brief periods for
short nutice pursuant to section 6(c) of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 and section 101(b) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. The
DOL NEPA regulations set forth in 29
CFR Part 11. Subpart B. section
11.10(a)(4). provide that in these
situations the regulations set forth in 40
CFR Parts 1500 et seq may not be strictly
observable.
OSHA, however, will assess the
environmental effects of the proposed
permanent regulation of hazardous
waste sites. The possibility that
increased training related to employee
safety and health protection will also
affect and reduce inadvertent
environmental releases of hazardous
substances at waste sites will be
analyzed. The results of this study will
be available for review and comment
prior to the hearing on the proposed
permanent standard and will be an
appropriate issue for discussion at the
public hearings scheduled for the
proceeding.
In the interim. OSHA welcomes any
comments on any environmental effects
that might occur as a result of
promulgation of a rule on hazardous
waste sites.
V. International Trade
OSHA has preliminarily concluded
that this interim final rule will not
significantly affect international trade.
The firms that will be primarily affected
by this interim final rule deal with
hazardous waste products and are not
involved in international trade. In
addition, the hazardous wastes to be
handled under this interim final rule are
primarily by, products from previously
manufactured goods and consequently.
any potential costs would not be borne
by the goods that are currently being
traded. Nevertheless, the information
dial OSHA is collecting and the
information that will be supplied in
response to the publication of the
proposed rule covering Hazardous
Waste Operations will be carefully
reviewed and analyzed to establish the
potential impacts of the final rule upon
international trade.
VI. State Plan States
This Federal Register document adds
an interim final rule (section 1910.120,
"Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response'') to existing
Subpart H of 29 CFR Part 1910, OSHA's
general industry standards on
hazardous materials. The 25 States with
their own OSHA approved occupational
safety and health plans must develop a
comparable standard applicable to both
the private and public (State and local
government employees) sectors within
six months of the publication date of
this interim final rule or show OSHA
why there is no need for action, e.g.,
because an existing state standard
covering this area is already "at least as
effective" as the new Federal standard.
These states are Alaska. Arizona.
California, Connecticut (for state and
local government employees only),
Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa. Kentucky.
Maryland. Michigan, Minnesota,
Nevada. New Mexico. New York (for
state and local government employees
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 244 / Friday, December 19. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 45663
only), North Carolina. Oregon, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Virgin islands,
Washington, and,Wyoming. Until such
time as a state standard is promulgated.
Federal OSHA will provide interim
enforcement assistance,.as appropriate,
in these states.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
Containers, Drums, Emergency
response, Flammable and combustible
liquids, Hazardous materials, Hazardous
substances, Hazardous wastes.
Incorporation by reference. Materials
handling and storage. Personal
protective equipment. Storage areas.
Training, Waste disposal.
VII. Immediate Effectiveness and
Absence of Notice and Comment
Section 126(e) of SARA specifically
provides that the "Secretary of Labor
shall issue interim final regulations
under this section within 60 days. . ."
after date of enactment. The express use
of the phrase "interim final regulations,"
which in the rulemaking context
commonly describes a rule issued
without notice and comment, in
connection with the extremely limited
time frame provided by this section.
makes clear that Congress intended this
rule to be issued without the time-
consuming process of notice and
comment. The Agency, therefore,
concludes that neither the notice and
comment rulemaking provisions of the
OSH Act nor those of the
Administrative Procedures Act are
applicable to the issuance of this interim
final rule. The Agency also expressly
finds that "good cause" exists under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for not providing notice
and comment because notice and
comment procedures, under these
circumstances, would be impractical
and contrary to the public interest.
Section 126(e) also expressly provides
that "Such interim final regulations shall
take effect upon issuance. . . ." OSHA
finds this specific direction of law
requires the Agency to issue this rule
with an immediate effective date and.
further, constitutes good cause not to
delay the effective data-of this rule until
30 days after publication under 5 U.S.C.
553{d).
Authority
This document has been prepared
under the direction of John A.
Pendergrass, Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor. 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC. Pursuant to section 126(e) of the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Pub. L
99-499), Sections 6 and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 657), Sections 3 and 4
of the Administrative Procedures Act (5
U.S.C. 552(a), 553), and Secretary of
Labor's Order 9-83 (49 FR 35736), 29 CFR
Part 1910 is amended by adding a new
§1910.120. Hazardous Waste
Operations, as set forth below, effective
December 19,1986.
Signed at Washington, OC this 16th day of
December 1986.
John A. Pendergrass,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
PART 1910-OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH STANDARDS
1. The Authority citation for Subpart
H of Part 1910 is amended by adding the
following:
Authority: * ' * Section 1910.120 issued
under the authority of section 128(e) of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (Pub. L 99-499). Sections 6 and 8
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 657), sections 3 and 4 of
the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
552fa), 533) and Secretary of Labor's Order 9-
83 (48 FR 35736).
2. Part 1910 of Title 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended by
adding a new § 1910.120 to read as
follows:
§ 1910.120 Hazardous waste operation*
and emergency response.
(a) Scope, application, and
definitions.—(1) Scope. This section
covers employers and employees
engaged in the following operations:
(i) Hazardous substance response
operations under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et sea)
(CERCLA), including initial
investigations at CERCLA sites before
the presence or absence of hazardous
substances has been ascertained;
(ii) Major corrective actions taken in
clean-up operations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1978
as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq)
(RCRA);
(iii) Operations involving hazardous
waste storage, disposal and treatment
facilities regulated under 40 CFR Parts
264 and 265 pursuant to RCRA, except
for small quantity generators and those
employers with less than 90 days
accumulation of hazardous wastes as
defined in 40 CFR 262.34:
(iv) Hazardous waste operations sites
that have been designated for clean-up
by state or local governmental
authorities; and
(v) Emergency response operations for
releases of or substantial threats of
releases of hazardous substances and
post-emergency response operations for
such releases.
(2) Application, (i) All requirements of
Part 1910 and Part 1926 of Title 29 of the
Code of Federal Regulations apply
pursuant to their terms to hazardous
•waste operations (whether covered by
this section or not). In addition the
provisions of this section apply to
operations covered by this section. If
there is a conflict or overlap, the
provision more protective of employee
safety and health shall apply. 29 CFR
1910.5(c)(l) is not applicable.
(ii) All paragraphs of this section
except paragraph (o) apply to hazardous
substance response operations under
CERCLA, major corrective actions taken
in clean-up operations under RCRA,
post-emergency response operations,
and hazardous waste operations that
have been designated for clean-up by
state or local governmental authorities.
(iii) Only the requirements of
paragraph (o) of this section apply to
those operations involving hazardous
waste storage, disposal, and treatment
facilities regulated under 40 CFR Parts
264 and 265, except for small quantity
generators and those employers with
less than 90 days accumulation of
hazardous wastes as defined in 40 CFR
262.34.
(iv) Paragraph (1) of this section
applies to emergency response
operations for releases of or substantial
threats of releases of hazardous
substances.
(3) Definitions—"Buddy system "
means a system of organizing employees
into work groups in such a manner that
each employee of the work group is
designated to observe the activities of at
least one other employee in the work
group. The purpose of the buddy system
is to provide quick assistance to those
other employees in the event of an
emergency.
"Decontamination " means the
removal of hazardous substances from
employees and their equipment to the
extent necessary to preclude the
occurrence of foreseeable adverse
health effects.
"Emergency response" means
response to any occurrence which
results, or is likely to result, in a release
of a hazardous substance due to an
unforeseen event.
"Established permissible exposure
limit" means the inhalation or dermal
permissible exposure limit specified in
29 CFR Part 1910. Subpart Z. or if none
is specified the exposure limits in
"NIOSH Recommendations for
Occupational Health Standards" dated
September 1986 incorporated by
reference, or if neither of the above is
specified, the standards specified by the
American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists in their publication
"Threshold Limit Values and Biological
Exposure Indices for 1986-87" dated
-------
Aegnter-jf Vol SI. 3to. 234 / Friday. Beoembw IB. 1986 / Rotes ^nd
hmiatapaietic system, and agents which
damage tte h»gs, skin, eyes, or'mucaas
memferraaem. Purther dofiniMon of the
tenB8.uaed-above-can-b«4oan*fl22fl, (61$ 841-4287
mnrtr-gn fjiiib iimnn-nf Governmental
Imhutakd«j«ien»t8. esflfl Gtemwsy
fun, JhdMmgD-7. Cincinnati, .OH.
45211-4438.
and aw available forinspectkm and
copying at the Q9HA Docket Office,
Dockes:Na..S-7e& ftoam.N-sen.2n
Ct^trhitJoa Asre-, NW., WasfamgtoB.
QC 20218.
"Htamn1miaimtmtftnr.if" mgamt any
subatmme deaignatedtcr iiateii under (i)
through Jivj betow, exposure to which
results ormay resuttia adverse. effect*
on theiEaith or safety of employees:
(i) any substance defined under
section 101(14) of CERCLA,
(ii) any biological agent and other
dittpAgi%j7anfiflg afie&ti&s defined -i&
section 104(a)l2) of CERCLA,
(iii) any substance listed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation and
regulated as hazardous materials under
49 CFR 172.101 and appendices, and
fiv) hazardous waste.
"Hazardous waste "means (f) a waste
or combination of wastes as defined in
40 CFR2B1.3, or (ii) those substances
defined in 49 CFR 171.8.
Hazardous waste operation" mean*
any operation involving employee
exposure to hazardous wastes,
hazardous substances, or any
combination of hazardous wastes and
hazardous substances that are
conducted within the scope of this
standard.
"Hazardous waste site"oT "site"
means any facility or location at which
hazardous waste opera Buna -within the
scope of this standard taice place.
"Hearth hazard" means *a chemical,
mixture of chemicals or a pathogen .for
which "Acre is statistically significant
evidence based tm at iessttnte study
established 'scientrnc principles that
acute or chronic iieahh uTTecu* may
occur in excused euiyluyues. The 'term
"health hazard" includes chemicais
which ace carcinogens, IUJUL or 'ui^l^
tone. agents* Teprodnctive' toxins*
irritants* ixuujufVtis.- senvifizcrs.
licpalotoxms* ne^mrotoxms.
netnxrtDXBU, 'agents NuiCk vet on the
IrfevrfoeMt" means wiy condition that
poses an immediate threat to life; or
•whioh-udikeiy to (eutk-ia acute -or
immediate severe health effects. Iftra
includes oxygen deficieacy-oonditio
mpnna any gmtp pliniral «iqn QJ
symptom of a serkrua.-expusure-relalfid
reaction manifested within 72 hours
after expowie to a haaacdiuis
anbfttaace.
"Oxygen deficiency" means that
concentratioa of oxygen by valume
below which air supplying respiratory
protection. must be prodded, it exbts in
atmospheres where -the percentage of
oxygen by vehune-ts lem (baa 19:5
percent oxygen.
"Site safety. and health officer" means
the individual located on a hazardous
waste site who is responsible to the
employer and has the authority and
knowledge necessary to implement the
site safety and health plan and verify
compliance with applicable safety and
hearth requirement.
(b) Genera] ivquhvinents — (f) Safety
and health program. Each employer
shall develop and implement a safety
and heahh program for its -employees
involved in hazardous waste -opentims.
The pfufflnia. as a mimnrom. shall
incorporate the requirements of this
section and be provided, as appropriate.
to any subcontractor or its
representative who will %e involved
with the hazardous waste operation.
The program shall be designed to
identify, evaluate, and control safety
and heahh hazards and provide for
emergency response for hazardous
waste operations.
(2) Site characterization and analysis.
Hazardous waste sites shall be
evaluated in accordance with paragraph
(ej-ef this section to identify specific site
hazards and to determine vie
appropriate safety and heahh control
procedures needed to -protect employees
from the identified hazards.
(3) Site control. Sfte •control
procedures shall be implemented in
accordance with -paragraph (dj of -this
section -before clean-up -work begins to
control employee exposure to hazardous
substances^
(4) Training. Initial or refresher or
review training umeting-the
requirements of paragraph (e.) of this
section •sttHH'be provided to employees
before •they are permitted to engage .in
hazardous waste .operations :thal£ould
expose -then lo-haxardeos substances,
safety, or hearth hazards.
(5) Medical surreiflance. Medical
survefBance shall be provided in
accordance with paragraph ff) of this
section for employees exposed or
potentiaHy exposed to hazardous
substances or health hazards or who
wear respirator*.
(6) Engineering controls, work
practices and personal protective
equipment. Engineering controls, work
practices, personal protective
equipment or a combination of these
shall be implemented in accordance
with paragraph (g) of this section to
protect employees from exposure to
hazardous substances and health
hazards.
(7) Monitoring. Monitoring shall be
performed is accordance with
paragraph (h) of this section to assure
proper selection of engineering controls.
work practices .and personal protective
equipment go that flmployeefi are not
exposed te levels which exceed
established permissible exposure bants
for hazardous substances.
(8) Informational program. Employees.
contractors, and subcontractors or -their
representative shall be informed of the
degree and nature of safety and health
hazards specific to the worksite by
using the safety and heahfa plan outlined
in paragraph p) of this section.
(9) Mntanrtl hnmtHng. Hazardous
substances and cnntamiBated soils,
liquids, and omer residues. shall be
handled, transported, labeled, and
disposed of in accordance with
paragraph (j) of this section.
(10) Decontamination. Procedures for
all phases of decontamination shall be
developed and implemented in
accordance with paragraph (k) of thn
section.
(11) Emergency response. Emergency
response to hazardous waste operation
incidents shall be conducted in
accordance with paragraph (1) of this
section.
(12) Illumination. Areas accessible to
employees shall be lighted in
accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (m) of this section.
(13) Sanitation. Facilities for employee
sanitation shall be provided in
accordance with paragraph (n) of thk
section.
(14) Site excavation. Site excavatkm*
created during initial site ptepacaitan-or
during hazardous waste -operations .ahall
be shored or sloped to prevent
nrridjiivtal coUapie am) -pnruinr.tMl in
accordance -with Suhpart P of 29 CFR
Part 1928.
(!•>) Csnttactots nn*1
An employ ar who retains ctaatractar tt
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 244 / Friday, December 19. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 45665
sub-contractor services for work in
hazardous waste operations shall inform
those contractors, sub-contractors, or
their representatives oi any potential
fire, explosion, healtiv or other safety
hazards of the hazardous waste
operation that have been identified by
the employer.
(c) Site characterization and analysis.
(1) A preliminary evaluation of a site's
characteristics shall be performed prior
to site entry by a trained person to aid
in the selection of appropriate employee
protection methods prior to site entry.
.During site entry, a more detailed
evaluation of the site's specific
characteristics shall be performed by a
trained person to further identify
existing site hazards and to further aid
in the selection of the appropriate
engineering controls and personal
protective equipment for the tasks to be
performed.
(2) All suspected conditions that may
pose inhalation or skin absorption
hazards that are immediately dangerous
to life or health (IDLH) or other
conditions that may cause death or
serious harm shall be identified during
the preliminary survey and evaluated
during the derailed survey. Examples of
such-hazards include, but are not limited
to, confined space entry, potentially
explosive OF flammable situations,.
visible vapor clouds, or areas where
biological indicators such as dead
animals or vegetation are located.
(3) The following information to the
extent available shall be obtained by
the employer prior to allowing
employees to enter a site:
(i) Location and approximate size of
the site.
(ii) Description of the response
activity and/or the job task to be
performed.
(iii) Duration of the planned employee
activity.
(iv) Site topography.
(v) Site accessibility by air and roads.
(vi) Pathways for hazardous
substance dispersion.
(vii) Present status and capabilities of
emergency response teams that would
provide assistance to bhrsite employees
at the time of an emergency.
(viii) Hazardous substances and
health hazards involved or expected at
the site and their chemical and physical
properties.
(4) Personal protective equipment
(PPE) shall be provided and used during
initial site entry in accordance with the
following requirements:
(i) Based upon the results of the
preliminary site evaluation, an ensemble
of PPE shall be selected and used during
initial site entry which will provide
protection to a level of exposure below
established permissible exposure limits
for known or suspected hazardous
substances and health hazards and will
provide protection against other known
and suspected hazards identified during
the preliminary site evaluation.
(ii) An escape self-contained
breathing apparatus of at least five
minutes duration shall be carried by
employees or kept available at their
immediate work station if positive-
pressure self-contained breathing
apparatus is not used as part of the
entry ensemble.
(iii) If the preliminary site evaluation
does not produce sufficient information
to identify the hazards or suspected
hazards of the site an ensemble of Level
B PPE shall be provided as minimum
protection and direct reading
instruments shall be carried for
identifying IDLH conditions. (See
Appendix B for guidelines on Level B
protective equipment.)
(iv) Once the hazards of the site have
been positively identified, the
appropriate PPE shall be selected and
used in accordance with paragraph (g)
of this section.
(5) The following monitoring shall be
conducted during site entry when the
site evaluation produces information
which show the potential for ionizing
radiation or IDLH conditions, or when
the site information is not sufficient to
rule out these possible conditions:
(i) Monitoring for hazardous levels of
ionizing radiation.
(ii) Monitoring the air with
appropriate test equipment for IDLH and
other conditions that may cause death
or serious harm (combustible or
explosive atmospheres, oxygen
deficiency, toxic substances.)
(iii) Visually observe for signs of
actual or potential IDLH or other
dangerous conditions.
(6) Once the presence and
concentrations of specific hazardous
substances and health hazards have
been established, the risks associated
with these substances shall be
identified. Employees who will be
working on the site shall be informed of
any risks that have been identified.
Note.—Risks to consider include, but are
not limited to:
Exposures exceeding the appropriate
Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), Permissible
Exposure Limits (PELs), or Recommended
Exposure Limits (RELs).
IDLH Concentrations.
Potential Skin Absorption and Irritation
Sources.
Potential Eye Irritation Sources.
Explosion Sensitivity and Flammability
Ranges.
(7) Any information concerning the
chemical, physical, and toxicologic
properties of each substance known or
expected to be present on site that is
available to the employer and relevant
to the duties an employee is expected to
perform shall be made available to all
employees prior to the commencement
of their work activities.
(8) An ongoing air monitoring program
in accordance with paragraph (h) of this
section shall be implemented after site
characterization has determined the site
is safe for the start-up of operations.
(d) Site control. (1) A site control
program for preventing contamination of
employees shall be developed during the
planning stages of a hazardous waste
operation clean-up.
(2) The site control program shall, as a
minimum, include: A site map; site work
zones; the use of a "buddy system"; site
communications: the standard operating
procedures or safe work practices: and,
identification of nearest medical
assistance.
(e) Training. (1) All employees (such
as equipment operators and general
laborers) exposed to hazardous
substances, health hazards, or safety
hazards shall be thoroughly trained in
the following:
(i) Names of personnel and alternates
responsible for site safety and health:
(ii) Safety, health 'and other hazards
present on the site;
(iii) Use of PPE:
(iv) Work practices by which the
employee can minimize risks from
hazards;
(v) Safe use of engineering controls
and equipment on the site;
(vi) Medical surveillance requirements
including recognition of symptoms and
signs which might indicate over
exposure to hazards; and
(vii) Paragraphs (G) through (K) of the
site safety and health plan set forth in
paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section.
(2) All employees shall at the time of
job assignment receive a minimum of 40
hours of initial instruction off the site.
and a minimum of three days of actual
field experience under the direct
supervision of a trained, experienced
supervisor. Workers who may be
exposed to unique or special hazards
shall be provided additional training.
The level of training provided shall be
consistent with the employee's job
function and responsibilities.
(3) On-site management and
supervisors directly responsible for or
who supervise employees engaged in
hazardous waste operations shall
receive training as provided in
paragraph (e)(l) and (e)(2) of this section
and at least eight additional hours of
specialized training on managing such
operations at the time of job assignment.
-------
45Bi£ Federal ftegiater / JfeL St. No. 2*1 / Piwlay, December 19, 1986 / Rules and
Ir nl nflrninine hipUm Hmmmti
including the 8*kt>fact*»aUHr*f Ae Jfwri
Art Jhey ta» pounding.
exansaat
field JotKtttiea *n*d they tfaanre ABM
trained to a leveLwewad tajntbair'4
completed this teaming and fieU
ex penance «peoifJMl in inaMfraphs
J and
hatting-completed Ae aeoeeeary
training. A^r-pecaaa wn*tibean
so certified or meets iheir
paragraph pVpyftaa might how
already receivedirom actual, eJtfKMUSB
for these rsubataaces.
the
more a year, or
(ii) all employee* wha
respirator ior 30 4ays«r OHW * year, .ar
(iii) Hfl7MflT nmjilnjtfmo njirrifiH in
paragraph.(D(4)^>f -tfek aeotiaB ixrrile
engaged jnhaaajdau* waste opeiatkuM
covered by thit.sectioa.
(iv) The employer ^haUdkake -medical
examina tiara -or consultations avaiiabie
to all employees whs may :h*u« -been
expoaed,in an «meiflfincy*kt nation i«
hazacdau* substances At nmiogntrntiarn
above .the penniwible jiee wouki not be cowered if the
employee hat ast had .an exammatisn
•within the4aat£uc moatha.
(iv) As seoniB^oflSkble, upaa
notification by aa employee «Jtbar lhat
the emplojieehas d&\®lDped.8igM or
symptooaa lindicatiog .possible
overtxposuie. to .hazardous snbaUuacea
or health hazards
(v.) At more ireq.uenl times, if die
examining physician .determines .thai jut
increased irequancy of examinaiioD is
medically necessary.
(3) Content of medical examinations
and consultations, .(i) Medical
examinations required by paragraph
(f)(2) af Ihis f^Mon ghall include. a
medical and workiiatary with special
emphasis on-symptoms related to the
handling of liazaxdous. substances -and
to Fitness far Hnty innlmjing the ability to
wear any required PPE under conditions
(i.e., temperature extremes) that may be
expected at the work site.
(ii) The .content of medical
examinations or- consultations made
available to employees pursuant to
paragraph ,(X) .shall he .determined bjr the
examining fhysicign
(4) Examination by a physician tad
COStS. ATI mgHiroJ ovamiriflfri
procedures shall be .performed by or
under the supervision of a licensed
physician, and .shall be provided without
cost .to the«mployae. witheutioee of
pay, and. at a teasonabke lime and .place.
(5) Information provided to the
physician. The employer shall pnwide
the fallowing information to the
examining physician:
(i) A copy of this standard and its
appendices,
(ii) A description of the employee's
duties as they relate to the employee 'j
exposures.
(iii) The employee's exposure levels or
anticipated exposiue Jewels,
(tv>) A description of any personal
protective equipment used or to be used,
and
(v) Information from previous medical
examinations of the employee which is
not readily available to the examining
physician.
(6) Physician's written opinion. -fil'The
employer shaH -obtain and •famish rhe
employee •with « oepy of a -written
opinion from
contammgthe following:
(A) The -results of 1he -medical
exammsffron 'arrd -tests.
(B) The physician's opinion as to
whether the enrpioyee 'has any detected
medical conditions which would place
the employee al increased risk of
material rmjrairmerrt of 1he employee's
hctilth.
{CJT^ie physician's recommended
limitations upon the employees assigned
work.
I'D] A statement that the em.plo.yee has
been informed by .the physician of the
results of (he medical examination and
any medical conditions which xequire
further examination .or tceatmenL
(fi) The written opinion obtained by
the employ erahalljiot £evaal specific
unrelated to
(7) Jtecetdkeeping. M An accurate
recocd of the medical .surveillance
required •Dgnpasagraph ££)(!) ef this
section shall iae -retaiaecL This retard
shall be retained for the period specified
and meat the criteria of 29 CFR 1910^0.
(ii) The-ieoerd;ie<)uiied in paragraph
(f)(5)(ij«flhM:aection«hall include at
least the following information:
(A) The name and social security
number of the employee;
(B) Physicians' written opinions: '
(C) Any employes medical complaints
related to exposure to hazardous
substances;
(D) A copyiof the information which
shall be provided to the examining
physician by -the -employer. w*rh the
exception of -the 'Standard and Us
appendices.
(Hf) The -employer shall ensure that
this record is retained for the period
specified in 29 CFR IMO^O.
(g) Engineering controls, -work
practices, ami personal protective
equipment for employee protection — (T)
Engineering controls, work practices
and PPE. (f) 'Engineering controls and
work practices shall be instituted to
reduce and maintain employee exposure
to or below the permissible exposure
limits of those hazardous substances
regulated iiy '29 CFR "Part 1510, Subpart
Z, except to the extent that such
controls and practices are not feasible,
Note. — Engineering controls which may he
feasible are the use of .pressurized caba or
control booths on equipment and/or the use
of remotely operated material. handling
equipment. Work practices which may&e
feasfbte are removing aUnonessential
employees 'from potential exposure daring
opening of .drums, wetting down dusty
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 45667
operations and locating employees upwind of
possible hazards.
(ii) Whenever engineeringcoatrak
and work practices are not feaaibte. PPE
shall be used to protect employees to
reduce exposure to below established
permissible exposure limits.
(iii) The employer shall not tmptement
a schedule of employee rotation as a
means of compliance with permissible
exposure limits.
(2) Engineering controls, work
practices, and personal protective
equipment far-substances not-regulated
in Subpart Z. An appropriate
combination of engineering controls,
work practices, and personal protective
equipment shall be established to
reduce and maintain employee exposure
to or below the established permissible
exposure limit for hazardous substances
not regulated by 29 CFR Part 1910.
Subpart Z and health hazards.
(3) Personal protective equipment
selection, (i) Personal protective
equipment (PPE) shall be selected and
used which will protect employees from
the hazards and potential hazards they
are likely to encounter as identified
during the site characterization and
analysis.
(ii) Personal protective equipment
selection shall be based on an
evaluation of the performance
characteristics of the PPE relative to the
requirements and limitations of the site.
the task-specific conditions and
duration, and the hazards and potential
hazards identified at the site.
(iii) Positive pressure self-contained
breathing apparatus, or positive
pressure air-line respirators equipped
with an escape air supply shall be used
in 1DLH conditions.
(iv) Totally-encapsulating chemical
protective suits (Level A protection)
shall be used in conditions where
contact of the skin by the hazardous
substance may result in an 1DLH
situation.
(v) The level of protection provided by
PPE selection shall be increased when
additional information or site conditions
show that increased protection is
necessary to reduce employee exposure
below established permissible exposure
limits for hazardous substance and
health hazards. (See Appendix B for
guidance on selecting PPE ensembles.)
Note.—The level of protection provided
may be decreased when additional
information or site conditions show that
decreased protection will not result in
hazardous exposures to employees.
(vi) Personal protective equipment
shall be selected and used to meet the
requirements of 29 CFR Part 1910,
Subpart I. and additional requirements
specified in this section.
(4) Totally-encapsulating chemical
protective suits, (i) Totally-
encapsulating suit materials used for
Level A protection shall protect
employees from the particular hazards
which are identified during site
characterization and analysis.
(ii) Totally-encapsulating suits shall
be capable of maintaining positive air
pressure. {See Appendix A.)
(iii) Totally-encapsulating suits shall
be capable of preventing inward test gas
leakage of more than 0.5 percent. (See
Appendix A.)
(5) Personal protective equipment
(PPE) program. A personal protective
equipment program shall be established
for hazardous waste operations. The
PPE program shall address the following
elements:
(i) Site hazards,
(ii) PPE selection.
(iii) PPE use,
(iv) Work mission duration.
(v) PPE maintenance and storage.
(vi) PPE decontamination.
(vii) PPE training and proper fitting,
(viii) PPE donning and doffing
procedures.
(ix) PPE inspection,
(x) PPE in-use monitoring,
(xi) Evaluation of the effectiveness of
the PPE program, and
(xii) Limitations during temperature
extremes.
(h) Monitoring. (I) Air monitoring
shall be used to identify and quantify
airborne levels of hazardous substances
in order to determine the appropriate
level of employee protection needed on
site.
(2) As a first step, air monitoring shall
be conducted to identify any IDLH and
other dangerous situations, such as the
presence of flammable atmospheres,
oxygen-deficient environments, toxic
levels of airborne contaminants, and
radioactive materials.
(3) As a minimum, periodic monitoring
shall be conducted when:
(i) Work begins on a different portion
of the site.
(iij Contaminants other than those
previously identified are being handled.
(iii) A different type of operation is
initiated (e.g., drum opening as opposed
to exploratory well drilling.)
(iv) Employees are handling leaking
drums or containers or working in areas
with obvious liquid contamination (e.g..
a spill or lagoon.)
(4) High-risk employees, e.g.. those
closest to the source of contaminant
generation, shall receive personal
monitoring sufficient to characterize
employee exposure.
(i) Informational programs—(1)
General. As part of the safety and
health program required in paragraph
(b)(l) of this section, the employer shall
develop and implement a site safety and
health plan meeting the requirements of'
paragraph (i)(2) of this section for each
hazardous waste operation.
(2) Site safety and health plan. The
site safety and health plan, which shall
be available on the site for inspection by
employees, their designated
representatives, and OSHA personnel.
shall address the safety and health
hazards of each phase of site operation
and include the requirements and
procedures for employee protection.
(i) The site safety and health plan, as
a minimum, shall address the following:
(A) Names of key personnel and
alternates responsible for site safety and
health and appointment of a site safety
and health officer.
(B) A safety and health risk analysis
for each site task and operation.
(C) Employee training assignments.
(D) Personal protective equipment to
be used by employees for each of the
site tasks and operations being
conducted.
(E) Medical surveillance requirements.
(F) Frequency and types of air
monitoring, personnel monitoring, and
environmental sampling techniques and
instrumentation to be used. Methods of
maintenance and calibration of
monitoring and sampling equipment to
be used.
(C) Site control measures.
(H) Decontamination procedures.
(!) Site's standard operating
procedures.
(J) A contingency plan meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (1)(1) and
(l)(2) of this section for safe and
effective responses to emergencies
including the necessary PPE and other
equipment.
(K) Confined space entry procedures.
(ii) Pre-entry briefings shall be held
prior to initiating any site activity and at
such other times as necessary to ensure
that employees are apprised of the site
safety and health plan and that it is
being followed.
(iii) Inspections shall be conducted by
the site safety and health officer or, in
the absence of that individual, another
individual acting on behalf of the
employer as necessary to determine the
effectiveness of the site safety and
health plan. Any deficiencies in the
effectiveness of the site safety and
health plan shall be corrected by the
employer.
(j) Handling drums and containers—
(1) General, (i) Drums and containers
used during the clean-up shall meet the
-------
45668 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
appropriate DOT, OSHA, and EPA
regulations for the wastes that they
contain. :. .
(ii) Drums and containers shall be
inspected and their integrity shall be
assured prior to being moved. Drums or
containers that cannot be inspected
before being moved because of
inaccessible storage conditions shall be
moved to an accessible location and
inspected prior to further handling.
(iii) Unlabeled drums and containers
shall be considered to contain
hazardous substances and handled
accordingly until the contents are
positively identified and labeled.
(iv) Site operations shall be organized
to minimize the amount of drum or
container movement.
(v) Prior to movement of drums or
containers, all employees exposed to the
transfer operation shall be warned of
the potential hazards associated with
the contents of the drums or containers.
(vi) U.S. Department of Transportation
specified salvage drums or containers
and suitable quantities of proper
absorbent shall be kept available and
used in areas where spills, leaks, or
ruptures may occur.
(vii) Where major spills may occur, a
spill containment program shall be
implemented to contain and isolate the
entire volume of the hazardous
substance being transferred.
(viii) Drums and containers that
cannot be moved without rupture,
leakage, or spillage shall be emptied into
a sound container using a device
classified for the material being
transferred.
(ix) A ground-penetrating system or
other type of detection system or device
shall be used to estimate the location
and depth of drums or containers.
(x) Soil or covering material shall be
removed with caution to prevent drum
or container rupture.
(xi) Fire extinguishing equipment
meeting the requirements of 29 CFR Part
1910. Subpart L shall be on hand and
ready for use to control small fires.
(2) Opening drums and containers.
The following procedures shall be
followed in areas where drums or
containers are being opened:
(i) Where an airline respirator system
is used, connections to the bank of air
cylinders shall be protected from
contamination and the entire system
shall be protected from physical
damage.
(ii) Employees not actually involved in
opening drums or containers shall be
kept a safe distance from the drums or
containers being opened.
(iii) If employees must work near or
adjacent to drums or containers being
opened, a suitable shield that does not
interfere with the work operation shall
be placed between the employee and
the drums or containers being opened to
protect the employee in case of
accidental explosion.
(iv) Controls for drum or container
opening equipment, monitoring
equipment, and fire suppression
equipment shall be located behind the
explosion-resistant barrier.
(v) Material handling equipment and
hand tools shall be of the type to
prevent sources of ignition.
(vi) Drums and containers shall be
opened in such a manner that excess
interior pressure will be safely relieved.
If pressure cannot be relieved from a
remote location, appropriate shielding
shall be placed between the employee
and the drums or containers to reduce
the risk of employee injury.
(vii) Employees shall not stand upon
or work from drums or containers.
(3) Electrical material handling
equipment Electrical material handling
equipment used to transfer drums and
containers shall:
(i) Be positioned and operated to
minimize sources of ignition related to
the equipment from igniting vapors
released from ruptured drums or
containers, or
(ii) Meet the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.307 and be of the appropriate
electrical classification for the materials
being handled.
(4) Radioactive wastes. Drums and
containers containing radioactive
wastes shall not be handled until such
time as their hazard to employees is
properly assessed.
(5) Shock sensitive wastes.
Caution: Shipping of shock sensitive
wastes may be prohibited under U.S.
Department of Transportation regulations.
Employers and their shippers should refer to
49 CFR 173.21 and 173.50.
As a minimum, the following special
precautions shall be taken when drums
and containers containing or suspected
of containing shock-sensitive wastes are
handled:
(i) All non-essential employees shall
be evacuated from the area of transfer.
(ii) Material handling equipment shall
be provided with explosive containment
devices or protective shields to protect
equipment operators from exploding
containers.
(iii) An employee alarm system
capable of being perceived above
surrounding light and noise conditions
shall be used to signal the
commencement and completion of
explosive waste handling activities.
(iv) Continuous communications (i.e.,
portable radios, hand signals.
telephones, as appropriate) shall be
maintained between the employee-in-
charge of the immediate handling area
and the site safety officer or command
post until such time as the handling
operation is completed. Communication
equipment or methods that could cause
shock sensitive materials to explode
shall not be used.
(v) Drums and containers under
pressure, as evidenced by bulging or
swelling, shall not be moved until such
time as the cause for excess pressure is
determined and appropriate
containment procedures have been
implemented to protect employees from
explosive relief of the drum.
(vi) Drums and containers containing
packaged laboratory wastes shall be
considered to contain shock-sensitive or
explosive materials until they have been
characterized..
(6) Laboratory waste packs. In
addition to the requirements of
paragraph (j)(5) of this section, the
following precautions shall be taken, as
a minimum, in handling laboratory
waste packs (lab packs):
(i) Lab packs shall be opened only
when necessary and then only by an
individual knowledgeable in the
inspection, classification, and
segregation of the containers within the
pack according the hazards of the
wastes.
(ii) If crystalline material is noted on
any container, the contents shall be
handled as a shock-sensitive waste until
the contents are identified.
(7) Sampling drums and containers.
Sampling of containers and drums shall
be done in accordance with a sampling
procedure which is part of the site
safety and health plan developed for
and available to employees and others
at the specific worksite.
(8) Shipping and transport, (i) Drums
and containers shall be identified and
classified prior to packaging for
shipment.
(ii) Drum or container staging areas
shall be kept to the minimum number
necessary to safely identify and classify
materials and prepare them for
transport.
(iii) Staging areas shall be provided
with adequate access and egress routes.
(iv) Bulking of hazardous wastes shall
be permitted only after a thorough
characterization of the materials has
been completed.
(9) Tank and vault procedures, (i)
Tanks and vaults containing hazardous
substances shall be handled in a manner
similar to that for drums and containers,
taking into consideration the size of the
tank or vault.
(ii) Appropriate tank or vault entry
procedures meeting paragraph
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 244 / Friday. December 19, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 45669
(i)(2)(i)(K) of this section shall be
followed whenever employees must
enter a tank or vault
(k) Decontamination. (1) A
decontamination procedure shall be
developed, communicated to employees
and implemented before any employees
or equipment may enter areas on site
where potential for exposure to
hazardous substances exists.
(2) Standard operating procedures
shall be developed to minimize
employee contact with hazardous
substances or with equipment that has
contacted hazardous substances.
(3) Decontamination shall be
performed in areas that will minimise
the exposure of uncontaminated
employees or equipment to
contaminated employees or equipment.
(4) All employees leaving a
contaminated area shall be
appropriately decontaminated; all
clothing and equipment leaving a
contaminated area shall be
appropriately disposed of or
decontaminated.
(5) Decontamination procedures shall
be monitored by the site safety and
health officer to determine their
effectiveness. When such procedures
are found to be ineffective, appropriate
steps shall be taken to correct any
deficiencies.
(8) All equipment and solvents used
for decontamination shall be
decontaminated or disposed of properly.
(7) Protective clothing and equipment
shall be decontaminated, cleaned.
laundered, maintained or replaced as
needed to maintain their effectiveness.
(8) Impermeable protective clothing
which contacts or is likely to have
contacted hazardous substances shall
be decontaminated before being
removed by the employee.
(9) Employees whose non-
impermeable clothing becomes wetted
with hazardous substances shall
immediately remove that clothing and
proceed to shower. The clothing shall be
disposed of or decontaminated before it
is removed from the work zone.
(10) Unauthorized employees shall not
remove protective clothing or equipment
from change rooms.
(11) Commercial laundries or cleaning
establishments that decontaminate
protective clothing or equipment shall
be informed of the potentially harmful
effects of exposures to hazardous
substances.
(12) Where the decontamination
procedure indicates a need for showers
and change rooms, they shall be
provided and meet the requirements of
29 CFR 1910.141.
(1) Emergency response—(1) General.
(i) An emergency response plan shall be
developed and implemented to handle
anticipated on-site emergencies prior to
the commencement of hazardous waste
operations. Emergency response
activities to all other hazardous waste
operations shall follow an emergency
response plan meeting the requirements
of this section.
(ii) Elements of an emergency
response plan. The employer shall
develop an emergency response plan for
on-site and off-site emergencies which
shall address, as a minimum, the
following:
(A) Pre-emergency planning.
(6) Personnel roles, lines of authority,
training, and communication.
(C) Emergency recognition and
prevention.
(D) Safe distances and places of
refuge.
(E) Site security and control.
(F) Evacuation routes and
procedures.
(G) Decontamination.
(H) Emergency medical treatment
and first aid.
(I) Emergency alerting and response
procedures.
(J) Critique of response and follow-
up.
(K) PPE and emergency equipment.
(2) On-site emergency response—(i)
Training. Training for site emergency
response shall be conducted in .
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section.
(ii) Procedures for handling site
emergency incidents. (A) In addition to
the elements for the emergency response
plan required in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)
above, the following elements shall be
included for site emergency response
plans:
(7) Site topography, layout, and
prevailing weather conditions.
(2} Procedures for reporting incidents
to local, state, and federal governmental
agencies.
(B) The site emergency response plan
shall be a separate section of the Site
Safety and Health Plan.
(C) The site emergency response plan
shall be compatible and integrated with
the disaster, fire and/or emergency
response plans of local, state, and
federal agencies.
(D) The site emergency response plan
shall be rehearsed regularly as part of
the overall training program for site
operations.
(E) The site emergency response plan
shall be reviewed periodically and, as
necessary, be amended to keep it
current with new or changing site
conditions or information.
(F) An employee alarm system shall
be installed in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.165 to notify employees of an on-
site emergency situation, to stop work
activities if necessary, to lower
background noise in order to speed
communication, and to begin emergency
procedures.
(G) Based upon the information
available at time of the emergency, the
employer shall evaluate the incident and
the site response capabilities and
proceed with the appropriate steps to
implement the on-site emergency
response plan.
(3) Off-site emergency response—(i)
Training. Training for handling
emergency responses involving
hazardous substances shall be
conducted on a monthly basis and shall
be at least 24 hours annually. The
training shall include as a minimum
recognition of hazards, selection, care,
and use of personal protective
equipment and safe operating
procedures to be used at the incident
scene.
(ii) Procedures for handling off-site
emergency incidents. (A) The senior .
officer responding to an incident
involving a hazardous substance or
waste shall establish an Incident
Command System (ICS). All emergency
responders and their communications
shall be coordinated and controlled
through the individual in charge of the
ICS.
(B) The individual in charge of the ICS
shall identify, to the extent possible,-all
hazardous substances or conditions
present.
(C) Based on the hazardous
substances and/or conditions present,
the individual in charge of the ICS shall
implement appropriate emergency
operations, and assure that the personal
protective equipment worn is
appropriate for the hazards to be
encountered. However, personal
protective equipment shall meet, at a
minimum, the criteria contained in 29
CFR 1910.1S6(e) when worn while
performing fire fighting operations
beyond the incipient stage.
(D) Self-contained breathing
apparatus shall be worn at all times
during emergency operations involving
exposure to hazardous substances or
health hazards. After October 18,1988
only positive pressure self-contained
respirators shall be used.
(E) The individual in charge of the ICS
shall limit the number of emergency
response personnel at the emergency
site to those who are actively
performing emergency operations.
However, operations in hazardous areas
shall be'performed using the buddy
system in groups of two or more.
(F) Back-up personnel shall be
standing by with equipment ready to
-------
45670 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 244 / Friday, December 19. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
provide assistance or rescue. Qualified
basic life support personnel, as a
minimum, shall also be;standing by with
medical equipment and.transportation
capability.
(G) The individual in charge of the ICS
shall designate a safety, officer, who is
knowledgeable in fire fighting or rescue
operations and hazardous substance
handling procedures, with specific
responsibility to identify and evaluate
hazards and to provide direction with
respect to the safety of operations for
the emergency at hand.
(H) When activities are judged by the
safety officer to be unsafe and/or to
involve an imminent danger condition,
the safety officer shall have the
authority to alter, suspend, or terminate
those activities. The safety officer shall
immediately inform the individual in
charge of the ICS of any actions taken to
correct these hazards at an emergency
scene.
(I) After emergency operations have
terminated, the individual in charge of
the ICS shall implement appropriate
decontamination procedures.
(4) Hazardous materials teams
(HAZMAT). (i) Employees who are
members of the HAZMAT team.
employees designated by the employer
to plug, patch or otherwise temporarily
control or stop leaks from containers
which hold hazardous substances or
health hazards shall be given training in
accordance with paragraph (1)(3) of this
section that includes the care and use of
chemical protective clothing and
procedures to be followed when
working on leaking drums, containers.
tanks, or bulk transport vehicles.
(ii) Members of HAZMAT teams shall
receive an annual physical examination
by a licensed physician and be provided
medical surveillance as required in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(iii) Personal protective clothing and
equipment to be used by HAZMAT team
members shall meet the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this section.
(iv) Approved self-contained
compressed air breathing apparatus may
be used with approved cylinders from
other approved self-contained
compressed air breathing apparatus
provided that such cylinders are of the
same capacity and pressure rating. All
compressed air cylinders used with self-
contained breathing apparatus shall
meet U.S. Department of Transportation
and National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health criteria.
(5) Post-emergency response.
operations. Upon completion of the
emergency response, if it is determined
that it is necessary to remove hazardous
substances, health hazards and
materials contaminated with them such
as contaminated soil or other elements
of the natural environment, then such
operations shall meet all the
requirements of paragraphs (b) through
(n) of this section.
(m) Illumination. Work areas shall be
lighted to not less than the minimum
illumination intensities listed in Table
H-102.1 while any work i» in progress:
TABLE H-102.1.—MINIMUM ILLUMINATION
INTENSITIES IN FOOT-CANDLES
TABLE H-102.2.—TOILET FACILITIES—
Continued
Fool-candle*
5
3
10.......
30..
Area or operation*
General site areas.
Excavation and waste areas, accessways.
active storage area*, loading platform*, re-
fueling, and field maintenance area*.
Indoors: warehouses, corridors, hallway*, and
exhwavs.
Tunnel*, snarls, and general underground
work area*: (Exception: minimum of 10
foot-candle* is requred at tunnel and shaft
heading during drilling, mucking, and scal-
ing. Bureau of Mines approved cap light*
snail be acceptable for use in me tunnel
heading,
General shop* (e.g., mechanical and electri-
cal equipment rooms, active storerooms.
barracks or living quarters, locker or dress-
ing room*, dining areas, and Indoor toilets
and workroom*.
First aid stations, tffirmanes, and offices.
(n) Sanitation at temporary
workplaces—(1) Potable water, (i) An
adequate supply of potable water shall
be provided on the site.
(ii) Portable containers used to
dispense drinking water shall be
capable of being tightly closed, and
equipped with a tap. Water shall not be
dipped from containers.
(iii) Any container used to distribute
drinking water shall be clearly marked
as to the nature of its contents and not
used for any other purpose.
(iv) Where single service cups (to be
used but once) are supplied, both a '
sanitary container for the unused cups
and a receptacle for disposing of the
used cups shall be provided.
(2) Nonpotable water, (i) Outlets for
nonpotable water, such as water for
industrial or firefighting purposes shall
be identified to indicate clearly that the
water is unsafe and is not to be used for
drinking, washing, or cooking purposes;
(ii) There shall be no cross-
connection, open or potential, between a
system furnishing potable water and a
system furnishing nonpotable water.
(3) Toilets facilities, (i) Toilets shall
be provided for employees according to
Table H-102.2.
TABLE H-102.2.—TOILET FACILITIES
Number of employee*
More than 200
Minimum number ot laoMn*
50 employees.
Number of employee* Minimum number of facilities
20 or fewer
More than 20, fewer than
200V
One.
One toilet seat and 1 unnal per
40 employees.
(ii) Under temporary field conditions,
provisions shall be made to assure not
less than one toilet facility is available.
(iii) Hazardous waste sites, not
provided with a sanitary sewer, shall be
provided with the following toilet
facilities unless prohibited by local
codes:
(A) Privies;
(B) Chemical toilets;
(C) Recirculating toilets; or
(D) Combustion toilets.
(iv) The requirements of this
paragraph for sanitation facilities shall
not apply to mobile crews having
transportation readily available to
nearby toilet facilities.
(4) Food handling. All employees' food
service facilities and operations shall
meet the applicable laws, ordinances,
and regulations of the jurisdictions in
which they are located.
(5) Temporary sleeping quarters.
When temporary sleeping quarters are
provided, they shall be heated.
ventilated, and lighted.
(6) Washing facilities. The employer
shall provide adequate washing
facilities for employees engaged in
operations where hazardous substances
may be harmful to employees. Such
facilities shall be in near proximity to
the worksite, within controlled access
work zones and shall be so equipped as
to enable employees to remove
hazardous substances.
(o) Certain Operations Conducted
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
Employers conducting operations
specified in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this
section shall:
(1) Implement a hazard
communication program meeting the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200;
(2) Implement a medical surveillance
program meeting the requirements of
paragraph (fj of this section;
(3) Develop and implement a safety
and health program for employees
involved in hazardous waste operations.
The program shall be designed to
identify, evaluate and control safety and
health hazards and provide for
emergency response to their facilities for
the purpose of employee protection;
(4) Develop and implement a
decontamination procedure in
accordance with paragraph (k) of this
section, and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 244 / Friday. December 19. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 45671
(5) Develop and implement a training
program for employees involved with
hazardous waste operations to enable
each employee to perform their assigned
duties and functibnftiift-a safe and
healthfuT manner so asTiot to endanger
themselves or other-employees. The
initial training shall be for 24 hours and
refresher training shall be for eight
hours annually.
(p) Start-up dates—(1) Training and
medical provisions. Initial training and
medical surveillance as specified by
paragraph (e) and (f) of this section shall
be commenced on the effective date of
this standard, and be fully implemented
as soon as-possible but no later than
March 16,1987. Employees may
continue in their work assignments until
March 16,1987 though training and
medical examinations have not been
completed so long as all feasible
training and examinations have been
completed.
(2) Safety and health program. The
employer shall develop and implement a
safety and health program as required
by paragraph (b)(l) of this section as
soon as is feasible and have it
completed and implemented no later
than March 16,1987.
(3) Engineering controls, work
practices, and personal protective
equipment, (ij The engineering controls,
work practices and personal protective
equipment required by paragraph (g)(2)
of this section shall be implemented as
soon as feasible and implementation
shall be completed no later than March
16.1987.
(ii) The engineering controls, work
practices and personal protective
equipment required by paragraph (g)(l)
of this section are existing requirements
of other OSHA standards and continues
to be required from the effective date of
this standard.
(4) Site safety and health plan. The
site safety and health plan required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this section shall be
completed as soon as feasible but no
later than February 16,1987.
(5) Certain operations conducted
under RCRA. The requirements
specified by paragraph (o) of this section
shall be instituted by March 16,1987.
(6) Other requirements. Requirements
of this standard which- do not have a
separate start-up date and have not
been required by other OSHA standards
shall be carried out from the effective
date of this standard.
(7) New operations. Operations
covered by this section which are
started after March 16,1987. shall be in
compliance with this section from the
start of their operation.
. Appendices to } 1910.120—Hazardous Waste
Opera dons and Emergency Response
_. Notev—TVie following appendices serve as
non-mandatory guidelines to assist
employees and employers in comply ing with
the appropriate requirement of this section.
Appendix A—Personal Protective Equipment
Test Method*
This appendix sets forth the non-
mandatory examples of tests which may be
used to evaluate compliance with paragraphs
I9l0.120(g)(4) (ii) and (iii). Other tests and
other challenge agents may be used to
evaluate compliance.
A. Fully-Encapsulated Suit Pressure Test
1.0—Scope
1.1 This practice measures the ability of a
gas tight totally-encapsulating chemical
protective suit material, seams, and closures
to maintain a fixed positive pressure. The
results of this practice allow the gas tight
integrity of a total-encapsulating chemical
protective suit to be evaluated.
1.2 Resistance of the suit materials to
permeation, penetration, and degradation by
specific hazardous substances is not
determined by this test method.
2.0—Description of Terms
2.1 Totally-encapsulated chemical
protective suit (TECP suit)—A full body
garment which is constructed of protective
clothing materials: covers the wearer's torso,
head arms., and legs: may cover the wearer's
hands-and feet with tightly attached gloves
and boots: completely encloses the wearer by
itself or In combination with the wearer's-
respiratory equipment, gloves, and boots.
2.2 Protective clothing material—Any
material or combination of materials used in
an item of clothing for the purpose of
isolating parts of the body from direct contact
with a potentially hazardous liquid or
gaseous chemicals.
2.3 "Gas tight"—for the purpose of this
practice the limited flow of a gas under
pressure from the inside of a TECP suit to
atmosphere at a prescribed pressure and time
interval.
2.4 "Shall"—This term indicates a
mandatory requirement.
2.5 "Should"—This term indicates a
recommendation or that which is advised but
not required.
2.ft "May"—This term is used to state a
permissive use or an alternative method to a
specific requirement.
3.0—Summary of Practice
3.1 The TECP suit is visually inspected
and modified for the test. The test apparatus
is attached to the suit to permit inflation to
the pre-test suit expansion pressure for
removal of suit wrinkles and creases. The
pressure is lowered to the test pressure and
monitored for three minutes. If the pressure
drop is excessive, the TECP suit fails the tests
and is removed from service. After leak
location and repair the test is repeated.
4.0—Required Supplies
4.1 Source of compressed air.
4.2 Test apparatus for suit testing
including a pressure measurement device
with a sensitivity of at least Yt inch water
gauge.
4.3 Vent valve closure plugs or sealing
tape.
4.4 Soapy water solution and soft brush.
4.S Slop watch or appropriate timing
device.
5.0—Safety Precautions
5.1 Care shall be taken to provide the
correct pressure safety devices required for
the source of compressed air used.
6.0—Test Procedure
6.1 Prior to each test the tester shall
perform a visual inspection of the suit. Check
the suit for seam integrity by visually
examining the seams and gently pulling on
the seams. Ensure that all air supply lines,
fittings, visor, zippers, and valves are secure
and show no signs of deterioration.
6.1.1 Seal off the vent valves along with
any other normal inlet or exhaust points
(such as umbilical air line fittings or face
piece opening) with tape or other appropriate
means (caps, plugs, fixture, etc.). Care should
be exercised in the sealing process not to
damage any of the suit components.
8.1.2 Close all closure assemblies.
6.1.3 Prepare the suit for inflation by
providing an improvised connection point or
the suit for connecting an airline. Attach the
pressure test apparatus to the suit to permit
suit inflation from a compressed air source
equipped with a pressure indicating regulator.
The leak tightness of the pressure test
apparatus should be tested before and after
each test by closing off the end of the tubing
attached to the suit and assuring a pressure
of three inches water gauge for three minutes
can be maintained. If a component is
removed for the test, that component shall be
replaced and a second test conducted with
another component removed to permit a
complete tests of the ensemble.
6.1.4 The pre-test expansion pressure (A)
and the suit test pressure (B) shall be
supplied by the suit manufacturer but in no
case shall they be less than; A=3 Inches
water gauge and B=2 inches water gauge.
The ending suit pressure (C) shall be no less
than 80% (%) of the test pressure (B): i.e., the
pressure drop shall not exceed 20% (Ms) of the
test pressure (B).
6.1.5 Inflate the suit until the pressure
inside is equal to pressure "A", the pre-test
expansion suit pressure. Allow at least one
minute to fill out the wrinkles in the suit
Release sufficient air to reduce the suit
pressure to pressure "B". the suit test
pressure. Begin timing. At the end of three
minutes, record the suit pressure as pressure
"C," the ending suit pressure. The difference
between the suit test pressure and the ending
suit test pressure (B-C) shall be defined as
the suit pressure drop.
6.1.6 If the suit pressure drop is more than
20 percent (H) of the suit test pressure B
during the three minute test period, the suit
fails the test and shall be removed from
service.
7.0—Retest Procedure
7.1 If the suit fails the test check for leaks
by inflating the suit to pressure A and
brushing or wiping the entire suit (including
-------
£3672 Federal Register / Vol. SI, No. 244 / Friday.. December 19, 1986 / Rules md. Regulations
seanucioastaa. lens gaskxta, git>ve-to-slee*e
joints, etc.) with a mild soap and water
solu*ic«kGbaef*s5tte*Bate the formation of
soap bubbles, which i» an indication of a ..
7.1
Test procedure 0.0.
8.0— Report -.•;,-.
8A EacB-TECPsujttMled by this practice
shall hatia the following information
recorded;
8.1.1 Unique identification number
identifying brand name, date of purchase,
matansdcf ecus (ruction, and-unionefit
features: e«_ special twearaing apparataa.
8.1.2 The octoaKvateaB for test pressures,
A. a andC shati be recorded along with the
specific observation times, if the ending
pressure (C) is less than 80% of the test
pressure (BJ- the suit shall be identified as
failing the test When possible, the specific
leak location shall be identified ia the test
recocda, Re test pressure data, shall be
recwdedas an additional teat.
a.J-3 The source of die teat apparatus
used shall be identified and the sensitivity of
the pressure gauge shall b« recorded.
8.1.4 Records shall be kept for each
pressure test even if repairs are being made
at the test location.
Cauftm
Visually inspect all parts of the suit to be
sure they are positioned correctly and
secured tightly before putting the suit back
into service. Special care should be taken to
examine each exhaust valve to make sure it
is not blocked.
Care should also be exercised to assure
that the inside and outside of the suit is
completely dry before it is put into storage.
B. Fully-Encepaulated Suit Qualitative Leak
Test
1.0— Scope
1.1 This practice seml-qualitatlvely tests
gas tight totally-encapsulating chemical
protective suit integrity by detecting inward
leakage of ammonia vapor. Since no
modifications are made to the suit to cany
out this test, the results from this practice
provide a realistic test for the integrity of the
entire suit
1.2 Resistance of the suit marertah) to :
permeation, penetration, and degradation ia
no* determined by this test method.
2.0— Description at Terms
2.1 Totally-encapsulated chemical
protective suit (TECPiuU)— A full body
garment which ia-cmstructad of protective
clothing materiak coxprs the wearer's torso,
head. anna, aad lag*; may caver the wearer's
han^9 and feet with tightly attached glovea '
and boots: completely enclose* the wearer by
itself or in combination with the wearer's
respiratory equipment, gloves, and boots.
2J Protective clothing material— Any
material or combination of "mtfti«mff HQO*I jj&
an item of clothing tor the purpose of
isolating parts of the body from direct mntagf
with a potentially hazardous liquid or
gaseous chemicals.
2J MGaa tight"— for the purpose of this
practice the limited flew of • gm outer
pnswm from the insad* of • TBCPsuitte
sphere at a- prescribed pi esaif e amt rime
interval.
2.4 "Shall"— This term indicates a
mandatory requirement
15 "Should"— This term indicates a
recommendation or that which is advised but
not required.
24 "May**— This term is used to slate a
permissive use or an alternative-method to a
specific requirement.
2.7 In trusion Coe fficieni — A number
expressing the level of protection provided by
a gas. tight totally-encapsulating chemical
protective suit The intrusion coefficient is
calculated by dividing the teat room
challenge agent concentration by the
concentration of challenge agent found inside
the suit. The accuracy of the intrusion
coefficient is dependent on the challenge
agent monitoring methods. The larger the
intrusion coefficient the greater the protection
provided by the TECP suit.
3.0 — Summary of Recommended Practice
3.1 . The volume of .ammonia solution
required to generate the test atmosphere ia
determined using the directions outlined in
(U. The suit is donned by a person wearing
the appropriate respiratory equipment
(normally a self-contained breathing
apparatus) and worn inside the enclosed test
room. The ammonia solution is taken by the
suited individual into the teat room and
poured into an open plastic pan. A two-
minute evaporation period is observed before
the test room concentration U measured
using a high range ammonia length of stain
detector tube. When the ammonia reaches a
concentration of between 1000 and 1200 ppm,
the suited individual starts a standardized
exercise protocol to stress and flex the suit
After this protocol is completed the test room
concentration is measured again. The suited
individual exits the test room and his stand-
by person measures the ammonia
concentration inside the suit using a low
range ammonia length of stain detector tube
or other more sensitive ammonia detector. A
stand-by parson is required to observe the
test individual during the test procedure, aid
the person in donning and doffing the TECP
suit and monitor the suit interior. The
intrusion coefficient of the suit can be
calculated by dividing the average test area
concentration by the interior suit
concentration. A colorimetric indicator strip
of bromophenol blue is placed on the inside
of the suit face piece lens so that the suited
individual is able to detect a color change
and know if the suit has a significant leak. If
a color change is observed the individual
should leave the test room immediately.
4.0— Required Supplies
4.1 .A .supply of concentrated ammmta (53
percent nrirflog""m hydroxide by weight).
4-2
4.4 Ap4a*ttop«v(PVC)atlessH2':14':r
and a half pint plastic contaiiar (PVC) with
tightly dosing Bd.
4.5 Volumetric measuring device of at
least 50 nulliliters in volume with an
accuracy of at least ±1 milliliters.
5.0 — Safety Precautions
5.1 Concentrated ammonia is a corrosive
volatile liquid-requiring eye. skin, and
respiratory protection.
5-2 Since the threshold limit value for
ammonia is 2S ppm. only persons wearing the
appropriate respirator protection shall be in
the chamber. Normally only the person
wearing the total-encapsulating suit will be
inside the chamber. A stand-by person shall
have a self-contained breathing apparatus, or
equivalent breathing apparatus, available to
enter the test area should the suited
individual need assistance.
5.3 A method to monitor the suited
individual must be used during this test
Visual contact ia the simplest but other
methods using cflmrnunicft*'"" devices are
acceptable.
5.4 The test room shall be large enough to
allow the exercise protocol to be carried out
and ventilated to allow for easy exhaust of
the ammonia test atmosphere after the.test(s)
are completed.
5.5 Individuals shall be medically
screened for the use of respiratory protection
and checked for allergies to ammonia before
participating in this test procedure.
8.0 — Test Procedure
indicating paper, sensitive to 5-10 ppm
ammonia or greater aver a two-minute period
of .exposure.
4.3 A supply of high range (0£-U) volume
percent) and low range (5-700 ppm) detector
tubes for ammonia and the corresponding
sampling pump. More sensitive ammonia
detectors can be substituted for me low range
detector tube* to improve the sensitivity of
this prae
Measure the test area to the nearest
foot and calculate its volume in cubic feet
Multiply the teat area volume by 0.2
miOiliters of ammonia per cubic foot of test
area volume to determine the approximate
volume of ammnnia required, to generate 1000
ppm in the test area.
6.1.2 Measure this volume from the supply
of concentrated ammonia and place it into a
closed plastic container.
6.1 J P1«ce:the jar. several high range
ammonia detector, tubes and the pump in the
clean teat pan and locate it near the test area
entry door so that the suited individual has
easy access to these supplies.
6.2.1 In a non-contaminated atmosphere.
open a presealed ammonia indicator strip
and fasten one end ofthe strip to the inside
of suit face shield lens where it can be seen
by the wearer. Care shall be taken not to
contaminate the detector part of the indicator
paper by touching it A small piece of
masking tape or equivalent should be used U
attach the indicator strip to the interior of the
suit face shield.
8.2.2 If problems are encountered with
this method of attachment the indicator strip
can be attached to the outside of the
respirator face piece being used during lfc» -
test assuming the face piece ia worn within
the TECP suit.
8.3 Don the respiratory protective device
normally used with the suit; and then don the
TECP suit to be tested. Check to be sure all
openings which are intended to be sealed
(rippers, gloves, etc.) are completely sealed.
DO NOT, however, plug off any venting
valves.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.- 244 /. Friday, December 19, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 45673
6.4 Step into the endowed, test room such ,
as a closet, bathroom, of teat booth,, equipped
with an exhaust fan JJp,£ir. should jbe
exhausted from, the chamber during the test
because this will dilute die ammonia .
challenge concentrations.,...,'•;. .•'...
6.5 Open the container with the pre-
measured volume of ammonia within the
enclosed test room, and pour the liquid into
the empty plastic test pan. Wait two minutes
to allow for adequate volatilization of the
ammonia. A small mixing fan can be used .
near (He evaporation pan to increase.the
evaporation rate of ammonia.
8.6 "After two minutes, a determination of
the.'arnmonia concentration within the
chamber should be made using the high range
colorimetric detector tube. A concentration-of
1000 ppm ammonia or greater shall be
generated before the exercises are started.
6.7 To test the integrity of the suit the
following four minute exercise.protocol
should be followed:
6.7.1 Raising the arms above the head
with at least 15 raising motions completed in
one minute.
6.7.2 Walking in place for one minute with
at least 15 raising motions of each leg in a
one-minute period.
• 6.7.3- Touching the toes with a least 10
complete motions of the arms front-above the
head to touching of the toes in a one-minute
period.
8.7.4. Deep knee bends, with'at least 10
complete standing and squatting motions in a
one-minute period..
6.0 At any time during the lest should the
colorimetric indicating paper change colors
the test should be stopped and.sectioi>«.10
and 6.12 initiated.
6.9 After completion of the test exercise,
the test area concentration should be
measured again using the high range
colorimetric detector tube.
6.10 Exit the lest area.
6.11 The opening created by the suit
zipper or other appropriate suit penetration
should be used to determine the ammonia
concentration in the suit with the low range
length of stain detector tube or other
ammonia monitor. The internal TECP suit air
should be sampled far enough from the
enclosed test area to prevent a false
ammonia reading.
6.12 After completion of the measurement
of the suit interior ammonia concentration
the test is concluded and the suit Is doffed
and the respirator removed.
6.13 The ventilating fmrforlhe test room
should be turned orrand~a1lbWed to ran for
enough time to remove the ammonia gas.
6.14 Any detectable ammonia in the suit
Interior (5 ppm NTii or more lor the length of
stain detector tube) indicates' the suit fails the
test. When other ammonia detectors are
used, a lower level of detection is possible
and it should be specified as.the pass fail
criteria.
6.15 By following this practice an
Intrusion coefficient of approximately ZOO or
more can be measured with the suit in a
completely operational condition.
7.0— Retest Procedures
7.1 If the suit fails this test check for leaks
by following the pressure test in test A
above.
7.2 Retest ihe TECP suit as outlined in the
test procedure 6.0.
8.0—Report
8.1 Each gas tight totally-encapsulating
chemical protective suit tested by this
practice shall have the following information
recorded.
8.1.1 Unique Identification number
identifying brand name, dale of purchase,
material of construction, and unique suit
features; e.g., special breathing apparatus.
8.12 ~ General description of test room
used for test.
8.1.3 Brand name and purchase date of
ammonia detector strips.
8.1.4 Brand name, sampling range, and
expiration date of the length o£ stain
ammonia detector tubes. The brand name
and model of the sampling pump should also
be recorded. If another type of ammonia
detector is used, it should be identified along
with its minimum detection limit for
ammonia.
8.1.5 Actual test results shall list the two
test area concentrations, their average, the
interior suit concentration, and the calculated
intrusion coefficient. Retest data shall be
recorded as an additional test.
8.2 The evaluation of the data shall be
specified as "suit passed" or "suit failed" and
the date of the test: Any detectable ammonia
(5 ppm or greater for the length of stain
detector tube) in the suit interior indicates the
suit fails, this test. .When other ammonia
detectors are used, a lower level of detection
is possible and it should be specified as the
pass fail criteria; .
Caution
Visually inspect all parts of the suit to be
sure they are positioned correctly and
secured tightly before putting the suit back
into service. Special care should be taken to
examine each exhaust valve to make sure it
is not blocked.
Care should also be exercised to assure
that the inside and outside of the suit is
completely dry before it is put into storage.
Appendix B—General Description and
Discussion of the Levels of Protection and
Protective Gear
This appendix sets forth information about
personal protective equipment (PPE)
protection levels which may be used to assist
employers in complying with the PPE
requirements of this section.
As required by the standard. PPE must be
selected which will protect employees from
the specific hazards which they are likely to
encounter during their work on-sile.
Selection of the appropriate PPE is a
complex process which must take into
consideration a variety of factors. Key factors
involved in this process are identification of
the hazards, or suspected hazards, their
routes of potential hazard to employees
(inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, and
eye or skin contact), and the performance of
the PPE materials (and seams) in providing a
barrier to these hazards. The amount of
protection provided by PPE is material-
hazard specific. That is, protective equipment
materials will protect well against some
hazardous substances and poorly, or not at
all. against others. In many instances.
protective equipment materials cannot be
found which will provide continuous
protection from the particular hazardous
substance. In these cases the breakthrough
time of the protective material should exceed
the work durations, or the exposure after
breakthrough must not pose a hazardous
level.
Other factors in this selection process to be
considered are matching the PPE to the
employee's work requirements and task-
specific conditions. The durability of PPE
materials, such as tear strength and seam
strength, in relation to the employee's tasks
must be considered. The effects of PPE in
relation to heat stress and task duration are a
factor in selecting and using PPE In some
cases layers of PPE may be necessary to
provide sufficient protection, or to protect
expensive PPE inner garments, suits or
equipment.
The more that is known about the hazards
at the site, the easier the job of PPE selection
becomes. As more information about the
hazards and conditions at the site becomes
available, the site supervisor can make
decisions to up-grade or down-grade the level
of PPE protection to match the tasks at hand.
The following are guidelines which an
employer can use to begin the selection of the
appropriate PPE. As noted above, the site
information may suggest the use of
combinations of PPE selected from the
different protection levels (i.e.. A, B, C, or D)
as being more suitable to the hazards of the
work. It should be cautioned that the listing
below does not fully address the performance
of the specific PPE material in relation to the
specific hazards at the job site, and that PPE
selection, evaluation and re-selection is an
ongoing process until sufficient information
about the hazards and PPE performance is
obtained.
Part A. Personal protective equipment has
been divided into four categories based on
the degree of protection afforded and are as
follows (See Part B of this appendix for
further explanation of Levels A. B. C. and 0
hazards):
I. Level A—To be selected when the
greatest level of skin, respiratory, and eye
protection is required.
Level A equipment: used as appropriate
1. Pressure-demand, full face-piece self-
contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), or
pressure-demand supplied air respirator with
escape SCBA. approved by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH).
2. Totally-encapsulating chemical-
protective suit.
3. Coveralls.'
4. Long underwear."
5. Gloves, outer, chemical-resistant.
6. Gloves, inner, chemical-resistant
7. Boots, chemical-resistant, steel toe and
shank.
8. Hard hat (under suit)'
9. Disposable protective suit gloves and
boots (Depending on suit construction, may
be worn over totally-encapsulating suit).
10. Two-way radios (worn inside
encapsulating suit).
'Optional, as applicable.
-------
4SB7J FrflBiaf HggjfatHt / V Gluves. inner, cfiemical-f mistant*
6. Boots (outer). chenncaKrestutarrt ateei toe
and shank'.
7. Boot-cover*, outer, chemkat-pesiatant
(disposable)*.
B. Hard hat
9. Escape mask*
10. Two-way radio* (worn under omtfid*
protective clotting).
ll.FacashioW
Optional, a9
IV. Level D — A work uniform affording
minimal protection: used for nuisance
contamination only.
Level D equipment; used as appropriate
1. Coveralls.
2. Clovea*
3. Boots/ ghved, ('.hHtniuul-CTsistmit steel toe
and shank.
4. Buufo. uuter. ctberniCH^OTiiitHnC
(disposable)*. >;-;- '•
5. Safety glasses or chemical splasfc
goggles'. ' ' ••'•••'• •
6. Hard hat.
7. Escape mask'.
a Face shield*.
'Optional, as appUcaMe.
Part B. The type* af hazards £or which
levels A. B. C. and D protection are
appropriate are described below.
L Level A — Level A protectiim should be
used when:
1. The TiqyArflf^ff ^nhutafir^ Iiafl been
identified ii mil myysu or
3. The ftrmnnr at incomptetety idcntraind
vapors or gases i* indicated bj» • direct-
reading organic vapor delectiBsi inalruneal.
b«t vapca sad gases an not sospacied'af
*^^*5tiMu^ high levels of chemicals hnwafiri to
skin or caqnfaie oi facing absorbed thtongh the
intact skin.
III. Lent C psotectioB shoosd be used
when:
1. The alnoa|Bhanc contaminaiAa. Uqud
splashes, or other direct con tact wiU not
adversely affect or be absorbed through^ny
exposed skin,
2. The types of afr contaminants bew»(Men
identified, concentration* measured, and a
canister respirator is available thst-can
remove the contaminants, and ,
3. AH criteria for the use of air-pwifyinf
respirators are met
IV. Level D protection should be need
when:
1. The atmosphere contains no known
hazard, and
2. Work Rinrflima preclude «plaaha«,
immersion, or the potential for unexpected
inhalation of or contact with hazardous levels
of any GDefnfcarS.
Note.— As stated before combinations of
personal protective equipment other than
those described for Levels A. B, C and D
protection may be more appropriate and may
be used to pcovide the proper level of
protection.
Appendi
i Guidatos
1. Occupational Safety and Health
Program. Each hazardous waste site ciean-up
effort wilt require a site specific occupational
safety and hearth program headed by the site
coordinator or the employer's representative.
The program will be designed for the
protection of eiupluyues at the site. The
piugiain wifl need to be developed before
work begins on the site and unptmueuted as
work proceeds. The piugiuiu is to facilitate
coordination and conmnnication among
persomei responsible for the various
activities which will take place at the site. It
win1 pro? idt? the overs!} means for phmnnig
and implementing the needed safety and
hettJA training' and job orientation of
9ifnno"£ee&'* who win oe working at tho sire.
The progrant'WTH provide the means for
identifying and cuntiulllng worksite hazards
and the means for iiiuuitoiiiig program
effectiveness. The program will need to cover
the responsibilities and authority of the site
coordinator for the safety and health of
employees at the site, and the relationships
with contractors or support services as to
what each employer's safety and health
responsibilities are for their employees on the
site. Each contractor on the site needs to
have its own safety and health program so
structured that it wifl smoothly interface with
the program of *h*» site coordinator.
Ranh flitf safety and health program will
need to include the {allowing: (1) Policy
statements of the line of authority and
accountability far implementing the program,
the objective* of the program and the role of
the site safety and health officer or manager
and staff. (2) means or methods (or the
ill nl»|«i»i>l of peoceduiess for identifying
and controlling workplace hazards at the site:
(3) mean* or aselbada for the development
and camnaiBicattao ta employees of the
various plans, work rules, standard operating
procedure* and practices that pertain to
mdmdoai empdejraas and supervisors; (4) the
trBim&a; of s&BurvissxB and employees to
develop the needed skills and knowledge to
perform their vunk in a safe and healthful
nunoet; (5) OMB*) to anticipate and prepare
for emergency situations and: (6) information
feedback to aid in evaiaating the program
and for improving th« elfoct*vene«« of the
program. THe'Riauugvinent and employees
should be trying continually to improve the
efTm-li*enuaa of the piugiuia thereby
enhancing the protection being afforded those
working on the site.
Accidents on the site should be
investigated to provide information on how
such occurrences can be avoided in the
future. When iujuiies or i On eases occur on
the site, they will need to he investigated to
determine what needs to be done to prevent
this incident from occurring again. Such
information wiR need to be used as feedback
on the effectiveness of the program and the
information turned into positive steps to
prevent any reoccurrence. Receipt of
employee suggestions or complaints relating
to safety and health issues involved with site
activities is also a feedback mechanism that
needs to be used effectively to improve the
program and may serve in part as an
evaluative tool(s).
2. Training. The employer is encouraged to
utilize those training programs that have been
recognized by the National institute of
Environmental Health Sciences through its
training grants, program. These training and
educational programs are being developed
for the employees who work directly with
hazardous subslanrieit. For further
information about these programs contact
National (astituta of Environmental Heailk
Sciences, P.O. Bex T??M, Research Triangle
Park. NC 27709.
Training programs for emergency service
organizations are available from the U.S.
National Fire Academy. Emirrsbnrg. MO and
the various state fire training schools. The
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 45675
International Society of Fire Service
Instructors. Ashland, MA 'a another resource.
3. Decontamination. Decontamination
procedures should be tailored^ the specific
hazards of the site and will vary in.
complexity, and number of steps, depending
on the level of hazard and the-employee's
exposure to the hazard.-Decontamination
procedures and PPE decontamination
methods will vary depending upon the
specific substance, since one procedure or
method will not work for all substances.
Evaluation of decontamination methods and
procedures should be performed, as
necessary, to assure that employees are not
exposed to hazards by reusing PPE.
References in Appendix D may be used for
guidance in establishing an effective
decontamination program.
4. Emergency response plans. States, along
with designated districts within the states,
will be developing or have developed
emergency response plans. These district and
state plans are to be utilized in the
emergency response plans called for in this
standard. Each employer needs to assure that
its emergency response plan is compatible
with the local plan. In addition, the CAER
program of the Chemical Manufacturers'
Association (CMA) is another helpful
resource in formulating an effective
emergency response plan. Also the current
Emergency Response Guidebook from the
U.S. Department of Transportation. CMA's
CHEMTREC and the Fire Service Emergency
Management Handbook should be used as
resources as well.
Appendix D—Reference* to Appendix
The following references to the Appendix
may be consulted for further information on
the subject of this notice:
1. OSHA Instruction DFO CPL 2.70—
January 29,1986, Special Emphasis Program:
Hazardous Waste Sites.
2. OSHA Instruction DFO CPL 2-2.37A—
January 29,1986, Technical Assistance and
Guidelines for Superfund and Other
Hazardous Waste Site Activities.
3. OSHA Instruction DTS CPL 2.74—
January 29,1986, Hazardous Waste Activity
Form, OSHA 175.
4. Hazardous Waste Inspections Reference
Manual. U.S. Department of Labor.
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. 1986.
5. Memorandum of Understanding Among
the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, the United States
Coast Guard, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance
for Worker Protection During Hazardous
Waste Site Investigations and Clean-up and
Hazardous Substance Emergencies.
December 18.1980.
8. National Priorities List. 1st Edition,
October 1984: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Revised periodically.
7. The Decontamination of Response
Personnel. Field Standard Operating
Procedures (F.S.O.P.) 7; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Hazardous Response
Support Division. December 1984.
8. Preparation of a Site Safety Plan. Field
Standard Operating Procedures (F.S.O.P.) 9;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Hazardous Response Support Division, April
1985.
9. Standard Operating Safety Guidelines:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Hazardous Response Support Division.
Environmental Response Team: November
1984.
10. Occupational Safety and Health
Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site
Activities, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG). and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA); October 1985.
11. Protecting Health and Safety at
Hazardous Waste Sites: An Overview, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/825/
9-85/006: September 1985.
12. Hazardous Waste Sites and Hazardous
Substance Emergencies, NIOSH Worker
Bulletin. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Public Health Service,
Centers for Disease Control. National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health;
December 1982.
13. Personal Protective Equipment for
Hazardous Materials Incidents: A Selection
Guide; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Public Health Service, Centers for
Disease Control. National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health: October
1984.
14. fire Service Emergency Management
Handbook, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, DC. January 1985.
15. Emergency Response Guidebook. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Washington,
DC, 1983.
[FR Doc. 86-28471 Filed 12-16-86; 12:57 am]
BtLUNO COM 4S10-M-M
-------
KEY CORRECTIVE ACTION
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Activity
RCRA
CERCLA
Interim Measures
Investigations -
Release/Problem
Characterization
RCRA Sec. 3008(h)
Corrective Action
Interim Measures,
draft, 1/86
Corrective Action
Plan, (CAP), in-
terim final, 11/86
RCRA Facility
Investigation (RFI)
Guidance, draft
final, 10/86
Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid
Wastes/EPA/SW-846,
final
RCRA Ground-Water
Monitoring Tech-
nical Enforcement
Guidance Document,
final, 10/86
Alternative Con-
centration Limit
(ACL) Guidance
based on 264.94(b)
Criteria draft,
12/86
Guidance on Remedial
Investigation Under
CERCLA, final 6/85
User's Guide to the
Contract Laboratory
Program final, 10/84
Field Standard Oper-
ating Procedures
(SOP) Manual, tts 4,
6, 7, 8, 9, final,
1985
Data Quality Objec-
tives (DQO).Deve1op-
ment Workbook for
Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility
Study Activities,
draft, 7/86
Chemical, physical
and Biological
Properties of Com-
pounds Present at
Hazardous Waste Sites,
draft, 10/85
Endangerment Assess-
ment Handbook, draft,
8/85
-------
Activity
RCRA
CERCLA
Analysis and
selection of
Corrective Measures
Corrective Action
Plan (CAP interim
final, 11/86
Corrective Measures
Implementation
Corrective Action
Plan (CAP), interim
final, 11/86
Construction Quality
Assurance for
Hazardous Waste
Land Disposal
Facilities, final,
7/86
Guidance of Feasibil-
ity Studies Under
CERCLA, final 6/85
Superfund Public
Health Evaluation
Manual, final, 10/86
Guidance on Remedial
Actions for Ground
Water at Superfund
Sites, draft, 12/85
Superfund Remedial
Design and Remedial
Action (RD/RA)
Guidance, 2/85
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
INTERIM MEASURES
RCRA CERCLA
RCRA Sec. 3008(h) Corrective
Action Interim Measures,
draft, 1/86
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS:
CORRECTIVE MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
RCRA
Corrective Action Plan (CAP)
interim final, 11/86
Construction Quality
Assurance for Hazardous Waste
Land Disposal Facilities,
final, 7/86
CERCLA
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial
Action (RD/RA) Guidance, 2/85
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS:
ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
RCRA CERCLA
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) • Guidance of Feasibility Studies Under
interim final, 11/86 CERCLA, final 6/85
Superfund Public Health Evaluation
Manual, final, October 1986
Guidance on Remedial Actions for
Ground Water at Superfund Sites,
draft
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS:
INVESTIGATIONS,
RELEASE/PROBLEM CHARACTERIZATION
RCRA
Corrective Action Plan, (CAP),
Interim Final, 11/86
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)
Guidance, draft final, 10/86
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes/EPA/SW-846, final
RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring
Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document, final, 10/86
Alternative Concentration Limit
(ACL) Guidance based on
264.94(b) Criteria draft, 12/86
CERCLA
Guidance on Remedial Investigations
Under CERCLA, final 6/85
User's Guide to the Contract Laboratory
Program final, 10/84
Field Standard Operating Procedures
(SOP) Manual, #s 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, final,
1985
Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Develop-
ment Workbook for Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility Study Activities, draft, 7/86
Chemical, Physical and Biological
Properties of Compounds Present at
Hazardous Waste Sites, draft, 10/85
Endangerment Assessment Handbook, draft,
8/85
-------
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO CORRECTIVE ACTION**
RCRA Guidance Documents
Corrective 'Action Plan; Interim final, OWPE/OSW, November 1986
Provides Agency guidance for developing section 3008(h) corrective action
orders and corrective action requirements in permit applications and
permits in sections 3004(u) and (v). The Corrective Action Plan (CAP)
provides a technical framework during corrective action orders and
corrective action permit requirements. The CAP provides a model for
developing site-specific compliance schedules for corrective action orders
by laying out scopes of work for the three phases of a complete corrective
action program: the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI), Corrective
Measures Study (CMS), and Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI).
RCRA Section 3008(h) Corrective Action Interim Measures: draft, OWPE; January
1986
-- Reviews response actions available under section 3008(h) to quickly
address immediate corrective action problems while other detailed analyses
and investigations occur concurrently. Describes implementation strategy,
decision criteria, and process-specific measures that can be taken. The
strategy also provides interim measures language to include in corrective
action orders.
Interim Measures Guidance; draft; QWPE; May 1986
Provides guidance to Regional/State staff on (1) how to identify
situations requiring immediate response to mitigate a threat to human
health and environment consistent with the long-term solution at the
facility and (2) the actions the owner/operator must take.
Guidance on Facility Management Planning; draft; OSW; April 26, 1985
Provides guidance to the Regions and Statesin developing facility
management plans and strategies. Provides guidance on initial facility
screening, framework for a FMP, and a Facility Management Strategy.
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Guidance; draft; OSW; October 1986
Provides detailed guidance to owner/operators for performing an RFI. This
document identifies the critical steps, describes methods and addresses
information requirements. It describes how to prepare an RFI plan;
strategy for characterizing releases; QA/QC procedures; data presentation;
health and safety; and media-specific investigation techniques.
**Note: This is not a complete listing of the Agency guidance which may be
relevant to the corrective action process. A number of documents are
presently under development and have not been included.
-------
-2-
RCRA Facility Assessir.°nt (RFA) Guidance; OSW; October 1986
-- Provides guidance to Regional/State staff on how to conduct an RFA. It
focuses on: identifying releases requiring further action; screening
SWMUs for further investigation; collecting initial data on contamination
levels"; and media specific investigation techniques.
RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (TEGD);
final; EPA/OWPE; September 1986
-- Provides guidance on data collection and well spacing and design for
detection and assessment monitoring at Interim Status facilities. This
guidance should be consulted in both the RCRA Facility Investigation and
Corrective Measure stages of the RFI/CMS.
Construction Quality Assurance for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities;
EPA/530-SW-85-031; July L986
Public guidance on construction quality assurance for hazardous waste
landfills, surface impoundments, and wastepiles.
Alternative Concentration Limit (ACL) Guidance; draft; OSW; December 1986
Provides guidance to owner/operators on how to develop the variance
application for an Alternate Concentration Limit in ground water
cleanups. It addresses data collection and analysis, exposure assessment
and other issues that are necessary to support the variance application.
Preamble to Closure Conforming Changes Final Rule -- 60 CFR 265.228; draft;
OSW; currently in OMB review
-- This rule amends the closure options for owner/operators of interim status
surface impoundments. Formerly, owner/operators could close a surface
impoundment as a storage unit and leave some waste in the unit if they
could demonstrate that the constituents were no longer hazardous under
Part 261. Under the conforming change, owner/operators of interim status
surface impoundments must either clean close or close as a land disposal
unit.
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods; OSWER;
SW-846; July 1982
-- Provides procedures that should be used to determine whether a waste is a
hazardous waste as defined by 40 CFR Part 261.
Chemical, Physical and Biological Properties of Compounds Present at Hazardous
Waste Sites; EPA/OWPE; September 1985
-- Provides detailed technical information on the physical and toxicological
properties of a wide range of chemicals. Such information should be
included in the RCRA Facility Investigation and should be used in
developing Corrective Measures.
-------
-3-
Mechods for Chemical An3lys_is_gf Wacer and ',>'a^:e; EPA/600/4-79-020; March 1979
Provides test procedures for monitoring waste discharge water supplies,
and ambient waters.
Toxicology Handbook -- Principles Related to Hazardous Waste Site
Investigations; EPA/OWPE; August 1985
Discusses toxicological principles. Intended as an aid for
non-toxicologists.
Proposed Amendments for Landfill, Surface Impoundments and Waste Pile Closures
(Hybrid Closure); draft; OSW; currently in OMB review
•
Will provide new standards for land disposal unit closure and may provide
a model for source removal under corrective action. The proposed approach
outlines the criteria which would enable owner/operators, under some
narrowly defined conditions, to leave limited quantities of hazardous
waste in the unit provided that such waste does not pose a threat to human
health and the environment. This approach would also allow some
owner/operators to obtain variances from the existing land disposal
closure standards such as cover requirements.
Guidance on Public Involvement in the RCRA Permitting Program; draft; OSW;
March 1986 •
Provides guidance on public involvement during permit modification.
Corrective measure selection will probably require a major permit
modification and necessitate public participation
National RCRA Corrective Action Strategy; draft; OWPE and OSW; October 1986
Outlines Agency's overall approach for implementing the new corrective
action provisions 3004(u), 3004(v), and 3008(h). The document discusses
the basic authorities for requiring corrective actions under permits and
enforcement orders, processes that will be used to investigate facilities
and select corrective measures, strategies for compelling owner/operators
to take corrective action, and the role of the states.
Final Codification Rule; 50 Federal Register 28702, July 15, 1985
-- The rule amends existing hazardous waste regulations to reflect those
statutory provisions of HSWA that have immediate or short-term effects on
the regulated community. The rule also adds Part 280 to incorporate the
interim requirements for underground storage tanks under new section
9003(g) of HSWA.
Proposed Codification Rule; 51 Federal Register 10706, March 28, 1986
This rule is a companion rule to the Final Codification Rule. It includes
provisions to implement the statutory requirement for double-liners and
corrective action beyond the facility property boundary.
-------
RSI :.:3: Agency Interpretation qf_ Sect Ion 300^. (u) : Corrective Act IOJT, _fqr
Continuing Releases; draft; OSWER; January 1985
Provides statutory interpretation of the 3004(u) authority. It describes
the types of information Regions/States should request from the
owner/opera to i- on SWMUs and potential releases at facilities subject to
corrective action. The owner/operator response includes identification of
SWMUs and their characteristics at RCRA facilities.
Interpretation of Section 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act; OWPE;
December 1985
-- This policy guidance discusses statutory authority, relationship to
permitting authority, and appropriate guidance documents. It generally
explains provisions of the statute.
Issuance of Administrative Orders Under Section 3013 of the Resource Conservati
on and Recovery Act; OSWER & OECM; September 1984
This memo provides guidance on the use of 3013 orders, the statutory
authority to require owner/operators to perform certain studies and
investigations. This memo addresses delegation of authority, criteria for
issuing an order, determination of the appropriate respondent, elements of
the order, review and discussion, of the owner/operatoirs proposal,
oversight, and enforcement. Model orders are attached as appendices.
Final Revised Guidance Memorandum on the Use and Issuance of Administrative
Orders under Section 7003 of RCRA; final, OECM, September 1984
-- Memorandum provides guidance to assist Regional offices in developing and
issuing Administrative Orders under RCRA section 7003. Memorandum
describes the scope of section 7003, decision criteria for selecting an
enforcement option, elements of an Administrative Order, Conference
procedures, modification, revocation, or stay of the Order, negotiation of
Orders, and delegation of authority. In addition, the memorandum provides
a sample state notification letter.
-------
CERCLA Guidance Documents
Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA; OERR & OWPE; May 1985
Provides detailed guidance on the information that should be collected in
performing a CERCLA Remedial Investigation. This document can be
consulted in performing the investigation portion of the RFI/CMS since
most of the RCRA Facility Investigation data needs are identical to those
in CERCLA.
Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual; draft; ; January 1986
Outlines a framework for a comprehensive, consistent, and appropriate
assessment of human exposure to contaminants from uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites. Provides an integrated methodology for assessing human
population exposure based on the three major component analyses required
for such assessment: (1) analysis of toxic contaminants released from a
site, (2) determination of the environmental fate of such contaminants,
and (3) evaluation of the nature and magnitude of human population
exposure to toxic contaminants.
Site Inspection Sampling Strategy for Supporting HRS Scoring; under
development; draft; OSWER; January 1986
This document guides the Site Inspection (SI) team in developing a
sampling plan that leads to an appropriate HRS score for the site. The
goal is to provide field staff with a framework of logic for developing a
sampling plan which will provide the data and analysis needed to support
the HRS.
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site Ranking System: A User's Manual; 50 Federal
Register 5910, February 12, 1985
-- This document describes the Hazardous Ranking System (HRS), the instrument
for evaluating a site's relative potential to threaten human health and
the environment. It also provides detailed instructions for using the HRS.
Field Standard Operating Procedures (FSOP)
Provides guidance in a cookbook format for various field activities. The
procedures are described in the following manuals: FSOP #4 -- Site Entry
(January 1985); FSOP #7 -- Decontamination of Response Personnel
(January 1985); FSOP #8 -- Air Surveillance (January 1985); FSOP #6 --
Work Zones (April 1985); and FSOP #9 -- Site Safety Plan (April 1985).
Quality Assurance/Field Operations Methods Manual; ; ;
Provides Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), quality assurance officers, and
States with a consolidated reference of all REM field procedures. This
manual also promotes consistent field procedures among all ten EPA Regions.
-------
Occupational Safety and Health Technical _A s_s_i stance and En for c em e nt G u i_de I _i n
-------
^°i> i-i§ Treatment Technologies for Su^erfuad Wastes ; EPA/5^0/2-36/003( f) ;
September 1986
Provides background information on mobile units providing thermal,
chemical, physical, or biological on-site treatment (including
immobilization). Discusses planning considerations and data requirements
in system use.
Policy on Flood Plains and Wetlands Assessment; ; August 1985
Discusses situations that require preparation of a flood plains or
wetlands assessment, and the factors that should be considered in
preparing an assessment for CERCLA response actions.
Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Development Workbook for RI/FS Activities;
draft; OERR; July 1986
Describes the four data quality levels used in sampling and analysis
activities performed under CERCLA and the criteria used to determine which
level is appropriate. The four levels range from field procedures to very
rigorous laboratory protocols.
User'? Guide to the Contract Laboratory Program; OERR; October 1984
Outlines requirements and analytical procedures for CLP protocols and
procedures for sample handling under CERCLA. •
Endangerment Assessment Handbook; EPA/OWPE; August 1985
Provides guidance on developing a CERCLA (or RCRA 7003) Endangerment
Assessment. The information presented might be useful in assessing health
and environmental effects in the RFI/CMS.
Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual; OERR; October 1986
Provides guidance on methods for public health evaluations that are
conducted as part of EPAs feasibility study process at CERCLA sites. The
manual specifically supports chapter 5 of the Guidance for Feasibility
Studies.
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance; February 1985
Provides guidance on developing remedial design and remedial alternative
screening and case studies which are largely applicable to the RFI/CMS.
The guidance is intended to be consistent with EPA's Ground Water
Protection Strategy and with RCRA.
Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites (Revised); EPA/625/6-85/006; 1985
Provides basic reference material on the design and implementation of
remedial action. Although the document is geared towards the CERCLA RI/FS
process, most of the material presented is directly applicable to the RCRA
Corrective Action Plan.
-------
Gu Lji.-'.nce on Reined Lai Actions for Contaminated Ground W^t-^r at Sap.srf'.ir'.-:l S L:q_s;
drafc; OERR; October 1986
Focuses on key decisions in the development, evaluation, and selection of
ground water remedial actions at Superfund sites. An emphasis is placed
on policy issues and the decision making process for ground water remedial
actions rather than technical issues.
Community Relations in'Superfund: A Handbook; draft; OERR; October 1986
This document provides guidance for community relations in the Superfund
Program. Its primary emphasis is to aid officials in planning and
implementing community relations activities. It sets forth policy
requirements for coordinating community relations activities at Supefund
sites and additional techniques and guidance that can be used to enhance
the basic requirements.
Federal-Lead Remedial Project Management Manual; draft; ;
-- Assists EPA Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) in managing Federal-lead
remedial response projects by describing procedures for and
responsibilities of the RPM during the planning, design, construction,
operation and close-out of remedial response projects.
State-Lead Remedial Project Management Manual; draft; ;
-- Assists EPA Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) in managing State-lead'
remedial response projects. This manual describes the responsibilities of
the RPM during the planning, design, construction, operation, and
close-out of remedial response projects.
National Contingency Plan (N'CP) 40 CFR Part 300
Provides the regulatory framework for implementing CERCLA. It outlines
the responsibilities and coordination of implementing agencies. It
describes regional and local plans and the response and remedial action
process for oil and hazardous substances. The NCP was revised in 1985 to
streamline the process and make other changes based on experience gained
from implementation and to make CERCLA consistent with other pertinent
Federal and State standards.
Discharge of Vastewater from CERCLA Sites into POTVs; joint memo from OERR and
OWPE to Waste and Water Management Division Directors;
This memo addresses the concerns and issues unique to POTWs that must be
evaluated prior to discharging CERCLA wastewater to a POTW.
Participation of Potentially Responsible Parties in Development of RIs and
FSs; OWPE; March 1984
-- This document sets forth policies and procedures governing the
participation of PRP's in the development of RI/FS under CERCLA,
-------
-9-
ip.cluding: circumstances in which RI/FS may be conducted by PRPs;
procedures for notifying PRPs when the Agency has identified target sites
for the development of RI/FS; and principles governing PRP participation
ia Agency-financed RI/FS.
Preparation of Decision Documents for Approving Fund-Financed and PRP Remedial
Actions Under CERCLA; OWPE; February 1985
Provides Regional offices with guidance for preparing decision documents
required for the approval of fund-financed and PRP remedial actions (e.g.,
a Record of Decision (ROD) which documents the Agency's decision-making
process and demonstrates that the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP have
been met).
Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual; ; September 1985
Provides guidance for preparing detailed feasibility cost estimates of
alternative remedial actions, and assists project managers and decision
makers in developing and evaluating cost estimates for alternative
remedial responses to uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances.
Removal Cost Management Manual; ; January 1985
Provides procedures for on-site personnel in performing cost-management
activities at Superfund removal sites.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DIRECTORY
Regional Services Staff (RD-674)
Office of Research Program Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
May 1986
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Technical Assistance Directory
The Office of Research and Development conducts an
Agency-wide integrated program of research and
development relevant to pollution sources and control,
transport and fate processes, health and ecological effects,
measurement and monitoring, and risk assessment. The
office rigorously disseminates its scientific and technical
knowledge and upon request provides technical reviews,
expert consultations, technical assistance and advice to
environmental decision makers in the federal, state, and
local governments.
The ORD implements its activities through its
Washington, DC headquarters' offices and seventeen
associated laboratories and field locations (see
organizational chart).
The programs, areas of expertise, and primary contacts
in each of the major ORD field operations are conveyed in
the following directory. These laboratory information
sheets are made available in an effort to improve
communication and technology transfer with our ORD
client.
In addition, information may be obtained from the
following operations offices in Washington, DC. ORD
publications may be requested from the Center for
Environmental Research Information in Cincinnati, OH.
Office of Health Research
Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects
Research
Office of Acid Deposition,
Environmental Monitoring and
Quality Assurance
Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment
Office of Research Program
Management
Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology
Office of Exploratory
Research
Center for Environmental
Research Information
Commercial
202-382-5900
202-382-5950
202-382-5767
202-382-7317
2.02-382-7500
202-382-2600
202-382-5750
513-569-7562
FTS
8-382-5900
8-382-5950
8-382-5767
8-382-7317
8-382-7500
8-382-2600
8-382-5750
8-684-7562
Clients are urged to contact the laboratories directly. If
help or coordination is needed to properly access the
laboratories' or headquarters' offices, directory assistance
can be easily obtained by contacting the Regional Services
Staff in Washington, DC on (CML) 202-382-7667 or (FTS)
8-382-7667.
-------
OFFICE OF RESEARCH
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
OPERATIONS
OFFICE
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF ACID DEPOSITION.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROGRAM
OPERATIONS
STAFF
QUALITY ASSURANCE
MANAGEMENT STAFF
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING
SYSTEMS DIVISION
ACID DEPOSITION
AND ATMOSPHERIC
RESEARCH DIVISION
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM
OPERATIONS STAFF
TECHNICAL
PROGRAMS DIVISION
OFFICE OF EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROCESSES AND EFFECTS
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
OPERATIONS STAFF
TOXICS AND
PESTICIDES DIVISION
WATER AND
LAND DIVISION
OFFICE OF HEALTH
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
OPERATIONS STAFF
AIR. NOISE AND
RADIATION HEALTH
RESEARCH DIVISION
WATER AND TOXIC
SUBSTANCES HEALTH
RESEARCH DIVISION
OFFICE OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
CANCER
ASSESSMENT
GROUP
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT GHbUP
REPRODUCTIVE
EFFECTS
ASSESSMENTS
GROUP
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING SYSTEMS
LABORATORY
Reseerch Triangle Pack. NC
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING AND
SUPPORT LABORATORY
Cincinnati. OH
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING SYSTEMS
LABORATORY
La> Veges. NV
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Research Triangle Park. NC
CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH INFORMATION
Cincinnati. OH
AIR AND ENERGY
ENGINEERING
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Research Triangle Park. NC
HAZARDOUS WASTE
ENGINEERING
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Cincinnati. OH
WATER ENGINEERING
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Cincinnati. OH
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Corvallii. OR
' ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Athens. GA
R.S. KERR
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Ada. OK
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Duluth. MN
HEALTH EFFECTS
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Research Triengle Park. NC
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Narragensett. Rl
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LABORATORY
Gull Breeie. FL
SUPPORT SERVICES
OFFICE
Research Triangle Park. NC
SUPPORT SERVICES
OFFICE
Cincinnati. OH
ENVIRONMENTAL
CRITERIA AND
ASSESSMENT OFFICE
Reseerch Triengle Perk. NC
ENVIRONMENTAL
CRITERIA AND
ASSESSMENT OFFICE
Cincinnati. OH
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
Thomas R. Mauser, Director
FTS: 684-7418
CML: 513-569-7418
26 W. St. Clair
Cincinnati, OH 45268
The Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
is responsible for the following major program areas:
HAZARDOUS WASTES: Develops techniques for defining
and characterizing solid and hazardous wastes, in order to
provide reliable bases for regulatory and permitting deci-
sions. Catalyzes advances in the state-of-the-art of solid
and hazardous waste treatment and disposal, to encourage
early commercialization of improved or lower cost control
methods.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (SUPERFUND): Develops
techniques for defining and characterizing uncontrolled
dump sites and releases of hazardous and other materials
(e.g., spills) in order to provide reliable bases for regulatory
decisions. Catalyzes advances in the state-of-the-art control
of releases from underground storage tanks and contain-
ment and clean-up methods for uncontrolled dump sites
and spills to encourage early commercialization of improved
or lower cost control methods.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
HWERL-Cincinnati, OH
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
DIVISION
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
BRANCH
CHEMICAL AND
BIOLOGICAL
DETOXIFICATION BRANCH
LAND POLLUTION CONTROL
DIVISION
CONTAINMENT
BRANCH
RELEASES CONTROL
BRANCH
-------
HWERL—CINCINNATI AREAS OF EXPERTISE
TELEPHONE*
Office of the Director
Thomas R. Mauser 7418
William A. Cawley 7896
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION
Clyde J. Dial 7528
Thermal Destruction Branch
E. Timothy Oppelt 7696
Donald A. Oberacker 7431
Robert E. Mournighan 7430
Myron Malanchuk 7881
Harry M. Freeman 7529
C.C. Lee 7520
George Huffman 7881
Benjamin L. Blaney 7519
Robert A. Olexsey 7717
Louis H. Garcia 7881
Laurel J. Staley 7881
Ronald J. Turner . 7775
Douglas W. Grosse 2621
H. Paul Warner 7293
Chemical and Biological Detoxification Branch
Albert J.KIee 7493
S. Garry Howell 7756
Charles J. Rogers 7757
Pasquale S. Sferra 7774
Brian A. Westfall 7755
Edward R. Bates 7774
LAND POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION
Ronald D. Hill 7861
Containment Branch
Norbert B. Schomaker 7871
Donald E. Sanning 7875
Carlton C. Wiles 7795
Robert E. Landreth 7836
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Control technology
Control technology
Control technology
Incineration, treatment of hazardous waste
Conventional and "at sea" incineration.
disposal of HW in boilers
Disposal of HW in kilns, Combustion
Research facility
Non-flame thermal destruction
Innovative technologies, HW minimization,
reuse
Plasma arc and HW treatment
data base, engineering analyses
Thermal destruction
mechanisms
Air emissions from treatment, storage and
disposal facilities, solvent wastes
Hazardous waste treatment technology
Microspray burners
Turbulent flame-reactor and control
temperature tower
Hazardous waste treatment,
performance evaluations, organic wastes
Pilot scale hazardous waste
treatment, metal wastes
Hazardous waste treatment residues,
corrosive wastes
Operations research and systems
analysis
Aqueous hazardous wastes, metals removal
In situ treatment of soils, chemical detoxificat
Photochemical
In situ biological detoxification
Vegetative
Pesticide disposal
Oil shale
Control technology, mining
Land disposal. RCRA facilities.
municipal solid waste
Uncontrolled waste sites, containment
technology, in situ treatment, thermal
fusion (vitrification), dioxin
Impoundments, encapsulation/overpacking.
stabilization/fixation, stabilization
process, underground mines
Landfill liners, landfill design and
operation, pollutant control, flexible
membrane liner, compatibility testing
-------
Mike H. Roulier
Walter E. Grube
Robert Hartley
Naomi Barkley
Janet Houthoofd
Steve James
Jon Herrmann
Herbert Pahren
Edward Opatken
Ronald Lewis
Paul de Percin
Eugene Harris
Douglas Ammon
Mary Ann Curren
Releases Control Branch
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Ira Wilder
Frank Freestone
John S. Farlow
Michael Gruenfeld
Richard Traver
John Brugger
Anthony Tafuri
James Yezzi
Mary Stinson
Michael Royer
TELEPHONE*
7795
7795
7838
7854
7863
7877
7839
7874
7855
7856
7797
7862
7876
7837
201-321-6635'
"8-340-6635
8-340-6632
8-340-6634
8-340-6625
8-340-6631
8-340-6634
8-340-6604
8-340-6703
8-340-6683
8-340-6633
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Clay liners, waste leaching.
pollutant migration
Soils chemistry, barriers (slurry walls),
bottom sealing, soil liners
Covers
Plume management, building and
equipment, decontamination
Waste storage, freezing technology,
freezing
Leachate control and treatment, fugitive
dust control, toxic and flammable gases
Permeable treatment walls, electrokinetics
Grouting, grouts
Thermoplastics, town gas works sites
Biodegradation
Volatile emissions, all monitoring/
modeling
Mining sites
Remedial action modeling, remedial
investigation/feasibility study process,
remedial action costs
Flexible membrane liners
Spills, Environmental emergency
response unit
Mobile treatment, on-site technology
Spills, floating spills, precipitation
Treatment chemistry
Flushing, delivery and recovery methods,
underwater protective clothing, mobile
in-situ containment/treatment system
Sorption, EPA-developed on-site
treatment/control technologies
(mobile soil washer, mobile carbon
regenerator, etc.)
Ion exchange, chemical treatment
Incineration technology
Commercially developed on-site
treatment technologies
Protective clothing and equipment,
avoidance procedures, personal
hazard detection
*FTS: 684-xxxx, CML: 513-569-xxxx
**Main Commercial Number for Edison, NJ; No FTS number.
-------
WATER ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
F.T. Mayo, Director
FTS: 684-7951
CML: 513-569-7951
26 W. St. Clair
Cincinnati, OH 45268
The Water Engineering Research Laboratory is
responsible for the following major program areas:
WATER QUALITY: Treatment levels for sludge prior to
ocean dumping; treatment levels for wastewater
discharged through ocean outfalls.
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER: Innovative and alternative
technology; small wastewater flows and information
dissemination; sludge processing, conversion, and land
application; plant operation, design and upgrading;
evaluation of new wastewater treatment processes; toxic
pollutant control at POTWs.
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER: Evaluation of wastewater
treatment methods for water quality standards;
development of toxicity reduction protocols and manuals
for industries not yet addressed.
DRINKING WATER: Control and removal of physical and
chemical contaminants, including organics, inorganics and
particulates; prevention of water quality deterioration
during storage and distribution; control and prevention of
microbiological contaminants; improve water supply and
treatment management practices.
PESTICIDES: Develop and evaluate protective clothing and
equipment for use in preventing pesticide exposure.
TOXICS: Alternatives to mitigate chemical release and
exposure; develop predictive capabilities to assess PMNs
for new chemicals; assess physical, chemical and
biological techniques and devices for genetically
engineered organisms, asbestos environmental control
measures.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
WERL Cincinnati. OH
DRINKING WATER
RESEARCH DIVISION
MICROBIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT BRANCH
INORGANICS AND
PARTICULATES
CONTROL BRANCH
ORGANICS
CONTROL BRANCH
SYSTEMS AND COST
EVALUATION STAFF
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
AND TOXICS
TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
CHEMICALS AND
CHEMICAL
PRODUCTS BRANCH
MANUFACTURING AND
SERVICE INDUSTRIES
BRANCH
WASTEWATER
RESEARCH DIVISION
SYSTEMS AND
ENGINEERING
EVALUATION BRANCH
TECHNOLOGY
ASSESSMENT BRANCH
-------
WERL—CINCINNATI AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Office of the Director
FT. Mayo
L. W. Lefke
DRINKING WATER RESEARCH DIVISION
Robert M. Clark.
Edwin E. Geldreich
Microbiological Treatment Branch
Gary Logsdon
John Hoff
Don Reasoner
Inorganics and Particulates Control Branch
Tom Sorg
Marvin Gardels
Organics Control Branch
Alan Stevens
Richard Miltner
Systems and Cost Evaluation Staff
Ben Lykins
INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT AND
TOXICS TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Alden G. Christiansen
Chemicals and Chemical Products Branch
Clyde Dempsey
Ken Dostal
Dave Watkins
Manufacturing and Service Industries Branch
Roger C. Wilmoth
John Burckle
William Cain
S. Jackson Hubbard
WASTEWATER RESEARCH DIVISION
John Convery
Lewis Rossman
Systems and Engineering Branch
Carl A. Brunner
James Kreissl
Joe Farrell
Jim Ryan
Richard Brenner
Albert Venosa
Frank Evans
Technology Assessment Branch
Fred Bishop
Walter Schuk
Atal Eralp
TELEPHONE*
795 T
7953
7201
7232
7345
7331
7234
7370
7217
7342
7403
7460
7406
7504
7503
7547
7509
7506
7559
7507
7601
7603
7655
7641
7645
7653
7657
7668
7610
7629
2828*
2828*
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Control technology
Control technology
Treatment and system costs
Microbiological trea'tment
Filtration and corrosion
Disinfection
Home treatment devices
Inorganics removal and corrosion
Corrosion
Organic chemistry and treatment
Organics control engineering
Cost evaluation, organics field
evaluation
Industrial processes and treatment
Industrial release and prevention
Industrial treatment
Chemical reactions, wastes
Asbestos, mining, industrial treatment
Smelting, Biotech engineering processes
Asbestos
Mining
Wastewater treatment
Optimization theory, water resources
planning
Wastewater treatment
Small flows, I and A
Municipal sludge treatment and disposal
Land disposal (metal, crop, soil interaction)
Biological treatment processes
Disinfection, microbiology
Compliance achievement
Toxics control, wastewater analysis
Instrumentation
Test and Evaluation Facility
*FTS: 684-xxxx, CML: 513-569-xxxx
**FTS: 684-xxxx; CML: 513-684-xxxx
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
John C. Puzak, Acting Director
FTS: 629-2106
CML: 919-541-2106
(MD-75)
Research Triangle Park, NC
27711
The Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory is
responsible for the following program areas:
METHODS DEVELOPMENT: Develop and improve
monitoring systems for measuring air pollutants in
ambient air and stationary sources.
EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM: Implement the ambient air
monitoring equivalency regulations.
QUALITY ASSURANCE: Develop guidance documents for
assuring the quality of air pollution measurements;
standardize methods and work with NBS in developing
primary standards.
PERSONAL EXPOSURE MONITORING: Develop methods
for assessment of personal exposure to air pollutants in
ambient air and indoor air; conduct special studies to
identify air pollution problems and to evaluate exposure
models.
ACID RAIN: Develop methods and quality assurance
materials for measuring dry and wet deposition; operate
•pilot monitoring networks and serve as the data repository
for national acid rain monitoring program.
TOXICS: Develop methods for measuring toxic air
pollutants in ambient air and around toxic waste sites;
conduct special air monitoring studies to assess the nature
and amount of pollution.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
EMSL-Retearch Triangle Park. NC
I
QUALITY ASSURANCE
DIVISION
METHODS
STANDARDIZATION
BRANCH
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION BRANCH
SOURCE BRANCH
MONITORING AND
ASSESSMENT DIVISION
DESIGN AND REPORTS
BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING BRANCH
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT BRANCH
METHODS DEVELOPMENT
AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
ANALYTICAL SUPPORT
BRANCH
METHODS
DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
-------
EMSL-RTP AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Office of the Director
John C. Puzak
Steven M. Bromberg
QUALITY ASSURANCE DIVISION
John B. Clements
Darryl J. von Lehmden
Methods Standardization Branch
Larry J. Purdue
Frank McElroy
Michael Beard
Performance Evaluation Branch
William J. Mitchell
Raymond C. Rhodes
Source Branch
Rodney Midgett
Tom Logan
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT DIVISION
Gerald G. Akiand
David Mage
Design and Reports Branch
Charles E. Rodes
Jack Suggs
Dave Holland
Terrence Fitz-Simons
Gary Evans
Environmental Monitoring Branch
Thomas A. Hartlage
Barry Martin
Information Management Branch
Thomas C. Lawless
METHODS DEVELOPMENT AND
ANALYSIS DIVISION
Robert E. Lee
Don Scott
Analytical Support Branch
Joseph Walling
Warren Loseke
Joe Bumgarner
Methods Development Branch
Robert G. Lewis
Robert Harless
Nancy Wilson
William McClenny
James Mulik
Richard Paur
TELEPHONE* AREA OF EXPERTISE
2106 Air pollution monitoring
2919 Acid deposition, indoor air quality
2188 Quality assurance
2415 QA handbook, traceability protocols
2665 Methods evaluation, standardization
2622 Equivalent methods
2623 Asbestos
2769 Performance audits
2574 QA statistics, quality control
2196 Source methods
2580 Source monitoring and QA
2346 Exposure assessment statistics
3184 Exposure assessment
3079 Particle monitoring
2791 Statistics and design
3126 Statistics and design
2792 Statistics and design
3124 Monitoring design
3008 Air monitoring
4386. Air monitoring
2291 Computer systems
2454 Methods development
7948 Chemometrics
7954 Chemical analysis
2173 Inorganics analysis
2430 Organic analysis
3065 Methods development
2248 Dioxin
4723 Analytical methods development
3158 Monitoring methods development
3067 Ion chromatography
3131 Ozone, acid rain methods
*FTS: 629-xxxx, CML: 919-541-xxxx
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
Robert L. Booth, Director
FTS: 684-7301
CML: 513-569-7301
26 W. St. Clair
Cincinnati, OH 45268
The EMSL—Cincinnati is responsible for the following
major program areas.
WATER QUALITY: Standardized biomonitoring methods
and effluent toxicity tests; quality assurance (QA) samples
for ambient/non-point source monitoring programs.
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER: Validated analytical test
methods for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) monitoring; performance evaluation (PE)
studies for discharge monitoring reports.
DRINKING WATER: Official chemical and microbiological
methods for meeting regulatory monitoring requirements
of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); certification of
laboratories and distribution of QA materials.
TOXICS: Evaluation of analytical methods for key toxic
organic materials and preparation of specialized QA
materials.
SOLID WASTE: Evaluation and standardization of solid
waste (SW)-846 methods and generic methods for the
measurement of volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds; preparation and distribution of QA materials
for Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and groundwater
monitoring.
SUPERFUND: Development of analytical methods for the
measurement of toxic materials in Superfund-type
samples and QA materials for evaluation of contract
laboratory program (CLP) laboratories.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
EMSL-CINCINNATI
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
METHODS BRANCH
INORGANIC ANALYSES SECTION
ADVANCED INSTRUMENTATION
SECTION
ORGANIC ANALYSES SECTION
SAMPLING AND FIELD
MEASUREMENTS SECTION
BIOLOGICAL METHODS
BRANCH
VIROLOGY SECTION
MICROBIOLOGY SECTION
AQUATIC BIOLOGY
SECTION
QUALITY ASSURANCE
BRANCH
EVALUATION SECTION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SECTION
10
-------
EMSL-CINCINNATI AREAS OF EXPERTISE
TELEPHONE*
Office of the Director
Robert Booth 7301
Thomas Clark 7301
Terry Covert 7301
Physical and Chemical Methods Branch
James Lichtenberg 7306
Inorganic Analyses Section
Gerald McKee 7372
Theodore Martin 7312
Otis Evans 7307
John Pfaff 7307
Advanced Instrumentation Section
William Budde 7309
Ann Alford-Stevens 7330
James Eichelberger 7278
Organic Analyses Section
James Longbottom 7308
Fred Kawahara 7313
Sampling and Field Measurements Section
Joseph Roesler 7286
Biological Methods Branch
Cornelius Weber 7337
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Methods and quality assurance (QA)
Methods and QA
Alternate test procedures
Chemical methods
Inorganic chemistry
Metals
Polargraphy tests
Laboratory certification
Advanced instrumentation
Dioxin
High resolution gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer
Organic chemistry
Oil spills/petroleum chemistry
Sampling/flow measurement
Biological methods
Microbiology Section
Robert Bordner
Virology Section
Robert Safferman
Aquatic Biology Section
William Horning
Quality Assurance Branch
John Winter
Paul Brirton
Evaluation Section
Harold Clements
Project Management Section
Edward Berg
7319 Microbiology
7334 Virology
FTS: 778-8350 Aquatic biology/toxicity tests
CML: 513-527-8350
7325 QA matters
7325 Performance evaluation (PE) studies
7325 Quality control (QC)/PE samples
7325 Methods standardization
*FTS: 684-xxxx, CML: 513-569-xxxx
11
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
E.W. Bretthauer, Director
FTS: 545-2525
CML: 702-798-2525
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas, NV 89114
The Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las
Vegas, is responsible for the following major program
areas:
OXIDANTS, GASES AND PARTICLES: Technical support
and development for oxidant and GAP field studies,
especially airborne lidar for oxidant transport and
development studies; regional visibility impairment studies
and visibility monitoring methods development.
ACID DEPOSITION: Establishment of analytical
methodologies, protocols and services for analyses of
surface water and soil samples for assessing effects of
acidic deposition; establishment of a comprehensive
QA/QC program for the National Surface Water Survey
and ensure data of known quality from the National Soil
Survey.
WATER QUALITY, DRINKING WATER: Development and
technical support applications of aerial and satellite remote
sensing for water quality monitoring; site specific field
evaluation of stream monitoring techniques.
HAZARDOUS WASTE. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES:
Development and evaluation of geophysical and overhead
remote sensing technology for subsurface and surface
waste site characterization and for technical support for
Superfund site assessments.
RADIATION QA, OFF-SITE RADIATION SAFETY: Providing
radionuclide standards and reference materials and
assisting radiation labs in development and maintenance
of a QA/QC program; conducting a comprehensive
environmental monitoring and safety program in support of
DOE nuclear weapons testing activities.
CHEMICAL TESTING AND ASSESSMENT, PESTICIDES:
Development of QA guidelines and evaluation/
development of methods for the analysis of xenobiotics in
waste media; development of guidelines for the field
testing (validation) of soil fate and transport models;
development of monitoring and statistical methods to
estimate human multi-media exposure.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
EMSL-Las Vegas
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
RESEARCH DIVISION
ADVANCED MONITORING
SYSTEMS DIVISION
AQUATIC AND
SUBSURFACE
MONITORING BRANCH
REMOTE AND AIR
MONITORING BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL PHOTO-
GRAPHIC INTERPRETATION
CENTER
NUCLEAR RADIATION
ASSESSMENT DIVISION
DOSE ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
FIELD MONITORING
BRANCH
RADIOANALYSIS
BRANCH
QUALITY ASSURANCE
DIVISION
HAZARDOUS WASTE
METHODS EVALUATION
BRANCH
TOXICS AND HAZARDOUS
WASTE OPERATIONS
BRANCH
PESTICIDES AND
RADIATION QUALITY
ASSURANCE BRANCH
12
-------
EMSL-LAS VEGAS AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Office of the Director
Robert N. Snelling
Office of Program Management and Support
Walter E. Petrie
James G. Payne, Jr.
QUALITY ASSURANCE DIVISION
Ronald K. Mitchum
Ross K. Robeson
David G. Easterly
Toxics and Hazardous Waste Operations Branch
J. Gareth Pearson
Hazardous Waste Methods Evaluation Branch
Stephen Billets
Pesticides and Radiation Quality Assurance Branch
Radiation Quality Assurance Section
Arthur N. Jarvis
Pesticides Quality Assurance Section
G. Wayne Sovocool
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT RESEARCH DIVISION
Eugene P. Meier
James W.Mullins
ADVANCED MONITORING SYSTEMS DIVISION
Donald T.Wruble
Robert E. Crowe
Remote and Air Monitoring Branch
Robert W. Landers, Jr.
Aquatic and Subsurface Monitoring Branch
Leslie G. McMillion
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(Warrenton, VA)
Vernard H. Webb
NUCLEAR RADIATION ASSESSMENT DIVISION
Office of the Director
Charles F. Costa
Allan E. Smith
John L. Connolly
Field Monitoring Branch
John S. Coogan
Radioanalysis Branch
Daryl L.Thome
Radiochemistry Section
Robert W. Holloway
Dose Assessment Branch
Stuart C. Black •
Dosimetry Section
Robert G. Patzer
Data Analysis Section
Frank Grossman
TELEPHONE* AREA OF EXPERTISE
2522 Environmental monitoring
2564 Program management
2564 Program management, radiation safety,
engineering
2103 Physical organic chemistry, spectroscopy
2103 Program analyst, chemistry
2108 Chemistry, radiation QA
2383 Environmental biology QA
2232 Physical analytical chemistry, spectroscopy
2134 Radiation QA
2212 Organic chemistry, spectroscopy
2201 Analytical environmental chemistry
2207 Analytical radiochemistry
2237 Environmental science
2237 Water quality
2260 Remote sensing
2368 Ground water monitoring
557-3110** Remote sensing
2305 Radiation safety
2304 Radiation safety
2351 Radiation safety
2358 Radiation safety
2158 Gamma spectrometry, mathematical
statistics
2325 Radiochemistry
2556 Radiation biology and QA
2324 Human dosimetry
2331 Data validation
*FTS: 545-xxxx; CML: 702-798-xxxx
**FTS: 557-xxxx; CML: 703-557-xxxx
13
-------
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
A.H. Ellison, Director
FTS: 629-2191
CML: 919-541-2191
The Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory is
responsible for the following major program areas:
GAS AND PARTICLES: Urban, regional, complex terrain,
and source apportionment air quality model development,
evaluation and validation; materials damage and visibility
studies; air quality model documentation (UNAMAP).
OXIDANTS: Urban and regional atmospheric ozone model
development, evaluation, and validation; laboratory photo-
chemical studies.
ACID DEPOSITION: Assess related atmospheric processes
to model and to evaluate acid rain, acid deposition, and acid
transport and transformation over urban and regional
scales; materials damage function studies.
(MD-59)
Research Triangle Park, NC
27711
MOBILE SOURCES: Characterize the regulated and un-
regulated emissions from motor vehicles; assess the impact
of mobile emissions on air quality.
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS: Assess the sources.
sinks, transport, formation, removal, reaction products, and
ultimate fate of HAPs and HAPs precursors in the atmos-
phere.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
ASRL-Research Triangle Park. NC
EMISSIONS
MEASUREMENT AND
CHARACTERIZATION
DIVISION
I I
ATMOSPHERIC
CHEMISTRY
AND PHYSICS DIVISION
METEOROLOGY AND
ASSESSMENT DIVISION
REGIONAL FIELD
STUDIES OFFICE
14
-------
ASRL—RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Office of the Director
Alfred M. Ellison
Jack H. Shreffler
EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT AND
CHARACTERIZATION DIVISION
William E. Wilson
Kenneth T. Knapp
Frank M. Black
Fred H. Haynie
ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND
PHYSICS DIVISION
Basil Dimitriades
Joseph J. Bufalini
Robert K. Stevens
Jack Durham
METEOROLOGY AND ASSESSMENT DIVISION
Francis A. Schiermeier
John F. Clarke
Peter L. Finkelstein
D. Bruce Turner
James L. Dicke
William H. Snyder
Joan H. Noyak
REGIONAL FIELD STUDIES OFFICE
William E. Wilson
TELEPHONE*
2191
2191
2551
3085
3037
2535
2706
2442
3156
2183
4541
3660
4551
4564
5381
2811
4545
2551
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Atmospheric processes
Atmospheric processes
Visibility, aerosol chemistry
Stationary sources
Mobile sources
Material damage
Photochemistry, ozone
Gas kinetics
Source apportionment
Acid deposition
Meteorological modeling
Model development
Complex terrain modeling
UNAMAP
Regulatory use of models
Wind tunnel
Data base management
Visibility, aerosol chemistry
*FTS: 629-xxxx, CML: 91 9-541-xxxx
15
-------
AIR AND ENERGY ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
F.T. Princiotta, Director
FTS: 629-2821
CML: 919-541-2821
(MD-60)
Research Triangle Park, NC
27711
AEERL is responsible for studying energy and industrial
pollution sources in the following major program areas:
OXIDANTS: Combustion modification and control of
nitrogen oxides -from utility boilers, industrial process
equipment and boilers, reciprocating and turbine engines,
commercial/residential combustion equipment, etc.;
assessment of volatile organic compound sources (VOCs),
and development of VOC control technologies.
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS: Assessment and control
of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) sources and of indoor air
pollutants; development of improved wood stove designs;
and source assessments and control technology
developments, for the EPA Integrated Air Cancer Project.
CASES AND INHALABLE PARTICULATES: Development
of third-generation, low-cost, retrofittable technologies for
the control of sulfur oxides and particulates in flue gases,
organic acid enhancement of wet flue gas desulfurization,
dry scrubbing and coal cleaning for sulfur oxide control,
and other new low-cost SO „ control technologies (e.g., E-
SOX ): electrostatic precipitation, fabric filtration and novel
devices for the control of particulates.
HAZARDOUS WASTE: Provide fundamental combustion
support to the Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, including droplet atomization of liquid wastes.
failure modes in a small pilot-scale rotary kiln, and small
pilot-scale studies of fluidized-bed incineration, all using
surrogate hazardous wastes.
MULTIMEDIA: Development of Limestone Injection
Multistage Burner (LIMB) process, a retrofittable
combustion modification technology for simultaneous
removal of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, expected to
be important in the mitigation of acid rain precursors;
assessment of advanced processes for energy production,
such as synthetic fuels, and support of regional
assessments of the impacts on the environment of
initiating such processes.
ENERGY - ACID RAIN: Participation in the National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program; assessment of control
technologies suitable for mitigating acid rain precursors;
development of predictive models and emissions
inventories n'ecessary to assess the extent of the national
problem.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
AEERL-Research Triangle Parfc.NC
EANING
SION
SIGNS
GY BRANCH
:ULATE
GY BRANCH
COMBUSTION
AND ENERGY
DIVISION
COMBUSTION
RESEARCH BRANCH
ADVANCED
PROCESSES BRANCH
I
ENGINEERING >
DIVIS
LIMB DEVE
BRAC
LIMB APPL
BRAI\
HAZARDOUS AIR
TECHNOLOGY BRANCH
16
-------
AEERL-RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Office of the Director
Frank Princiotta
Alfred B. Craig
GAS CLEANING DIVISION
Bill Plyler
Mike Maxwell
Gene Tucker
Norm Plaks
COMBUSTION AND ENERGY DIVISION
Bob Hangebrauck
Kelly Janes
Bob Hall
ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS DIVISION
Jim Abbott
Blair Martin
Dick Stern
Dennis Drehmel
Technical Support Office
Jim Dorsey
TELEPHONE' AREA OF EXPERTISE
2821 Air and energy environmental assessment
and control technology development
2821 Air and energy environmental assessment
and control technology development
2918 Gas cleaning control technologies;
hazardous air pollutant assessment and
control technologies
3091 Acid rain modeling, coal cleaning and
inventories: SO* control
2746 HAPS assessment ana control; VOCs control
technologies and painting and finishing
operations
3084 Participate and aerosol assessment
and controls
4134 Combustion modification control
technology and synthetic fuels research
2852 Coal gasification, direct/indirect
liquefaction; synfuel plant
2477 Combustion emission modeling
and control
3443 Control technology for simultaneous
removal of NO x , and SO x , fundamental
sorbent reactivity/kinetics
7504 Control technology for simultaneous
removal of NO x and SO „ , low NO „
burners
2973 Limestone Injection Multistage Burner
(LIMB) demonstration
7505 LIMB; low NO x burners; sulfur capture
2509 Sampling, monitoring, and analysis
*FTS: 629-xxxx, CML; 919-541-xxxx
17
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
T.A. Murphy, Director
FTS: 420-4601
CML: 503-757-4601
200 S.W.35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
MULTIMEDIA/'ENERGY: Conduct research on impacts of
acid precipitation; manage EPA's research on the effects of
acid precipitation, including crops, drinking water, surface
water and forests; define environmental impacts of energy
development and atmospheric pollution in arctic and
subarctic ecosystems and identify appropriate mitigation
measures.
OXIDANTS: Conduct comprehensive research program on
impact of air pollutants on natural and managed terrestrial
ecosystems, especially agricultural crops and forests.
TOXICS: Develop methods to validate existing toxicology
tests to assure their ability to predict effect on field
populations; determine effects of toxic chemicals on
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and functions; develop
methods to predict ability of sediment-based contaminants
to adversely impact aquatic systems; develop methods and
data to assess effects of biotechnology products on
terrestrial ecosystems.
PESTICIDES: Develop or improve bioassay methodologies
for determining the effects of microbiological pest control
agents on or in non-target receptors or hosts; conduct field
validation studies to determine if laboratory-derived
methods and results reflect environmental responses
under natural pesticide use conditions.
WATER QUALITY: Develop improved methods for
assessing the biological effects of contaminated sediment
on freshwater ecosystems and determine need for
sediment criteria; develop procedures to assess biological
integrity of freshwater ecosystems and define attainable
uses given background contamination levels in the
aquatic/terrestrial environs.
HAZARDOUS WASTE: Develop and evaluate a multimedia
bioassay screening protocol to indicate the biological
hazard associated with contaminated soils, water and
sediments; determine the potential for dioxin accumulation
in plants, fish and animals consumed by man to define
potential biomagnification in food chain systems.
SUPERFUND: Provide field guides and reference manuals
to describe major environmental processes and effects
which will impact decisions regarding containment and
cleanup of hazardous waste and provide technical
assistance based on manual information.
SPECIAL FACILITIES: State-of-the-art computerized
mapping, bird and mammal bioassay facilities, waterfowl
ponds, aquatic bioassay facilities, experimental streams
and ponds, plant growth chambers, greenhouses, outdoor
terrestrial exposure chambers, terrestrial microcosm.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
ERL-Corvallis. OR
TOXICS/PESTICIDES
BRANCH
AIR
BRANCH
HAZARDOUS
WASTE/WATER
BRANCH
18
-------
ERL-CORVALLIS AREAS OF EXPERTISE
TELEPHONE*
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Air Branch
M. Robbins Church
William E. Hogsett
Robert T. Lackey
Eric P. Preston
David T. Tingey
Parker J. Wigington
Hazardous Waste and Water Branch
Clarence A. Callahan
Joseph C. Greene
D. Phillip Larsen
William E. Miller
Alan V. Nebeker
James M. Omernik
Gerald S. Schuytema
Mostafa A. Shirazi
Toxics and Pesticides Branch
John L. Armstrong
Richard S. Bennett
J. Craig McFarlane
Paul T. Rygiewicz
Ramon J. Seidler
Bill A. Williams
4791 Limnology
4632 Air pollution effects on vegetation
4806 Acid rain effects, aquatic/terrestrial ecology
4636 Forest ecology
4621 Air pollution effects on vegetation
4640 Hydrology
4666** Soil invertebrate ecology
4776 Aquatic toxicology
4666** Lake/stream ecology
4776 Chemistry/aquatic toxicology
4875 Aquatic toxicology
4666** Geography/cartography
4764 Invertebrate taxonomy/toxicology
4666** Systems ecology
4638 Molecular genetics
4582 Wildlife ecology/toxicology
4670 Plant physiology
4833 Plant ecology
4661 Microbial ecology/biotechnology
4679 Wildlife physiology/toxicology
*FTS: 420-xxxx. CML: 503-757-xxxx
**CML: 503-753-6221
19
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
R.C. Russo, Director
FTS: 250-3134
CML: 404-546-3134
College Station Road
Athens, GA30613
The Athens Environmental Research Laboratory
conducts and manages fundamental and applied research
to predict and assess the human and environmental
exposures and risk associated with conventional and toxic
pollutants in water and soil. Major program areas include:
WATER QUALITY: Develop and refine mathematical
models for exposure assessment, pollutant fate, and
wasteload allocation; define mechanisms controlling
transport and transformation of organics and metals in
surface water; develop water quality assessment models
and basin planning management techniques including
design and evaluation of Best Management Practices;
develop knowledge-based expert systems for prediction of
pollutant properties and behavior.
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER: Identify and measure
chemical and biological properties of toxic pollutants in
industrial and municipal effluent; apply computer
identification techniques to gas chromatography-mass
spectrometry; develop knowledge-based expert systems
for pollutant identification.
TOXIC CHEMICAL TESTING AND ASSESSMENT: Develop
mathematical expressions to describe chemical and
biological processes, such as sunlight or microbial
transformation of contaminants in water; develop risk
assessment and ecological exposure analysis models;
develop wasteload allocation models and exposure
assessment models for pollutant runoff and leaching;
perform microcosm research and data analysis for
chemical fate and effects studies.
PESTICIDES: Develop predictive models of pesticide
migration through saturated and unsaturated soil zones to
perform exposure and risk assessments for terrestrial and
aquatic organisms; develop surface and ground water
threat models from pollutant runoff and leaching; develop
mathematical expressions to describe processes that
transform toxic chemicals in water and sediment.
HAZARDOUS WASTE: Develop ecological risk
assessment methodology for hazardous waste
management; develop multimedia environmental and
human exposure assessment techniques for toxic organics
and metals; describe organic and inorganic pollutant
interactions in water, soil, and sediments.
SPECIAL FACILITIES/RESEARCH TOOLS: Center for
Water Quality Modeling (distribution and maintenance of
computer programs and training and assistance for users)
and aquatic channel microcosms (indoor facilities for
examining chemical pollutant fate and testing exposure
analysis models).
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
ERL-Athens. GA
I
CHEMISTRY BRANCH
BIOLOGY BRANCH
MEASUREMENTS BRANCH
I
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
20
-------
ERL-AtHENS AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Office of the Director
Rosemarie C. Russo
George L. Baughman
Chemistry Branch
Arthur W. Garrison
Leo V. Azarraga
George W. Bailey
Samuel W. Karickhoff
J. MacArthur Long
Robert V. Moore
N. Lee Wolfe
Richard G. Zepp
Biology Branch
Harvey W. Holm
Donald L. Brockway
Lawrence A. Burns
Ray R. Lassiter
David L. Lewis
Doris F. Paris
John E. Rogers
Measurements Branch
William T. Donaldson
James J. Ellington •
Heinz P. Kollig
John M. McGuire
Frank E. Stancil
William C. Steen
Alfred D. Thruston, Jr.
Assessment Branch
Robert R. Swank, Jr.
Robert B. Ambrose, Jr.
Thomas 0. Barnwell, Jr.
David S. Brown
Robert F. Carsel
Fred K. Fong
Lee A. Mulkey
William R. Payne
Regional/State Contact
Robert C. Ryans
*FTS: 250-xxxx, CML: 404-546-xxxx
TELEPHONE*
3134
3430
3145
3453
3307
3149
3582
3770
3429
3428
3103
3422
3511
3501
3358
3469
3592
3183
3197
3447
3185
3447
3188
3552
3476
3476
3175
3310
3565
3138
3138
3197
3306
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Ammonia/nitrite toxicity to
aquatic organisms
Transformation of pollutants in water
Organic chemical analysis
Molecular spectroscopy, metals speciation
Pollutant colloid activity, soil chemistry
Environmental process modeling
Asbestos analysis, electron microscopy
Inorganic analysis, neutron activation
Hydrolytic/redox reactions in water
Aquatic photochemistry
Environmental microbiology
Aquatic biology, fish toxicology
Exposure-effects modeling, ecology
Exposure-effects modeling, ecology
Microbial ecology, biotransformation processes
Microbial kinetics, structure-activity
Microbial kinetics, biochemistry, ecology
Organic ID, transformation rate measurement
Comprehensive organic analysis
Chemical kinetic constant measurement
Mass spectrometry, organic identification
Chemical kinetic constant measurement
Microbial kinetic constant measurement
Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry
Industrial waste treatment, multimedia
modeling
Water quality and risk assessment modeling
Water quality modeling
Metals speciation, soil transformation
processes
Pesticide and groundwater leaching
modeling
Mass transport modeling
Hazardous waste management, pesticides,
exposure
Pesticides analysis
21
-------
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Clinton W. Hall, Director
FTS: 743-2426
CML: 405-332-8800
P.O. Box 1198
Ada. OK 74820
The Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
is responsible for the following major program areas:
DRINKING WATER: Determination of the fate, transport
and transformation rates and mechanisms of pollutants in
the subsurface environment for the protection of ground
water from pollution by municipal, industrial and
agricultural activities.
HAZARDOUS WASTES: Determination of the processes
used in characterizing the subsurface and prediction of the
effects of pollutants thereon in order to define the
capabilities and limitations of natural processes to degrade
and attenuate wastes in land treatment systems.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
RSKERL-Ada. OK
PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS
RESEARCH DIVISION
SUBSURFACE PROCESSES
BRANCH
SUBSURFACE SYSTEMS
BRANCH
EXTRAMURAL ACTIVITIES
AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION
EXTRAMURAL ACTIVITIES AND
ASSISTANCE "BRANCH
APPLICATIONS AND
ASSISTANCE BRANCH
22
-------
RSKERL AREAS OF EXPERTISE
PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS DIVISION
Office of the Director
Jack W. Keeley
Subsurface Processes Branch
William J. Dunlap
Dermott Bouchard
Don Clark
Bert Bledsoe
Michael Henson
Don Kampbell
Marvin Piwoni
John Wilson
Roger Cosby
Garmon Smith
Lynn Wood
Dave Walters
Robert Smith
Subsurface Systems Branch
Carl Enfield
Frank Beck
Thomas Short
Fred Pfeffer
John Matthews
EXTRAMURAL ACTIVITIES AND
ASSISTANCE DIVISION
Office of the Director
H. George Keeler
Extramural Activities and Assistance Branch
James F. McNabb
R. Douglas Kreis
Bobby D. Newport
Applications and Assistance Branch
M. Richard Scalf
Leon H. Myers
Jerry Thornhill
Joe Keely
Lowell E. Leach
TELEPHONE*
210
314
321
311
324
420
332
262
259
320
316
304
261
248
334
246
234
305
233
212
216
303
201
308
202
310
313
333
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Aquifer restoration
Contaminant sources
HPLC analysis
Inorganics chemistry
Trace metals analysis
Anaerobic microbiology
GC/MS organics
Abiotic effects
Microcosms
Trace organics
GC/MS organics
Soils characterization
Plants
Biological analyses
System models
Soil science
Process wastes
Waste characterization
Hazardous wastes biological processes
Land treatment
Microbiology
Ecology
Ground water contamination from mining
Waste management alternatives
Industrial wastes
Ground water investigations
Prediction of contaminants
Soil systems
*FTS: 743-2(extension numbers), CML: 405-332-8800 (ask for extension)
23
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Norbert A. Jaworski, Director
FTS: 780-5550
CML: 218-720-5550
6201 Congdon Boulevard
Duluth, MN 55804
MISSION: Support the development of the scientific basis
for policy, regulatory, and operational functions of the
Environmental Protection Agency's water quality, toxic
substances, hazardous wastes, pesticides, and energy
programs. ERL-Duluth conducts the following major pro-
grams of research, development, and technical assistance.
Develop a sound chemical, physical, and biological
understanding of toxicity principles, concepts, and logic
necessary to determine concentrations of pesticides, toxic
substances and hazardous wastes non-harmful to
freshwater aquatic life; establish a data base for this
knowledge; share this expertise and data resource with
EPA program offices and other agencies and with other
scientists.
Develop, refine, and improve cost-effective aquatic
laboratory tests for determining the adverse effects of
single or multi-contaminant pollutants associated with
toxic substances, pesticides, hazardous wastes, and
energy development and use.
Develop common denominators, quantitative structure-
activity relationships, toxicity wasteload allocation
methods, and models that can be used to predict or assess
the impact of chemical and physical pollutants on aquatic
and aquatic-related organisms.
Evaluate the ability of laboratory test methods and models
to predict the fate and effects of contaminants under field
conditions through use of ecological studies.
Develop criteria for individual physical and chemical
contaminants and complex mixtures for the protection of
aquatic organisms and consumers of aquatic organisms;
conduct related site-specific studies to support and assess
agency use of the criteria.
Maintain exploratory surveillance for new and
unrecognized types and quantities of xenobiotics in
components of aquatic and aquatic-related ecosystems;
develop analytical methods required for this exploratory
surveillance.
ERL-D AT GROSSE ILE
LARGE LAKES
RESEARCH STATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
ERL-Duluth, MN
ERL-D AT MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO ECOLOGICAL
RESEARCH STATION
ENERGY/
ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH
BRANCH
24
-------
ERL—DULUTH AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Office of the Director
Norbert A. Jaworski
Gilman D. Veith
Water'Quality Research Branch
Nelson A. Thomas
Donald I. Mount
Robert A. Drummond
John G. Eaton
Russell J. Erickson
Armond E. Lemke
Charles E. Stephan
Anthony R. Carlson
Ronald R. Carton
Jack H. Gakstatter
Pesticide Research Branch
Richard E. Siefert
Richard L. Anderson
Alfred W. Jarvinen
Hazardous Wastes Research Branch
Philip M. Cook
James M. McKim
J. Howard McCormick
Allan R. Batterman
Energy/Environment Research Branch
Kenneth E. Biesinger
Edward N. Leonard
Toxic Substances Research Branch
Steven J. Broderius
Douglas W. Kuehl
J. David Yount
Gary L. Phipps
Large Lakes Research Station**
William L. Richardson
David M. Dolan
Michael D. Mullin
Monticello Ecological Research Station
John W. Arthur
Steven F. Hedtke
*FTS: 420-xxxx; CML 503-757-xxxx
**FTS: 226-xxxx; CML: 313-675-5000
TELEPHONE
780-5550
780-5572
780-5702
780-5528
780-5532
780-5557
780-5534
780-5563
780-5510
780-5565
420-4743*
420-4705*
780-5552
780-5565
780-5561
780-5523
780-5567
780-5514
780-5513
780-5524
780-5556
780-5574
780-5559
780-5557
780-5571
226-7811
226-7811
226-781?
787-3332
787-3332
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Phosphorus, eutrophication
Toxicity data bases, structure-activity,
predictive toxicology
Phosphorus, toxicity testing-field response,
complex effluents
Toxicity reduction, ceriodaphnia testing
Biomonitoring
Bioaccumulation methods, acid rain-
biological
Complexing agents, metals, fish uptake
and depuration
Bioassay systems
Water quality criteria documents, metals
Site-specific water quality criteria
Metals, kinetics modeling
Eutrophication
Pesticide bioassays, fish and
fish food taxonomy
Invertebrates, toxicity testing,
chemical/microbial pesticides
Pesticide bioassays
Electron scope, particles bioassays,
bioavailability, suspended solids, asbestos
fiber data, sediments base
Dose-response, comparative toxicology-
modes of action
Temperature, pH, stress and fish
reproduction
High hazard testing, electron scope
Polyelectrolites, daphnia culturing
Metals in tissue
Acute testing, joint toxicity relationships
Environmental chemistry, organics in tissue
and water, planar chlorinated organics,
LC/MS systems
Ecosystems/watersheds, microcosms
Acute bioassays
Waste load allocation, environmental
modeling, eutrophication
Toxic substances, statistics and modeling
Metals, transport and fate of toxics
Outdoor channels
Field applicability, microcosms
25
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
William A. Brungs, Director
FTS: 838-5087
CML: 401-789-1071
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882
MISSION: Agency's center for marine, coastal, and
estuarine water quality research; support primarily the
EPA Office of Water, responding mainly to legislative
requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, and the Toxic
Substances Control Act; provide the scientific base for
marine hazard assessment and regulatory activities of that
Office; provide technical assistance and investigations of
an emergency nature, e.g., spills of toxic materials, in
evaluating environmental threats.
PROGRAMMATIC AREAS: Estuarine and marine disposal
and discharge of complex wastes, dredged materials, and
other wastes; water use designation and quality criteria for
estuarine and marine water and sediment; environmental
assessment of ocean discharges.
EXPERTISE: Toxicological testing using marine
organisms; ecosystems analysis; physiological responses
of organisms to contaminants; organic and inorganic
analytical chemistry; biomonitoring; national and site-
specific water quality criteria; physical transport and water
quality modeling; 'contaminant bioavailability and
bioaccumulation.
SPECIAL FACILITIES: Wet Lab facilities available for
biological testing using flowing seawater; capable of
tempering of influent water, isolation of hazardous testing,
and treatment of effluent water; maintains Field Station at
the Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
ERL-Narragansett, Rl
AND
Newport. OR
MARINE EFFECTS DIVISION
(NARRAGANSETT, Rl) '
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
BRANCH
PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
BRANCH
FIELD EFFECTS
BRANCH
MARINE PROCESSES DIVISION
(NARRAGANSETT. Rl)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY
BRANCH
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
ECOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS
BRANCH
PACIFIC DIVISION
(NEWPORT. OREGON)
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
PROCESSES BRANCH
BIOACCUMULATION
BRANCH
BENTHIC EFFECTS
BRANCH
26
-------
ERL-NARRAGANSETT AREAS OF EXPERTISE
TELEPHONE*
AREA OF EXPERTISE
D.J. Baumgartner
A.D. Beck
V.J. Bierman
W.A. Brungs
R.L. Garnas
J.H. Gentile
D.J. Hansen
R.W. Latimer
H. Lee
J.F. Paul
K.T. Perez
O.K. Phelps
S.C. Schimmel
R.C. Swartz
*FTS:838-5087 (for all contacts). CML401-789-1071 (for all contacts)
Transport processes, exposure assessment
Nutritional requirements of marine
organisms
Ocean disposal, dumpsite designation,
wasteload allocation, nutrient cycling
Aquatic life criteria, thermal effects, mixing
zone designation
Environmental and analytical chemistry,
hazardous wastes
Hazard assessment, dredged materials,
toxicity testing
Aquatic life criteria, toxicity testing,
sludge effects
Environmental engineering
Bioaccumulation processes, bioavailability
Sediment transport, remote sensing, ocean
disposal
Marine microcosms, surface microlayers
Biomonitoring
Complex effluents, toxicity testing
Benthic toxicity testing, community analysis
27
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Henry F. Enos. Director
FTS: 686-9011
CML: 904-932-5311
Sabine Island
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
The Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, is
responsible for developing scientific information used to
formulate guidelines, standards, and strategies for
management of hazardous materials in coastal, estuarine.
and marine environments. The Laboratory's research and
development efforts deal primarily with pesticides and
toxic compounds regulated by EPA's Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances. In addition, the impacts of the ocean
disposal of drilling fluids and waste treatment effluents are
investigated for the Off ice of Water. Research is organized
into four branches.
TOXICOLOGY BRANCH: Development and testing of
methods to determine lethal and sublethal effects of
potentially harmful chemicals on estuarine and marine
plants and animals; development of culture techniques for
test organisms; and development of biological indicators
for use in field investigations.
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS BRANCH: Determination of
chemical effects on ecological structure and function;
conduct of field studies in order to estimate environmental
responses in potentially impacted areas; and validating
model systems for predicting resiliency of populations,
communities, and ecosystems exposed to contaminants.
MICROBIAL ECOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
BRANCH: Describing microbiological interactions with
pollutants, including biodegradation mechanisms and
predictive techniques for biodegradation rates, sorption.
transport, and products and potential risks associated with
release of genetically engineered microorganisms
(biotechnology) to the environment.
PATHOBIOLOGY BRANCH: Developing methods for
evaluating risks of biological pesticidal agents to nontarget,
aquatic species, and systems, including natural and
genetically altered microbial pest control agents and
biochemical control agents; developing aquatic species as
indicators and models for evaluating risks of genotoxic
agents to both aquatic animal and human health, and
elucidating mechanisms in aquatic species whereby
toxicants impair function, development, and cause disease
in aquatic species, in order to better predict effects in
populations at risk.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
ERL-Gulf Breeze. FL
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
BRANCH
1 1
MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
AND
BIOTECHNOLOGY
BRANCH
TOXICOLOGY
BRANCH
PATHOBIOLOGY
BRANCH
28
-------
ERL-GULF BREEZE AREAS OF EXPERTISE
TELEPHONE'
Office of the Director
Henry F. Enos
Andrew J. McErlean
Thomas W. Duke
Frank G.Wilkes
Toxicology Branch
Jack I. Lowe
Gerald E. Walsh
Douglas P. Middaugh
James C. Moore
Ecological Effects Branch
Foster L. Mayer
James R. Clark
Marlin E. Tagatz
William P. Davis
David E. Weber
Microbial Ecology and Biotechnology Branch
Al W. Bourquin
Parmely H. Pritchard
Leonard H. Mueller
Paul Lefcourt
Tamar Barkay
Stephen M. Cuskey
Fred J. Genthner
Pathobiology Branch
John A. Couch
Charles L. McKenney
Wilhelm P. Schoor
Lee Courtney
Stan Erickson
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Pesticide chemistry and toxicology
Pollution ecology
Pollution ecology
Aquatic ecology
Marine toxicology
Marine ecology/toxicology
Fish culture/toxicology
Analytical chemistry
Toxicology/aquatic ecology
Aquatic ecology, toxicology
Zoology, botany
Ichthyology, marine ecology
Plant pathology, ecology
Microbial biochemistry
Microbial ecology/biodegradation
Analytical chemistry
Environmental science
Microbial ecology •'
Microbial genetics
Microbiology/plasmid biology
Pathology, toxic mechanisms
Physiology
Biochemistry
Electron microscopy
Cell culture
*FTS: 686-9011 (for all contacts), CML 904-932-5311 (for all contacts)
29
-------
HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
F. Gordon Hueter, Director
FTS: 629-2281
CML: 919-541-2281
(MD-51)
Research Triangle Park, NC
27711
The Health Effects Research Laboratory is responsible
for the following:
OXIDANTS: Develop a data base for use in regulatory
decision making on the health effects of 03 and NO2
exposure by conducting human clinical, epidemiologic and
animal studies. Models are also being developed to
quantitatively extrapolate animal data to humans.
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (HAP): Develop and
validate techniques to evaluate the toxic effects of HAP's,
produce dose-response data on the toxic effects of HAP's,
and develop models which improve our ability to use
toxicological data in risk assessments.
MOBILE SOURCES: Provide quality health effects data on
the effects of exposure to CO and develop methods for
obtaining dose response data for use in risk assessments
for regulatory purposes.
GASES AND PARTICLES: Develop a data base for use in
regulatory decision making on the health effects of S02,
particles and Pb by conducting human clinical,
epidemiologic and animal studies. Models are also being
developed to extrapolate animal data to humans and to
provide information on the relationship between particle
size and lung deposition in man.
WATER QUALITY: Provide field tested methods in a
manual that discusses protocols and interprets strengths
and weaknesses on health effects biomonitoring
techniques; develop health related indicator for shellfish
growing waters in cooperation with NOAA and FDA and
extend studies on the enterococcus indicator system for
recreational water.
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER: Provide data and appraisal
documents on health aspects of land application of
municipal sludge as well as on the occurrence, survival and
transport of enteric pathogens in sludge.
DRINKING WATER: Provide health monitoring
engineering data for drinking water standards.
and
HAZARDOUS WASTE: Develop and evaluate short-term in
vivo and in vitro bioassays for screening wastes for
designation as hazardous.
PESTICIDES: Develop methodologies and generate data
for the assessment of risks from pesticides; define
environmental and health endpoints for future test
methods.
TOXIC CHEMICAL TESTING AND ASSESSMENT: Develop
and validate test methods for identifying hazards under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
HERL-Research Triangle Park, NC
_L
INHALATION TOXICOLOGY DIVISION
CLINICAL RESEARCH BRANCH
TOXICOLOGY BRANCH
GENETIC TOXICOLOGY DIVISION
MUTAGENESIS AND
CELLULAR TOXICOLOGY
BRANCH
CARCINOGENESISAND
METABOLISM BRANCH
GENETIC BIOASSAY BRANCH
_L
DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY DIVISION
REPRODUCTIVE TOXICOLOGY BRANCH
PERINATAL TOXICOLOGY BRANCH
EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY DIVISION
CELLULAR BIOPHYSICS BRANCH
BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH
NEUROTOXICOLOGY DIVISION
BEHAVIORAL TOXICOLOGY
BRANCH
NEUROPHYSIOLOGY BRANCH
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
BRANCH
_L
BIOMETRY DIVISION
BIOSTATISTICS BRANCH
DATA MANAGEMENT
BRANCH
•TOXICOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY
DIVISION
MICROBIOLOGY BRANCH
TARGET ORGAN
TOXICOLOGY BRANCH
BIOASSAY BRANCH
CHEMICAL AND STATISTICAL
SUPPORT SERVICES BRANCH
*26 W. St. Clair, Cincinnati, OH 45268, FTS: 684-7401, CML: 513-569-7401
30
-------
HERL—RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
Office of the Director
F. Gordon Hueter
Judith Graham
DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY DIVISION
Neil Chernoff
Robert Kavlock
John Laskey
BIOMETRY DIVISION
William Nelson
John Creason
VACANT
Carl Hayes
EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY DIVISION
Richard Phillips
Ronald Spiegel
Joe A. Elder
GENETIC TOXICOLOGY DIVISION
Michael Waters
Stephen Nesnow
Joellen Jungers
Martha Moore
INHALATION TOXICOLOGY DIVISION
Edward Massaro
Judith Graham
John O'Neil
NEUROTOXICOLOGY DIVISION
Lawrence Reiter
Robert MacPhail
Robert Dyer
TELEPHONE*
2281
2283
4050
2327
2782
2339
2598
2567
7739
2771
7544
2541
2537
3847
3849
3933
2655
2531
2601
2671
2617
2617
TOXICOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY DIVISION-CINCINNATI
Elmer W. Akin 684-7218
Michael A. Pereira 684-7411
Frederick Kopfler 684-7451
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Environmental toxicology
Inhalation toxicology
Developmental biology
Teratology
Reproductive toxicology
Statistics and data management
Biostatistics
Data management
Epidemiology
Non-ionizing radiation, electronic systems
Engineering and electromagnetic research
Non-ionizing, radiofrequency, and
microwave radiation
Genetic toxicology
Chemical carcinogenesis
Bacterial mutagenecity, carcinogenesis
bioassays
Mammalian cell cytogenetics and
mutagenicity
Biochemical and inhalation toxicology
Inhalation toxicology (animal)
Inhalation toxicology (human)
Neurotoxicology
Behavioral toxicology and pharmacology
Neurophysiology/electrophysiology
Virology
Biochemical toxicological methods
Organic and analytical chemistry
*FTS: 629-xxxx, CML: 919-541-xxxx (for RTP); FTS: 684-xxxx, CML: 513-569-xxxx (for Cincinnati)
31
-------
OFFICE OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Peter W. Preuss, Director
FTS: 382-7317
CML: 202-382-7317
(RD-689)
Washington, DC 20460
The functions of the Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment (OHEA) include performing scientific risk
assessments to directly support the Agency's regulatory
program offices, and providing oversight and guidelines to
assure consistency and scientific quality in risk assess-
ments performed throughout the Agency. OHEA prepares a
variety of documents in response to requests from EPA
program offices in support of regulatory and enforcement
decisions. These documents include air and water criteria
documents; health, risk, and exposure assessments; and
guidance and methodology documents used in assessing
the risk of exposure to hazardous pollutants. OHEA also
develops risk assessment guidelines, performs risk assess-
ments, and provides technical assistance at the request of
the program offices. Furthermore, OHEA develops new risk
assessment methodologies and suggests new research
efforts that will better support future risk assessment
procedures. OHEA consists of five units:
CARCINOGEN ASSESSMENT GROUP: Provides advice on
the human health risks associated with exposure to
suspected cancer-causing agents.
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTGROUP: Provides advice on the
exposure characteristics and factors of agents that are
suspected of causing detrimental health effects.
REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT GROUP: Provides
advice on the hazards associated with chemicals that are
suspected of causing detrimental reproductive effects.
including mutagenic and teratogenic effects, and sterility.
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT OFFICE/
CINCINNATI: Is responsible for the preparation of criteria
and health and hazard assessment documents on water
pollution and solid and hazardous wastes. (See page 36)
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT OFFICE/
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK: Is repsonsible for the prepa-
ration of criteria and assessment documents primarily in
the field of air pollution. (See page 34)
Information on the availability of OHEA documents can be
obtained from the Technical Information Staff (RD-689),
382-7345.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Washington, DC
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
PROGRAM LIAISON
PROGRAM OPERATIONS
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENTGROUP
RISK ASSESSMENT FORUM
REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS
ASSESSMENTGROUP
CARCINOGEN
ASSESSMENT GROUP
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND
ASSESSMENT OFFICE
Research Triangle Park, NC
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND
ASSESSMENT OFFICE
Cincinnati, OH
32
-------
OHEA—WASHINGTON AREAS OF EXPERTISE
TELEPHONE* AREA OF EXPERTISE
Office of the Director
Peter W. Preuss 7317 Health and environmental assessment
Dorothy Patton 6743** Risk assessment forum
CARCINOGEN ASSESSMENT GROUP
Charles H. Ris • 5898 Human health risks
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT GROUP
Charles H. Nauman 8909 Exposure characteristics and factors
REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT GROUP
Lawrence Valcovic 7303 Reproductive effects
*FTS: 382-xxxx; CML: 202-382-xxxx (Washington)
**FTS: 475-xxxx, CML: 202-475-xxxx (Washington)
33
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT OFFICE
Lester D. Grant. Director
FTS: 629-4173
CML: 919-541-4173
MISSION: The Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office is responsible for developing the following types of
documents: (1) revised or new criteria documents which
serve as a basis for setting national ambient air quality
standards for pollutants such as sulfur oxides, nitrogen
(MD-52)
Research Triangle Park, NC
27711
oxides, ozone, and lead; (2) health assessment documents
which deal with the health effects associated with a
pollutant suspected of needing control; and (3) special
reports as required to meet a specific need or as dictated by
legislation.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
ECAO-Research Triangle Park, NC
SCIENTIFIC STAFF
TECHNICAL SERVICES SECTION
34
-------
ECAO—RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Office of the Director
Lester D. Grant
Michael A. Berry
Si Duk Lee
Donna W. Wicker
Emily R. Lee
Barbara Kearney
SCIENTIFIC STAFF
Michael A. Berry
Jasper H.B. Garner
Beverly E. Tilton
Thomas B. McMullen
Robert M. Bruce
Mark M. Greenberg
Donna J. Sivulka
Dennis J. Kotchmar
J. Michael Davis
David E. Weil
James A. Raub
Beverly M. Comfort
Norman E. Childs
Robert W. Elias
William G. Ewald
Harriet M. Ammann
Darcy L. Campbell
Ruby F. Griffin
TECHNICAL SERVICES SECTION
Frances P. Bradow
Allen G. Hoyt
Douglas B. Fennell
Diane H. Ray
Richard N. Wilson
TELEPHONE* AREA OF EXPERTISE
4173 Health effects
4172 Environmental effects and legislation
4159 Health effects
4171 Administration and contracts
4169 Program and office operations
4168 Program and office operations
4172 Environmental effects and legislation
4153 Terrestrial effects
4161 Ozone and hydrocarbons
4150 Air quality data
4154 Hazardous pollutants
4156 Hazardous pollutants
4155 Heavy metals
4158 Epidemiology and pulmonary effects
4162 Neurobehavior
4163 Lead
4157 Carbon monoxide
4165 Pesticides
2229 Radiation
4167 Metals and particles
4164 Hazardous pollutants
4930 Hazardous pollutants
4477 Forest systems
4114 Program and office operations
3797 Documentation procedures and material
effects
4645 Graphics
3789 Environmental information
3637 Projects and records
3797 Copy production
*FTS: 629-xxxx, CML: 919-541-xxxx
35
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT OFFICE
J.F. Stara, Director
FTS: 684-7531
CML: 513-569-7531
26 W. St. Clair
Cincinnati, OH 45268
The Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office is
responsible for the following major program areas:
AIR QUALITY: Comprehensive health assessment
documentation and summaries for contaminants in air
including maintenance of court files and disposition of
public comments; participation and running of workshops
on specific contaminants.
DRINKING WATER: Comprehensive health assessment
documentation and summaries for drinking water
contaminants including maintenance of court files and
disposition of public comments and development of risk
assessment methodologies applicable to drinking water.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (NON-ENERGY): Chemical
specific risk assessment addressing identification of
reportable quantities for spill situations based on chronic
toxicity; identification of health related goals and remedial
action activities; risk characterization for uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites performed.
HAZARDOUS WASTE: Development of health risk
assessment documentation to support hazardous waste
listing activities; quantitative specific chemical and
complex mixture risk assessments to support program
office activities related to RCRA reauthorization.
INTERMEDIA (NON-ENERGY): Development of health risk
assessment guidelines and evaluation and development of
methods for risk assessment of systemic toxicants and of
chemical mixtures.
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER: Design and development of
methods for risk assessment of chemicals and pathogens
in municipal sewage sludge to support technical
regulations for sludge disposal methods.
WATER QUALITY: Comprehensive health assessment
documentation; response to variance 301 (g) requests;
state and public technical assistance through EPA
Regional offices.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
ECAO-Cincinnati, OH
CHEMICAL MIXTURES
ASSESSMENT GROUP
METHODOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT GROUP
SYSTEMIC TOXICANTS
ASSESSMENT GROUP
36
-------
ECAO-CINCINNATI AREAS OF EXPERTISE
TELEPHONE*
Office of the Director
Jerry F. Stara 7531
Steve Lutkenhoff 7531
Debdas Mukerjee 7531
Judi Olsen 7575
CHEMICAL MIXTURES ASSESSMENT GROUP
Chris DeRosa 7531
Helen Ball 7572
Karen Blackburn 7531
Harlal Choudhury 7531
Frank Mink 7572
Lynn Papa 7572
John Risher 7572
METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP
Linda Erdreich 7572
Richard Hertzberg 7572
Jacqueline Patterson 7572
SYSTEMIC TOXICANTS ASSESSMENT GROUP
Michael Dourson 7572
Randy Bruins 7572
Larry Fradkin 7584
Annette Gatchett 7572
Vlasta Molak . 7531
Bruce Peirano ' 7531
Dave Reisman 7531
Cindy Sonich-Mullin 7531
AREA OF EXPERTISE
Risk assessment
Risk assessment
Cancer assessments
Information transfer
Superfund, solid waste programs
Contracts
Site assessment, health effects assessment
Site assessment, land disposal bans
Solid waste listing activities
Site assessment, land disposal bans
Confidential business information
Health risk assessment methodology,
epidemiology
STARA database, biomathematical models
Information transfer, environmental policy
Acceptable daily intakes
Sludge methodology
Pathogens of sludge
Environmental chemistry
Biotechnology
Hexachlorobenzene
Air programs
Drinking water program
*FTS: 684-xxxx, CML: 513-569-xxxx
37
-------
OSWER Directive 9380-3
TABLE 3-1 CATEGORIES AND POTENTIAL
TREATMENT/DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
ON-SITE
PREP
ACTIVITIES
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
TANK AND DRUM
WASTE CATEGORIES
SLUDGE/SOLIDS
• Organic Low Halogen
• Organic High Halogen .
• Inorganic
• Flash point (<70° F)
• Flash point (>70-1 40° F)
• Flash point (> 140° F)
• PCS Contaminated Solid
( < 50 ppm)
• PCB Contaminatd Solid
( > 50 - 500 ppm)
• PCB Contaminated Solid
( > 500 ppm)
• Pesticide
• Petroleum Residues
SPECIAL WASTES
• Radioactive
• Strong Oxidizer
• Strong Reducer
• Lab Packs
• Explosives
Bulking/
Consolidation
'
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1*
1
*
2
1
2
2
Absorbtion/
Solidification
1
2
1
2*
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
*
2
2
2
2
Physical/Chemical
Pretreatment
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
*
1
1
2
2
Solidification/
Chemical Fixation
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
*
2
2
2
2
Detonation
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
*
2
2
1*
1
Physical/Chemical
Treatment
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
*
1
1
1
1
Biological
Treatment
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
-
*
2
2
2
2
.1
.1
"5.
£
T3
C
J3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1*
2
2
2
1
*
2
2
2
2
Seouro Landfill
1
1
1
2
1*
1
1
1*
1*
1
1
*
1
1
1
2
Incineration/Thermal
Reduction
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
*
2
2
1
1
Recycle/Reuse
w/ Treatment I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
.. x
*
2
2
2
2
Recycle/Reuse
w/o Treatment
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
\ , ;
*
2
2
2
2
.1
?
_E"
!
-------
OSWER Directive 9380-3
TABLE 3-1 CATEGORIES AND POTENTIAL
TREATMENT/DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
ON-SITE
PREP
ACTIVITIES
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
TANK AND DRUM
WASTE CATEGORIES
AQUEOUS WASTES
• Acid pH< 2.0
• BasepH> 12.0
• Base with Sulfur
• Base with Cyanide
ORGANIC LIQUIDS
• High Halogen content (>2%)
• Organic liquids including
Low Halogen content (0 - 2%)
• Oils non-PCB contaminated
• PCB Contaminated liquid
(50 - 500 ppm)
• PCB Contaminated Liquid
( > 500 ppm)
CONTAMINATED WATER
• 2
a
0)
o
Q
1
1
2
2
,
2
2
1
2
2
-
2
2
2
2
2
1*
1*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2
2
2
1*
1*
1*
2
2
Phased waste shall be separated and handled as individual waste items
Mixed waste shall be classified under the more restrictive disposal category
1 • Reasonable Option
2 • Not Reasonable (Impractical, Technically Infeasable)
* • Further detailed analyses is warranted
-------
EPA
urviea S;a;es
Environmental Protection
Agencv
-'azarcpi.s v'v35:3 ="g
Pesearc'" Laoora-or,
Cincinnati OH 45268
ju:v '336
Researcn and Development
Treatment
Technology Briefs
Alternatives to
Hazardous Waste
Landfills
-------
Acknowledgments
The descriptions of technologies, their status and applicabilities are the result of
the efforts of many contributors, notably the participants of the RCRA/CERCLA
Alternative Treatment Technology Seminars. The contributions of the following
persons are especially appreciated:
M. Amdurer E. Martin
N. Chung R. Mournighan
L. Doucet J. Nash
J. Exner D. Oberacker
H. Freeman R. Olexsey
F. Hall H. Owens
S. G. Howell C. Rogers
R. Landreth S. Taub
C. Lanker R. Traver
R. Lewis R. Turner
J. LeLacheur W. Westbrook
M. Lieberman
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgments i
Introduction 1
Technology:
Advanced Biological Methods 2
Aerobic Biological Treatment 3
Air Stripping 4
Alkali Metal Dechlorination 4
Alkali Metal/Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) 5
Alkaline Chlorination 5
Anaerobic Biologial Treatment 6
Asphalt-Based Stabilization/Solidification (Thermoplastic
Microencapsulation) 7
Blast Furnaces (Iron and Steel) 7
Carbon Adsorption 8
Catalytic Dehydrochlorination 11
Centrifugation 11
Chemical Precipitation 12
Circulating Bed Combustor 14
Distillation 15
Electric Reactors 16
Electrolytic Oxidation 16
Evaporation : 16
Extraction/Soil Flushing or Washing 18
Filtration 19
Fluidized Bed Incinerators 20
Fly Ash or Lime-Based Pozzolan Stabilization/Solidification 21
Fuel Blending 21
Granular Media Filtration 21
Hydrolysis 22
Industrial Boilers 22
Industrial Kilns (Cement, Lime, Aggregate, Clay) 22
Infrared Incineration Systems 23
In-Situ Adsorption (Permeable Treatment Beds) 23
In-Situ Chemical Immobilization 23
In-Situ Thermal Destruction 24
Ion Exchange 24
Liquid Injection Incineration 25
Macroencapsulation/Overpacking 25
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
Molten Glass 25
Molten Salt 26
Multiple Hearth Incinerator 26
Neutralization 26
Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide (H208) 27
Oxidation by Hypochlorites 27
Ozonation 27
Plasma Systems 28
Polymerization 28
Portland Cement Pozzolan Stabilization/Solidification : 29
Pyrolysis Processes 29
Rotary Kiln Incineration 30
Soil Flushing/Soil Washing 30
Sorption 30
Steam Stripping 31
Sulfur Regeneration Units 31
Supercritical Extraction 32
Supercritical Water Oxidation 32
Ultraviolet Photolysis 33
Vitrification 33
Wet Air Oxidation 34
Bibliography 35
-------
Introduction
Technologies other than landfill and containment need to be applied in the
management of hazardous wastes. Acceptance of treatment technologies other
than those currently being used is slow in coming. The Hazardous Solid Waste
Act Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 modifying RCRA and the EPA policies of
CERCLA cleanups using RCRA requirements at least as guidelines will require
new approaches to the problem.
The treatment technology material included in this summary relates to
technology which is available and applicable to hazardous waste disposal now.
That is, further research is not required for application in the field. What remains
is to apply the technology and derive the necessary design parameters and the
costs for large-scale application. These derivations require, as a minimum,
pilot-scale and more appropriately full-scale application at waste disposal sites
and generator locations.
The selections of processes for presentation in this compendium is based on
opinions resulting from technical evaluation. The purpose of making these briefs
available is to remind the reader that processes and techniques are available and
to encourage a search for additional information. Information in the briefs is not
sufficient to permit direct evaluation of a process or technology. For evaluations
involving specific sites or waste streams, the reader should consult sources that
provide operational, effectiveness, and cost data.
-------
Technology: Advanced Biological
Methods
Brief Description: Two Processes—(1) Aerobic Status/Availability: Biological systems are avail-
fluidized bed(suspended sand and oxygen), to provide able.
large surface areas to improve microbial degradation
of soluble sohds. (2) Membrane aerobic reactor Manufacturer: Dorr-Oliver
systems prevent loss of cell mass and thereby provide _
high concentrations of cells to destroy pollutants. Ustrs: Gen«ral Mot°rs
Applicability/Limitation: Process requires prede- £PA Contact. Charles Rogers, (513) 569-7757
veloped microbes to be added to treatment systems.
Natural microbes have been demonstrated to destroy
pollutants in paint sludges.
-------
Technology:
Aerobic Biological
Treatment
Brief Description: Microorganisms metabolize bio-
degradable organics in aqueous waste. This treat-
ment includes conventional activated sludge pro-
cesses as well as modifications such as sequencing
batch reactors, and aerobic attached growth biological
processes such as rotating biological contactors and
trickling filters. Aerobic processes are capable of
significantly reducing a wide range of organic toxic
and hazardous compounds; however, only dilute
aqueous wastes «1 %) are normally treatable. Recent
developments with genetically engineered bacteria
have been reported to be effective for biological
treatment of specific hazardous waste which is
relatively uniform in composition.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat aqueous
wastes contaminated with low levels (BOD <10,000
mg/l) of non-halogenated organic and/or certain
halogenated organics. The treatment requires con-
sistent, stable operating conditions.
Design Criteria: There are numerous variations of
the activated sludge process, however, fundamentally
the principles of the unit operations are the same. The
first step in the process involves aeration in an open
tank, in which the organic biodegradable matter in
the waste is degraded by microorganisms in the
presence of oxygen. The hydraulic detention time of
this unit operation is usually from 6 to 24 hours,
although depending on the process mode, shorter or
longer detection times may be incorporated. This is
followed by a sludge-liquid separation step in a
clanfier. Organic loading rates can vary from 10 to
180 Ibs of BOD applied per 1000 ft3 depending on the
MLSS concentration, the F/M ratio, and oxygen
supply. Variations of the conventional activated
sludge system that incorporate pure oxygen or
powdered activated carbon have reported excellent
pollutant removals for typically difficult to treat waste.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Manufacturer: Polybac Corporation, Mike Cawthray
Detox, Inc.. Evan K. Nyer (fixed film). (513) 433-7394
Ground Decontamination Systems, Joe Mahan, (201)
265-6727
Users: OH Materials, Joe Kirk. (219) 423-3526
EPA Contact: Ron Turner. (513) 569-7775
Schematic of rotating biological contactor.
CH4andC03
Influent Wastwater
With Organic Material
Effluent Wastewater
With Oxidized Organics
Rotating Biological Contactor
(Courtest of Envirex)
-------
Technology: Air Stripping
Brief Description: Air stripping is a mass transfer
process in which volatile contaminants in water or
soil are transferred to air. Design considerations-
factors important in removal or organics from waste-
water in air stripping are temperature, pressure, air-
to-water ratio, and surface area available for mass
transfer. A packed tower air stripper is shown on the
next page. Practical tower diameters range from 1 to
12 ft with packing heights as high as 50 ft, air-to-
water volumetric ratios may range from 10 to 1 up to
300 to 1. The resulting residuals are the contaminated
off-gas and the "stripped" effluent.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat aqueous
organic wastes with relatively high volatility, low
water solubility (e.g., chlorinated hydrocarbons such
as tetrachloroethylene, and aromatics such as tolu-
ene). Limitations include concentrations of VOCs less
than 100 ppm, temperature dependence and the
presence of suspended solids.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Manufacturer: See buyer's guides from trade
journals.
Users: Superfund Sites: Triangle Chemical, McKin
site and Verona Wellfield
EPA Contact: Ron Turner, (513) 569-7775
Schematic of air (tripping.
Organic
Vapors
Feed
Hold Down
Plate
Perforated Tray
Liquid
Redistribution
Liquid
Level
Effluent
Technology: Alkali Metal Oechlorination
Brief Description: Several chemical dechlorination
processes are based on a method developed by the
Goodyear Tire and'Rubber Company in 1980. The
original method uses sodium plus naphthalene in
tetrahydrofuran (that is, sodium naphthalide) to strip
chlorine atoms from PCBs resulting in polymerizing
the biphenyl into inert condensible sludge. The
reactor is blanketed with nitrogen and an excess of
reagent to chlorine content is required. The Goodyear
Company has not commercially developed the tech-
nology. However, several companies have modified
the method by substituting their own proprietary
reagent for the naphthalene. The equipment is mobile
and can be transported on semitrailers.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat PCBs, chlo-
rinated hydrocarbons, acids, thiols, chlorides and
dioxins. Moisture content adversely affects rates o'
reactions.
Status/Availability: Commercially available
Manufacturer: American Mobile Purification, Peter
Lawson-Johnson, (212) 267-7073
SunOhio. Doug Toman, (216) 452-0837
PPM, Inc., (404) 934-0902
Acurex. Jim Thompson, (415) 964-3200
Chemical Waste Management, Peter Daily, (312)
841-8360
Exceltech, Inc., John Sedwick. (415) 659-0404
EPA Contact: Charles Rogers, (513) 569-7757
-------
Technology:
Alkali Metal/Polyethylene
Glycol(PEG)
Brief Description: In 1978 the EPA sponsored
research which led to the development of the first of a
series of A/PEG reagents which were shown to
effectively dechlorinate PCBs in oils. Essentially,
these reagents were alkali metal polyethylene gly-
colates which react rapidly to dehalogenate halo-
organic compounds of all types under ambient and
high temperature conditions. In the A/PEG reagents,
the alkali metal ion is held in solution by the large
polyethylene glycolate anion. PCBs and other halo-
genated molecules are uniquely soluble in A/PEG
reagents. These qualities combine to give a single-
phase system in which the high concentration of
anions readily displaces the halogen atoms on
halogenated molecules. The reaction of halogenated
aromatics with PEGs results in a substitution of the
PEG for the chlorine atom to form a PEG ether. The
PEG ether, in turn, may then decompose to a phenol.
The biotoxicity of reaction by-products is under
investigation.
Applicability/Limitation: Heat and excess reagent
are required for the process to function effectively in
soils containing more than seven percent moisture.
Status/ A variability:
field test.
Laboratory scale. Ready for
EPA Contact: Charles Rogers, (513) 569-7757.
Technology: Alkaline Chlorination
Brief Description: In this process, chlorine gas
(with caustic), chlorine dioxide, or hypochlorite
(sodium or calcium) are routinely used to destroy
cyanide which is converted to nitrogen gas and
carbon dioxide gas.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat free cya-
nides and complex cyanides although combinations
with Fe or Ni will take a longer time. Limitations
include the exothermic heat of the reaeration, pH,
non-selective competitions with other species and
additional chlorine demands. Fairly close pH control
(7.5 to 9.0) required to avoid toxic volatiles release.
Reduction efficiency about 99.6 percent.
Status/Availability: Generally available.
Manufacturer: See buyer's guides in trade journals
Users: Electroplating industry
EPA Contact: S Garry Howell, (513) 569-7756
-------
Technology:
Anaerobic Biological
Treatments
Brief Description: The anaerobic biological treat-
ment process encompasses the reduction of organic
matter in an oxygen-free environment to methane
and carbon dioxide. The most common anaerobic
attached growth treatment process is the anaerobic
filter. This process consists of a column filled with
solid media. A number of proprietary anaerobic
biotechnology processes are actively being marketed,
each with distinct features, but all utilizing the
fundamental anaerobic conversion to methane.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat aqueous
wastes with low to moderate levels of organics.
Anaerobic digestion can handle certain halogenated
organics better than aerobic treatment. Stable,
consistent operating conditions must be maintained.
Anaerobic degradation can take place m native soils
but when used as a controlled treatment process, an
air tight reactor is required. Hazardous organic
substances that have been found to be amenable to
anaerobic treatment include acetaldehyde, acetic
anhydride, acetone, acrylic acid, aniline, benzoic acid.
butanol, cresol, ethyl acrylate, MEK, phenol and vinyl
acetate.
Status/Availability: No mobile units are available
Current, state-of-the-art processes available.
Manufacturer: FMC, GDS and several other pro-
viders of selected microbes, nutrients, or systems
designs.
EPA Contact: Ronald Lewis. (513) 569-7856
Schematic of anaerobic filter tyttam.
r
Influent
Wastawater
0*0
Surge Tank
To Gas Storage
CM.-CO,
AnaeroDic filter
Treated
Effluent
To Discharge or
Next Treatment
Process
-------
Technology: Asphalt-Based Stabilization/
Solidification (Thermoplastic
Microencapsulation)
Brief Description: Involves the mixing of heated,
dried wastes within either an asphalt bitumen,
paraffin or polyethylene matrix resulting in a solid
waste mass for landfill disposal. The advantages are
waste volume reduction, low impermeability, elim-
ination of free liquid, improved handling and good
strength.
Applicability/Limitation: This method is applicable
to hazardous wastes that are complex and difficult to
treat. Wastes that should not be treated using this
technology are: wastes with high water content-
strongly pxidizing contaminants; anhydrous inorganic
salts; tetraborates; iron and aluminum salts; and
organics with low molecular weights and high vapor
pressures (volatile). The disadvantages include ex-
pensive equipment, high processing cost and air
pollution potential.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Manufacturer: Werner A. Pfleidier, Waldick, New
Jersey
Aerojet Energy Conversion Company, Sacramento,
California
Newport News Industrial Corporation, Newport News,
Virginia
Users:
EPA Contact: Robert Landreth, (513) 569-7836.
Technology:
Blast Furnaces (Iron and
Steel)
Brief Description: Blast furnace temperatures may
reach up to 3400°F, and are generally above.3000°F.
High heat content hazardous wastes can be used to
supplement coke and other fuel requirements for
blast furnace. A blast furnace produces molten iron
from iron ore and other iron bearing feed materials.
Iron ore, carbon (coke) and limestone feed to the top of
the furnace and iron product and slag are removed in
different layers from the bottom. HWF can be injected
just above slag layer.
Applicability/Limitation: Composition (trace ele-
ments) of HWF must be controlled to avoid product
quality problems. Waste oils were fired into blast
furnace in HWERL test programs.
Status/Availability: Less than 80 blast furnaces
currently operating in U.S.
Manufacturer: Several—Must be field constructed.
Users: Cadence Chemicals, Mike Benoit, (219)
879-0371
EPA Contact: Robert Mournighan, (513) 569-7408
-------
Technology: Carbon Adsorption
Brief Description: Removes dissolved organics
from aqueous wastes, and organics from air streams
due to the surface attachment between organic
solutes and the large internal pore surface area of
activated carbon grains. The residuals are spent
carbon and regenerant (steam or solvent).
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat single-
phase aqueous organic wastes with high molecular
weight and boiling point and low solubility and
polarity, chlorinated hydrocarbons such as tetrachlo-
roethylene, and aromatics such as phenol. Limitations
are organic contaminant concentrations <10.000
ppm. suspended solids <50 ppm, dissolved inorganics
and oil and grease <10 ppm.
Status/Availability: EPA Environmental Emergen-
cy Response Unit—two transportable systems (50-
gpm and 600-gpm units).
Manufacturer: Calgon Carbon Corporation, Dave
Jordan, (201) 526-4646
Carbon Air Services. Inc.. (612) 935-1844
Zimpro. Inc.. (715)359-7211
Chemical Waste Management, John Pink. (714) 940-
7971
Usars: IT Corporation, California
EPA Contact: Ron Turner. (513) 569-7775
Richard Traver, (201) 321 -6677
Schematic of carbon adsorption.
Carbon
Adsorption
Column
Liquid
r
Spam Carbon " '
(One Unit Changed
Per Time)
• To Service
Carbon
Adsorption
Column
»2
To
Regeneration
Toiie Compounds Removed from Water Using the Carbon Adsorption System in the Hasardous Material Spills Treatment Trailer
Compound
DN8P
PCS
Toxaphene
Chlordane
Haptachlor
Aldrin
Oieldrin
Kepone
Pentachlorophenol
Location of Incident
Ctarksburgn. New Jersey
Seattle. Washington
The Plains. Virginia
Strongatown, Pennsylvania
Strongstown, Pennsylvania
Strongstown. Pennsylvania
Strongstown. Pennsylvania
Hopewell. Virginia
Haverford. Pennsylvania
Quantity
Treated
(gallons)
2.000.000
600.000
250.000
100,000
3.000
100.000
3.000
100.000
3.000
100.000
3.000
225,000
215.000
Contact
Time
(minutes)
26
30-40
26
17
240
17
240
17
240
17
240
45.5
26
Influent
Concen-
tration
(ppb)
a
400
36
13
1.430
61
ao
8.5
605
1 1
605
4.000
10.000
Effluent
Concen-
tration
Ippb)
<002
<.075
1
35
43
06
1
19
.15
<.01
<.01
<1
<1
Percent
Removal
99.98
9998'
97 22
973
99.99
99.02
9987
9778
99.75
99.99'
9999*
9998
9998
-------
Toxic Compounds Removed from Water Using the Carbon Adsorption System in the Hazardous Material Spills Treatment Trailer
(Continued)
Compound
Methylene Chloride
Carbon Tetrachlonde
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Tnchloroethane
Tnchloroethylene
Location of Incident
Oswego. New York
Oswego, New York
Oswego. New York
Oswego. New York
Oswego, New York
Oswego. New York
Oswego. New York
Quantity Contact
Treated Time
(gallons! (minutes)
250.000
250.000
250.000
250.000
250.000
250.000
250.000
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
85
Influent Effluent
Concen- Concen-
tration tration
(ppbl IPDDI
190 51
11 <.l
1 1
120 3
140 <.1
12 0
21 3
Percent
Removal
73.15
90.gr
90
99.75
99.92"
99.17-
98.57
Source: Becker. 0. L. S. C. Wilson. 1978.
Amenability of Typical Organic Compounds to Activated Carbon Adsorption
Compound
Alcohols
Methanol
Ethanol
Propanol
Butanol
n-Amyl alcohol
n-Hexanol
Isopropanol
Allyl alcohol
Isobutanol
t-Butano!
2-Elhyl butanol
2-Ethyl hexanol
Aldehydes
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehvde
Propionaldehyde
Buiyraldehyde
Acrolem
Crotonaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Paraldehyde
Amines
Oi-N-Propylamine
Butylamme
Oi-N-Butylamme
Allylamme
Ethylenediamine
Oiethylenetriamme
Monethanolamme
Oiethanolamihe
Triethanolamme
Monoisopropanolamme
Oiisopropanolamme
'yndines & Morpholmes
Pyridme
2-Methyl-5-ethyl pyridine
N-Methyl morpholine
N-Ethyl morpholine
Molecular
Weight
320
46.1
60.1
74 1
88.2
1022
60 1
581
74 1
74 1
102.2
1302
300
44 1
58.1
72 1
561
701
106.1
132.2
101 2
73 1
129.3
57 1
60 1
1032
61 1
105 1
149 1
75 1
133.2
79 1
121.2
101 2
1152
Aqueous
Solubility
(%>
-
-
77
1.7
0.58
-
-
35
_
0.43
007
-
-
22
7 1
206
155
0.33
105
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
95.4
-
-
87
-
si sol
-
-
Concentration
Vng/l
Initial
iCo)
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.010
1.000
1.000
1 000
700
1 000
1.000
1 000
1.000
1 000
1 000
1.000
1 000
1 000
1 000
1.000
1 000
1.000
1.000
1.012
996
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Final
(C,)
964
901
• 811
466
282
45
374
•789
581
705
145
10
908
881
723
472
694
544
60
261
198
480
130
686
893
706
939
722
670
800
543
527
107
575
467
Adsorbability
% compound/
% carbon
0007
0.020
0038
0.107
0 155
0 191
0025
0.024
0084
0059 -
0.170
0 138
0018
0022
0057
0 106
0061
0092
0 188
0 148
0 174
0 103
0 1 74
0063
0021
0062
0015
0057
0067
0040
0091
0.095
0 179
0085
0 107
Percent
Reduction
3 6
100
189
534
71 8
95 5
126
21 9
41 9
295
85 5
98 5
9 2
11 9
27 7
528
306
456
940
739
802
520
870
31 4
10.7
29.4
7 2
275
330
200
45 7
47 3
893
42 5
53 3
-------
Amenability of Typical Organic Compounds to Activated Carbon Adsorption (Continued)
Concentration
Compound
Aromatics
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Phenol
Hydroqumone
Aniline
Styrene
Nitrobenzene
Esters
Methyl acetate
Ethyl acetate
Propylacetate
Butyl acetate
Primary amyl acetate
isopropyi acetate
Isobutyl acetate
Vinyl acetate
Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether
acetate
Ethyl acrylate
Butyl acrylate
Ethers
Isopropyl ether
Butyl ether
Oichloroisopropvlene ether
Glycols & Glycol Ethers
Ethylene glycol
Oiethylene glycol
Triethylene giycol
Tetraethylene glycol
Propylene glycol
Oipropylene glycol
Hexylene glycol
Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether
Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Ethylene glycol monohexyl ether
Oiethylene glycol monoethyl ether
Oiethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Ethoxytriglycol
Halogenated
Ethvlene dichionde
Propylene dicnionde
Ketones
Acetone
Methylethyl ketone
Methyl propyl ketune
Methyl butyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl isoamyl ketone
Oiisobutyl ketone
Cyclohexanone
Acetophenone
Isophorone
Organic Acids
Formic acid
Acetic acid
Propionic acid
Butyric acid
Valeric acid
Caproic acid
Acrylic acid
Benzoic acid
Oxides
Propylene oxide
Styrene oxide
Molecular
Weight
78.1
92.1
106.2
94
110.1
93.1
104.2
123.1
74 1
88.1
102.1
116.2
130.2
102.1
116.2
86 1
132.2
100.1
128.2
102.2
1302
171 1
62.1
106.1
150.2
1942
76 1
1342
118 2
76.1
90 1
1 18 2
1462
1342
1622
1782
990
1130
581
72 1
86 1
1002
1002
1142
1422
982
1201
1382
460
60 1
74 1
88 1
102.1
1162
72 1
12 1
58 1
120.2
Aqueous
Solubility
0.07
0.047
0.02
6.7
6.0
3.4
0.03
0.19
31 9
8.7
2
068
02
2.9
0.63
28
22.9
2.0
0.2
1 2
0.03
0.17
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
099
-
-
081
030
-
268
43
V Si SOl
1 9
054
005
2.5
055
1 2
-
.
-
-
2.4
1 1
-
029
405
03
mg
Initial
(Co)
416
317
115
1.000
1.000
1.000
• 180
1.023
1.030
1.000
1.000
1 000
985
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.015
1.000
1.023
197
1,008
1.000
1.000
1 000
1 000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.024
1.022
1 000
975
1 010
1.000
1.000
1 000
l 000
1 000
1 000
i.OOO
988
i 000
986
300
1.000
1 000
1 000
1.000
1.000
1 000
1 000
i.OOO
1.000
1 000
1.000
1.000
1.000
/I
Final
21
66
18
194
167
251
13
44
760
495
248
154
119
319
180
357
342
226
43
203
nil
nil
932
738
477
419
384
835
386
386
705
441
126
570
173
303
'.89
7'
782
532
305
191
152
146
n.l
332
23
34
765
750
674
405
203
30
355
39
739
47
Adsorbs
% compound/
\ carbon
0080
0.050
0.019
0.161
0.167
0 150
0028
0 196
0054
0 100
0.149
0169
0175
0 137
0.164
0 129
0132
0157
0 193
0 162
0039
0200
00136
0053
0105
': 0116
0024
0033
0 122
0028
0063
0112
0 170
0087
0 166
0 139
0 153
0 183
0043
; 094
C 139
0 !59
0 169
0 169
0060
0 134
0 194
0 193
0047
0048
0065
0 1 19
0 159
0 194
0 129
0 183
0052
0 190
loiiuy
percent
950
792
843
805
33 3
74 9
33 3
95 6
262
50 5
75 2
94 5
330
58 i
32 0
54 3
55 3
77 7
95 9
800
1000
1 00 0
5 3
26 2
52 3
53 •
' ' 6
15 5
61 4
13 5
31 :
55 9
37 •
43 5
32 1
59 *
a ' •
9: i
I ' i
-6 3
59 5
ac '
8- 3
35 I
:oc :
55 3
97 c
96 5
23 5
24.:
32 5
59 5
79 7
97G
54 5
9'. '
26 '
95 ?
10
-------
Technology: Catalytic
Dehydrochlorination
Brief Description: Catalytic dehydrochlorination is
based on the reaction of polychlorinated hydrocarbons
with high-pressure hydrogen gas in the presence of a
catalyst. The feed must be in either liquid or gaseous
form with the inorganic and inert constituents
removed. The choice of catalyst depends on the
process requirements. The operating temperatures
are 671 ° to 707° f under 30 to 50 atms pressure. The
quantity of catalyst (usually 61 percent Ni on Kiesel-
guher or 10 percent palladium in C for PCB com-
pounds) is about 0.2 percent of pollutant weight.
Applicability/Limitation: In general, supported
catalysts are quickly deactivated by impurities such
as tars, sulfur compounds, etc. These processes are
excessively costly and often require the use of
hazardous chemicals.
Status/Availability: Laboratory scale.
Manufacturer:
Users:
EPA Contact: Charles Rogers, (513) 569-7757
Technology: Centrifugation
Brief Description: Centrifugation is a physical
separation process in which the components of a fluid
mixture are separated mechanically, based on their
density, by rapidly rotating the mass of fluid within a
rigid vessel. Centripetal forces in Centrifugation are
similar to gravitational forces in sedimentation except
that centripetal forces are thousands of times stronger
than gravitational forces, depending on diameter and
rotational speed of the centrifuge.
Applicability/Limitation: Dewatering, separating
oil and water, clarification of viscous gums and
resins, and recovery of metals. Centrifuges are gener-
ally better suited than vacuum filters for dewatering
sticky or gelatinous sludges. Disc-type centrifuges
can be used to separate a three-component mixture
(i.e., oil. water, solids). Centrifuges cannot generally
be used for clarification since they may fail to remove
solids which are not large or dense particles. Recovery
and removal efficiencies may be improved if filter
paper or cloth are incorporated in the centrifuges.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Western States Machine
Manufacturer:
Bird, Fletcher
Sharpies
Dorr-Oliver
Users: Widespread
EPA Contact: S. Garry Howell, (513) 569-7756
Basket centrifuge.
Sohds —
Cake
Revolvi
4
.\
(fl
1
w
Vf
j
;
r-
fe
\ 1
v
ig /
Feed 1^
^
rS,
)
-,'^T
Basket Frame
/ \
xj
T^
x Basket Wall
/
•»
V
><
/
\
£
r^
»
V
X
f
1
I
i
IT :
II |
M.
.
{Used with
Perforated Wan
" Solids
Cake Buildup
.
1
, " Effluent
1
ii- * ''
Solid bowl centrifuge.
Drive Assemolv
Rotor Onve Assemolv
Solids
Discharge
Clarified
Effluent
1 1
-------
Technology: Chemical Precipitation
Brief Description: Chemical precipitation facilities
remove dissolved metals from aqueous wastes by
chemically converting the metals into insoluble form.
Metals may be precipitated from solution as hydrox-
ides, sulfides, carbonates or other salts. Hydroxide
precipitation with lime is most common; however,
sodium sulfide is sometimes used to achieve lower
effluent metal concentrations. This involves pH
adjustment followed by sodium sulfide and flocculant
aid additions. Solids separation is effected by standard
flocculation coagulation techniques. The resulting
residuals are metal sludge and the treated effluent
with an elevated pH and. in the case of sulfide
precipitation, excess sulfide.
Applicability/Limitation: This technology is used
to treat aqueous wastes containing metals including:
zinc, arsenic, copper, manganese, mercury, cadmium.
trivalent chromium, lead and nickel. Selective precip-
itation of barium as barium sulfate and silver as silver
chloride are other applications. Limitations include
optimum pH for the mix of metals present and
chelating or complexing agents. Organics are not
removed. The resulting sludge may be hazardous by
definition but often may be delisted by specific
petition. Sulfide precipitation has been successfully
used at a plating facility (as shown in the following
table).
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Manufacturer: Mobile Systems—Rexnord CRIG,
Richard Ostawski, (414) 643-2762
Ecolochem, Inc., Richard Smallwood, (800)446-8004
Dravo Corporation, Ogden demons. (412) 777-5235
Users: Widespread
EPA Contact: S Garry Howell. (513) 569-7756
Solubilities of metal hydroxide* at a function of pH
100
3D
C
O
C
S
-------
Treatment of Industrial Plating Waatewatari by Sulfida Precipitation and Settling
Initial conditions of wastewater:
pH = 7.1 ±0.1
Zn*82.7 mg/l = 1.264 mM
Ni = 4.7 mg/l = 0.080 mM
Total Metals = 1.344 mM
Run
No.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Residual Metal.
mg/l
pH
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
7.2
7.4
t. min
10.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
S" Dosage
1.1Sx
0
1.15x
0
1.1 5x
0
1.0x
0.8x
0.8x
1.15x
Zn
5.0
3.4
44
>5.0
0.76
3.6
4.7
>5.0
>5.0
>5.0
Ni
0.04
0.05
0.11
0.08
0.15
0.09
0.10
0.20
1.05
>5.0
Removal Efficiency, %
Zn
O3.95
95.89
94.68
03.95
99.08
95.65
9432
<93.95
<93.95
03.95
Ni
99.15
98.94
97.66
98.30
96.81
98.09
97.87
95.74
77.66
0
Overall
O4.34
96.15
94.94
O4.29
99.03
95.87
94.61
O4.41
93.06
88.44
Ref: Peters. 1984.
Chemical precipitation and associated process steps.
Chemical
Precipitams
Chemical
Flocculants/
Settling Aids
Flocculation Flocculating
Well Paddles
Liquid
Feed
Effluent
Baffle
Precipitator
Tank
Sludge
13
-------
Technology: Circulating Bed Combustor
Briaf Description: The GA circulating bed com-
bustor is designed to be an improvement over
conventional fluidized beds. The system operates at
higher velocities and with finer sorbents than fluidized
bed systems. This permits a unit that is more compact
and easier to feed. The unit also produces lower
emissions and uses less sorbent materials than the
fluidized bed systems. No off-gas scrubber is neces-
sary in the circulating bed combustor and heat can be
recovered as an added benefit.
The key to the high efficiency of the circulating bed
combustor is the high turbulence that is achieved
within the combustor. This feature allows efficient
destruction of all types of halogenated hydrocarbons,
including BCBs and other aromatics, at relatively low
temperatures (less than 850°C). All acid gases are
captured within the combustion chamber by injected
limestone. Compounds containing high levels of
phosphorus, sulfur, cyanide, etc., can be processed
with emissions of NO,. CO and acid gases. In addition
to the turbulence a large combustion zone with
uniform (and lower) temperature throughout also
contributes to high efficiency. The circulating bed
combustor also features longer residence times of the
combustibles and sorbents in the combustion zone.
Applicability/Limitation: The system is capable of
treating solids, sludges, slurries and liquids contain-
ing such compounds as chlorobenzenes. acetonitrile.
carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethane. sodium fluo-
ride, tributyl phosphate, aniline, malathion, sodium
silicates and lead oxide.
The system is capable of handling feeds of liquids.
sludges or solids. The process requires no atomizer or
multiple feed ports for successful treatment. The high
degree of turbulence and mixing ensures treatment
of a wide variety of wastes. The wastes however must
be homogenous in composition when fed to the
combustor.
An additional benefit of the circulating bed incin-
erator is the possibility of heat recovery. Energy can
be recovered either as steam or hot water. The system
takes advantage of good heat transfer in the com-
bustor rather than utilizing a separate waste heat
boiler for heat recovery. This is possible because the
combustion chamber is of "water wall" construction.
therefore, cooling tubes need not be located in the
direct path of hot gases.
Status/Availability: Ready for field-scale testing
Manufacturer: G. A. Technologies
Users:
EPA Contact: Donald Oberacker, (51 3) 569-7341
-------
Technology: Distillation
Brief Description: Separates miscible organic liquids
for solvent reclamation and waste volume reduction.
The resulting residuals are still bottoms and "slop" or
intermediate distillate cuts. Two major types of
distillation processes are batch distillation and con-
tinuous fractional distillation.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat liquid organic
wastes, primarily spent solvents, either halogenated
such as, spent 1,1,1-trichloroethane degreasing
solvent or non-halogenated compound such as
methyl ethyl ketone solvent mixture from paint line
clean-out. Liquids to be separated must have different
volatilities. The limitations are heat-sensitive sus-
pended solids and azeotropes. Batch distillation in a
heated still pot with condensation of the overhead
vapors is easily controlled and flexible, but cannot
achieve the high product purity of continuous frac-
tional distillation. Small packaged batch stills treating
one drum per day or less are becoming popular for
on-site recovery of solvents. Continuous fractional
distillation is accomplished in tray columns or packed
towers ranging up to 40 feet in diameter and 200 feet
high. Each is equipped with a reboiler, a condenser,
and an accumulator. The capacity of a unit is a
function of the waste being processed, purity re-
quirements, reflux ratio and heat input.
Status/A vailability:
Manufacturer: Exceltech, Inc., John Sedwick. (41 5)
659-0404
Kipin Industries, Peter Kipin, (412) 495-6200
Mobile Solvent Reclaimers, Inc., Larry Lambing, (81 6)
271-4392
Users:
EPA Contact: Ron Turner, (513) 569-7775
Batch distillation.
Continuout fractional distillation.
Feed -»
Batch
Still
Condenser
Partial Recycle
Accumulator
Distillate
•»— Steam
^— Condensate
_c* Bottom
Product
Accumuiato'
Perforated Tray Tyoe
Distillation Plate
Steam
Condensate
Still Bottoms
(Residue!
15
-------
Technology: Electric Reactors
Brief Description: Use an electrically heated fluid
wall reactor to pyrolyze waste contaminants from
particles such as soils. Emissions and residuals
include mostly.Nz, H20 and CI2 and/or HCI trapped in
the scrubber ash components in the residue. The
advantages are that it is transportable, has a high
treatment efficiency, and emissions are low.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat organics.
inorganics in solid, liquid or gas (solid or liquid may
require pretreatment) and for PCS or dioxin contam-
inated soils. It is limited to treating solids less than
-35 U.S. mesh and liquids atomizedto <1 500 micron
droplets.
Status/Availability: Commercial units are under
construction, none in use.
Manufacturer: Thagard Research Corporation.
Costa Mesa. California
J. M. Huber Construction, Jim Boyd (806) 274-5040
Users: Two units in Borger, Texas.
EPA Contact: Harry Freeman, (513) 569-7529
Technology: Electrolytic Oxidation
Brief Description: In this process cathodes and
anodes are immmersed in a tank containing a waste
to be oxidized, and a direct electrical current is
imposed on the system. The process is particularly
applicable to cyanide bearing waste. The products of
decomposition for cyanide waste are ammonia, urea,
and carbon dioxide. During the decomposition, metals
present are plated out on a cathode.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat high con-
centrations (up to 10 percent) of cyanide and to
separate metals and allow their potential recovery
Limitations include physical form (such as sludge or
solidsl, non-selective competition with other species
and long process time at up to 200°F.
Status/Availability: Commercially available
Manufacturer: Stauffer Chemical Company
Users:
EPA Contact: S. Garry Howell. (51 3) 569-7756
Technology: Evaporation
Brief Description: Evaporation is the physical
separation of a liquid from a dissolved or suspended
solid by the application of energy to volatilize the
liquid. In hazardous waste treatment, evaporation
may be used to concentrate a hazardous material
thus reducing the volume of waste requiring subse-
quent treatment or disposal.
Applicability/Limitation: Evaporation can be ap-
plied to any mixture of liquids and non-volatile solids
provided the liquid is volatile enough to evaporate
under reasonable heating or vacuum conditions.
(Both the liquid and the solid should be stable under
those conditions.) If the liquid is water, evaporation
can be carried out in a large pond with solar providing
the energy. Evaporation of aqueous wastes can also
be done in closed process vessels with energy
provided by steam and the resulting water vapor
condensed for possible reuse Energy requirements
are usually minimized by such techniques as vaco'
recompression or multiple-effect evaporators
Evaporation is applied to solvent wastes comtam.
nated with nonvolatile impurities such as oil. grease
paint solids, or polymeric resins. Mechanically agi-
tated or wiped thm film evaporators are used Solvent
is evaporated and recovered for reuse. The residue
-------
Schematic of single and multiple effect evaporators.
Exhaust
Vacuum
Pump
Condensate
Distilled Vapor
"Cooling
"*Water
Heat
Exchanger
Steam
Steam Condensate
Vapor
Chamber
Dilute Liquid
o—
Feed
Pump
Concentrated Liquid
Transfer
Pump
Typical Single Effect Evaporator—Falling Film Type
Exhaust 4
'Pump
urn 1 Heal
um ti _
, V^/ Exchanger
t
Condenser
1
t
Condensate
Tf
j i Cooling
I Water
(Typ
/3rd x
Vapor
Chamber
(Typ 1
Condensate
Effect
f
1st 1
Stage
W
Dilute Liquid
u
Feed
Pump
w ^
-y
J
S~
^— L
• Distilled
Vapor
— • /2nd,
<
Effect
\S
f
2nd 1
Stage
W
*w^^
i
J
I
^
rj
T M:
Distilled
Vapor
r/1st \
Effect
v
S
3rd 1
Stage
V
^J
T
J
***" \
f»- Steam
i
rl Steam
T Condensate
Concentrate
^~l f Liquid |Tyo i
Transfer
Pump
(Typ )
Typical Multi-Effect (Triple Effect! Evaporator—Falling F.lm Type
17
-------
Technology: Extraction/Soil Flushing or
Washing
Brief Description: Removes toxic/hazardous or- Users: Volk Air National Guard Base. Wisconsin
ganics and inorganics from soil or sludge by extracting (found not viable)
contaminants by-partitioning. The site is flooded with Lee's Farm. Wisconsin, (312) 535-2318
the appropriate flushing solution and the elutriate is Celtor Chemical Works
collected. The resulting waste-containing elutriate is Hoopa Indian Reservation, Nick Morgan. (916) 243-
treated. 5831
•Applicability/Limitation: Used to remove both EPA Contact: Ren Turner. (513) 569-7775
organics and inorganics if they are sufficiently soluble Richard P. Traver. ( "52) 321 -6677
in a solvent. Surfactants can be used for hydrophobic
organics.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
EPA Mobile In-Situ/Containment Treatment Unit
Manufacturer: Critical Fluid Systems. Peter Ounlap.
(617)492-1631
IT Corporation, Dave Sikes, (415) 228-5100
18
-------
Technology: Filtration
Brief Description: Granular media filtration usually
uses gravity to remove solids from a fluid by passage
of the fluid through a bed of granular material.
Several mechanisms are involved in the removal of
suspended solids by granular media filtration. They
include straining, physical adsorption and coagula-
tion-flocculation. In vacuum and high-pressure filtra-
tion pressure (either negative or positive) is used to
move water through the filter media and leaving the
solids behind. These filters may be precoated with a
filter aid such as a ground cellulose, diatomaceous
earth, etc.
Applicability/Limitation: Filtration is used for the
dewatering of sludges and slurries as a pretreatment
for other processes. Filtration does not reduce the
toxicity of the waste. Although sometimes powdered
activated carbon may be used as a combination
adsorbent and filter aid, it merely reduces the volume
of waste to be treated. Filtration should not be used
with sticky or gelatinous sludges, this is due to
likelihood of filter media plugging. Granular media
should be preceded by gravity separation if suspended
solids are greater than 100 mg/l. Design criteria—In
granular bed filtration rates range from 2 gpm/sf for
shallow beds of fine sand to over 15 gpm/sf for deep
bed filters using coarse sand or multiple media beds.
Vessels are from 2Vi to 20 feet in diameter, with
media depth of 1 '/j to over 15 feet.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Granular Media Filters
Corporation, Dave Jordan, (201)
Manufacturer:
Calgon Carbon
526-4646
Carbon Air Services, Inc., (612) 935-1844
Chemical Waste Management, John Fink, (714)940-
7971
Packaged granular madia gravity filter.
Wash Trough
Influent"^
Piping {
\ - Adjustable Weir
—v
7}
Backwash
Effluent
Backwash-^
Inlet
Note:
Arrows Indicate Route
of Backwash
Dorr-Oliver
Krauss-Maffei, (316) 945-5251
Komline Sanderson, (201) 234-1000
Bird Machine Co.. (617) 668-0400
DRSperry, Inc., (312) 892-4361
Users: Widely used.
EPA Contact: S. Garry Howell, (513) 569-7756
Vacuum filter.
Rotary
Ori.-
Filter preai unit.
Gasket
Slurry —
Inlet
Cloth
Cake
Underdram System
Filtrate
Outlet
19
-------
Technology: Fluidized Bed Incinerators
Brief Description: Utilize a very turbulent bed of
inert granular material (usually sand) to improve the
transfer of heat to the waste streams to be inciner-
ated. Residues and emissions include acid gases
trapped in the -bed. low particulates. low nitrogen
oxides and ash components (for low-ash wastes).
Advantages of this technology include low tempera-
ture with no ash agglomeration, low gas emissions,
low particulate emissions and a long residence time.
Operating temperatures range from 1300 to 2100°F,
gas residence times are usually several seconds, and
excess air rates are normally 40 percent. Heat release
rates range from 100,000 to 200,000 8tu/hr/ft3.
Applicability/Limitation: Not presently used for
hazardous waste commercially. Refractory wastes
may not be destroyed.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Manufacturer: Battelle. Jack Conner, Columbus.
Ohio
GA Technologies, William Rickman. (619) 455-3860
Dorr-Oliver
Waste-Tech Services, Inc.. (208) 522-0850
(303) 987-1790 (mobile)
Users:
EPA Contact: Harry M. Freeman. (513) 569-7529
0> Analysis
Energy Resource* Company'! pilot-plent FBC facility.
Freeboard Upper Temperature
l
/
* /
Freeboard Cooling tubes
Freeboard Lower Temperature ,
Feed Hopper
Preheat Burner
Fly Asfl
ln-8ed Cooling Tuoes
"* Fluidued-Sed Temperature
Acnson Screw !«••«— -in/—-—»«• •. |ncone, distributor
• Air
Fluidizmg-Air Blower
20
-------
Technology:
Fly Ash or Lime-Based
Pozzolan Stabilization/
Solidification
Brief Description: This technology involves the
addition of large amounts of a siliceous material
combined with a setting agent such as lime, cement
or gypsum resulting in dewatering, stabilized, solidi-
fied product. Also can use thermoplastic (asphalt.
polyethylene).
Applicability/Limitation: Used for sludges and
contaminated soils including metals, waste oils and
solvents. Materials such as borates, sulfates and
carbohydrates interfere with the process. Long-term
stability and resistance to leaching unknown in some
cases.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Manufacturer: Different silicate processes avail-
able.
Users:
EPA Contact: Carlton Wiles, (513) 569-7795
Technology: Fuel Blending
Brief Description: Method to reuse waste organics
as fuel substitutes. The objective is the controlled
blending of segregated wastes of known character-
istics into a fuel product whose chemical and physical
characteristics meet the fuel specifications of the fuel
user.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to combine waste
oils, solvents and organic sludges to produce a
material with a fuel value usually greater than 10,000
Btu/lb. Limitations include chlorine and water con-
tent, the waste viscosity and the need for low solids.
In addition, the presence of certain hazardous con-
stituents (such as PCBs) and the corrosivity of the
waste can be limiting criteria for certain wastes
Status/Availability: In use for lime and cement
manufacturing, process heating and blast furnace
operation where permitted.
Manufacturer: .
Users: Solid Tek Systems, Inc., (404) 361-618"!
EPA Contact: Ron Turner. (513) 569-7775
Technology: Granular Media Filtration
Brief Description: Granular media filtration uses
gravity to remove solids from a fluid by passage of the
fluid through a bed of granular material. Several
mechanisms are involved in the removal of suspended
solids by granular media filtration. They include
straining, physical adsorption and coagulation-floc-
culation. A granular media filter therefore can remove
particles much smaller than the void size of the filter
media. Filters may be open top with gravity feed, or
enclosed in a pressurized vessel. The range of
configurations available include many proprietary
designs related primarily to improvements in the
backwashing operation.
Applicability/Limitation: Granular media filtration
is typically used after gravity separation processes for
additional removal of suspended solids and oils prior
to the other treatment processes and as a polishing
step for treated wastes to reduce suspended solids
and associated contaminants to low levels. Pretreat-
ment by filtration is appropriate for membrane
separation processes, ion exchange, and carbon
adsorption m order to prevent plugging or overloading
of these processes. Filtration of settled waste is of ten
required to remove undissolved heavy metals which
are present as suspended solids to ensure meeting
effluent quality requirements. Granular media filtra-
tion should be preceded by pretreatment processes if
the suspended solid concentration exceeds about
100 mg/l Otherwise, premature plugging will occur
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Manufacturer: Calgon Carbon Corporation. Dave
Jordan, (201)526-4646
Carbon Air Services. Inc., (612) 935-1844
Chemical Waste Management. John Fink, (714)940-
7971
Users:
EPA Contact: S. Garry Howell, (513) 569-7756
21
-------
Technology: Hydrolysis
Brief Description: Enhances cleavage rates of
organic molecules (breakdown to simpler, less-toxic
compounds) by acceleration of acid or base-catalyzed
hydrolysis rates through adjustment of soil/ground-
water/sludge pH.
Applicability/Limitation: Applicable in-situ treat-
ment, e.g., pesticide spills. Acid hydrolysis not
recommended for in-situ treatment because of poten-
tial mobilization of heavy metals. Base-catalyzed
hydrolysis attractive because of pH adjustment by
lime, alkaline fly ash, or sodium carbonate.
Status/Availability: Used at several sites.
Manufacturer: Not applicable.
Users:
EPA Contact: Donald Sannmg, (513) 569-7875
Technology: Industrial Boilers
Brief Description: Hazardous waste is used as
supplementary fuel to coal, oil or natural gas in fire
tube and water tube industrial boilers. Hazardous
waste fuel (HWP) (generally limited to liquid wastes)
can be blended with primary fuel and fired into a
boiler with primary fuel or it can be fired alone
through other burners. The heat release rate of
boilers that have been tested with HWF ranges .from
100 to 800 x 103 Btu/ftVhr
Vc •
Applicability/Limitation: Chlorine and sulfur must
be limited to HWF to minimize corrosion of boiler
materials of construction and to avoid increases in
HCI and sulfur oxide air emissions. Solids hazardous
wastes such as contaminated soils are not applicable
for use as HWF in boilers. Particularly useful for the
disposal of hazardous wastes generated on site.
Status/Availability: Only a small fraction of r^e
nations 23,000 fossil fueled boilers are in use burning
HWF.
Manufacturer: Various manufacturers. May be
package units or field constructed.
Users: Hazardous waste generators may use o".
site boilers to destroy combustible wastes.
EPA Contact: Robert E. Mourmghan. (513) 569-
7408
Technology:
Industrial Kilns (Cement,
Lime, Aggregate, Clay)
Brief Description: Rotary kilns constructed of steel
casings lined with refractory brick. Blended feed
material is fed into the upper (higher) end of the kiln
and fuel (coal, gas, oil, or hazardous waste) is fired at
the lower end. Kiln temperatures are about 3000°F
for lime kilns, and less than 2000°F for aggregate and
clay drying kilns. Hazardous waste fuel usually fired
into kiln with separate burner than primary fuel.
Waste blending may be necessary to obtain desired
fuel characteristics.
Applicability/Limitation: Generally limned to liq-
uid waste. Chlorine and sulfur content of waste fuel
must be controlled to prevent kiln operating and
product quality problems. Contaminated soils are not
good candidates for treatment in industrial kilns.
Status/Availability: 280 cement and lime kilns Dot
use of hazardous waste fuel not widespread At ;east
1 1 cement kilns now burn HWF as supplemental luei
Manufacturer: Various manufacturers Kiir.s are
field constructed.
Users: Off-site HWF generators.
EPA Contact: Robert Mourmghan. (513) 569- 7408
22
-------
Technology:
Infrared Incineration
Systems
Brief Description: The primary chamber consists of
a rectangular cross section "box" of carbon steel
lined with layers of lightweight ceramic fiber blanket.
Infrared energy is provided by silicon carbide resis-
tance heating elements. The material to be processed
is conveyed through the furnace on a woven wire belt
through the furnace. When the material reaches the
discharge end of the furnace, it drops off of the belt
into a hopper. The residuals are the gaseous products
of waste combustion, low particulates and solid
residuals. The advantages include a quiescent com-
bustion zone for low particulate emissions, reduced
gaseous emissions since no fossil fuel is used, up to
50 percent turndown, the system allows a high
degree of control and long residence times are
achievable.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat solids,
sludges and contaminated soils. The process is used
primarily for solids or sludges, but liquid or gaseous
injection systems are available.
Status/Availability: Operational units at several
locations, mobile units under construction, pilot-test
unit available.
Manufacturer: Shirco Infrared Systems, Jim WeJsh,
(214)630-7511
EPA Contact: Harry M. Freeman, (51 3) 569-7529
Technology:
In-Situ Adsorption
(Permeable Treatment Beds)
Brief Description: A trench, excavated down to a
confining layer, is filled with adsorbent or chemical
treatment material, such as activated carbon, diato-
maceous earth, fly ash, zeolites, lime or sodium
carbonatefto raisepH). Contaminatedgroundwater is
treated as it percolates through the beds.
Applicability/Limitation: Beds must be sufficiently
permeable to allow passage of ground water. Bed
pores may clog up, beds require renovation or
replacement.
Status/Availability: Not used in full scale yet.
Manufacturer:
Users:
EPA Contact: Donald Banning, (513) 569-7875
Technology:
In-Situ Chemical
Immobilization
Brief Description: Heavy metals are stabilized in
the ground as insoluble precipitates (sulfides, phos-
phates, hydroxides, carbonates) or oxidized forms
(e.g., ferric hydroxide with Mn coprecipitate). Alter-
natively some reduced forms are more stable (Cr[lll),
SeflV]). Certain organic monomers can be stabilized
as polymers.
Applicability/Limitation: Applies mostly to heavy
metals. The in-situ conditions must be maintained to
ivoid reversion of the stabilized form to a more mobile
form (e.g., sulfides can be oxidized to sulfates,
remobilizing the heavy metals).
Status/A vailability:
ment Treatment Unit.
EPA Mobile In-Situ/Contam-
Manufacturer: Not applicable.
Users:
EPA Contact: Donald Sanning, (513) 569-7875
Richard Traver, (201) 321 -6677
23
-------
Technology: In-Situ Thermal Destruction
Brief Description: Radio-frequency (RF) electrodes
placed along the ground surface heat the shallow
subsurface and generate superheated steam from
ground water. Organics are destroyed or mobilized by
vaporization, thermal decomposition, or distillation.
Applicability/Limitation: High operating costs
(electric power). Probably most applicable to volatile.
low boiling point, or easily decomposed organic
compounds.
Status/Availability: Not used on full scale yet
Manufacturer: Illinois Institute of Technology has
done research.
Users:
EPA Contact: Donald Sanning, (513)569-7875
Technology: Ion Exchange
Brief Description: Removes toxic metal ions from
solution to recover concentrated metal solutions for
recycling by exchanging one ion, electrostatically
attached to a solid resin material for a dissolved toxic
ion. The resulting residuals include spent resins and
spent regenerants such as acid, caustic or brine.
Applicability/Limitation: This technology is used
to treat metal wastes including cations (Ni2*, Cd2*,
Hg2') and amons (CrC^'". SeC>4 . HAsO«2"). Limita-
tions are selectively/competition, pH,and suspended
solids. The oxidizing agent concentration should be
greater than 50 meq/l for practical operation. Highly
concentrated waste streams O2500 mg/l contam-
inants) or high solid concentrations (>50 mg/l)
should be avoided.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Manufacturer: See buyer's guides from trade
journals
Users: Used on full commercial scale for water
treatment/conditioners.
EPA Contact: S. Garry Howell, (513) 569-7756.
Schematic of ion exchange.
To Storage Tank or
Other Treatment System
To Storage Tank or
Other Treatment Svsie
Backus'
Waie'
Trea:e
| 1 Add
| J*" Regenerant
Cation Exchange
System
r-L_-^';
Amon E«cnangij
System
To Storage Tank or
Other Treatment System
To Storage Tank or
Other Treatmeni Svste'-
24
-------
Technology: Liquid Injection Incineration
Brief Description: Waste material is introduced to
the combustion chamber in various droplet sizes to
mix with air and fuel, as needed. Following combus-
tion, the resulting gases are cooled and treated to
remove particulates and to neutralize acid gases.
Pretreatment such as blending, may be required for
wastes to provide efficient mixing with the oxygen
source. Operating temperatures range from 1200° to
1300°F and the gas residence time ranges from 0.1 to
2.0 seconds. Typical heat output ranges from 1 to 100
MMBtu/hr.
Applicability/Limitation: Can be applied to all
pumpable organic wastes including wastes with high
moisture content. Care must be taken in matching
waste to specific nozzle designs. Wastes with high
moisture content, high inorganic content or which
contain heavy metals are restricted.
Status/Availability: Ensco has a mobile unit avail-
able, used with rotary kilns. EPA Mobile Unit/
Incineration System is available.
Manufacturer:
trade journals.
Several, see buyer's guide from
Users: EPA Region VII. James Denny Farm,
Missouri (dioxin destruction).
EPA Contact: Donald Oberacker, (513) 569-7431
Frank J. Freestone, (201) 321-6632
Technology: Macroencapsulation/
Overpacking
Brief Description: Encapsulates large particles in
an environmentally secure barrier using lime or
cement pozzolan, thermoplastic or organic polymer. A
matrix is formed from reactive components, but the
waste not uniformly dispersed. The product contain-
ing the waste is in nodule form. Product placement
technique is very important.
Applicability/Limitation: Some processes are ap-
plicable to both organics and inorganics. Advantages—
The waste nodules are isolated, improved handling,
low permeability, minimum treatment, good beaming
strength. Disadvantages—Presence of free liquid and
the resultant product can be leachable.
Status/A vailability:
Manufacturer:
Users:
EPA Contact: Robert Landreth, (513) 569-7839
Technology: Molten Glass
Brief Description: Uses a pool of molten glass as
the heat transfer mechanism to destroy organics and
to capture ash and inorganics. The emissions include
acid gas and particulates and all residue is contained
in the glass. The advantages include significant
volume reduction, most wastes are treatable, the
residual is stabilized glass. Process is based on
existing glassmaking technology.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat any solid or
liquid such as plastics, asphalt, PCS or pesticides.
Sodium sulfates greater than 1 percent of the final
glass may pose a problem. It is inappropriate for soils
or high ash waste and it requires additional treatment
for off-gas.
Status/Availability: Commercially available for
uses other than hazardous waste incinerators.
Manufacturer: Penberthy Electromelt International.
Inc., (206) 762-4244
Battelle—Northwest. (509) 375-2927
Users:
EPA Contact: Harry M. Freeman, (513) 569-7529
25
-------
Technology: Molten Salt
Brief Description: Waste material is injected be-
neath a bed of molten sodium carbonate for incinera-
tion. Inorganics trapped in the salt include phos-
phorus, sulfur, arsenic and halogens. The salt acts as
a gas scrubber so there are low concentrations or no
acid gas emissions, the scrubber controls particulates
and the salt/ash mixture makes up the solid residue.
Reaction temperatures in the bed range from 1500 to
2000°F and residence times are typically 0.75
seconds.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat low ash,
low water content solid or liquid wastes. Limitations
are that low ash, and low water content are required
and molten salt can be corrosive. The neutralization
of acid gases results in the formation of other salts
that can change the fluidity of the bed and hence,
require frequent replacement of bed material.
Status/Availability: Pilot-scale units available.
Manufacturer: Rockwell International, (213) 700-
8200
Users:
EPA Contact: Harry M. Freeman, (513) 569-7529
Technology: Multiple Hearth Incinerator
Brief Description: Sludge or granulated solid com-
bustible waste feeds through the furnace roof where
a rotating air-cooled central shaft with air-cooled
rabble arms and teeth plows the waste across the top
hearth to dropholes wnere it falls to the next
successive hearth until the ash is discharged at the
bottom.
Applicability /Limitation: Disposes of sludges, tars.
solids, gases and liquid combustible wastes (through
nozzles). Not recommended for hazardous wastes.
Status/Availability: Commercially available
Manufacturer: See buyer's guide for trade journals
Users: Most widely used sewage sludge incinera-
tion method.
EPA Contact: Donald Oberacker. (51 3) 569-7431
Technology: Neutralization
Brief Description: Renders acid or caustic wastes
non-corrosive by pH adjustment. The resulting resid-
uals include insoluble salts, metal hydroxide sludge.
and neutral effluent containing dissolved salts. The
final desired pH is usually between 6.0 and 9.0.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat corrosive
wastes, both acids and bases. Limitations may include
concentration, the physical form such as sludges or
solids and the need for corrosion-resistant equip-
ment.
Status/Availability: Commercially available
Manufacturer: Newpark Waste Treatment Svs
terns, Inc., James Hobby, (419) 586-6683
Solid Tek Systems. Inc.. (404) 361 -6181
Ecolochem, Inc., Richard Smallwood. (800)446-8004
CECOS, Ernest C. Neal, (71 6) 873-4200
Users: Widespread.
EPA Contact: S. Garry Howell, (513) 569-7756
26
-------
Technology:
Oxidation by Hydrogen
Peroxide (H20 2)
Brief Description: Addition of H202 to oxidize
organic compounds. HjOa can be used as a source of
oxygen for biodegradation.
Applicability/Limitation: Non-specific reaction.
May be exothermic/explosive or require addition of
heat and/or catalysts. Probably not applicable for in-
situ treatment; may be used for surface treatment of
contaminated ground water/sludges.
Status/Availability: Common industrial unit pro-
cess.
Manufacturer: Various, FMC sells hydrogen per-
oxide and nutrient for biodegradation specifically for
petroleum treatment.
Users:
EPA Contact: Ronald Lewis, (513) 569-7856
Technology: Oxidation by Hypochlorites
Brief Description: Addition of sodium or calcium
hypochlorite (bleaching agents) to oxidize organic
wastes.
Applicability/Limitation: May produce toxic chlo-
rinated organic by-products. Must be done under
controlledfnot in-situ) conditions, i.e.. batch reactors.
Non-specific reaction.
Status/Availability: Used in industrial processes.
Manufacturer: See buyer's guide in trade journals.
Users:
EPA Contact: Donald Sanning, (513) 569-7875
Technology: Ozonation
Brief Description: Ozonation is a chemical oxida-
tion process appropriate for aqueous streams which
contain less than 1.0 percent oxidizable compounds.
Applicability/Limitation: Ozone can be used to
pretreat wastes to breakdown refractory organics or
as a polishing step after biological or other treatment
processes to oxidize untreated organics. Ozone is
currently used for treatment of hazardous wastes to
destroy cyanide and phenolic compounds. The rapid
oxidation of cyanides with ozone offers advantages
over the slower alkaline chlorination method. Limita-
tions include the physical form (i.e., sludges and
soilds) and nonselective competition with other
species.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Manufacturer: See buyer's guides or trade journal
Users: Widespread.
EPA Contact: S. Garry Howell, (513) 569-7756
Donald Sanning, (513) 569-7875
27
-------
Technology: Plasma Systems
Brief Description: This technology uses a plasma
arc device to create extremely high temperatures
(temperatures approach 10,000°C) for waste destruc-
tion in highly toxic liquids. Gaseous emissions (mostly
Hj, CO), acid gases in the scrubber and ash com-
ponents in scrubber water are the residuals. The
system's advantages are that it can destroy refractory
compounds, the equipment can be made portable and
typically the process has a very short on/off cycle.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat liquid
wastes containing organics, pesticides. PCBs. dioxins
or halogenated organics. The process is limited to
liquids and continuous operation has not been
demonstrated.
Status/Availability: Pilot-plant stage with demon-
stration m progress, mobile pilot plant available.
Manufacturer: Pyrolysis Systems, Inc Ed FOX
(416)735-2401
Applied Energetics, Inc., John Dicks, (615)455-0631
Westinghouse
Users:
EPA Contact: Harry M. Freeman. (513) 569-7529
Process schematic of the psi plasma pyrolysis unit.
Off Gases to Flare
Emergency Carbon
Hvryir
Samole
q
]
-
Gas Cnromatograon-
Mass Selectivity Unit
LaDoratory
Analysis Equioment
Gas Chromatograon
3"£= Salt Water to Dram
Technology: Polymerization
Brief Description: Polymerization uses catalysts to
convert a monomer or a low-order polymer of a
particular compound to a larger chemical multiple of
itself which has different properties for m-place
stabilization.
Applicability/Limitation: This technology treats
organics including aromatics, aliphatics and oxygen-
ated monomers such as styrene. vmyl chloride.
isoprene acrylonitrile. etc. Limned application to spills
of these compounds.
Status/Availability: Has been used at sp.Hls
Manufacturer: Not applicable.
Users:
EPA Contact: Carlton Wiles. (513) 569-7795
28
-------
Technology: Portland Cement Pozzolan
Stabilization/Solidification
Brief Description: Mixes the waste with portland
cement to incorporate the waste into the cement
matrix. This improves handling and is inexpensive
(plentiful raw materials).
Applicability/Limitation: Effective for metal cat-
ions, latex and solid plastic wastes. Large amounts of
dissolved sulfate salts, or metallic anions such as
arsenate and borates will hamper solidification.
Organic matter, lignite, silt or clay will increase setting
time.
Status/Availability: Commercially available.
Manufacturer: Aerojet Energy Conversion
Company, Sacramento, California
ATCOR, Inc., Peekskill, New York
Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., Bellevue, Massachu-
setts
Delaware Custom Materials, Cleveland, Ohio
Energy, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho
General Electric Company, San Jose, California
Hittman Nuclear and Development Company,
Columbia, Maryland
Stock Equipment Company, Cleveland, Ohio
Todd Research and Technical Division, Galveston,
Texas
United Nuclear Industries. Richland, Washington
Westinghouse Electric Company, Pittsburgh. Penn-
sylvania
Users:
EPA Contact: Robert Landreth, (513) 569-7836
Technology: Pyrolysis Processes
Brief Description: Pyrolysis consists of heating
material in the absence of air in order to thermally
degrade to a volatile gaseous portion and residual
solid comprised of fixed carbon and ash. There are two
main ways to heat the material. One is by direct
heating where the material is heated by direct contact
with hot combustion products. The result of direct
heating is an off-gas that is a combination of volatiles
from the waste and burner flue products. Another
method is indirect heating. This method keeps the
burner flue products from mixing with the volatiles.
Indirect heating is the necessary mode of heating if
resource recovery is to be attempted, but it is also
more complex and more expensive than direct heating.
Indirect heating will probably prove economical only in
very large units. Because of the drawbacks of indirect
heating Midland-Ross is concentrating on smaller
units that can convert the waste to a preheated
gaseous fuel and burn the fuel near the pyrolyzer. In
this way direct heating imposes almost no penalty on
overall fuel efficiency.
The pyrolysis equipment is designed to convert
waste that is not suited for boiler fuel, into a gaseous
fuel. The main objective of this system is to convert
waste material from a disposal problem to a gaseous
fuel source.
Applicability/Limitation: This technology is used
to treat viscous liquids, sludges, solids, high ash
materials, salts and metals and halogenated wastes
The limitations are that it requires a homogeneous
waste input and metals and salts in the residue can be
leachable.
Status/Availability: Commercially available batch
and continuous.
Manufacturer: Midland-Ross Corporation. (41 9i
547-6444
Users:
EPA Contact: Harry M. Freeman, (513) 569-7529
29
-------
Technology: Rotary Kiln Incineration
Brief Description: Wastes and auxiliary fuel are
introduced to the high end of the kiln which is slightly
inclined to horizontal. Wastes are oxidized, or com-
busted as they move through the kiln due to its
rotation. Exhaust gases from the kiln pass to a
secondary chamber, or afterburner for further oxida-
tion. Ash residues are discharged and collected from
the low end of the kiln Exhaust gases may require
acid gas and particulate removal, and the ashes may
require solidification before landfilling.
Applicability/Limitation: Most types of solid, liquid
and gaseous organic wastes can be treated with this
technology. Wastes with high inorganic salt content
and heavy metals as well as explosive wastes require
special evaluation.
Status/A vailability:
wide use.
Commercially available and in
Manufacturer: S. D. Myers. Inc.. Joe Isle (415)
794-6301
American Industrial Waste of ENCSO, Inc., (Mobile)
(615)383-1691
Exceltech, Inc., (415) 659-0404
International Waste Energy System, Owight Brown
(314)389-7275
Winston Technology, Inc., (Mobile), (914) 273-6533
Industronics, Inc., (203)'289-1 551
Volund USA. (312)655-1490
Thermal
TR Systems
C & H Combustion
CE Raymond
: Von Roll
Users: EPA-ORD. Denny Farm Site near McDonnell.
Missouri.
EPA Contact: James Yezzi, (201) 321-6677
Technology: Soil Flushing/Soil Washing
Brief Description: Soil flushing is m-situ extraction
of inorganic or organic compounds from soils by
passing extractant solutions through the soils. These
solutions may include water, surfactants, acids or
bases (for inorganics), chelating agents, oxidizing and
reducing agents. Soil washing consists of similar
treatment, but the soil is excavated and treated at the
surface in a soil washer
Applicability /Limitation: -Soil flushing/washing
fluids must have good extraction coefficients, low
volatility and toxicity. be safe and easy to handle, and
most important, be recoverable'recyclable Most
promising for extraction of heavy metals, problems
likely m dry or organic-rich soils Care must be taken
that the soil pores are not clogged. This can haooen
with certain surfactants tested for m-situ extraction
Status/Availability: Limited full-scale testing
Manufacturer: US6PA. Edison. New Jersey, nas
mobile soil washer, other systems under develoo
ment.
Users: Technology has been developed by oil mdus
try (tertiary recovery) and mining (metal leachmg)
EPA Contact Richard Traver. (201) 321-6677
Technology: Sorption
Brief Description: Contaminants are bound up in
pozzolan-type matrices by physical sorption or chemi-
sorption yielding a stabilized material which is easier
to handle. Liquid immobilization depends on added
ingredients. This process results in high concentra-
tions of contaminants at the surface of the material
and contaminants may leach. The treated material is
permeable.
Applicability/Limitation: For organics and inorgan-
ics. Advantages to this technology include plentiful
raw materials, mixing technology known, improved
handling, inexpensive additives, minimum pretreat-
ment. bearing strength adequate for landfill Dis-
advantages—large volume of additives, poor leachate
control, placement sensitive, limited bearing strength
free water may be released under high pressure and
there is temperature sensitivity.
Status/A vailability:
Manufacturer:
Users:
EPA Contact: Robert Landreth. (513) 569-7836
30
-------
Technology: Steam Stripping
Brief Description: Uses steam to remove organics
from aqueous wastes. Steam stripping is essentially a
continuous fractional distillation process carried out
in a packed or tray tower. Clean steam rather than
reboiled bottoms provides direct heat to the tower.
The resulting residuals are contaminated steam
condensate, recovered solvent, and "stripped" efflu-
ent.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat aqueous
wastes contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons,
aromatics such as xylenes, ketones such as acetone
or MEK, alcohols such as methanol and high boiling
point chlorinated aromatics such as penta-chloro-
phenol. Steam stripping will treat less volatile and
more soluble wastes than air stripping and can
handle a wide concentration range from less than
100 ppm to 10 percent organics.
Status/Availability: USEPA has transportable unit.
Manufacturer:
Users:
EPA Contact: Ron Turner, (513) 569-7775
Steam stripping column—perforated tray type.
Organic
Vapors
Liquid
Feed
Flow
Steam
Heat
Source: Waudler. Rochester. New York
Technology: Sulfur Regeneration Units
Brief Description: Proprietary sulfuric acid regen-
eration unit is used to combust high sulfur refinery
waste. Sulfur is recovered from the combustion gases
using a double contact-double- absorption sulfuric
acid plant. The furnace operates above 1600°F, and
has a long residence time (greater than 1 second).
Applicability/Limitation: Can destroy hazardous
waste with high sulfur content. Particularly appicable
to high sulfur, high Btu refinery wastes.
Status/Availability: Limited.
Manufacturer:
cess.
Stauffer Chemical proprietary pro-
Users: Destroys on-site generated wastes.
EPA Contact: Harry Freeman. (513) 569-7529
31
-------
Technology: Supercritical Extraction
Brief Description: At a certain combination of
temperature and pressure, fluids reach their critical
point beyond which their solvent properties are
greatly altered. These properties make extraction
more rapid and efficient than processes using distil-
lation and conventional solvent extraction methods.
This technology has not been applied to PCBs. No cost
or time estimates are available. Presently, the EPA
has contracted Critical Fluid Systems. Inc., to investi-
gate the use of supercritical carbon dioxide to extract
hazardous organics from aqueous streams.
Applicability/Limitation: This technology is used
to extract hazardous waste from the soil. It is limited
at this time because it is new and it appears that the
capital cost is high.
Status/Availability: Laboratory tests only.
Manufacturer:
Users:
EPA Contact: Charles Rogers, (513) 569-7757
Technology:
Supercritical Water
Oxidation
Brief Description: The supercritical water oxidation
process is basically a high temperature, high pressure
wet air oxidation. The unique properties of water
above 500°C or 705°F (supercritical region) cause it
to act as an excellent non-polar solvent for nearly all
organic materials. Aqueous solutions or slurries
(organic content >5 percent) are mixed with high-
pressure oxygen (3200 to 3600 psi or >218 aims) to
chemically oxidize wastes m less than one minute
with >99.99 percent efficiency. The process is an
emerging technology which may be less expensive
than high-temperature incineration for destruction of
organically contaminated aqueous wastes.
Two processing approaches have been evaluated:
an above-ground pressure vessel reactor (MODAR)
and the use of an 8,000 to 10.000-ft well reactor
(Vertex). The SCW process is best suited for large
volume (200 to 1000 gpm) dilute (1.0 to 10.000 mg/l
COO) aqueous wastes that are of a volatile nature and
that contain sufficient Btu's to sustain the process. In
many applications, high 8tu non-hazardous wastes
can be mixed with low Btu hazardous wastes to
provide the heat energy needed to make the process
self sustaining. Emissions/residues include gaseous
effluent (nitrogen and carbon dioxide), precipitation of
inorganic salts and the liquid containing only soluble
inorganic acids and salts. The advantages are rapid
oxidation rates, complete oxidation of organics.
efficient removal of inorganics and no off-gas pro-
cessing is required.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat aqueous
organic solution/slurry and mixed organic/inorganic
waste. Sophisticated equipment and operations and
long-term continuous operation have not been
demonstrated, thereby limiting its use.
Status/Availability: Demonstration completed m
1 985. commercial unit available in 1 987.
Manufacturer: Vertex Corporation. Dallas. Te»as
MODAR. Inc . Natick. Texas (pilot scale)
Users:
EPA Contact: Harry M Freeman. (513) 569-7529
Charles Rogers. (513) 569-7757
32
-------
Technology: Ultraviolet Photolysis
Brief Description: Ultraviolet photolysis (UV) is a
process that destroys or detoxifies hazardous chem-
icals in aqueous solutions utilizing UV irradiation.
Natural photolysis of dioxins has been observed on
soil surfaces although the degree of reaction is
limited by the depth of penetration of the UV. Ultra-
violet light has been used for degradation of dioxins in
waste sludge. This process requires extraction of the
dioxins into a clean transparent solvent. Reaction
products are dechlormated phenolic materials includ-
ing ethoxylated phenol. Use of UV photolysis on a
liquid dioxin waste required six extractions to reduce
the dioxin content from 343 ppm to 0.2 ppm.
Photolysis of the extracted dioxin reduced dioxin level
to less than 0.1-ppm after 20 hours. Overall destruc-
tion efficiency was 99.94 percent.
Applicability /Limitation: The inability of UV light
to penetrate and destroy pollutants in soil or opaque
solutions is a limitation of this approach. Photolysis
can be enhanced by simultaneous introduction of
ozone.
Status/Availability: Laboratory scale.
Manufacturer SYNTEX
Users:
EPA Contact: Charles Rogers, (513) 569-7757
Technology: Vitrification
Brief Description: Large electrodes are inserted
into soils containing significant levels of silicates.
Graphite on the soil surface connects the electrodes.
A high current of electricity passes through the
electrodes and graphite. The heat causes a melt that
gradually works downward through the soil. Some
contaminant organics are volatilized and escape from
the soil surface and may be collected by a vacuum
system. Inorganics and some organics are trapped in
the melt that as it cools becomes a form of obsidian or
very strong glass.
Applicability/Limitation: Originally tested as a
means of solidification/immobilization of low level
radioactive metals. May also be useful for forming
barrier walls (e.g., equivalent to slurry wall construc-
tion). This later use needs testing and evaluation to
determine how uniform the wall would be and stability
of the material over a period of time.
Status/A vailability:
Manufacturer: Battelle Northwest has developed
methods. Currently negotiating for commercial li-
cense by others.
Users:
EPA Contact: Donald Sannmg. (513) 569-7875
33
-------
Technology: Wet Air Oxidation
Brief Description: Uses elevated temperature and
pressure to oxidize organics. The oxidation products
stay in liquid as do the inorganics. The off-gas low in
nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and participates. Off-
gas treatment may be used for hydrocarbon emissions.
The advantages are that it is thermally self-sustaining,
accepts waste with organic concentrations range
between biological treatment and incineration,
detoxifies priority pollutants and the products of
oxidation and stay in the liquid phase. Wet air
oxidation is particularly well suited for treating
organic compounds in aqueous waste streams that
are too dilute (<15 percent organics) to treat econom-
ically by incineration. Oxidation of the organic
compounds occurs when the aqueous solution is
heated to about 300°C and 137 atm in the presence of
compressed air. Typically, 80 percent of the organic
substances will be completely oxidized. The system
can accommodate some partially halogenated com-
pounds, but highly chlorinated species such as PCBs,
are too stable for complete destruction without the
addition of catalysts.
Applicability/Limitation: Used to treat aqueous
waste streams with less than 5 percent organics and
with some pesticides, phenolics and organic sulfur.
cyanide wastewaters. It is not recommended for
aromatic halogenated organics. This technology is
not economical for dilute or concentrated wastes and
it is not appropriate for solids or viscous liquids.
Status/Availability: Available at commercial scale.
Manufacturer: Zimpro, Inc., William Copa. (715)
359-7211
MODAR. Inc.. (617)655-7741
Vertech Treatment Systems, (303) 452-8800
Users: Casmalia Resources, 10-gpm demonstration
unit.
SPA Contact: Harry M. Freeman, (513) 569-7529
34
-------
Bibliography
1. Martin, Edward J., Oppelt, E. T., and Smith. B. P.. Chemical, Physical,
Biological Treatment of Hazardous Wastes, Paper to the 5th U.S./Japan
Conference of Solid Wastes Management, Tokyo, Japan, Sept. 1982.
2. Oppelt, E. T., Pretreatment of Hazardous Wastes, Paper to the U.S./Spain
Joint Seminar on the Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, Madrid,
Spain, May 1986. *••:
3. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Engineers Briefing: Technologies Applicable to
Hazardous Waste, for USEPA, HWERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1985.
4. Contributions by various participants of the RCRA/CERCLA Alternative
Treatment Technology Seminar, CERI (Center for Environmental Research
Information), USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1986.
5. Turner, Ronald J., A Review of Treatment Alternatives for Wastes
Containing Nonsolvent HalogenatedOrganics, USEPA, HWERL, Cincinnati.
Ohio, 1986.
•£U.3. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1 9 r 6-6 <« 6- I 1 5 H 0 S 0 6
35
-------
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
OVERSIGHT DURING THE
CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS
TES IV CONTRACT
-------
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
CONTRACTOR RESOURCES & CAPABILITIES
TES IV CONTRACT
o Jacobs Engineering Group (JEG)
o Metcalf & Eddy (M&E) ^
o Tetra Tech, Inc.-/
o ICAIR Life Systems
o Kellogg Corporation
o Geo/Resource Consultants
o Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
o Development Planning and Research
Associates, Inc.
-------
/OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
CONTRACTOR RESOURCES & CAPABILITIES
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
o Engineers
- Civil - Geotechnical
- Environmental - Chemical
- Process - Construction
o Hydrogeologists
- Modelers - Fate and Transport
o Geologists/Geophysicists/Geochemists
o Air Quality Specialists
o Chemists
o Toxicologists
o Regulatory Specialists
o Health and Safety Coordinators
o QA/QC Specialists
o Nuclear Waste Health Physicists/Radiologists
o Sampling and Field Specialists
-------
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
RFA-RCRA FACILITY ASSESSMENT
o Regulatory Specialists o Geologists
o Field technicians (for Sampling) o Hydrogeologists
o Environmental Engineers
RFI-RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION
o Geologists/Hydrogeologists o Engineers (Envir., Civil,
o Soil Scientists Chem., Geotech.)
o Air Quality Specialists o Biologists
o Health and Safety Specialists o Geochemists
CMS-CORRECTIVE MEASURE STUDY
o Toxicologists o Hydrogeologists
o Engineers (Civil, Chem., Envir., o Air Quality Specialists
Geotech., Process) o Geochemists
CMI-CORRECTIVE MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
o Engineers (Construction, Chemical, Process)
o Geologists/Hydrogeologists
-------
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
CONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE
o Completed over 100 RCRA Compliance Inspections
o Completed over 75 Field Investigations
o Provided Enforcement Support Services for RCRA Permitting and
Corrective Action
o Completed Endangerment Assessments of Hazardous Releases at
Regulated Facilities
o Provided Oversight of Removal Activities and Interim Measures
Implementation
o Conducted Over 75 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies
-------
THE TES IV TEAM - CONTRACTOR RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES
DURING THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. is the prime contractor for the TES IV program.
The contract was awarded in September 1986 to provide technical enforcement
support to EPA Headquarters and Regions V-X. The total level of effort (LOE)
available is 1,050,000 hours, approximately 33% of which is expected to be used for
RCRA enforcement support.
RCRA support services provided under the TES IV contract includes: corrective
action activities, inspection activities, sampling activities, record reviews,
compliance evaluation inspections (CEI's), comprehensive monitoring evaluations
(CME's), case development support, facility plan reviews, health & environmental
assessments, special laboratory services, data management, policy and program
support and training.
Specifically, in support of the corrective action process, the TES IV Team has
demonstrated experience and technical depth in the following areas:
o Assessment of facility (site) environmental conditions.
o Identification and implementation of interim measures.
o Review and evaluation of specific project work plans for technical
completeness and adequacy.
o Characterization of the hydrogeology and facility processes through
sampling and geotechnical field activities.
o Evaluation of populations at risk.
o Analysis and evaluation of corrective measure technologies.
Attachment A provides an example scope of work for a RCRA Facility
Investigation/Correction Measures Study, as issued under the TES contracts.
The Jacobs Team has been carefully selected to satisfy all of EPA's requirements
for management, staffing and technical expertise under the Technical Enforcement
Support Contract. Each team member has been selected based on their
demonstrated technical experience with hazardous waste projects, including TES I
and TES II, their offices and staff in place in Zone II and their ability to commit
a major portion of their firm's resources to the program. The Jacobs Team
consists of the following core and specialty firms:
Prime Contractor
o Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
-------
-2-
Mission Subcontractors
o Metcalf & Eddy (M&E)
o Tetra Tech
Specialty Subcontractors
o Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (BNW)
o Development, Planning and Research Associates, Inc. (DPRA)
o Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. (GRC)
o ICAIR Life Systems
o Kellogg Corporation
The team members are described below and a directory is also included with
addresses and a principal contact for each firm.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Jacobs is an international consulting engineering and construction firm which has
enjoyed a professional reputation of the highest order for more than 37 years. It
has a technical staff of 1,600 professional and support personnel, more than 300 of
whom are specialists in environmental engineering/hazardous waste management.
Jacobs has conducted surface water, ground water and air quality sampling and
monitoring at many hazardous waste sites throughout the U.S. Jacobs has
performed substantial site sampling/site inspection work for the EPA on the
current TAT program and maintain field staffs fully trained in hazardous waste
site activity.
Jacobs has also conducted many feasibility studies, including studies to identify
and evaluate remedial actions and prepare conceptual designs for selected
hazardous waste clean up alternatives. Studies have included in-depth record
searches, field and laboratory studies, identification and evaluation of cost-
effective alternatives, conceptual designs for selected remedial measures and
preparation of final reports. Jacobs has also reviewed and analyzed plans and
studies prepared by others to determine adequacy of data and site characterization.
Many Jacobs studies have involved endangerment assessments identifying,
evaluating, quantifying and documenting the potential for endangerment to the
public and to the environment. These have included toxicological screenings and
in-depth assessments for a wide variety of chemicals.
As a major subcontractor on the TES II program, Jacobs has lead responsibility for
TES work conducted in the Western U.S. Jacobs is thoroughly familiar with EPA's
needs in all areas of the RCRA program.
-------
-3-
Maior Subcontractors
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. is a Boston-based, environmental engineering consulting firm,
with a staff of over 1,000 located in 15 U.S. cities and overseas. Eleven of these
offices are in Zone II, comprising a total of nearly 300 staff in Zone II. Metcalf &
Eddy manages over 1,600 projects and over 300 subcontracts each year.
Metcalf & Eddy has extensive direct experience in environmental programs related
to each area of expertise required for the performance of this program. M&E has
completed over 250 industrial/hazardous waste projects, including 30 projects in
the area of uncontrolled hazardous waste site management involving field
investigations/feasibility studies. Several of these included preparation of plans
for and inspection of site clean up. Studies and designs for over 70 landfills and
75 incineration systems have also been successfully performed by M&E. Metcalf &
Eddy staff have performed field sampling, hydrogeologic investigations,
treatability testing, exposure and risk assessments and cost-effectiveness analysis of
alternatives—all with strict adherence to appropriate health and safety and quality
assurance procedures.
As a subcontractor to GCA Corporation on TES I, M&E provided enforcement
support to EPA's Office of Waste Programs Enforcement on a variety of
assignments, including development of data management systems used to support
litigation efforts, remedial investigations, feasibility studies, review of responsible
party plans, assistance in community relations and public participation programs
and acting as expert witness in legal assignments under TES I. M&E is also
conducting RI/FS projects in both Illinois and California under State Superfund
contracts. M&E will provide technical support in all work areas, particulary in
work assignments which are executed in Region V.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Tetra Tech, Inc., founded in 1966, is an international environmental science and
engineering consulting firm that provides its clients with a full range of services
relating to water and energy. The firm's staff has provided multidisciplinary
services throughout the -world. Tetra Tech, Inc. has over 900 employees, including
over 600 engineers, scientists, analysts and management staff.
Tetra Tech, Inc. provides hazardous waste management support services to private
industry and to Federal, state and local governments. Most notable are the
Technical Assistance Team (TAT) contract for EPA's Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response and a Superfund remedial investigation under a state/EPA
Cooperative Agreement at one of the nation's most complex site, Commencement
Bay, WA and Hazardous Waste Site Remedial Investigation Analysis, Design and
Implementation Services for the State of California. In addition to these programs,
Tetra Tech, Inc. has conducted investigations at over 70 NPL sites for industry,
military, local, state and Federal agencies.
Tetra Tech, Inc. brings considerable expertise to the team in the fields of
geohydrology, pollutant transport, contaminant migration in soils and ground
water; as well as an understanding of public concerns; and knowledge of the
Federal regulatory framework in which hazardous waste investigations must be
performed. Tetra Tech, Inc. has performed a wide range of ground water projects
-------
-4-
for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. EPA, Office of
Water Research and Technology, Electric Power Research Institute and state and
local agencies. The projects have included mathematical modeling, resource
characterization, leachate analysis and prediction, field monitoring, well
installation, pump tests, water use prediction, assessment of effects of waste
disposal, containment design and review of current regulations. Tetra Tech, Inc.
personnel have developed and applied mathematical models for the movement of
pollutants in both the unsaturated and saturated zones.
Tetra Tech, Inc. has also conducted various field and ground water investigations
and facility studies by combining its expertise in waste characterization and
analysis, pilot plan and engineering/design/feasibility studies. Tetra Tech, Inc.
will provide technical support in all work areas, particularly with respect to
assignments in Regions VII and X.
Specialty Subcontractors
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (BNW)
Batelle, one of the world's largest contract research organizations, has conducted
thousands of research projects in virtually all areas of the physical, life and social-
behavioural sciences. Battelle has a staff of nearly 8,000 scientists, engineers,
technicians and support personnel of which approximately 3,000 are located at the
Pacific. Northwest Laboratories. Research departments include: Atmospheric
Sciences, Biology, Chemical Technology, Ecological Sciences, Energy Systems,
Engineering Physics, Materials, Physical Sciences, Radiological Sciences and Water
and Land Resources. Battelle has researched, developed, verified and conducted
all the analytical studies specified in the Statement of Work and has, in many
instances, functioned as the center of expertise and QA/QC auditor for these
techniques for most analytical firms in the U.S. Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories will provide special laboratory services as required for this contract.
Developments Planning and Research Associates, Inc. (DPRA)
Development Planning and Research Associates provides research and consulting
services in the areas of economics, data management, policy and regulatory
analysis, marketing, feasibility analysis, resource allocation, environmental and
energy economics, agriculture and international development. DPRA's corporate
offices are located in Manhattan, KS; it also has an office in Washington, D.C.
The 40 person staff holds graduate degrees in economics, agricultural economics,
business administration, computer science, statistics, agronomy, chemistry,
toxicology and library science. Other disciplines represented on the staff include,
undergraduate degrees in mathematics, biology, plant science and accounting.
During the past five years, DPRA has supported EPA's Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) and Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) and their contractors
with hazardous waste data base management and analysis. DPRA created the "OSW
Hazardous Waste Database", which is designed to facilitate statistical analysis and
inter-dataset analysis at a considerable savings in access costs.
-------
-5-
DPRA has also conducted joint on-site inspections of 120 hazardous waste handlers
with EPA. At the conclusion of the inspections, DPRA was responsible for
computerizing the survey data, producing reports and summaries of the data
collected, compiling complete documentation of the computerized data and the
survey instrument and finally making the data available for integration with other
waste handler information. DPRA will provide data management services to the
TES Zone II contract.
Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. (GRC)
Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. is a minority-owned California corporation
established in December 1976. The firm specializes in geology, geotechnical
engineering, hazardous waste management, geophysics, seismology, "hydrogeology
and environmental studies. GRC holds 8(a) status from the Small Business
Administration and is certified as a Minority Business Enterprise by the
Environmental Protection Agency and other city, state and Federal agencies.
Corporate headquarters is in San Francisco, CA with regional offices in Seattle,
WA; Tucson, AZ; and Washington, D.C. GRC's expertise in hazardous waste
projects consists of remedial action investigations in which the geological and
hydrogeological regimes of contaminated sites are characterized, preparation of
enforcement and regulatory documents, expert knowledge of RCRA/Superfund
regulations, preliminary assessment of sites and development of closure/post-
closure plans. GRC will provide technical support in geology, hydrogeology and
geotechnical engineering, as well as, policy support.
ICAIR, Life Systems, Inc.
ICAIR specializes in expert witness services and risk assessment in the health
sciences and environmental areas. The firm's role in this program will be to
provide expert consultants/witness and technical assistance in endangerment
assessments, public meetings and community relations, protocol development and
review of testing data. ICAIR has been involved in cases such as Love Canal,
Petro Processors, Conservation Chemical, ChemDyne, New Bedford Harbor,
Solvents Recovery, Reilly Tar, Tampa Road and Rocky Mountain Arsenal,
conducting risk assessments, coordinating peer review studies, and providing expert
witness services. ICAIR specializes in providing health and environmental
expertise through the largest, most comprehensive staff of well-qualified experts
available anywhere in the United States. ICAIR's external staff roster includes
more than 700 experts with advanced scientific, engineering or medical training in
one or more of over 95 technical disciplines. Most of ICAIR's external staff will
provide their services to the government only through ICAIR. ICAIR couples its
external staff composed of university faculty, retired individuals, private
consultants and private sector employees with an in-house scientific, engineering
and management staff of more than 100 full-time employees.
Kellogg Corporation
Kellogg Corporation, headquartered in Denver, CO, is a firm of over 60 people
that specializes in fact finding and document management in support of cost
recovery negotiations, arbitration and litigation. Since 1970, Kellogg has completed
over 1,500 assignments in 49 states and eight foreign countries. Kellogg has
provided assistance in over 800 contract disputes involving S3.6 billion in claims on
-------
-6-
projects valued at $105 billion. Kellogg's recent assignments in hazardous waste
have been with Clean Sites, Inc. and public and private clients on both municipally
and privately-owned hazardous waste sites.
Kellogg's experience provides a unique cost-effective approach to fact finding and
data management which leads to efficient identification of potentially responsible
parties (PRP's) and enforcement required to resolve issues. In addition to having
people with relevant investigative skills, Kellogg has proprietary data management
software programs specifically designed to facilitate PRP negotiations. Because of
this expertise, Kellogg has been able to discover three to five times as many PRP's
on several sites, as had been previously identified from the same document base.
For example, in the Sheridan site, outside of Houston, 44 parties were originally
identified. As a result of Kellogg's work on the publicly available'documents, over
200 parties were identified. This includes a previously unidentified party which
was found to be the third highest contributor to this site.
Kellogg will provide support in the areas of PRP searches, enforcement support
services and cost recovery.
-------
The following is a directory of the team members with RCRA experience and
technical capabilities to support the corrective action program.
COMPANY
Program Management Office
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
1042 National Press Building
529 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20045
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Region V
85 West Algonquin Road
Arlington Heights, IL 60005
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Region VI
300 North Tower
700 North Pearl
Dallas, TX 75201
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Region VII
Suite 310
8700 Monrovia
Lenexa, KS 66215-3537
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Region VIII
Suite A-300
12600 West Colfax Avenue
Lakewood, CO 80215
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Region IX
1340 Arnold Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Region X
Suite 700
11111 3rd Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
P.O. Box 8717
Albuquerque, NM 87198-8717
CONTACT TELEPHONE
Jeffrey Van Houten (202) 628-1903
Dean Geers
Michael Warner
(312) 806-9119
(214) 969-9366
Gary E. Parker
(913) 492-9218
Donna Toeroek
(303) 232-7093
Geoffrey W. Watkin (415) 228-9700
Lloyd Reed
(206) 622-0907
Duane Truitt
(505) 262-1505
-------
-2-
TES TV SUBCONTRACTORS
COMPANY
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Chemical Waste Management Div.
10 Harvard Mill Square
Wakefield, MA 01888
Environmental Systems Engineering
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Suite 100
11820 Northrup Way
Bellevue, WA 98005-1924
Kellogg Corporation
26 West Dry Creek Circle
Littleton, CO 80120
Life Systems, Inc.
24755 Highpoint Road
Cleveland, OH 44122
Battelle Pacific
.Northwest Laboratories
P.O. Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
Development, Planning and
Research Assoc., Inc.
P.O. Box 727
200 Research Drive
Manhattan, KS 66502
GEO/Resource Consultants, Inc.
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
CONTACT
Neville Chung
Tom Johnson
Marty Redding
R. H. Lovely
Richard Seltzer
Mike Barclay
TELEPHONE
(617) 246-5200
(206) 822-9596
(303) 794-1818
Timothy Tyburski (216) 464-3291
(206) 525-3130
(913) 539-3565
(202) 488-1487
-------
Attachment A
EXAMPLE SCOPE OF WORK
RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION/
CORRECTIVE MEASURE STUDY
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Technical Enforcement Support at Hazardous Waste Sites
APPROPRIATION: G CHRCLA TE
GO RCRA Co,
C Otner prir
Funding Arz- Nn
smr/FArii fry- FACILITY *XYZ*
or Proiva Nam*
NPLSite: G Final or Proposed List G No
RCSA -polity Q YP* G'NO Far-lity Id* ,. ...
? NO. IV
,rr,«Nn 68-01-7331
fTTV
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 001
Jj Original
P Amendment No.
Prionty: 3 Normal G Exeeaits'
ST 0
Site/Facility Location (Cty or County) State Region/HO
Sila Ae~. #• • _ . _ SCAP AC^IV ( ^k-
PURPOSE:
EJ Initiate New Wort Assignment Q Work Plan Approval" G Disapprove Work Plan (Contractor will immeciately stop work)
G Work Plan Revision: ( G SOW Q Cost/Hours) G Coseout Work Assignment (All final fleliverafcles received)
STATEMENT OF WORK SUMMARY (SOW) (Attach a Detsilfd SOW) (See Reoortng Requirements):
T«kTyp« Oversiaht of RCRA Facility Investigation T«ICNO-
(Mai icinwy ia» type and numtur jmauig a TES UMTI Quo* to snow aesvny u wcwi ffm onm TES come SOW)
Summary/comments: jhe Region requires oversight support during the Facility's performanc0
of a RFI/CMS. (See Attached^
BASE PERIOD
LOE CosvFea
Previously Approved U
This Action 930
Tmal 930
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
From: E.fec3ve data below
To- 9-30-87
IOOMOU can not a nond S«ouma>r 30. 1M7)
OPTION PERIOD
(Authorized only if contrac option is exercised)
LCE Cost/Fea TES II: Use Option Column
Praviausly Approvod _ _ . . _. . . T=3 III f. IV; Base periefl pne?
This Action . .._ .
Total
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
Tot (Co
, „ , 9/50/87. Any
_, worx n»quired
should acpear in
ocaon eeiumn.
seout date)
(Oo not inauat aftnal or £jo«rt Wflrwl nourt in m« LjSS ascmau. £zo«t WMnva oosa v» earaioarad "C9>«r Cw Cosa.' Esomat* n* ex9«rt
No. of Pages to Follow Hafe
(Including SOW)
renee Into.: G Attached G Transmitted S«
flararnly ("j Pidtun frrfm , ...
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: G Briefing(s) G Letter Report G Craft Report G Final Report*" G Other
Deliverables are to be marked ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL: G Yes G No
Reoormg ttaurtmtm ma oo.«r«om may ontv tar woi TES ama. bnouM n ow SOW a JOMOUW lor a««< «n3nj. a n« IUTOV o< nraora raeund tar your a*«vw0 ffll«rj irom
3^« contracts normal f«uuif«m«m. raou«a mat n your SOW.
INITIATOR- John Smith
Primary Contact
Street
AQdress
Regional Contact
APPROVAL-
Project Crficar (HO TES P.O.)
Contracing Cfficar
Phona no
1/5/87
Date
(111) 222-3333
FTS Crf-NET
1/7/87
Date
Date . '
Cats
(EfreciveOate)
CSNTHACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECSPT:
Signatura ana Title
ustification reauired in csmment secsan.
wxnm JS aays of affeave oate or worx stecs.
Cata
'"CO flay minimum reouireo Satvwe^n crait ana final reoort.
I
avisod: O«c. 1966
: i While - Corararjn; Cflirar Coov (Wasnmron. 2.C.!. Snee! 2 G
-------
I. ZNTHOXJCTICN AND BACKGSCCND
The **FACILITY NAME** hazardous waste facility consists of approximately 100
acres of land and is located in **FACELrrY LOCATION**.
The facility began accepting waste on or before February, 1970. Waste
disposal activities have taken place in three separate areas:
1) Radioactive disposal area (until 1978)
2) Pre 1974 non-radioactive waste disposal area
3) 1974 to 1983 non-radioactive waste disposal area
The 1974 - 1983 disposal area was operated under both State permits and RCRA
interim status. This portion of the facility accepted containerized licuid
and solid hazardous wastes and up until 1979 PCS wastes for disposal in"
unlined trenches. No attempt was made to solidify the liquid wastss prior to
disposal. This trench disposal operation covered approximately thirty acres
with an average trench depth of about thirty feet.
Based upon ground-water monitoring reports submitted pursuant to the
requirements of RCRA, hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents have
been detected in the ground-water monitoring wells at the facility. There is
no evidence to indicate that any private wells in the area have been affected
by the facility. However, **EaCTT.TTY NAME** discontinued use of its own
on-site drinking water well due to contamination. This well is acproximately
1000 feet frcm the disposal areas. The total population served by"ground
water within a three'mile radius of the facility is approximately 350.
II. ENFORCEMENT ACTICN
On April 1, 1986, **NAME OF^OKNER/DPERATOR** entered into a consent order with
EPA under section 3008(h) of RCRA.This action requires the Respondent
**NAME OF OWNER/OPERATOR** to conduct a RCRA Facility Investigation and
Corrective Measure Stuoy at the **FArTLITY NAME**. A corrective action
alternative will be selected by EPA and implemented by the Respondent. This
Consent Order includes only the two non-radioactive waste discosal areas.
III. DESCRIPTION OF TASKS TO BE PERFORMED BY THE TES CONTRACTOR
Task 1. Assist EPA in the review of the RFI work plan to be submitted for
approval by the Respondent on or before **DATE**.
Task 2. Represent EPA as the on-site project coordinator during the
Respondent's performance of the RCRA Facility Investigation. This will
include documentation and inspection of anv work cerformed.
TAB2-47
-------
Task 3. Provide comments on the monthly reports submitted by the Respondent
during the RCPA Facility Investigation.
Task 4. Assist EPA in the review of the draft and final RCRA Facility
Investigation reports.
Task 5. Assist EPA in the review of the draft Corrective Measure Studv Resort.
17. DELIVERABLES
1) Provide EPA with a written review of the work plan submitted by the
respondent.
2} Provide EPA with weekly briefings of the progress of the field activities
during the RFI. This should include any problems encountered and any
recommendations for additional RFI work. It may be required to provide a
written recommendation for any additional RFI work for"review by EPA.
3) As necessary/ during the RCPA Facility Investigation, provide EPA with a
briefing, followed by a letter report, detailing any work halted by the
Project Coordinator and the reasons for doing so. This briefing and report
should also make recommendations for alternatives to the work which has"been
stopped.
4) During the RCPA Facility Investigation provide EPA with any comments or
corrections to the Respondent's monthly report.
5) Provide EPA with a detailed review of any additional reports or plans
submitted in accordance with the scope of work.
6) Provide EPA with a detailed review of the draft and final RCPA Facility
Investigation Reports.
7) Provide EPA with a detailed review of the draft Corrective Measure Study
Resort.
V. . SCHEDULE FOR TASK CCMPLETICN
1) RFI/CMS work plan review due within 20 working days of receipt.
2) Written reports detailing any halt of work by the EPA Project Coordinator
are required within three working days of the cessation of work.
3) Provide EPA with ccinnents en the Respondent's monthly progress reports
within seven working days of receipt.
TAB2-17
-------
4) Provide EPA with a detailed review of any additional plans or reports
required in the scope of work within fifteen working days of receipt.
5) Provide EPA with a detailed review of the draft RFI Report within fifteen
working days of receipt.
.6) Provide EPA with a detailed review of the final RFI Report within ten
working days of receipt.
7) Provide EPA with a detailed review of the draft CMS Report within thirty
working days of receipt.
•VI. TRAVEL BEQOIREMENTS
Travel will be required to and from the **FACTr..TTY LOCATION** area over
approximately 14 weeks to oversee the field activities.Also, budget two
additional trips to this area for public hearings.
Travel to the regional office in **CETY, STATE** will be required for meetings
with EPA, **NRME OF OrtNER/^PERATOR**, and tneir contractors. Estimate
approximately five (5) round trips.
VII. LEVEL OF
1. RFI/G1S work plan review 80 hours
2. Oversight Activities 560 hours
(70 days x 8 hrs./day)
3. Additional plan review 40 hours
4. Review of Respondent's
draft and final recorts 250 hours
Total LCE 930 hours
TA32-47
-------
RCRA CONSENT ORDER SUMMARY TABLE
Respondents/Date
City of Janesville (WI)
et al
9/30/86
Eagle-Picher Indus-
tires, Inc., Colorado
Springs, CO
Envirosafe Services of
Idaho, Inc.
Owyhee county, ID
10/31/85
Koppers Company,
Carbondale, IL
6/4/86
Inc.
Facility Description
Municipal and industrial
landfill; ash beds,
abandoned gravel and
sand pits
Nickel-cadmium battery
manufacturing facility;
surface impoundments,
drums
Release Description
GW: organics; municipal
and private wells threat-
ened
GW and soil contaminated
with nickel - chromium,
cadmium and arsenic
Mandated Activities
RFI; CMS; CMI
Interim measures: moni-
toring GW and implement-
ing GW interception and
collection system, if
necessary; RFI; CMS; CMI
Unlined disposal trenches; GW: organics; nearby wells interim Measures: re-
vacant missile silos and for domestic and agricul- moval and containment of
tunnel system tural use waste; RFI; CMS; CMI
Wood treatment plant;
wastewater treatment
facility: lagoons,
sludge treatment, spray
field
GW and soil contaminated
with organic and creo-
sote; SW contaminated
with organics
RFI, CMS, CMI
Special Provisions
Reimburse EPA and Wis-
consin DNR for recover-
able costs under CERCLA
Sec. 107.
Financial assurance
Penalties
Penalty not to exceed
325,000 for each day of
non-compliance
$1,000 for first week
plus 32,000 for each
additional week per act
of no--compliance
Martin "arietta Denver
Aerospace, Water ton, Co
2/7/86
Weapons Manufacturer;
disposal tanks, dumns-
pits oonds, surface im-
noundments; incineration
units
SW: organics- GW: organ-
ics- cyanide chromium;
soils: heavy metals and
cyanide
RFI, CMS, CMI
Reimburse EPA for re-
coverable costs under
CERCLA Sec- 107
RFI, CMS: $1,000 for
day 1-7, $1 000 ner
each additional day;
other activities
11-000 day 4-7, $2,000
for each additional
week
National Industrial
Environmental Services,
Inc., Fur ley, KS
5/31/85
The Boeing Company
Portland, OR
7/21/86
U.S. Ecology, Inc.
Sheffield, IL
9/17/85
Evaporation ponds, dis-
posal trenchs, storm-
water retention ponds
Surface impoundment
Landfill containing
PCBs, cyanide, lead and
chromium
Release detected
GW: organics
GW: organics and chloro-
form
Interim Measure: GW
pump •+ treat, slurry
wall or alternative if
necessary; RFI; CMS
Interim Measures: moni-
toring drinking water
wells and providing
alternative supply if
necessary; RFI
RFI, CMS, CMI
Financial assurance
$1 000/day to 35 OOO/
day
Financial assurance
$5 000/day for failure
to submit deliverables
-------
RESPONDENTS: City of Janesville;
Ashland Chemical Company;
Bunker Ramo Corporation's Borg Instrument Division;
General Motors Corporation;
Midwest Disposal Company;
Newell Company;
Parker Pen Company;
Pepsi Cola General Bottlers;
Riverside Plating Corporation;
Seneca Foods Corporation;
Shenex Chemical Company, Inc.;
SSI Technologies;
Sprackling Products;
Tecumseh Products Company/Layson Engineer; and
3M Company
AUTHORITIES: CERCLA Section 106(a) and RCRA Section 3008(h)
Consent Order (September 30, 1986)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Facility Description: This order addresses four sites that total approximately
65 acres and are located in the City of Janesville, Wisconsin. The City of
Janesville is the present owner of the facility and is the respondent under RCRA
23008(h). Two of the four sites are abandoned sand and gravel pits and meet the
definition of solid waste management units (SWMUs). The remaining two sites, the
new Janesville Landfill and the Janesville Ash Beds (JAB) have been RCRA
regulated since November 1980. The new Janesville Landfill is located in an
extension of one of the abandoned sand and gravel pits and was licensed to accept
municipal and industril solid wastes by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDDR). The Janesville Ash Beds consist of five ash beds in which
industrial liquids and sludges were disposed and allowed to evaporate or dry.
WDDR licensed JAB in 1983 to accept hazardous waste. Materials within the ash
beds have been removed but clean closure has not been certified. Both JAB and
the new Janesville Landfill are in assessment ground-water monitoring. The RCRA
Part A application identified F006, F007, F008, D008 wastes, and paint wastes
were treated in JAB and disposed in the new Janesville Landfill. Characteristic
waste D002 was also disposed in the landfill. The Agency proposed JAB and the
abandoned sand and gravel pits on the National Priorities List (NPL) promulgated
on September 21, 1984.
Release Determination: The order is based upon a ground water study that shows
a release of the following organic compounds to the ground water: benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, and 1,2-dichloroethane. The release of hazardous
substances from the sites has contaminated the sand and gravel aquifer below the
sites. Industrial, private and city wells are located in the aquifer associated
with the sites. Janesville's municipal water supply originates from a number of
wells in the area.
-------
ORDER PROVISIONS
RFI: The order requires all of the respondents to conduct a comprehensive
remedial investigation to characterize the sites and their actual or potential
hazard to public health and the environment. Components of the remedial
investigation include (1) characterizing the waste materials at the sites
including leachate from the disposal sites; (2) determining the present and
potential extent of ground-water contamination within the sand and gravel aquifer
and within the bedrock aquifer, and evaluating the suitability of the-sites for
on-site containment systems; (3) determining the extent of contamination of
surface and subsurface soils in and around the facility and sediments within the
Rock River and the pond immediately south of the New Janesville landfill; and (4)
determining the extent of contamination reaching the Rock River and the pond
immediately south of the new Janesville landfill. The respondents will also
conduct a program to determine the extent of release of contaminants to the air.
In addition to the site investigation, the respondents will identify
preliminary remedial technologies to ensure that the site investigations provide
sufficient detail and data to support the evaluation of alternatives during the
feasibility study. Following the site investigations, the respondents will
refine the preliminary options and recommend preliminary remedial technologies
likely to apply to the site problem.
CMS: Based on the results of the RFI, the respondents will prepare and
submit a draft feasibility study (RCR Corrective Measures Study or CNS) outlining
remedial action alternatives to prevent or minimize the release of contaminants
in the environment.
CMI: After selection of the remedial response or corrective action, EPA
shall provide a sixty-day period for negotiation of a new administrative order on
consent for implementation of the remedial response or corrective action.
Reimbursement of Costs: The respondents must reimburse EPA and WDNR for
costs which EPA and WDNR concude are recoverable under Section 107 of CERCLA, and
which have been incurred with respect to this consent order.
CONTACTS
Region V: Daniel J. Cozza
Remeidal Project Manager
CERCLA Eforcement Section
Headquarters: Cindy Byron
(202) 475-8728
-------
RESPONDENT: Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
Colorado Springs, Colorado
AUTHORITIES: RCRA Section 3008(h)
Consent Order
FINDINGS OF FACT
Facility Description: Eagle-Picher is a nickel-cadmium battery manufacturing
facility that generates, treats and stores hazardous waste. This facility
includes two active surface impoundments, two inactive surface impoundments, and
a drum storage area.
Release Determination: The consent order is based on the results of
ground-water samples taken downgradient of the surface impoundments. Analyses of
these samples show a release of nickel, chromium, cadmium and arsenic. In
addition, soil samples show a release of nickel and cadmium. Eagle-Picher is
hydraulically upgradient of wells which have the potential to draw ground water
for domestic and/or agricultural purposes.
ORDER PROVISIONS
Interim Measures: The consent order requires Eagle-Picher to upgrade its
ground-water monitoring well system and collect analytical data on the
concentrations of cadmium, nickel and pH values in the soil and ground water. If
the concentrations exceed the values contained in the consent order then
Eagle-Picher must develop and implement an interim measures workplan. This
workplan must propose a ground-water interception and collection system, and
methodology and procedures for treatment of the contaminated ground water.
RFI: Eagle-Picher must conduct a comprehensive remedial investigation or
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI). This investigation will, at a minimum,
specifically address the impact on ground water, surface water, "and
sediments/soils from the four surface impoundments, drum burial areas, spill
areas, buried piping .systems, tanks and sumps. The RFI will (1) determine the
concentration, rate, and extent of contamination; (2) characterize the hydrology
and geology of underlying aquifers and (3) characterize and define the impact of
the site contamination on soils, surface water and ground water.
CMS: Based on the results of the RFI, Eagle-Picher shall prepare a
corrective measures study (CMS) that identifies alternatives to remediate
contamination. This study will also include an assessment by a professional
engineer of the likely effectiveness and feasibility of each corrective measure
alternative.
CMI: After submission of the CMS, EPA shall select the corrective measures
to be implemented at the facility. Eagle-Picher must then submit a corrective
-------
measures implementation workplan that includes an engineering design and a
detailed schedule for implementation of the selected corrective measures.
Financial Assurance: After EPA approves the RFI/CMS workplan, Eagle-Picher
must obtain a surety bond for performance of all work to be performed under this
Consent Order.
Stipulated Penalities: EPA will assess a penalty not to exceed $25,000 for
each day of non-compliance with this Consent Order.
CONTACTS
Region VIII: Marcella De Vargas
Waste Management Division
(303) 293-1506
Headquarters: Nancy Browne
(202) 475-9326
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
-------
RESPONDENT: Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc.
Owyhee County, Idaho
AUTHORITIES: RCRA Section 3008(h)
Unilateral Order (October 31, 1985)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Facility Description: Envirosafe owns and operates a hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facility. The facility has a number of solid
waste management units, including at least 24 unlined disposal trenches, three
missile launch silos extending 160 feet below the surface, and other
underground silo structures, including a tunnel system. Prior to November 19,
1980, all but three of the trenches were filled with solid or hazardous
waste. Many of the associated underground structures were also filled with
liquid and solid hazardous waste.
Ground water beneath the site is located at a depth of approximately 200
feet. Each silo has a single ground-water monitoring well located 30 feet
downgradient. Additional monitoring wells are in place 700 feet or more from
the easternmost silo, in a 180 degree downgradient arc.
Release Determination: The order is based on a determination that
hazardous constituents have been found outside the confines of the silos and
their associated structures in both the soil and the ground water. The
sampling data show that the following hazardous waste constituents have been
found in the soil. For example, at Silo I, at 56-58 ft.: chloroform (166,000
ppb), 2-chlorophenol (137,000 ppb), 2,4-dichlorophenol (993,000 ppb), 2,4,5
trichlorophenol (1,010,000 ppb), 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene (80,000 ppb); and at
192-193 ft.: carbon tetrachloride (115 ppb), chlorobenzene (115 ppb),
chloroform (143 ppb), methyl bromide (862 ppb), methylene chloride (201 ppb).
The sampling data show that the following constituents are present in the
ground water: For example, at Silo I: carbon tetrachloride (15.3 ppb),
chloroform (86.9 ppb), methyl chloride (54.5 ppb), and methylene chloride
(38.8 ppb).
All of the constituents identified above are listed in Appendix VIII and have
toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or terotogenic effects on humans or other forms
of life. Within a three-mile radius downgradient of the facility there are at
least 14 wells which draw groundwater for agricultural and/or domestic
purposes.
ORDER PROVISIONS
Interim Measures: The Order requires Envirosafe to immediately begin a
monthly sampling and analysis program of the silo wells and the downgradient
perimeter wells at the facility. Each sample must be analyzed for specific
volative organics. If a volatile organic is found as the result of sampling
in excess of 1 part per million (ppm), Envirosafe must immediately notify EPA
and implement its Phase I Corrective Action plan which details procedures for
removing and/or containing hazardous wastes or constituents.
-------
RFI: The Consent Order gives Envirosafe 30 days to develop and implement a
remedial investigation or RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) plan for
additional studies that will be necessary to develop a comprehensive
corrective action plan. The plan must contain information about the nature
and extent of contamination that constitutes releases and threatened
releases. The plan must meet the following performance standards and
objectives: site-specific health, safety and quality assurance performance
standards; subsurface investigation performance standards, including
monitoring well installation and construction, well development and hydraulic
conductivity tests, well sampling, and an aquifer pump test; soil samples; and
environmental sampling in general.
CMS: Upon completion of the RFI, Envirosafe must undertake a Corrective
Measures Study (CMS) to develop feasible methods of achieving and maintaining
background or ACLs for hazardous constituents found in ground water. The
study must evaluate source control and on-site and off-site corrective
actions for mitigating the contamination. The study must also categorize and
analyze each discrete element.
CMI: The Order also includes a Phase II Corrective Action stage which
requires Envirosafe to implement corrective action based on the results of the
RFI and CMS. Envirosafe will submit quarterly reports detailing its progress
in implementing the corrective action.
CONTACTS:
Region Xr Kenneth D. Feigner
Chief, Waste Management Branch
Region X
(206) 442-2782
Headquarters: Charlotte White
(202) 475-6719
Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc.
-------
RESPONDENT: Koppers Company, Inc,
Carbondale, Illinois
AUTHORITIES: RCRA Section 3008(h)
Consent Order (June 4, 1986)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Facility Description: Koppers owns and operates a railroad tie and wood treatment
plant. The plant covers approximately 136 acres and uses several different
processes to treat wastewater generated from its wood preserving operations.
Wastewater from the treatment process is piped through an oil/water separator to a
biological wastewater treatment system consisting of four lagoons -'(treatment system
lagoons), an activated-sludge treatment unit, and a spray irrigation field. The
treatment system lagoons were constructed in the location of a former
creosote-contaminated wastewater lagoon adjacent to a "swampy area". Sludge that
results from the treatment of these wastewaters (K001) collects in the treatment
system lagoons and spray irrigation field.
The Koppers facility also has numerous SWMUs including an "old lagoon area" that
encompasses approximately four acres and kick-back areas that are contaminated as a
result of spilled or leaking treatment agents and/or the dripping of these agents
from treated wood. In addition, three to four years ago, Koppers excavated soil
contaminated with creosote and other organic components and stored the contaminated
soil on plastic sheets in a bermed area southeast of the spray field. This storage
has continued to the present time.
Release Determination: The Consent Order is based on the results of ground-water
monitoring data that indicate a release of hazardous waste constituents to the
ground water from the treatment system lagoon area. These constituents include:
pyrene, pentachlorophenol, acenaphthene, naphthalene, fluoranthene, chrysene, and
anthracene. Contaminants from this area have moved off-site and reached Glade
Creek, which passes near the eastern edge of the facility. During October 1981, two
cattle died on the land east of the Koppers property. An autopsy revealed that they
ingested creosote-contaminated material. Samples taken from Glade Creek in 1982
indicated a variety of polynuclear-aromatic hydrocarbons and pentacholorophenol.
Ground water and soil in the vicinity of the treatment plant are contaminated with
creosote, pentachlorophenol and other organic compounds. This contamination may
result from the kickback areas described above.
ORDER PROVISIONS
RFI: The Consent Order requires Koppers to perform a comprehensive remedial
investigation or RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) in accordance with a Statement of
Work attached to the Consent Agreement. The RFI will include defining site geology
and the occurrence of contamination; evaluating ground-water flow patterns and the
extent and effects of ground-water contamination; and determining the extent and
potential for air, surface water, and soil contamination. Before initiating the
investigation, Koppers must review all available reports and data to assess what
-------
existing data can be used in the RFI. This review will focus on site background,
nature and extent of the contamination, previous and present, sampling and analyses,
and previous response actions. In addition, prior to starting any site
investigations, Koppers will assess the site conditions to determine potential
categories of source control (and/or off-site) corrective actions. EPA will review
and screen the preliminary technologies so that the site investigations can be
designed to answer questions raised during this site assessment and support the
corrective measures study.
CMS: Either during or following the RFI, Koppers will assess the investigation
results and recommend preliminary corrective action technologies. Based on the
results of the RFI and consideration of the preliminary corrective action
technologies, Koppers will prepare a Corrective Measures Study (CMS) that evaluates
several alternatives for source control and off-site remedial actions in greater
detail.
CMI: The Order requires Koppers to begin implementing the remedial action after
review and approval by EPA.
Stipulated Penalties: $1,000 for the first week and $2,000 for each week
thereafter for failure to submit a deliverable or comply with schedules required
under the Consent Order.
CONTACTS
Region V: Kevin Pierard
Geologist, Unit 9, Indiana-Illinios Enforcement Unit
(312) 886-4466 •
Headquarters: Cindy Byron
(202) 475-8728
Koppers Company, Inc.
-------
RESPONDENT: Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace
Waterton, Colorudo
AUTHORITIES: CERCLA Section 106 and RCRA Section 3008(h)
Consent Order (February 7,1986)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Facility Description: The Denver Aerospace Waterton facility contains
approximately 5200 acres and has been used for research, development and
manufacture of aerospace components, defense systems, and related technologies
since 1956. This facility treats, stores, and disposes F001, F002, U019,
U044, and D007 hazardous wastes on-site in sumps, tanks, drums, pits, ponds,
lagoons, surface impoundments, and incineration facilities.
Release Determination: The Order is based on the finding that hazardous
constituents have been detected in surface water, ground water, and soil
sediments. Analysis of surface water samples from Brush Creek, indicate the
presence of trichlorethylene and trans-1, 2 dichlorethylene. These compounds,
along with hexavalent chromium, cyanides, n-nitrosodimethylamine, and
hydrazine, have also been detected in ground water samples taken at the
facility. Onsite soil samples from the facility contained silver, cadmium and
cyanides.
The potential sources of these releases include inactive evaporation ponds
which are now covered with soil, and an inactive landfill used for the
disposal of solid waste, including construction debris. Ground water and
surface water pathways provide routes for the potential migration of
contaminants toward the South Platte River. In addition, this facility is
hydraulically upgradient from a water treatment plant which provides drinking
water to the Denver metropolitan area.
Prior to issuance of this order, Martin Marietta constructed and installed an
interim measure consisting of a well-point dewatering system. This system
intercepts ground water in the area and transports the water to facilities
where it is treated and released in order to mitigate contaminant migration.
ORDER PROVISIONS
RFI: Martin Marietta will submit to EPA a plan for a comprehensive RCRA
Facility Investigation (RFI). The workplan will include determining (1)
presence or absence of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents; (2) the
nature, ext.ent, concentrations, and rate of movement of contaminants; (3) the
extent and potential for migration of contaminants through each of the
environmental media; and (4) the potential public health and environmental
hazards resulting from the migration of contaminants.
-------
The RFI will be conducted in three Phases. Phase I will focus on performance
of a hydrogeologic and contamination study of the inactive site and the Rifle
Range landfill and will include an investigation of the hydrogeology of the
remaining portions of the study area and an investigation of other potential
sources of contamination within the study area. Phase II includes the
preparation and implementation of a field sampling and analytical plan and a
QA/QC plan to confirm the existence of contamination in the additional areas
identified for further study at the completion of Phase I. Phase III
addresses the development of a workplan to investigate any newly discovered
release or threatened release during the first two phases of this
investigation.
CMS: Based on the results of the RFI, Martin Marietta shall prepare and
submit a draft feasibility study (RCRA Corrective Measures Study or CMS)
outlining remedial action alternatives to prevent or minimize the release of
contaminants in the environment.
CMI: After selection of the remedial response or corrective action, EPA
shall provide a sixty-day period for negotiation of a new administrative order
on consent for implementation of the remedial response or corrective action.
Reimbursement of Costs: Martin Marietta must reimburse EPA for costs which
EPA concludes are recoverable under Section 107 of CERCLA, and which have been
incurred with respect to this consent order.
Stipulated Penalties: EPA will assess $1000 for the first 1-7 days of
delay and $1000 for each additional day thereafter for failure to submit the
RFI Phase I, II or III reports or CMS at approved times. For delays of other
deliverables, EPA may assess $1000 for the first 4-7 days and $2000 for each
7-day delay thereafter.
CONTACTS
Region VIII: James Littlejohn
Remedial Project Manager, Enforcement Section
(303) 293-1518
Headquarters: Nancy Browne
(202) 475-9326
Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace
-------
RESPONDENT: National Industrial Environmental Services, Inc. (NIES)
Furley, Kansas
AUTHORITIES: RCRA Section 3008(h)
Consent Order (May 31, 1985)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Facility Description: This consent agreement addresses the following
units: evaporation ponds, disposal trenches and a stormwater retention pond.
Release Determination: EPA has determined that there has been a
release and that the corrective action order is necessary to prevent future
migration of ground-water contamination from the site.
ORDER PROVISIONS:
RFI/CMS: The Order requires NIES to take corrective action immediately and
to conduct studies necessary to establish ACLs concurrently with the
corrective actions.
The Consent Order requires NIES to reduce the average concentration of total
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the ground water onsite and offiste by at
least 25 percent in the year following initial establishment of A level and B
level aquifer extraction well -pumping programs. NIES must conduct
ground-water monitoring to evaluate the success of this pumping program.
During this time NIES is to develop alternate concentration levels (ACLs) for
contaminants known to be present in the ground water and released from the
facility, and to establish final levels of contaminant reduction and methods
and schedules to achieve this reduction based on the ACLs. If the ACLs are
not approved and finalized by the second year of ground-water extraction, NIES
must reduce the average concentration of VOCs onsite and offsite by at least
50 and 35 percent, respectively. If during either the first or second year
the average concentration of VOCs in the B level aquifer monitoring wells has
not decreased by the above relevant percentage, then NIES is to commence
construction of a slurry wall system, or submit an alternate reduction plan
and schedule which, upon approval by EPA, would be implemented immediately.
Once the ACLs, either individually or collectively, have been approved by EPA,
those ACLs, plans and schedules would become effective, replacing the
negotiated requirements based on the percentage of VOC reduction. Within 15
months of approval of all ACLs, NIES must document its performance in
achieving these levels and, if necessary, submit a plan including revised
methods and schedules to expeditiously achieve the outstanding ACLs. The
Consent Order corrective action program terminates when the ACLs have been
attained and maintained for three consecutive years.
-------
The Order requires NIES to decommission existing evaporation ponds and a
stormwater retention pond. NIES -is required to establish an amibient air
monitoring network to describe all aspects of the dewatering activities which
may have potential to cause air emissions of hazardous substances. NIES is
also required to install and operate a monitoring station to gather
meteorological data (e.g., temperature and precipitation, wind speed, wind
direction). If, after completion of sludge removal and evaporation pond
decommissioning activites, no emissions are detected during a 10-day
post-activity period, NIES can terminate the air monitoring program. If
continued emissions are present, NIES shall continue monitoring and submit a
revised monitoring plan to address the situation.
The Consent Order also requires NIES to plug existing boreholes, wells and any
other cross-connections that may exist between the.A and B level aquifers.
Financial Assurance: Within one month after the Order becomes effective,
NIES shall provide financial assurance for all provisions which do or may
require expenditures. The financial assurance mechanisms can separate one
construction cost from another, and may separate capital and operating and
maintenance expenditures.
Stipulated Penalties: EPA may assess a range of penalties from $1,000 to
$5,000 per day for failure to respond within the specified time to
requirements in the Order.
CONTACTS
Region VII: David Tripp
Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel
(913) 236-2808
Headquarters: Nancy Parkinson
(202) 382-2307
NIES, Inc.
-------
RESPONDENT: The Boeing Company
Portland, Oregon
AUTHORITIES: RCRA Section 3008(h)
Consent Order (July 21, 1986)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Facility Description: Boeing owns and operates a hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facility. This Order addresses corrective
action at a leaking surface impoundment. Boeing has identified MEK, TCA, and
the following waste streams as those used at the Boeing plant: F001, F002,
F005, and F006.
Release Determination: The Order is based on the results of ground water
monitoring data which show TCE and TCA levels that exceed recommended levels
in the ground water in the vicinity of the surface impoundment. On May 1,
1986, Boeing submitted results of groundwater sampling from five monitoring
wells near the surface impoundment. The samples contained the following
hazardous constituents in the following ranges: total organic halogen (TOX)
(1200-2200 ug/1), total organic carbon (TOG) (2300-5400 ug/1),
methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) (BD -79 ug/1), trichloroethylene (TCE) (1110-2260
ug/1), and 1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA) (124-250 ug/1). On April 23, 1986,
Boeing sampled selected wells on the property for volatile organic
constituents. The results of the sampling include: TCA {ND- trace), TCE (2
-37 ug/1), tetrachloroethylene (PCE) (trace -5 ug/1), trans- 1,2
dichloroethylene (t- DCE) (7 -39 ug/1), and 1,1, dichloroethylene (DCE) (ND- 3
ug/1).
There are approximately 67 domestic, 31 irrigation, 36 municipal, and 11
industrial wells within a 3-mile radius of the Boeing facility. At least one
potable water well has already been affected, and other drinking water sources
are endangered.
ORDER PROVISIONS
Interim Measures: Boeing must implement interim measures which consist of
sampling all active drinking water wells within 1/2 mile of the boundaries of
the Boeing property, as well as all active drinking water wells within one
mile of the property, and within a 180 degree arc centered on the downgradient
ground-water flow direction. Boeing must arrange and pay for the analysis of
all samples.
If the results of the sampling show that a well is contaminated above pre-
determined action levels, or if a contaminant is not listed and is in
concentrations above the recognized public health advisory level, and the
contamination likely emanated from the Boeing facility, then Boeing must
notify the affected well owner within three working days after such
determination, and must offer to provide bottled water.
-------
If the level of a contaminant will cause other health concerns apart from
drinking the water, Boeing must develop and implement other initial corrective
actions to minimize health risks.
RFI: Boeing must undertake the RFI in two phases. Phase I will include
(1) an assessment of the rate and extent of air, surface water, soil and
ground-water contamination; (2) development of a model of the aquifers
affected by the release and a conservative prediction of the potential effect
of hazardous constituent movement on downgradient well users; (3) an
evaluation of the affect of pumping by nearby well users on hazardous
constituent movement; (4) revision and update of the Exposure Information
Report for the double lined surface impoundment; (5) characterization of each
source of contamination and assessment of the need for source control
measures; and (6) supplementation of the assessment report to include the
entire Boeing property and all of the hazardous constituents detected earlier.
The Phase II investigation will begin if at any time during the effective
period of the Order it is determined in Phase I, that the Boeing Plant is the
likely source of off-site ground-water contamination. The investigation will
include (1) an expansion of the ground-water model developed in Phase I to
include both a model of the water bearing zones off the Boeing property
'affected by the release and a conservative prediction of the potential effect
of hazardous constituent movement on downgradient well users; (2) an
assessment of the rate and extent of air, surface water, soil, and
ground-water contamination; and (3) an evaluation of the effect of
ground-water pumping by well users in the vicinity of any plume(s) released
from the Boeing property.
CONTACTS
Region X: Charles E. Findley
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
(206) 442-1906
Headquarters: Charlotte White
(202) 475-9316
The Boeing Company
-------
RESPONDENT: US Ecology, Inc.
Sheffield, Illinois
AUTHORITIES: RCRA Section 3008(h)
Consent Order (September 17, 1985^
FINDINGS OF FACT
Facility Description: US Ecology operated as a hazardous waste landfill until
January 1983 when it ceased receiving hazardous wastes. According to facility
records, US Ecology received and buried a variety of hazardous wastes or
hazardous constituents at the 45-acre facility, including PCBs, solid and liquid
cyanide compounds, and paint sludges containing lead and chromium pigments.
Release Determination: The Order is based upon ground-water monitoring reports
that show a release of hazardous wastes and/or constituents to the ground water.
These constituents include: acetone, benzene, methylene chloride,
trichloroethylene, chloroform, and carbon disulfide.
ORDER PROVISIONS
RFI: The Order requires US Ecology to conduct a comprehensive remedial
investigation or RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI). The specific goals of the
RFI include: identifying the location of existing contaminant plumes; describing
contaminants' being released and the rate and extent of their movement; evaluating
ground-water movement for the entire area of the site; locating'the source of
current releases of contaminants; and defining the method of migration of
contaminants through existing containment facilities. Based on this information,
US Ecology will evaluate the site's overall integrity for long-term containment
and the long-term impacts of releases (present and potential) from the facility.
The investigation will focus on ground-water contamination, but must also address
air, soil and surface water contamination. In addition, US Ecology will
investigate the relationship between surface water and ground water at the site.
CMS: Based on the results of the RFI, US Ecology will develop and evaluate
corrective action alternatives. The Order requires the facility to evaluate each
alternative in terms of reliability, implementability, operation and maintenance
requirements, environmental effects, and safety requirements.
CMI: The Order requires US Ecology to implement the CMS.
Financial Assurance: US Ecology must establish an escrow account in the amount
of $75,000 for payment of any stipulated penalties. This account will remain in
effect for the duration of the RFI and CMS. In addition, the facility must
provide EPA with an irrevocable standby Letter of Credit for $750,000. This
Letter of Credit will guarantee performance and payment of the RFI and CMS. US
Ecology must establish an additional Letter of Credit for $1,750,000 to guarantee
the performance and payment of any corrective action. EPA may draw on the Letter
of Credit in the event US Ecology fails to properly comply with the terms and
conditions of the Consent Order.
-------
Reimbursement of Costs: US Ecology must also reimburse EPA for costs incurred
prior to the effective date of the Order (not to exceed $25,000), RFI and CMS
oversight costs (not to exceed $30,000 per year for a maximum of two years), and
oversight of corrective action implementation (not to exceed $100,000).
Stipulated Penalties: For each day US Ecology fails to submit deliverables
required under the scope of work, EPA may assess penalties of $5,000 per day.
CONTACTS
Region V: Kevin Pierard
Geologist, Unit 9, Indiana-Illinois Enforcement Unit
(312) 886-4466
Headquarters: Cindy Byron
(202) 475-8728
US Ecology, Inc.
-------
SUPERFUND
Records Of Decision
Update
From: Hazardous Site Control Division
To: EPA Regional Offices
August 30, 1985
Vol. 1, No. 5
REMEDIAL RECORDS OF DECISION*
FY1985
Rtgtan SM/Sttto
1 Baird & Maguire inc.
May slip MA
U1986
Beacon Heights L/F.
CT
Cannon Engr-Plymouth.
MA
ROD Charles George L/F.
signed MA
7/11/85
Groveiano Wells. MA
Hocomonco Pond. MA
ROD McKin Company. ME
signed
7/22/85
Nyanza Chemical. MA
(1st Operapie Unit)
Ptalta Farm Site. Rl
(1st Operaoie Unit)
(2nd Operaoie Unit)
II Bog Creek Farm. NJ
Burnt Fry Bog. NJ
Gems Landfill. NJ
Glen Ridge Radiation.
NJ
Goose Farm. NJ
Helen Kramer L/F. NJ
lor
Oetopdon
no
yes 4/12
yes 7/31
yes 3/8
yes 7/31
yes 6/17
yes 4/12
yes 4/12
yes 4/12
yes 6/17
yes
no
yes 7/31
no
yes 6/ 1 7
yes 7/31
ThrMor
Pesticides in soils
&GW
LF leacnate in GW
Surface tanks &
soils
LF leacnate in GW
Solvents in GW
Creosote in sal. GW
Voiatiles in GW. soil
contamination
Metal sludges
Organic* in sal &
GW
Voutiies
Lead/PCBs in sal/
sediment
GW contact witn
landfill
Low-level
radiation
GW & soil contamin-
ation Oy VOCs/
exotics
GW contact with LF
|t||Kt
Oioxin. ACL
Treating GW in
fractured
Bedrock
—
RCRA capping
ACL. use of PRP
Rl/FS
ACL
Pumping 4
treating GW
ACL/onsite RCRA
facility
ACL
Seriousness of
health threat -
potential for
inptace treatment
Very tight
schedule
. GW cleanup -
feasibility of RCRA
cap
Otrsrte disposal
location
Heavy PRP
involvement
— — •
Coma
Boo Sharten
223-1722
Rich Cavagnero
223-1947
Greg Hoscoe
223-5911
Rich Laghton
223-1946
Jim Cinello
223-1946
Jim Cinello
223-1946
Oave Weosier
223-4909
Rich Cavagnero
223-1947
Jonn Randall
223-1928
Eric Swart:
264-1253
Sue Kaufman
264-8098
Ed Putnam
264-1873
Doug Johnson
264-8475
Don Lynch
264-8216
Ed Putnam
264-1873
H«*dqiMtttn
Conact
Steve Hooper
475-6689
Steve Hoooef
475-6689
Bill KascnaK
382-2348
Sill Kascnan
382-2348
Steve Hoooef
475-6689
Steve Hoooer
475-6689
Jim Spatarpu
382-7995
382-2348
Jim Soaiareiu
S. Ross
382-7995
Jonn Kingscon
382-7996
BoO Qumn
382-2350
Jim Soaiareiia
382-7995
John Kingscon
382-7996
John Kingscon
382-7996
BOO Qumn
382-2350
Jim Swtareiia
382-7995
John Kingscon
382-7996
l«*d sites
•r* not Included on this list.
-------
tag*
in
ROD
signed
3/22/85
ROD
signed
3/22/85
ROD
signed
8/2/85
ROD
signed
5/28/85
ROD
signed
5/28/85
IV
Sk/StM
Uoan Landfill. NJ
Marathon BjRvy, NY
Clean Weil Sew.NJ
Sinclair Refinery. NJ ,
Swooe Oil. NJ
Wide Baacn. NY
York Oil. NY
Oougiasviiie. PA
Drake Chemical. PA
Harvey-Knott. OE
Heieva Landfill. PA
lackawanna. PA
Lansdowne Radiation.
PA
MCAOOO Associates. PA
Moyers Landfill PA
Sand Gravel & Stone.
MO
Taylor Borough. PA
Tyoouts Comer. OE
Tysons Disposal. PA
American Creosote. Ft
w
OttogttM
yes 7/31
possiOie
yes 6/ 1 7
yes
yes 6/17
yes 7/31
yes 7/31
yes 4/t2
yes 6/ 1 7
yes 6/1 7
yes 3/3
yes 3/8
yes 6/ 1 7
no
yes 6/ 1 7
yes 6/1 7
yes 4/12
yes
no
yes 7/31
inrm or
Leacnate from LF
Cd contamination of
wetlands, cove. &
river
TCE contamination ot
GW
VOCs. etc. m soil.
GW
PCSs in son
PC8s m soil
?C3s m son
Waste oil located m
flood oiain
Contaminated
Duiidmgs. iagccns &
GW
GW contamination.
drum disoosai
Contaminated GW
Pits witn contamin-
ated leacnate
House contaminated
with radioactive
materials
Soils contamination
LF with contaminated
leacnate
Soil contamination
shallow GW
contamination
drum disposal on -oo
of If minimal soil
contamination
Large LF GW con-
tamination: alternate
water suooiy
orovided
Lagoons, soil and
shallow GW
contamination
Lagoon areas, onsite
and otfsite: soil and
GW contamination
IUUH
Leacnate
collection &
aisoosai
Wetlands, env
threat, unwed
OUDIIC neaim
mreat
No source aata
Sont sue
GW contamination
of 'ocai wells
Consistency witn
removai action
Tignt scneduie
Active facility is
source of
contamination
Flood oiam.
adiacent facility.
RA coordination.
GW cieanuo goals
Wetland assess-
ment. PCBs
Source in GW. 2
yr treatment in-
cluded m remedy
MuniciDai/
industrial closure
ot oits.
suosidence
Seiocation
Fund Balancing.
samai removal
.5 wooing :ue
•Q suosioence
Gas collection -y
lm ioatarei.d
382-7995
jcnn KmgscsP
382-7996
300 Omnr
382-2350
332-7995 '
3oo Quinn
382-2350
Jim Soatare'id
382-7995
Linda
3oornajian
382-7997
Linda
Soornazian
382- '997
Usa woodson
475-3246
Lisa Wooosor
- 475-3246
Linda
Soornazian
332-7997
unda
Soornazian
382-7997
Linda
382-:997
unda
Soornazian
382-7997
Lisa woooso^
475-3246
Lisa woooson
475-3246
Lmda
Soornazian
382-7997
Lisa Woooson
475-3246
Lisa woodson
475-3246
-------
RKtofl
ROD
signed
3/29/85
£00
ROD
signed
3/29/85
V
Moveo
10
FY86
ROD
signed
3/13/85
Moved
to
FY 86
ROD
signed
6/12/85
Moved
10
FY86
ROD
signed
3/2/85
HOD
signed
3/7/85
ROD
signed
8/7/85
ROD
signed
8/12/85
ROD
signed
8/12/85
VI
Sto/Sttt
Oavie Landfill. FL
Miami Drum/
Biscayne Aquifer. FL
Varsol Spill. FL
Whitenouse Waste Oil.
FL
Acme Soiveni. IL
(1st Operaoie Unit)
Arcanum iron. OH
Byron Salvage. IL
(1st Operaoie Unit)
Cemetary. Ml
(1st Operaoie Unit)
Chanevoix Municipal.
Ml
Fields Brook. OH
' (1st Operaoie Unit)
Kummer L-'F. MN
(1st Ooeraoie Unit)
LasKin/Pooiar Oil. OH
LeHiiiier. MN
•.1st Ooeraoie Unit)
Main St. IN
(1st Ooeraoie Unit)
Morns Arsenic. MN
New Lyme. OH
Norttiemaire. Ml
(1st Operaoie Unit)
Old Mill. OH
Scnmaiz Dump. Wi
(1st Operaoie Unit)
Verona Weiifieid. Ml
(2nd Operaoie Unit)
Wauconoa Sand. IL
(1st Operaoie Unit)
Bayou Sontouca. LA
CandWirt
for
DttoQjtion
yes 6/17
no
yes 3/8
yes 3/8
yes 4/12
yes 7/31
yes 3/8
yes 7/31
yes 4/i 2
yes 7/31
yes 4/12
yes 6/ 1 7
7/31
yes 6/ 1 7
yes 7.31
yes 6/ 1 7
yes 6/1 7
yes 6/ 1 7
yes 4/12
yes 6/ 1 7
yes 01 1 7
yes 7/31
yes 4/12
Thrut or
DMK^M*
rTUDWfn
Sludge lagoon
threatens GW
Regional GW
contamination
Source dissioated
Soils. GW w/
organics and metals
Alternative water
supply, contaminated
soils & GW (metals.
crganics. PCBs)
Soil. GW
contamination with
lead & acid
Buried wastes.
drums
Buried drums
GW contamination
limited to threat HBM
to provide alternate
water suooiy)
Stream sediments
contaminated with
PCBs. organics.
heavy metals
Water suooiy
PCS contaminated
sons, ponds. GW
GW contamination
with TCE
Puohc water suooiy
contaminated w/
solvents
No threat: deletion
candidate
Landtiii. contamina-
ted son. leacnate. &
GW
Contaminated sons
Contaminated soil
and GW
PCS contamination
of soil, pond
sediments
Contaminated soil
Contaminated
ieacnate
Creosote waste piles
LF' arums
ISSINt
Disposal m
existing on site
landfill without
douoie imer
Plume is no
longer identified
with any site.
The aquifer is
contaminated.
Petroleum
fraction
Length of GW
treatment: suita-
tmity for onsite
closure.
Soil cleanup ievei
ideiisting
methodology)
Cleanup levels
Disposal
facility for "C3s:
High enforce-
ment
PCBs.
High
enforcement
—
ACL. length of
time to treat GW
PCBs
"
—
Soil cleanup ievei
Regional
Contact
Jim Oroan
257-2643
Jim Oroan
257-2643
Jim Oroan
257-2643
Jack Snider
257-2930
Paul Bitter
Dave Favero
886-4742
Allen Woitas
886-6941
Doug Yeskis
386-9296
Tom Thomas
886-1434
Jack kratzmeyer
353-6449
Allen Wo|tas
886-6941
Allen Woitas
886-6941
jay Piucmski
353-6316
F'eo 3artman
353-6083
Mike Stnmou
353-6417
Gene Wong
353-6341
Mary Tyson
386-3006
Mary Eiaine
Gustatson .
386-6144
Mary Tyson
886-3006
Margaret
Guernero
886-0399
Jack kratzmeyer
353-6449
Cindy Nolan
386-0440
Don Porter
729-9712
Haadquartw]
Contact
Ed Barth
382-7998
Deooie
Swicnkow
382-2453
Lisa Woooson
475-8246
Linda
Boornazian
382-7997
Ed Barth
382-7998
kitty Taimi
382-2449
Ed Barth
* 382-7998
Carol Lmosav
475-6704
kitty Taimi
382-2449
Ed Barth
382-7998
Kitty Taimi
382-2449
Ed Barth
382-7998
Carol Undsav
475-6704
Carol Lmdsa.
475-6704
kitty Taimi
382-2449
Ed Barth
382-7998
Carol Lmdsay
475-6704
Carol bncsav
475-6704
Carol uncsav
475-6704
Carol Lncsd.
475-6704
Carol Linasav
475-6704
kitty Taimi
382-2449
Ed Barth
382-7998
Carol Lindsay
475-6704
Carol Lmosav
475-6704
Carol Lindsay
475-6704
Carol Linasay
475-6704
Randy kaitreider
382-2448
-------
TVMor
Jfc/SMi
luun
Moved
to
FY86
Moved
to
FY86
ROD
signed
3/15/85
ROD
signed
6/11/85
VI!
ROD
signed
7/10/85
VIII
Mono
to
FY86
ROD
signed
8/7/85
IX •
ROD
signed
5/9/85
X
Moved
to
FY88
ROD
signed
5/3/85
Coal Lindsay. Afl
OveflKMr. LA
MOTCO. TX
Triangle Cfwmcai. rx
BHsville Sites. MO
(Rosalie & Caianan)
Denver Radium Site.
CO
MIMown. MT
(Supplemental)
WoodDury Chemical,
CO
Crttor Chemical. CA
OelNorte. CA
Jioooom junkyard. CA
Ponders Corner. WA
Taoma Wai 12A, WA
United Chrome. OR
yes 6/17
yes 4/12
yes 3/8
yes 4/12
yes 4/12
yes 6/25
yes
yes 3/8
yes 6/1 7
yes 6/17
yes 3/8
yes 7/31
no
yes
Low level organics
m sal
If/drums wttfi
organics
Lagoons containing
PCBs, organics. and
Heavy metais
Soils witn arsenic.
metals
Drums 4 con-
taminated sals
Radioactive con-
lamination (soils &
structures)
Arsenic -contaminated
water supply
Soils witn pesticides
Heavy metals m sal
Pesticides m sal.
GW
PC8s. metais m sal
TCE m sal. GW
Organic solvents in
sal. GW
Hexnromium in
sal. GW
No action vs.
limited action
Extent of removal.
il any: GW
cleanup
incineration of
PCBs. extent of
sal/ sludge
removal
ACL
Otfsite disposal
Accsoiaom
disposal facility
Extent of
contamination
Extent of sal
removal treatment
vs. onsite closure
Sal cleanup
iev«
ACL
Extent of sou
excavation
ACL
ACL. extern of
sal excavation
ACL
Joe Cravens
729-9737
Steve Gilrein
729-2737
Don Porter
729-9712
Don Williams
729-9713
3oo takj
758-3931
Jonn BnnK
564-1525
Jim Knoy
585-5414
wan Sandra
564-1531
NICK Morgan
454-8918
MlCfl6l6 UBfTTWr
454-8144
NICK Morgan
454-8918
Carol Thompson
399-2709
Phil Wong
399-7216
Jonn Meyer
399-1271
Randy Kaitreicer
382-2448
Randy Kaitreioer
382-2448
Handy Kaitreiaer
382-2448
Ed Sann
382-7998
Jonn Kjngscotl
382-7996
Randy Kaitreioer
382-2448
3etn Hail
382-2451
Blake vewe
475-6703
Randy icanreioef
382-244«
Steve HOOC«»
475-6689
Steve HOOOW
475-6689
Steve noooar
475-6689
Steve noooe'
475-6689
Steve Hooccf
475-6689
Steve -coo*
475-6689
-------
SUPERFUND
Records Of Decision
Update
From: Hazardous Site Control Division
To: EPA Regional Offices
November 26, 1985
Vol. 1, No. 8
ROD SUMMARIES
VARSOL SPILL,
REGION IV,
FLORIDA
(Approved 3/29/85)
Description:
• Commercial operations at the
Miami International Airport
, resulted in discharges of
hydrocarbons, petroleum-
fraction solvents, and jetfuel
into surface waters and the
Biscayne Aquifer.
Decision:
• No source control action
specific to this site; area-wide
responses and ground water
remedies addressed in Bis-
cayne Aquifer ROD.
Issues:
• Rl showed no trace of solvent
at site: other chemicals have
biodegraded or dissipated
and become part of overall
contamination of Biscayne
Aquifer.
• CERCLA does not address jet-
fuel spills.
• Private parties have recovered
some spilled jetfuel.
Contacts:
• Region IV: Jim Orban
FTS 257-2643
Headquarters: Lisa Woodson
FTS 475-8246
BISCAYNE AQUIFER,
REGION IV,
FLORIDA
(Approved 9/16/85)
Description:
• Three NPC sites and an un-
sewered industrial area to the
North contributed to overall
contamination . in the Bis-
cayne Aquifer. Sites include a
drum recycling facility, a
municipal landfill, and an in-
ternational airport. As a result,
three well fields serving more
than 600,000 people have
been contaminated. Biscayne
Aquifer is close to the surface
and has high transmissivity.
Decision:
• Add air stripping capacity to
existing well-head treatment
facilities at two wellfields.
Issues:
• Area-wide groundwater con-
tamination from numerous
sources. Remedial measures
ensure safe municipal supply
but do not address existing
contamination.
• Local authorities will pay for
further treatment to remove
additional chemicals and
color and to increase available
water supply. EPA supports
these actions.
• Area-wide waste management
plan recommended for entire
study area.
Contacts:
• Region IV: Jim Orban
FTS 257-2930
• Headquarters: Lisa Woodson
FTS 475-8246
LEHILLIER/MANKATO,
REGION V,
MINNESOTA
(Approved 9/25/85)
Description:
• Natural and man-mace
depressions became ad ^oc
waste disposal sites betwee'1
1925 and 1960. In 1981. TCE
was found in an aquifer ser,
ing the LeHillier communi;,
Decision:
• Manage migration and reduce
source by extracting grouse
water using a system of e<
isting and newly constructed
wells and partially treating ov
air stripping.
• Extend LeHillier water
distribution system to include
all affected receptors.
Issues:
• Target levels for ground water
restoration equate to a risK
level of 10-6 TCE. Ground
water treatment should take
less than 5 years if contami-
nant source no longer exists
and will take 5 to 10 years
otherwise.
-------
• Ground water treatment
prevents migration of con-
taminants to water supply of
adjacent town.
Contacts:
• Region V: Fred Bartman
FTS 353*883
• Headquarters: Caret-Lindsay
FTS 475*704
DOUGLASSV1LLE
DISPOSAL SITE,
REGION III.
PENNSYLVANIA
(Approved 9/27/85)
Description:
• Waste oil reprocessing and
recycling facility has been in
operation since 1941. The site
has drums of wastes and con-
laminated soils and
sediments. VOCs were found
in facility drinking water. In
1970 and 1972. storms wash-
ed millions of gallons of
waste downstream from an
abandoned lagoon.
Decision:
• Remove drums.
• Remove contaminated soils
and sediments from drainage
ditch and consolidate in the
sludge disposal area. Cap
filled sludge lagoon and facili-
ty disposal area.
• Install levees and dikes to pro-
tect site from 100-year flood
event.
• Defer decision on ground
water treatment.
Issues:
• Site is in 100-year floodplain
of state scenic river.
• Active facility onsite.
Contacts:
• Region
I: Bill Hagel
FTS 597-3161
Headquarters: Lisa Woodson
FTS 475-8246
VERONA WELL FIELD,
REGION V,
MICHIGAN
(Approved 8/12/85)
Description:
• Three known sources have
contaminated the Verona Well
Field with VOCs. The well
field supplies water for 35,000
residents of Battle Creek,
Michigan, and for commercial
and industrial users, including
two major food processors. In
1984, incerceptqr wells and air
stripping facilities were con-
structed at the well field as an
interim remedial measure to
ensure a clean water supply
to the community.
Decision:
• Contain and collect con-
taminated ground water in
vicinity of one source. Pump
to existing well field air strip-
per for treatment.
• Increase volatilization of
VOCs from soils at that
source using air extraction
wells.
Issues:
• Enhanced volatilization using
air extension wells is an alter-
native technology for dealing
with soils contaminated with
VOCs.
Contacts:
• Region V: Jack Kratzmeyer
FTS 353-6449
• Headquarters: Carol Lindsay
FTS 475-6704
SINCLAIR REFINERY SITE.
REGION II.
NEW YORK
(Approved 9/30/85)
Description:
• VOCs and other contaminants
were found in the landfill
associated with an oil refinery
and in ground water. Flooding
and migration of the Genesee
River has eroded parts of the
landfill.
Decision:
• Remove and dispose of
drums offsite; excavate
smaller landfill and con-
solidate with larger landfill: fill
and cap landfill with RCRA
clay cap.
• Channelize portion of river.
Issues:
• Waste from the refinery por-
tion of the site eventually may
be incorporated into the land-
fill. An RI/FS for the refinery
portion is under way.
Contacts:
• Region II: Joel Singerman
FTS 264-9589
• Headquarters: Bob Quinn
FTS 382-2350
WIDE BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SITE.
REGION II,
NEW YORK
(Approved 9/30/85)
Description:
• A small recreational com-
munity on Lake Erie usea
waste oil for dust control. The
waste oil was found to con-
tain PCBs.
Decision:
• Excavate contaminated son
from roadways, drainage dit-
ches, driveways, yards, ana
wetlands.
• Dispose of contaminated
asphalt; reuse unco^
laminated asphalt as fill.
• Chemically treat cc-^
taminated soils; use treatec
soil as fill in excavated areas
and repave roads and dr^-e
ways.
• Treat perched water in sewer
trenches.
• Continue sampling to de?"-
-------
municipal refuse, rubber,
plastics, industrial chemicals,
and sludges. The ground
vater, which provides water
.or several residential wells, is
- contaminated.
Decision:
• Excavate discrete portion of
site with minor wastes; con-
solidate wastes; cap site.
• Install leachate control
system around landfill; collect
leachate and treat offsite.
• Extend public water supply.
• Decision on ground water has
been deferred.
Contacts:
• Region I: Rich Cavagnero
FTS 223-1947, or
Steve Farrick
FTS 223-1718
• Headquarters: Steve Hooper
FTS 475-6689
BAYOU BONFOUCA,
REGION VI,
LOUISIANA
proved 8/15/85)
_-dcription:
• Abandoned creosote treating
facility is within 100-year
floodplain of adjacent bayou.
Creosote contamination
found in soils onsite, in
ground water, and on the bot-
tom of the bayou.
Decision:
• Excavate and dispose of
creosote and highly con-
taminated soil offsite; dispose
of contaminated water offsite
through deep-well injection.
• Study extent of and remedies
for contamination in sedi-
ment, ground water, and sur-
face water.
Contacts:
• Region VI: Don Porter
FTS 729-9712
• Headquarters: Randy
Kaltreider
FTS 382-2448
CELTOR CHEMICAL,
REGION IX,
CALIFORNIA
(Approved 9/30/85)
Description:
• The site was occupied by a
processor of mining ores. Tail-
ings left onsite have been
washed downstream during
floods and have leached
heavy metals into surface
waters. One large tailings pile
was removed as an interim
measure.
Decision:
• Excavate contaminated soils
to risk-based levels for metals:
dispose of contaminated soils
offsite.
Contacts:
• Region IX: Nick Morgan
FTS 454-8918
• Headquarters: Steve Hooper
FTS 475-6689
GOOSE FARM,
REGION II,
NEW JERSEY
(Approved 9/27/85)
Description:
• Polysulfide rubber and solid
rocket fuel propellants were
buried in a pit dug in fine
sand. Ground water and soils
are contaminated. Interim ac-
tivities have included offsite
disposal of wastes and soil
and plume containment.
Decision:
• Flush remaining con-
taminated soil. Collect ground
water, treat it, and re-inject
treated water into ground.
• Continue testing to determine
need for capping and extent
of PCS contamination.
Issues:
• Heavy involvement of PRPs.
Contacts:
• Region II: Don Lynch
FTS 264-8216
• Headquarters: Bob Quinn
FTS 382-2350
CLEAN WELL HELD,
REGION II,
NEW YORK
(Approved 9/24/85)
Description:
• The well field that supplies
drinking water for the City and
Town of Olean was found to
contain TCE. Immediate ac-
tions included monitoring
private wells and installing 11
carbon absorption units. Little
data were available on the
source of contamination.
Decision:
• Construct two air stripping
systems to treat water from
three municipal wells.
• Extend City water system to
replace contaminated wells:
inspect industrial • sewers:
recommend institutional con-
trols on well water extraction;
further define source and
evaluate control methods.
Contacts:
• Region II: Pam Tames
FTS 264-2646
• Headquarters: Bob Quinn
FTS 382-2350
WOODBURY
CHEMICAL SITE,
REGION VIII,
COLORADO
(Approved 7/19/85)
Description:
• Fire destroyed a pesticides
plant in 1965. Contaminated
rubble and debris were put on
an adjacent lot. Pesticides.
metals, and other organic
compounds are found both
on- and offsite in soils and
sediments.
Decision:
• Offsite incineration of
material with total pesticide
concentration in excess of
100 ppm and offsite disposal
of soil containing 3-100 ppm
total pesticides.
Contacts:
• Region VIII: Walt Sandza
FTS 564-1531
• Headquarters: Randy
Kaltreider
FTS 382-2448
-------
WESTERN PROCESSING,
REGION X,
WASHINGTON
'Anproved 9/25/85)
cription:
'- An industrial disposal com-
pany received wastes from
local industries .since the
mid-1960s. Approximately 90
of the 126 priority pollutants
have been found in soils, in
ground water, .and in surface
water. Interim measures have
included removal, site
stabilization, reuse of wastes,
and limited stormwater con-
trols and treatment.
Decision:
• Excavate highly contaminated
soil and some buried wastes.
• Provide interim soil cover to
prevent human' contact, but
allow flushing.
• Pretreat extracted ground
water for discharge into sewer
system.
• Excavate, clean, and maintain
all utility lines; plug or divert if
necessary.
• Excavate contaminated sedi-
f~>eni from creek.
jnitor site closely and ex-
• Hand treatment if necessary.
Issues:
• Further actions at site will be
determined after analyzing ef-
fectiveness of current
remedies.
• Involvement of approximately
190 PRPs.
• Possible in-situ soil solidifica-
tion pilot site.
Contacts:
• Region X: Judy Schwartz
FTS 399-2684
• Headquarters: Steve Hooper
FTS 475-6689
HARVEY AND KNOTT
DRUM SITE,
REGION III,
DELAWARE
(A- --oved 9/30/85)
I iption:
• Wastes accepted at this on-
site disposal facility were
from sanitary, municipal, and
industrial sources and con-
sisted of sludges, paint
pigments, and solids. Wastes
were burned, allowed to seep
into the soil, or buried. Con-
taminants, including PCBs
and VOCs, have been found in
soils and sediments. VOC
contamination was also found
in ground water.
Decision:
• Treat water from onsite pond;
remove and dispose of
sediments, sludges, wastes,
and drums.
• Install ground water collec-
tion and treatment system
and use treated ground water
to flush onsite soils. Operate
system for 5 years and assess
level of effectiveness.
Issues:
• Site closure decision will be
deferred until effectiveness of
soil flushing can be assessed.
• Extraction/treatment/flushing
system is an alternative to ex-
cavation and disposal.
• Extensive wetland area sur-
rounding site.
Contacts;
• Region III: Joe Dugandzic
FTS 597-9023
• Headquarters: Lisa Woodson
FTS 475-8246
HOCOMONCO POND.
REGION I,
MASSACHUSETTS
(Approved 9/30/85)
Description:
• Wood products were treated
with creosote onsite. Wastes
were stored in a lagoon and
two depressions. Creosote
compounds have con-
taminated local soils, ground
water, and sediments in the
local pond.
Decision:
• Excavate and dewater
sediments from the pond and
soils from the depressions.
Place in an onsite facility built
to RCRA standards.
• Relocate the open-jointed
storm drain that runs through
the former lagoon area.
• Cap both the onsite facility
and the former lagoon area
with one contiguous RCRA
cap.
Contacts:
• Region I: Bruce Marshall
-FTS 223-0906
• Headquarters: Steve Hooper
FTS 475-6689
NEW LYME.
REGION V,
OHIO
(Approved 9/27/85)
Description:
• This 40-acre landfill accepted
industrial wastes not aiiowea
by State of Ohio license
Cyanide wastes may be
buried at the site. Soil, grcurc
water, and sediment are con-
taminated. Contaminates
leachate is apparent at seecs
throughout the site. The S':e
is surrounded on three sices
by wetlands.
Decision:
• Install RCRA cap over lancMi
• Dewater landfill and extrac:
and contain ground water -
definitely; treat ground wa:e'
and contaminated leac^a:?
using biological precipitat •:-
and activated carbon tec^-
ques: consolidate cc~
taminated sediment ons ••?
under cap.
• Construct gas contro-s
monitor ground water.
Contacts:
• Region V: Mary Tyson
FTS 886-3006
• Headquarters: Carol Lmosay
FTS 475-67Q4
SWOPE OIL COMPANY,
REGION II.
NEW JERSEY
(Approved 9/27/85)
Description:
• This chemical reclamation
and production facility was m
operation from 1965 to 1979.
PCBs and other chemicals
were found in soils. A surface
aquifer is contaminated in
part from the site. A municipal
well located 100 feet away m
the lower aquifer has been
closed.
-------
Decision:
• Remove and dispose tanks
and buildings offsite; treat or
dispose of tank contents.
< Dispose of PCB-contaminated
soils and buried sludge off-
site; cap site.
• Study nature and extent of
ground water contamination
and feasibility of 'remedial
alternatives.
Contacts:
• Region II: Don Lynch
FTS 264-8216
• Headquarters: John
Kingscott
FTS 382-7996
CEMETERY DUMP,
REGION V,
MICHIGAN
(Approved 9/11/85)
Description:
• This abandoned gravel pit was
used for burial of approx-
imately 250 drums of hazar-
dous wastes, including PCBs.
Four residences were subse-
quently constructed onsite.
Aquifer underlies the site, and
supplies water for area-wide
domestic wells.
Decision:
• Excavate and dispose of
drums offsite. Soils to be ad-
dressed in ROD amendment.
Contacts:
• Region V: Tom Thomas
FTS 886-1434
• Headquarters: Kitty Taimi
FTS 382-2449
Ed Barth
FTS-382-7998
ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES
One of the major goals of the
Superfund program in FY '86 is
to increase the use of new
technologies to treat and
dispose of waste. This issue of
the ROD Update is intended to
provide a brief overview of what
some of these new technologies
are where they have already
been used at Superfund sites,
and some current Agency work
i this area
some rough working de-
ions of the basic categories
C
Htic
of alternative technologies are in
order.
• ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
is currently used by many to
mean any treatment technol-
ogy that reduces the mobility
and toxicity of waste and
thereby reduces its threat to
the environment. Containment
or land disposal without treat-
ment is not considered to be
alternative technology.
• INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
denotes existing technologies
that have not yet been proven
effective for their desired ap-
plication or technologies that
just need final field demon
stration to be conside^ec
proven and available.
• ADVANCED/EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES
refer to technologies stm ~
the lab research stage.
• EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES
are those which have prove" •
be effective for the desiree K.
plication and are commer: i .
available.
The various stages of tec"-
gy development are dis: >.--:
below.
Advanced/ .
Emerging
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
- . Innovative »—•-
Existing
1
o
£
c
5 5
II
V ^
Q uj
o
CJ
3
O
tr
Lab Scale
Oevelopment
Pilot
Scale Up
Demonstration
Guidance
-------
Alternative technologies currently being tested and considered by EPA include the following:
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES UNDER DEVELOPMENT BY ORD
I. CONTAINMENT
A. ISOLATION TECHNIQUES
1. Barriers by Grouting (P)
2. In-situ Vitrification (ISV) Generated Underground Barriers
for Confinement of Hazardous Wastes (P)
3. Use of Underground Mines as Repositories for
Hazardous Waste (D)
4. Bottom Isolation Barrier System (P)
B. STABILIZATION/RXATlpN/ENCAPSULATION TECHNIQUES
1. Applicability of Solidification/Stabilization
Processes to NPL Sites (0)
C. AIR EMISSIONS/TREATMENT TECHNIQUES
1. Air Stripping of Volatile Organics from Soil (L)
2. Air Stripping of VOCs from Liquids at Superfund
Sites (0)
3. Control of Air Emissions from Superfund Surface
Impoundments (D)
II. SEPARATION/CONCENTRATION TECHNIQUES
1. Treatment of Waste-Contaminated Ground by
Electrokinetics (P)
2. Investigation of Treatment Methods Used in the Mining
and Metallurgical Industry for Application at Waste Site
Cleanups (L)
3. Artificial Freezing as a Remedial Action Technique (P)
4. Mobile/Transportable Systems for Extraction of
Pollutants from Excavated Soils (P/D)
5. In-situ Extraction of Contaminated Soils (P)
6. Management of Contaminated Sediments (L)
7. Leachability of Toxic Organics from Contaminated Soils
and Residues from Chemical and Biological Treatment
of Contaminated Soils (L)
8. Reverse Osmosis Concentration of Hazardous Waste
Leachate (P)
9. Steam Stripping of Contaminants (L)
10. Metal Binding Compounds (L)
11. Supercritical Extraction Using Solvent and Solute
Mixtures (L)
12. Sorption of Aqueous Hazardous Wastes with Treated
Clays (L)
13. Pristine Lignin for Hazardous Waste Treatment (L)
III. DETOXIFICATION
A. CHEMICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES
. 1. Dioxin Radical Formation and Polymerization on Cu (II)
Smectite (L)
2. Catalytic Decomposition of Halogenated Pollutants (P)
3. Pnotodecomposition of Toxic Inorganics and Organics
in Leachates Via Semiconductor Oxides (L)
4. Slurry Process for Destruction of PCDDs and PCBs in
Contaminated Soils, Sediments, and Sludges (P)
B. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
1. Use of Colloidal Gas Aphrons (GCAs) for Solving
Contaminated Ground water and Soil Problems
2. Use of Support Aerated-Biofilm Reactors for the
Biodegradation of Toxic Organic Compounds (L)
3. Anaerobic In-situ Degradation of Organic Compounds (L)
4. Biochemical Processing of Leachates and Excavated
Soils (P)
CONTACT
Herbert Pahren
Don Sanning
Janet Houthoofd
Walter Grube
Carlton Wiles
Paul dePercin
Paul dePercin
Paul dePercin
Jonathan Herrmann
Don Sanning
Janet Houthoofd
Richard Traver
Richard Traver
Anthony Tafuri
Mike Roulier
John Martin
John Martin
John Martin
Mark Stutsman
Mark Stutsman
David Ferguson
Mark Stutsman
Charles Rogers
Charles Rogers
Charles Rogers
Stephen James
Ronald Lewis
Stephen James
John Brugger
FTS#
569-7874
569-7875
569-7863
569-7798
569-7795
569-7797
569-7797
569-7797
569-7839
569-7875
569-7863
321-6677
321-6677
321-6604
569-7796
569-7753
569-7753
569-7753
569-7776
569-7776
569-7518
569-7776
569-7757
569-7757
569-7757
569-7877
569-7856
569-7877
321-6634
-------
5. Detoxification Technology Using AWT Biological
Methods (P/D)
6. Mycorrhizae and Host Plant Species as Hazardous
Waste Detoxification Agents (L)
7. Bacteria Capable of Detoxifying Organomercurials (L)
8. Evaluation of Commercial Biochemical Preparations for
Hazardous Waste Detoxification (L)
9. Selected Natural Microorganisms for the Detoxification
of PCB-contaminated Soils (P)
10. White Rot Fungus as a Detoxification Agent of
Halogenated Organic Hazardous Waste in Contaminated
Soils (P)
11. Application Methodology for the In-situ Use of Soil
Detoxification Microorganisms (L)
C. MIXED SYSTEMS
1. Combined Biological, Chemical, and Physical In-situ
Treatment Processes (P)
D. THERMAL DETOXIFICATION
1. Mobile/Transportable Incinerator Systems (D)
2. Mobile/Transportable Carbon Reactivator Systems (D)
3. Molten Glass Technology (D)
4. Huber Advanced Electric Reactor (D)
5. Circulating Bed Combustion (D)
6. Plasma Arc Systems (D)
7. Shirco Infrared System (D)
KEY: (P) - Pilot
(L) — Laboratory
(D) — Demonstration
Edward Opatken
John Glaser
John Glaser
John Glaser
John Glaser
John Glaser
John Glaser
Stephen James
James Yezzi
Richard Traver
Harry Freeman
Harry Freeman
Harry Freeman
Harry Freeman
Harry Freeman
569-7855
569-7568
569-7568
569-7568
569-7568
569-7568
569-7568
569-7877
321-6703
321-6677
569-7529
569-7529
569-7529
569-7529
569-7529
Alternative Technologies Selected for Superfund Remedial Actions to Date
Listed below are the Superfund sites for which alternative technologies have been chosen as pan
of the remedial action.
HYDRAULIC REMOVAL AND TREATMENT
Region Site Name/State
I Nashua/NH
II Goose Farm/NJ
II Lipari Landfill/NJ
n PAS Oswego/NY
ill Harvey-Knott/OE
X Ponders Cornec/WA
X Tacoma Well 12A/WA
X Western Processing/WA
Megion Site Name/Slits
VI Old Inger/LA
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
SOU
LAND
Media
Sludges & Soils
Status
Construction
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
TREATMENT
Status
Design
Reg. Contact/ FTS »
Chet JanowsKi
223-19O
Don Lyncn
264,8216
Sal Badalamenti
264-1873
Sieve MacGregor
264-9588
Joe Ougandzic
597-9023
Carol Thompson
399-2709
Phil Wong
399-7216
Judy Schwartz
399-2684
Reg. Contact/ FTS *
Bonnie DeVoss
729-9739
HO Contact/FTS «
Sieve Hooper
475-6689
BOD Quinn
382-2350
John Kmgscott
382-7996
BoD Oumn
382-2350
Lisa Woooson
4754246
Sieve Hooper
475*689
Steve Hooper
47^6689
Steve Hoooer
47S«89
HO Contact/FTS »
DeDDy Swicnkow
382-2453
-------
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Ragton
i
u
u
IV
VI
Site Nama/Slata
Keefe Environmental Services/
NH
Bridgeport/NJ
PAS Oswego/NY
Bluff fload/NC
MOTCO/TX
Madia
Drums/Tanks
liquids
Drums/Tanks
Drums/Tanks
Liquids
Slatua
Completed
Completed/ Design
Completed
Completed
Design
Rag. Contact/FTS »
Chet Janowski
223-1943
Ron Barsoilno
264-1913
Steve MacGregor
264-9688
Nancy Redgate
257-2643
Don Porter
729-9712
MQ Contact/FTS »
Steve Hooper
4754689
Jonn Kingscott
382-7998
Bob Quinn
382-2350
Debby Swichcow
382-2453
Randy Kaltreider
382-2448
INCINERATION
Region
i
II
ii
II
II
u
u
IV
IV
V
V
V
V
V
VI
VI
VI
VIII
X
Region
X
Site Nama/Slata
Keefe Environmental (offsite)/
NH
Bog Creek Farm (onsite)/Nj
Bridgeport (otfsitei/Nj
Bridgeport (onsitei/NJ
PAS Osweqo (offsitei/NY
PijacK Farm (otfsitei/Nj
Spence Farm (offsitei/Nj
Bluff Road/NC (offsite)
Acme Sullivan Reclaiming
(onsiteVlL
Berlin 4 Farro (otfsitei/Mi
Byron Jonnson Salvage Yara
loffsne)/lL
Cemetery (offsitei/Mi
Cross Brothers (offsitei/iL
Laskin/Popiar Oil (offsitei/OH
Bio-Ecology Systems (ottsiteiTX
MOTCO (regionatt/TX
Triangle Chemical (oftsiiei/TX
Woodbury Chemical iotfsite>/CO
Western Processing (offsitei/WA
Site Name/State
Tacoma Well 12A (source)/ WA
Madia
Drums/Tanks
Sludges/Soil
Drums/Tanks
Sludges/Oil
Drums/Tanks
Drums/Tanks
Drums/Tanks
Drums/Tanks
Soil
Drums/Tanks
Orums/Tanks
Drums/Tanks
OrumsiTanKs •
Orumsrranks
Onjms/Tanks
Uquids
Orums/Tanks
Soii'RuOOie
Orums/Tanks
SOIL
Madia
Soil
Statui
Completed
Design
Design
Design
Completed
Design
Design
Completed
Design
Completes
Design
Design
Design
Completed
Completed
Design
Design
Design
Design
WASHING
Status
Decision
Rag. Contact/FTS »
Chet Janowski
223-1943
Eric Swart*
264-1253
Ron Barsoiino
264-1913
Ron Barsoiino
264-1913
Steve MacGregor
264-9588
Don Lynch
2644216
Don Lynch
2644216
Nancy Redgate
257-2643
Paul Bitter
386-4742
Greg Kuima
386-3010
Doug veskis
386-9296
Tom Thomas
386-1 434
Can Cacice
3860392
jay Piucinsm
353*316
Bonnie OeVoss
729-9739
Don Porter
729-9712
Don Williams
729-9713
Wait Sanoza
564-1531
Judy Schwartz
399-2684
Rag. Contact/FTS *
Phil Wong
399-7216
HQ Contaci/FTS »
Sieve Hooper
475*689
Jonn Kingscott
382-7996
John Kingscott
382-7996
John Kingscott
382-7996
Sob Quinn
382-2350
Ed Bann
382-7998
Sob Quinn
382-2350
Debby SWIC!-KC*
382-2453
Kitty Taimi
382-2449
Kitty Taimi
382-2*49
Kitty Taimi
382-2449
Kitty Taimi
382-2449
Kit'y Taimi
382-2*49
Caroi Lmosav
475*704
OebOie Swicr»ow
3822453
Randy Kaitreioe'
382-2448
Ea Bann
382-7998
Randy Kaitreiaer
382-2448
Sieve Hooper
475*689
HQ Contact/FTS •
Steve Hooper
475*689
-------
ENHANCED VOLATILIZATION
Region
I
V
VI
SH* Name/Slat*
McKin (onsitei/ME
Verona Well field (onsite)/MI
Triangle Chemical (on3ite)/TX
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Statua
Design
Design
Design
Reg. Contact/FTS #
Dave Webster
2234909
Jack Kratzmeyer
3536449
Don Williams
729-9713
HO Contact/FTS »
Blake veide
382-7996
Carol Lindsay
47W704
Ed Barth
382-7998
STABILIZATION AND SOLIDIFICATION (PRE-LANDFILL)
Region
III
ill
ill
IV
VI
Sit* Name/State
Bruin Lagoon/PA
McAdoo Assoc./PA
Tysons Dump/PA
Davie Landfill/FL
Bio-Ecology Systems/TX
Media
Sludges
Soil
Soil
Sludges
Soil/Sludges
Statua
Construction
Design
Design
Design
Design
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION FROM
Region
II
II
Sit* Nam*/Stat*
Bog Creek Farm (onsiie)/NJ
Wide Beach (onsiteyNY
Media
Soils
Soils
Status
Design
Design
Reg. Contact/FTS *
Ed Shoner
597-2193
Dom Digulio
597-3435
Joe Dugandzic
597-9023
Jim Orban
257-2643
Bonnie DeVoss
729-9739
SOILS
Reg. Contact/FTS #
Eric Swartz
264-1253
Joel Singerman
264-9589
HO Contact/FTS »
Linda Boomazian
382-7997
Linda Boomazian
382-7997
Lisa Woodson
47S8246
Ed Bartn
382-7998
Debby Swicnkow
382-2453
HO Contact/FTS •
Jonn Kingscott
382-7996
Sob Oumn
382-2350
Alternative Technologies at Removal Sites
The Removal program is using alternative technologies at a number
of sites. Among these are:
Site Location Technique
Schaffer Minden, WVA Solvent extraction of PCBs
Peek Oil Tampa, FL Incineration of PCBs in soil
Lees Farm Woodville. Wl Extraction of lead from soil
and contaminated batteries by
complexing with EDTA and
recovering lead through elec-
trolysis (This process is ex-
pected to produce lead pure
enough for commercial sale.)
For more information, contact Steve Dorrler (FTS 340-6740)
A Line on RODS
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
WORKGROUP
A workgroup was formed in April
raft guidance on developing
.pling and analytical plans
for RI/FSs. The guidance will lay
out an approach for: (1) defining
data objectives (decision-
making for which data is re-
quired) at the very beginning of
the RI/FS; (2) determining
criteria and data needed to make
those decisions (how clean is
clean, boundaries of waste, etc.);
and (3) selecting the appropriate
analytical options and sampling
approaches that will produce
the needed data. The DQO
Workgroup has completed a
draft of the stages related to
analytical option selection. This
draft is being circulated for
review in Headquarters and the
Regions. A supplemental draft
will follow in the spring to pro-
vide more detail on sampling ap-
proach selection. The final
guidance is scheduled for
September 1986. For further in-
formation, call Linda Boornazian
(FTS 382-7997).
NEW SECTION CHIEF
HSCD has another new section
-------
chief in Steve Smagin. Steve
comes to HSCD from Super-
fund's Office of Program
Management. As chief of the
Planning and Programs Section
of the Remedial Analysis
Branch, Steve's key respon-
sibilities will include manage-
ment of remedial planning,
forecasting, and tracking ac-
tivities, including the SCAP and
the natural resource claims and
response claims programs.
ROD ISSUE ABSTRACTS
NO LONGER REQUIRED
The ROD abstracts prepared for
the National Technical Informa-
tion Service and summaries that
appear in the ROD Update have
proven so useful that, beginning
this fiscal year, ROD issue
abstracts will no longer be re-
quired for RODs signed either in
Headquarters or the Regions. If
there are special issues
associated with a particular site
that you would like highlighted.
please feel free to submit short
articles or notes for the ROD Up-
date. Call Betsy Shaw at FTS
382-3304.
-------
'•il
SUPERFUND
Records Of Decision
Update
From: Hazardous Site Control Division
To: EPA Regional Offices
December 19, 1985
Vol. 1, No. 9
ROD SUMMARIES
NYANZA CHEMICAL SITE,
REGION I,
MASSACHUSETTS
(Approved 9/4/85)
Description:
• The site is the location of a
former textile dye manufactur-
ing business. Wastewater and
chemical sludges were dispos-
ed of onsite. Ground water and
stream sediments are con-
taminated primarily with
organic chemicals and some
heavy metals.
Decision: .
• Excavate sludge deposits and
sediments: consolidate in on-
site landfill.
• Cap historic onsite landfill
• Divert upstream surface and
ground water.
Contacts:
• Region: Rich Cavagnero
FTS 223-1928
• Headquarters: Steve Hooper
FTS 475-6689
PICILLO FARM,
REGION I,
RHODE ISLAND
(Approved 9/30/85)
Description:
• Illegal dumping of hazardous
wastes occured onsite in 1977.
An explosion and fire at the
site brought it to the attention
of regulatory agencies. Interim
remedial actions taken include
excavation and removal of all
buried drums and land farming
of phenol-rich soils. Phenol
and PCBs have been found in
soils and ground water.
Decision:
• Dispose of contaminated soil
onsite in a RCRA landfill.
• Close landfill to RCRA stan-
dards.
• Monitor ground and surface
water.
Issues:
• State has petitioned the court
for reconsideration of the deci-
sion. State wants to dispose of
PCS wastes at an offsite TSCA
approved facility.
Contacts:
• Region: Don Conklin
FTS 223-1928
• Headquarters: Steve Hooper
FTS 475-6689
GEMS LANDFILL.
REGION II,
NEW JERSEY
(Approved 9/27/85)
Description:
• The township landfill has been
operated by private contrac-
tors. Hazardous wastes of all
varieties were disposed of on-
site: some in open trenches
and others in a pit created by
onsite sand and gravel excava-
tion. Ground water, soils, and
su'face water are contamina-
ted. Interim measures includ-
ed construction of a berm to
prevent surface water from
entering adjacent deveicc
ment, construction of a fen<:e
to prevent access to su^'ace
waters, and the replace'* e--
of culverts.
Decision:
• Cap landfill: construct a
-------
hazardous wastes. Wastes
were also stored in lagoons.
Leachate from the landfill has
entered surface water. Ground
water has been contaminated.
The air and soil contain con-
taminants.
Decision:
• Collect ground water and
leachate through trenching.
• Cap site.
• construct upgradient slurry
wall.
• Dewater lagoons and excavate
and fill; fence site.
• Implement surface water con-
trols; collect and treat.
• Monitor effect of actions.
Issues:
• Upgradient slurry wall creates
changes in hydraulic
pressures, minimizing further
contamination of ground
water.
• Design and construction of
cap to account for future settl-
ing.
Contacts:
• Region: Ed Putnam
FTS 264-1873
• Headquarters: John Kingscott
FTS 382-7996
LIPARI LANDFILL,
REGION II,
NEW JERSEY
(Approved 9/30/85)
Description:
• A sand and gravel pit was
backfilled with a variety of
hazardous wastes, many of
them uncontained liquids.
Ground water and surface
water have been contamina-
ted. Interim measures have in-
cluded removal of wastes,
construction of fencing and a
slurry wall, and capping.
Decision:
• Construct leachate extraction
system and injection wells to
dewater and flush site in a
batch mode; flushing system
will remove waterborne con-
taminants and substantially
reduce risks of future release
to ground water.
• Discharge treated leachate to
local sewer treatment system
or, with further treatment, to
surface water.
• Install monitoring wells in
downgradient aquifer.
Issues:
• Effectiveness of control of
contaminants within con-
tained area will be evaluated.
• Future study of offsite con-
tamination in ground and sur-
face waters.
Contacts:
• Region: Ron Borsalino
FTS 264-1913
• Headquarters: John Kingscott
FTS 382-7996
SAND, GRAVEL AND STONE,
REGION III,
MARYLAND
(Approved 9/30/85)
Description:
• A sand and gravel quarry was
used as a landfill site for hazar-
dous wastes. Excavated pits
often served as impound-
ments for liquid wastes. Sur-
face water, ground water, and
soils have been contaminated.
Decision:
• Address shallow aquifer con-
tamination and surface water
seeps.
• Defer decisions on soil con-
tamination and deep aquifer
contamination until comple-
tion of Phase II RI/FS.
• Excavate buried drums and
buried material: dispose of off-
site.
• Install ground water collection
and treatment system onsite;
discharge treated water into
surface waters and/or back in-
to shallow aquifer.
• Level of treatment in shallow
aquifer will be determined
upon completion of Phase II
RI/FS.
Contacts:
• Region: Roy Shrock
FTS 597-0913
• Headquarters: Lisa Woodson
FTS 475-8246
DAVIE LANDFILL
[BROWARD COUNTY]
REGION IV
FLORIDA
(Approved 9/30/85)
Description:
• County operated disposal site
accepted residential wastes
and industrial septic pump-out
material, grease trap residues.
and treated municipal sludges.
Results of sampling indicate
local industries .were probably
discharging electroplating
wastes into septic systems.
Decision:
• Dewater and stabilize contents
of sludges, lagoon.
• Place wastes in lined cell of
onsite landfill; cap cell.
Issues:
• Stabilization should be evaiua
ted before land disposal.
• Source control remedia:
measure only; need for grounc
water measures to be deter
mined.
Contacts:
• Region: Jim Orban
FTS 257-2643
• Headquarters: Ed Barth
FTS 382-7996
Debbie
Swichkow
FTS 382-2453
-------
SUPERFUND RECORDS OF DECISION:
KEY WORD INDEX
listed below are major key word categories and
their subcategories for Superfund Records of
Decision (RODs). Opposite each of these categor-
ies are the sites whose ROD contains the listed
key word. This list includes all RODs approved to
date except those for the American Creosote, FL
KEYWORDS
(BY CATEGORY)
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
Acids
ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
Site, State | Region!
Arsenic
Asbestos
Carcinogenic
Compounds
Chromium
Dioxm
Heavy Metals
Charles George, MA (I)*; Nyanza Chemical.
MA (I): Western Sand & Gravel. Rl (I);
Chemical Control. NJ (II); PAS Oswego. NY
(II); Bruin Lagoon. PA (III): Oouglassvilie. PA
(III): Lackawanna Refuse Site. PA (Ml): A&F
Materials-lRM. IL (V); Chem-Dyne-EDO. OH
(V); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); Tar Creek.
OK (VI); Celtor Chemical Works. CA (IX): Sir-
ingfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)'; Western Pro-
cessing, WA (X)
Hocomonco Pond. MA (I); Nyanza Chemical.
MA (I); Chemical Control. NJ (II); D'lmperio
Property, NJ (II)-; Helen Kramer. NJ (II):
Lipari Landfill. NJ (II)': Love Canal. NY (II);
Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Spence Farm, NJ
(II); Douglassville. PA (III); McAdoo-IRM. PA
(III); Moyer Landfill. PA (III): Oavie Landfill. FL
(IV); Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits. FL (IV);
Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard. IL (V); Chem-
Dyne-EDO. OH (V); Morris Arsenic. MN (V);
Milltown. MT (VIII); Milltown-S. MT (VIII);
Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)': McColl. CA (IX);
Western Processing. WA (X)
New Lyme. OH (V); Mountain View/Globe. AZ
(IX)
Charles George. MA (I); Hocomonco Pond.
MA (I); Taylor Borough. PA (III); Reiliy Tar.
MN (V)
Hocomonco Pond. N'A (I): Nyanza Chemical.
MA (I); O'lmpeno Property. NJ (II); Lipari
Landfill. NJ (II)'; Sinclair Refinery. NY (II);
Spence Farm. NJ III); Douglassville. PA (III);
Matthews Electroplating. VA (III): McAdoo-
IRM. PA (III): Davie Lanatill. f-L (IV);
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits. FL (IV): Norther-
naire. Ml (V): Scnmalz Dump. Wl (V):
Wauconaa Sand & Gravel. IL (V): Del None.
CA (IX): Western Processing. WA (X)'
Love Canal. NY mi: Times Beach. MO (VII)
Charles George. MA in': Hocomonco Pond.
MA (I): Nyanza Chemical. MA (I); Keefe En-
vironmental. NH (i): Re-Soive. MA m.
Sylvester. NH (I); Bog Green Farm. NJ ill):
Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II): D Impeno Property. NJ
(II): GEMS Landfill. NJ illi; L'Oan Landfill. NJ
(II)': Lone Pine Landfill. NJ ill): PAS Oswego.
NY (II); Pijak Farm. NJ (111; Sinclair Refinery.
NJ (II); Enterprise Avenue. PA mi); Harvey-
Knolt. OE (III): McAdoo-IRM. PA illl); Moyer
Landfill. PA (III); Sand. Gravel & Stone. MD
(III): Wade. PA (III): Miami Drum Services. FL
(IV); A&F MatenalS-IRM. IL (V); A&F
Materials-EDO, IL (V): Byron/Johnson Salvage
Yard. IL (V): Schmalz Dump. Wl (V): Waucon-
da Sand & Gravel. IL (V): Bio-Ecology
Systems. TX (VI); Highlands Acid Pit. TX (VI);
Old Inger. LA (VI): MOTCO. TX (VI): Tar
Creek. OK (VI); Milltown. MT iVIII);
Milltown-S. MT (VIII); Woodbury Chemical.
CO (VIII): Celtor Chemical Worxs. CA (IX);
Celtor Chemical. CA (IX)': Jibboom
Junkyard. CA (IX); Stringfeilow Acid Pils-IRM.
CA (IX); Stringfeilow Acid Pits. CA (IX)':
Western Processing. WA iXl: Western Pro-
cessing, WA (X)'
(IV) and Cannon Engineering/Plymouth, .VIA J)
sites. Regional counsels and Superfund branch
chiefs have copies of all RODs. Copies are
available for purchase by the public from the Na-
tional Technical Information Service and the En-
vironmental Law Institute.
KEY WORDS ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
(BY CATEGORY) Site. Stale ;Rcgionl
inorganics Hocomonco Pond. MA (I); Nyanza Cner-'ca'
MA (I); Sylvester. NH (I); Bog Creen rar-^ •.„
(II); Chemical Control. NJ (II): D'lmoenc ?•:
perty. NJ (II); Friedman Property. NJ .!!•
GEMS Landfill. NJ (II); Helen Kramer N.
Krysowaty Farm. NJ (II): Love Canai s • ••
Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Douglassvii'e --
(III); Drake Chemical. PA (III); Harvev *.-•:••
DE (III); McAdoo-IRM. PA (III): Wade PA .
A&F Matenals-IRM. IL (V); Acme Sci.-'-i .
(V); Cemetery Dump. Ml (V): Chem-CK ~e Ei:
OH (V); Reiliy Tar. MN (V): Wauconda S I- • •
Chemical Works. CA (IX)
Oils McKin. ME (I)'; Bridgeport. NJ (in. 3u'-- - .
Bog. NJ (II): Pijak Farm. NJ ill): Price LJ- :•
NJ (II); Bruin Lagoon. PA (III); Enters' sr
Avenue. PA (III): Miami Drum Services ;.
(IV); A&F Materials-IRM. IL (Vl; Lash." ? . •
Oil. OH (V); New Lyme. OH iV); Old '.'
(V); Outboard Marine Corp.. IL (Vi. a»- . ' •
MN (V); Old Inger. LA (VI); Elhsvuie '.'•". .
Western Processing. WA (X)
Organics/VOCs Beacon-Heights. CT (I): Charles Gee.- > •.•••
(I): Hocomonco Pond. MA ii): Kee'e :
vironmental, NH (I); McKin-IRM. ME •• •
za Chemical, MA (I); Piciilo Farm. fli
Sylvester. NH (I): Re-Solve. MA di: vV*--
Sand & Gravel. Rl (I); Bog Creek Far- '.
.(II): Bridgeport. NJ (II): Burnt Fly See •.
Chemical Control. NJ (II); O'lmpenc =• . •
NJ (II); Friedman Property. NJ ill). G£v^.
Landfill. NJ (II); Goose Farm. NJ nh
Kramer. NJ (II): Lipari Landfill. NJ .11. . . :
Landfill. NJ (II)': Lone Pine LanaMi •..
Love Canal. NY (ID: Olean Weil Fie o •. •
PAS Oswego. NY (II); Pi|an Farm N,
Sinclair Refinery. NY (II); Swope 0' '•.
Douglassville. PA (III); Drake CheT' :> - -
(HI): Harvey-Knott. DE (III): McAaoo • = '•' --
(III): Moyer Landfill. PA nil); Sand G'J.-- •-
Stone. MD (III): Taylor Borough. PA ,.
Tyson's Dump. PA (III); Wade. PA >in =
cayne Aquifer Sites. FL (IV); A4F Ma'v ,
IRM, IL (V): A&F Materials Compan, £;; .
(V): Acme Solvents. IL (V): Berlin 4 =ar- v
(V). Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard. IL •
Cemetery Dump. Ml (Vi: Charievoix •.<> .
Charlevoi*. Ml (V)': Chem-Oyne-ECC C- .
Eau Claire-lRM. Wl (V): Kummer Lane'
(V); Mam St. Wellfieid. IN (V): New Bng-v :-
Interim Water Treatment. MN (V). New
Brighton-Water Supply System. MN ,v '.-*
Lyme. OH (V); Old Mill. OH |V): Verona .'.e
Field-lRM. Ml (V); Verona Wen Field. MI . •
Wauconda Sand & Gravel. IL (V): Hign a^cs
Acid Pit. TX (VI); MOTCO. TX (VI); Old i-ge-
LA (VI); South Valley-lRM. NM (VI): Tna.-c. e
Chemical. TX (VI); Aidex-lRM. IA (vin. A,ce«
IA (VII)'; Ellisvilie. MO (VII); Woodbuiv
Chemical. CO (VIII): Del None. CA iixi MC
Coll. CA (IX); Stringfeilow Acid Pits-iRM CA
(IX); Stringfeilow Acid Pits. CA (IX)' Ponce-s
Corner-IRM. WA (X); South Tacoma. WA ix,
South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A. WA ,x,-
Western Processing. WA (X); Western P-o-
cessmg, WA (X)'
-------
KEYWORDS
I BY CATEGORY!
PAHS
PCBs
PCE
Pesticides
Phenols
Radioactive
Materials
Sludge
Solvents
ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
Site, Stale. (Region!
Oouglassville. PA (III); Taylor Borough, PA
(III); Whltthouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV);
LaBkin/Poplar Oil, OH (V); ReiMy Tar, MN (V);
Weatwn Processing, WA (X)'
Plcrilo Ftm. Rl (I); Bridgeport, NJ (II); Burnt
Fly Bog, NJ (II); Chemical Control, NJ (II);
GOOM Farm, NJ (II); Hudson River. NY (II);
Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); PljaK Farm. NJ (II);
Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Swooe Oil (II); Wide
Beach (II); Oouglassville. PA (III); Harvey-
Knott. OE (III); Lehigh Electric, PA (III); A&F
Matenals-lRM, IL (V); A&F Materials-EDO, IL
(V); Acme Solvents. IL (V); Berlin & Faro. Ml
(V); Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard. IU (V);
Chem-Oyne-EDO. OH (V); Laskm/Poplar Oil.
OH (V): Old Mill. OH (V): Outboard Marine
Corp.. IL (V); Schmalz Dump. Wl (V): Waucon-
da Sand & Gravel, IL (V); Bio-Ecology
Systems. TX (VI); MOTCO. TX (VI); Jibboom
Junkyard. CA (IX); Taputimu Farm. AS (IX);
Western Processing, WA (X)'
Keefe Environmental. NH (I); Piciiio Farms.
HI (I); Fischer 4 Porter. PA (III); Charievoix.
Ml (V): Charievoix. Ml (V)': Main St. Weiifieid.
IN (V): Verona Well Field-lRM. Ml (V): Verona
Well Field. Ml (V)': San GaDnei/Area I. CA
(IX); Ponders Corner. WA (X)'; South Tacoma
Channel-Well 12A. WA • - •
il): Re-Solve. MA Hi: Sylvester. NH .
Western Sand 4 Gravel. Rl (I). 3og C-j--
Farm. NJ ill): Bridgeport. NJ nn. BL--'
Boo,. NJ i ill. Ciemcai Control. NV
oeno P'oceny. NJ ill). F-ieomar =-:;- •
ill:, GEMS Landfiii, NJ illi. Gocse =j-- ••
.ill i-oigh Cramer NJ Mil, Krysovva;. ; i •
NJ illi: (.cart Lanafiii NJ •!!>. Lioar^ -j •
NJ ,!!!' '_3ne ?me LarGfiH NJ .In ; - ,
Wen Field. NY iin PAS Oswego NV - .
Farm. NJ ill). Price Lanafiii. NJ >ii' 5 - :
Refinery. NY ill): Soence Farm NJ % . ••
Oil NJ nil: 9ruin Lagoon PA iiin.
Dcugiassviile. PA iini: OraKe Cfierr-cj --
illh riscner 4. Porter. PA illli. Harvev - -
OE illi): neieva Landfill. °A inn, Mac-"*.
EiectroC'aiing. VA (III): McAdOO-iPM =i
McAdoo Associates. PA niir Mover .j- .-•
PA (IID: Sand. Gravel 4 Stone. MO 'in-
Tyson s Dump. PA HID: Wade. PA iiu- 5 ;
cayne Aquifer Sites. FL ilV): Oav.e .ar ;•
FL (IV): Miami Drum Services. FL iiv, . i- =
Spill Site. FL (IV); Whitenouse Waste :
Pus. FL (IV): A&F Matenals-iRM IL ,v. -:-*
Solvents. IL IV): Byron/Jonnson Salvage • a- :
IL (V): Charievoix. Ml (VV Chanevon MI . •
Chem-Oyne-EOO. OH (V): Eau Claire-iPM .-.
(V); LeHiMierrMankato. MN (V): Mam Si
Weiifieid. IN (V): New Brighton-interim /vat*'
Treatment. MN (V); New Brighton-Wate' Si.:
ply System. MN (V); New Lyme. OH ivi \.r
tnernaire. Ml (V): Old Mill. OH (V); Ouiocarc
-------
KEY WORDS
(BY CATEGORY!
Sediments (Creek/
River Stream)
Sludge
Soil
ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
Site. Slate. (Regionl
Marine Corp.. II (V): Reilly Tar. MN (V):
Verona Well Field-IRM. Ml (V); Verona Well
Field. Ml (V)'; Wauconda Sand & Gravel. IL
(V); Bayou Bonfouca. LA (VI); Bio-Ecology
Systems, TX (VI); Highlands Acid Pit. TX (VI):
MOTCO. TX (VI); Old Inger. LA (VI); South
Vatley-IRM. NM (VI): Tar Creek. OK (VI):
Aidex-IRM, IA (VII): Aidex. IA (VII)';
Milltown-S. MT (Vlll): Ceitor Chemical Works.
CA (IX), Del Norte. CA (IX); McColl. CA (IX).
San Gabriel/Area I. CA (IX): Stringfellow Acid
Pits-lRM, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits. CA
(IX)': Ponders Corner-IRM. WA (X); Ponders
Comer. WA (X)-; South Tacoma, WA (X);
South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A. WA (X)';
Western Processing, WA (X); Western Pro-
cessing. WA (X)'
Hocomonco Pond. MA (I): Nyanza Chemical.
MA (I); Hudson River, NY (II): PAS Oswego.
NY (II): Pijak Farm. NJ (II): Douglassville. PA
(III): Sand. Gravel & Stone. MO (III): Tyson s
Dump. PA (III); New Lyme. OH (V); Norther-
naire. Ml (V): Old Mill. OH (V): Outboard
Marine Corp.. IL (V): Bayou Bonfouca. LA
(VI); Western Processing, WA (X)'
Hocomonco Pond. MA (I); Nyanza Chemical.
MA (I); Bridgeport. NJ III); Swope Oil. NJ (II);
Berlin & Farro. Ml (V); Bio-Ecology Systems.
TX (VI); Highlands Acid Pit. TX (VI); Old Inger.
LA (VI)
Beacon Heights. CT (I): Hocomonco Pond.
MA (I): Keefe Environmental. NH (I): McKin-
IRM. ME (I); Nyanza Chemical. MA (I); Picillo
Farm. Rl (I): Re-Solve. MA |iv Western Sand
& Gravel. Rl (I): Bog CreeK Farm. NJ ill):
Bridgeport. NJ (II): Burnt Fly Bog. NJ (II):
Chemical Control. NJ (II). O'lmperio Property,
NJ (II): GEMS Landfill. NJ (II); Goose Farm.
NJ (II): Helen Kramer. NJ ill): Krysowaiy
Farm. NJ ill); Lipan Landfill. NJ (II): Lipan
Landfill. NJ (II)': Lone Pine Landfill. NJ (II):
Love Canal. NY (II); PAS Oswego. NY mi: Pi-
jak Farm. NJ (II): Price Landfill. NJ (II):
Sinclair Refinery. NY (ID: Spence Farm. NJ
(II): Swope Oil. NJ (ii); Wide Beach. NY (II):
Bruin Lagoon. PA (ill); Douglassville. PA (III):
Drake Chemical. PA (III): Harvey-Knott. DE
(III): Enteronse Ave. PA (III): Lackawanna
Refuse Site. PA (ill); Lansdowne Radiation.
PA (III): Lehigh Electric. PA (ill). McAdoo-IRM
PA (ill): McAdoo Associates. PA (ill)': Mat-
thews Electroplating, VA mi): Sand. Gravel &
Stone. MO (III). Taylor Borough. PA (ill):
Tyson's Dump. PA (Ml); Waoe. PA nil); Miami
Drum Services. FL (IV): Whitehouse Waste
Oil Pits. FL (IV): A&F Materials-lRM. IL iV):
A&F Materials-EDO. IL (V); Acme Solvents. IL
(V); Berlin & Farro. Ml (V): Byron/Johnson
Salvage Yard. IL (V); Cemetery Dump. Ml (V):
Chem-Oyne-EDD. OH |V): Cross Bros . IL iV):
Laskin/Poplar Oil. OH (V): LeHiiiienManHato.
MN (V): Main St. Wellfield !N (V). Morns
Arsenic. MN (V); New Lyme. OH (V): Norther-
naire. Ml (V): Old Mill. OH iV) Outboard
Marine Corp.. IL (V): Reiliy Tar. MN (V);'
Schmalz Dumo. Wi (V). ve'cna Weil Field. Ml
(V)': Wauconda Sand 1 Gravei IL (V): Bayou
Bonfouca. LA (VI). Bio-Ecology Systems. TX
(VI): Highlands Acid Pit. TX iVD. MOTCO. TX
(VI); Old Inger. LA iVM: Triangle Chem . TX
(VI); Aidex-IRM, IA (VII): Aidex IA (Vll>-:
Ellisvilie. MO (VII); Times Beacn. MO (VII),
Milltown. MT (Vlll): Milltown-S. MT iVIII);
Woodbury Chemical. CO (Vim; Ceitor
Chemical Works. CA (IX): Ceitcr Chemical.
CA (IX)': Del Norte. CA (IX): jiDboom
Junkyard. CA (IX); McColl. CA nxi: Mountain
View/Globe. AZ IIX): Slrmgleliow Acid Pits-
lRM. CA (IX): Stringfellow Acid Pits. CA (IX)':
KEY WORDS
I BY CATEGORY)
Surface Water
Wetlands
Wood
Public Health and
Environmental
Threats
Direct Contact
Public Eteosure
Public Heaitn Risk
RISK Assessment
RISK Level
volatilization
Remedy Selection
Consent Decree
Cost/Benefit
Cost Recovery
Deed Restriction
Fund Balancing
Ground Water
Strategy
Negotiated
Settlement
ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
Site. Slate, i Region)
Taputimu Farm. AS (IX); Ponders Corner-IRM.
WA (X); Ponders Corner. WA (X)': South
Tacoma. WA (X): South Tacoma Channel-Wen
12A. WA (X)': Western Processing. WA (Xi.
Western Processing, WA (X)*
Beacon Heights. CT (I): Hocomonco Pond.
MA (I); McKin-IRM. ME (I): Nyanza Chemicai
MA (I): Re-Solve. MA (I); Sylvester. NH ill.
Burnt Fly Bog. NJ (II); GEMS Landfill NJ ,n,
Helen Kramer. NJ (ID; Hudson River NY ,m
Krysowaty Farm. NJ (II); Lipan LancMi V
(II): Lone Pine Landfill. NJ (II); Love Carai
NY (II); Pijak Farm. NJ III); Sinclair ae.,,-»,-.
NY (II); Bruin Lagoon. PA (III): Douglass- •?
PA (III); Drake Chemical. PA (III); Ente'i'-se
Avenue. PA (III); Fischer & Porter PA in
Harvey-Knott. DE (III): Heleva Lanaim =i
Lackawanna Refuse Site. PA (III): MCA :•: •
Associates. PA (ill)': Moyer Lanotm =>-
Sand. Gravel & Stone, MO (ill): Tavio-
Borough. PA (III): Tyson's Dump. PA ,n.
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits. FL iivi AJ =
Materials-EDO. IL (V): Berlin & Farro MI '.
Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard. IL tVi. C-f~
Dyne-EDO. OH (V): Laskin/Poplar O.i :- .
Old Mill. OH (V); Outboard Marine Cc-c ;.
(V): Reilly Tar. MN (V): Wauconoa 5^.; \
Gravel. IL (V); Bio-Ecology Systen-.s ' • .
MOTCO. TX (VI); Old Inger. LA (Vli. rr
Creek. OK (VI); Ceitor Chemical Won- •> . -
(IX); Ceitor Chemical. CA (IX)'. McCo' .-^
(IX): Stnngfellow Acid Pits-lRM. CA ••
mgfeiiow Acid Pits. CA (ixr West?'- -•
cessmg, WA (X)'
Hocomonco Pond. MA (I): Nyanza C~- •
MA (I); Bog Creek Farm. NJ (III: Br •::-.
NJ (II): Burnt Fly Bog. NJ (II.): Heie'- • < • -
NJ (II); PAS Oswego. NY (II); Wide 5-. •
(II); Harvey-Knott. OE (III); Schmaiz : . •
(V): Old Inger, LA (VI); Tar Creek. 0* .
Lansdowne Radiation. PA nil): Old •- :-• -
(VI)
Hudson River. NY (II): Love Canal. N-
iak Farm. NJ (II): Spence Farm. NJ
Burnt Fly Bog. NJ ill); Love Canal '. •
Lansdowne Radiation. PA (Nil. verc^-i
Field-lRM. Ml (V); McColl. CA (IX)
Re-Soive. MA ill: Reilly Tar. MN (V)
Love Canal. NY (li): Verona Well F.e'c
Ml (V)
°icillo Farm. Rl (I): Krysowaty Farrr
F.scner 4 Porter. PA dill; San Gaor«?
CA (IX)
Hudson River. NY'(II)
Fischer & Porter. PA (III): A&F
Comoany-EOD. IL (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD ~~
(V)
Krysowaty Farm. NJ (II)
Wade. PA (III)
Friedman Property. NJ (II): South Tacon-a
Channel-Well 12A. WA (X)'. Western P'c
cessmg. WA (X)'
Outboard Marine Corp.. IL (V)
Western Sand & Gravel. Rl (I): Tar Cree» OK
(VI); Dei Norte. CA (IX)
Western Sand & Gravel. Rl (I); Wade. PA nil
-------
KEY WORDS
|BY CATEGORY)
ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
Site. State. | Region!
KEY WORDS
I BY CATEGORY)
ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
Site, State, | Region)
NO Action Friedman Property, NJ (II); Varsol Spill, FL
Alternative (IV); Morris Arsenic, MN (V)
0 4 M Re-Solve. MA (I); Burnt Fly Bog. NJ ill): O'lm-
peno Property, NJ (II); Krysowaty Farm. NJ
(II): Love Canal, NY (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II);
Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Price Landfill. NJ (II);
Spence Farm., NJ (II): Bruin Lagoon. PA (ill):
Drake Chemical, PA (III); Heieva Landfill. PA
(III): Mattnews Electroplating, VA (III): White-
House Waste Oil Pits. FL (IV): Byron/Johnson
Salvage Yard. IL IV); Charievoix, Ml (V):
Chem-Oyne-EDO. OH (V); Eau Claire-IRM. Wl
(V): Old Mill. OH (V); Reiliy Tar. MN (V):
Verona Well Fleld-lflM. Ml (V); Bio-Ecology
Systems. TX (VI): Old Inger. LA (VI); Tar
Creek. OK (VI): Aidex. IA (VII)': Milltown. MT
(VIII); San GaOnel/Area I. CA (IX); Slrmgteiiow
Acid Pits. CA (IX)': Ponders Corner-iHM. WA
(X); South Tacoma Channel-Weil '2A. WA
(X)': Western Processing, WA (X)'
Enterprise Avenue. PA (III); Moyer Landfill.
PA (III); Wade. PA (III)
Lone Pine Landfill. NJ III)
Sylvester, NH (I); Milltown. MT (Vlll)
Matthews Electroplating. VA (III): Milltown.
MT(Vlll)
Hudson River. NY (II)
PRP
PRP Alternative
Supplemental ROD
Shared Costs
Temporary Remedial
Measure
Other Agencies
COE
000
Water Supply
Alternate Water
Supply
Community Services
Enhancement
OnnKing Water
Contaminants
Fire Protection
Old Inger. LA (VI)
New Brighton-Interim Water Treatment. MN
(V); New Brighton-Water Supply System. MN
(V)
Charles George. MA (I): Krysowaiy Farm. NJ
(II); Bridgeport. NJ ill); Olean Wen Field. NY
(II): Price Landfill. NJ (II); Fiscner 4 Porter.
PA (III): Matthews Electroplating. VA nil):
Acme Solvents. IL (Vi: Charievoix. Ml iV); £au
Claire-IRM. Wl (V): Kurnmer Landfill. MN (V);
New Brigmon-Water Supoiy System. MN (V):
Old Mill. OH (V). Reiliy Tar. MN (V): Verona
Well Fieid-iRM. MI iV): South Vaiiey-iRM. NM
(VI): Milltown. MT iVIIII
Price Landfill. NJ (ID. Miinown. MT ivill)
internal PiumDmg
Water Rights
Sice Specific
Characteristics
Flood Plain
Ground Water Table
Hydrogeoiogic
Seismic
Sole-Source Aquifer
Suosidence
Fiscner 4 Porter. PA illl): Eau Claire-IRM. Wl
iV); Mam Si weiifieia. IN (V): Verona Wen
Field-iRM. Ml (V). South Vailey-iRM. NM (VI)
Western Sana & Gravel. Ri il): New Brighton-
interim Water Treatment. MN (V); New
Brighton-Water Supply System. MN (V):
Milltown. MT (Vlll)
Milltown-S. MT (Vlll)
San Gabriel/Area 1. CA (IX)
Helen Kramer. NJ (ID: Drake Chemical. PA
(III): A&F Matenals-iRM. IL (V): Bayou Bon-
fouca. L* (VI): Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI):
MOTCO. TX (VI); Triangle Chemical. TX (VI):
Ceitor Chemical. CA (IX)'
Re-Solve. MA (I): A&F Matenais-iRM. il. (V)
Berlin 4 Farro. Ml (V)
McColl, CA (IX)
Price Landfill. NJ (II): Siscayne Aquiler Sites.
FL (VI)
McAdoo Associates. PA dii)'. Taylor
Borough. PA (ill): wauconda Sand & Gravel.
IL (V); Highlands Acid Pit. TX (VI)
Standards/
Regulation*
PermitvGuidance
Air Emissions
Air Permits
Air Quality
ACL
Amoient Water
Quality Criteria
Aauifer use
Restrictions
Background Levels
Clean Water Act 404
Permit
Verona Well Fieid-iRM. Ml (V)
San Gabriel/Area i. CA (IX)
Bridgeport. NJ (II): Verona Well Field-iRM MI
(V); San GaOnel/Area 1. CA (IX)
Sylvester. NH (I): Western Sand 4 Gravel. Ri
(I); Bog Creek Farm. NJ (II): O'lmpeno P-ooer-
ty, NJ (II); Goose Farm. NJ (II); Harvey'Knott
DE (III): Old Mill, OH (V): Highlands Acid P't'
TX (VI); Aidex. IA (VII)': Western Processing
WA ixr
New Brighton-Water Supply System. MN iV:
Biscayne Aquifer Sites. FL (IV); Old Mill. Ci-
(V); Ponders Corner. WA (X)'
Nyanza Chemical. MA (I); Sand. Gravel 4
Stone. MD (III); Taylor Borougn. PA din: Re.i-
ly Tar. MN (V); Triangle Chemical. TX cvn
Aidex. IA (VII)'
PAS Oswego. NY (II); Old Inger. LA iVD: Tar
Creek. OK (VI)
Discharge Standards Old Inger. LA (VI)
Drinking Water
Standards
Environmental
Standards
Feasibility Study
Guidance Document
institutional
Controls
NEPA
Public
Advisory
RCRA
RCRA Pan 264
Cosure
Requirements
PCRA Lanqfill
Specifications
RCRA tocational
Requirements
RCRA Onsite
Disposal
Requirements
SNARL
Slate Criteria
State Permit
TSCA Onsite
Disposal
Requirements
Old Inger, LA (VI): South Valley-iRM. NM ,vn
Milltown. MT (Vlll)
San Gabriel/Area 1. CA (IX)
San Gabriel/Area i. CA (XI)
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Friedman Prooer.
NJ (il): Olean Well Field. NY (il); Biscayre
Aquifer Sites. FL (IV); Charievoix. Ml (vr ;,;
Mill. OH (V): Old Inger. LA (VI); Ponders Go-
ners. WA (X)': South Tacoma Channei-We'
12A. WA (X)': Western Processing. WA » '
Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V)
Lansoowne Radiation. PA (ill)
Western Sand 4 Gravel, fll ID: Love Canai
NY :in. PAS Oswego. NY die Aidex. IA .'v •
Cnanes George. MA HIV "AS Oswego NT
dii: McAdoo Associates. PA illl)'. Waoe -*
iiH). Reiiiy Tar MN (V): Bio-Ecoiogy Syste—«
TX ,VI). Old Inger. LA iVD: Aidex. IA iVlir ;«•
None. CA iixi
Bridgeoort. NJ (ll): Enterprise Avenue. °A
illl). Moyer Landfill. PA Illl); Tyson s Oumc
PA iini. South Tacoma. WA |X): Western a--.
cessmg. WA |Xr
P'Ciiio Farm Ri il). Drake Chemical. PA ,HI,
Tyson s Oumo. PA illl): Bio-Ecology Systems
TX iVI), Western Processing. WA (XT
Tyson's Dump. PA (HI): Berlin 4 Farro. Ml iV
P'CHlo Farm. RI d); McColl. CA (IX)
Lipari Landfil
CA (IX)
NJ ill)'; San GaOnei'Area ).
Bridgeport. NJ (II); O'lmpeno Property. NJ ill).
Goose Farm. NJ (ll): Sinclair Refinery. NY iiit.
Swope Oil. NJ (in: south Tacoma. WA
-------
KEY WORDS
(BY CATEGORY)
Water Quality
Water Quality
Criteria
Wetlands '
Regulations
Testing/Pilot
Studies
Leachability Tests
Treatability Studies
Technology
Aeration
Air Stripping
Alternative
Tecnnoiogy
Best Reliable
Tecnnoiogy
Capping
Containment
Dike Stabilization
Oreogmg
Excavation
ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
Site. State. | Region)
Fischer & Porter. PA (III); Outboard Marine
Corp., IL (V); Milltown. MT (VIII); South
Tacoma WA (X)
Lipart Landfill, NJ (II)'; Verona Well Field-
IRM. Ml (V)
PAS Oswego, NY (II)
Re-Solve. MA (I)
Old Inger, LA (VI)
McKin. ME (I); Triangle Chem.. TX (VI)
Olean Well Field. NY (II); Tyson's Dump. PA
(III): Biscayne Aquifer Sites. FL (IV); Main St.
Wellfield. IN (V); Eau Claire-lHM. Wl (V);
LeHillier/Mankato, MN (V); Verona Well Field-
IRM. Ml (V); Verona Well Field. Ml (V)': San
Gabriel/Area 1. CA (IX); Ponders CorneMRM.
WA (X); Ponders Corner. WA (X)': South
Tacoma. WA (X); South -Tacoma Channel-Well
12A, WA (X)'
Bog Creek Farm. NJ (II): Bridgeport. NJ (II);
Goose Farm. NJ (II): Wide Beach. NY (II):
MOTCO. TX (VI); Triangle Chemical. TX (VI);
Stringfellow Acid Pits. CA (IX)': Western Pro-
cessing. WA (X)'
Reilly Tar. MN (V); Western Processing. WA
(X)
Beacon Heights. CT (I); Charles George. MA
(I)': Hocomonco Pond. MA (I); He-Solve. MA
(I); Sylvester. NH (I): Bog CreeK Farm. NJ (II);
D'lmpeno Property. NJ (II): GEMS Landfill.
NJ (ID: Goose Farm. NJ (in. Helen Kramer.
NJ (II): Lipan Landfill. NJ (in: PAS Oswego.
NY (II): Sinclair Refinery. NY (ill: Swope Oil.
NJ (II): Oouglassville. PA nil): Drake
Chemical. PA (ill); Enterprise Avenue. PA (ill);
Heieva Landfill. PA (III): Lackawanna Refuse
Site. PA (III): Matthews Electroplating. VA
(III): McAdoo Associates. PA (ill)'. Moyer
Landfill. PA (III); Tyson S Dump. PA (III):
Wade. PA (III); Oavie Landfill FL (IV); White-
house Waste Oil Pus. FL MVi. Chem-Oyne-
EDO. OH (V): New Lyme. OH (V): Old Inger.
LA (Vh: Aidex. IA (Vlir. Mouniam
View/Globe. AZ MX): Soutn Tacoma. WA (X);
Western Processing. WA iXr
Hudson River. NY III); L'Dan Landfill. NJ III)';
Drake Chemical. PA (111): New L/me. OH (V):
Outboard Marine Corp.. IL (V): Times Beach.
MO (VII)
Bruin Lagoon. PA (III): Eilisviile. MO iVll)
Hocomonco Pond. MA in. Hudson Piver NY
ill); Love Canal. NY (ID: Outcoara Marine
Corp.. IL (V): Tar Creek. OK (VI)
Beacon Heights. CT
Swope Oil. NJ (II): Bruin Lagoon. PA iiin
Enterprise Avenue. PA (III); Harvey-Knott 3E
(III): Lackawanna Refuse Site. PA iiih. Ler.g-
Electnc. PA (III): McAdoo-lRM. PA
McAdoo Associates. PA (HI)': Sana. Grave- i
Stone. MD (III); Taylor Borough. PA (lih.
Miami Drum Services. FL (IV): A&F Mate' ais
IRM. IL (V); A&F Materials-EDO. IL (V). Ac~e
Solvents. IL (V); Berlin & Farro. Ml iV):
Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard. IL (V):
Cemetery Dump. Ml (V): Chem-Oyne-EDD
OH (V): Cross Bros.. IL (V); Northernaire. Ml
-------
KEY WORDS
(BY CATEGORYl
.ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
Site. State. | Region)
KEY WORDS
(BY CATEGORY)
ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
Site. State. (Region!
Onsiie Containment
Onsite Oisoosai
Relocation
Pacxed Column
Aeration
Plume Management
Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
;POTW)
Slurry Wall
Sour Levees
Stabilization
(V): Old Mill. OH (V): OutDoara Marine Cora.
IL (V); Scnmalz Dump. Wl (V): Wauconda
Sand & Gravel. IL (V); Bayou Bonfouca. LA
(VI); Highlands Acid Pit. TX (VI): MOTCO. TX
(VI); Triangle Chem., TX (VI): Aidex-iRM. IA
(VII); Aidex, IA (VII)': Ellisviiie. MO (Vii):
Woodbury Chemical, CO (Vill); Ceitor
Chemical. Works. CA (IX); Ceitor Chemical.
CA (IX)': Del None, CA (IX): Jibboom
Junkyard. CA (IX); McCoii. CA ilX); String-
fellow Acid Pits-lRM. CA (IX); Ponders Cor-
ner. WA (X)': South Tacoma Channel-Weil
12A. WA (X)': Western Processing. WA (X);
Western Processing, WA (X)'
Re-Solve. MA it); Enterprise Avenue. PA HID;
New Lyme. OH (V): Outboard Marine Corp..
IL (V); Bio-Ecology Systems. TX (VI): Times
Beach. MO (VII): Western Processing. WA
(X)'
Hocomonco Pond. MA (D: PiciHo Farm. Hi in
Love Canal. NY (ID: Drake Chemical. PA nil):
Enterprise. Avenue. PA (ill): Aidex. IA ivnr:
Mountain View/Globe. A£ (IX). Western Pro-
cessing. WA(X)'
Lansdowne Radiation. PA mi). Times Beach.
MO (VII): Mountain View/Globe. &Z iixi
Fischer & Poner. PA inn
Price Landfill. NJ ill): Verona Wen F-eu-iRM
MKV)
GEMS Landfill. NJ ill). Heten Kramer Nj ill).
Lipan Landfill. Nj dir. Del Ncr-e CA nxi:
Slnngfellow Acid Pus. CA ixi' '/v'esiern P'o-
cessmg. WA IX)'
Sylvester. NH HI: Helen Krame' NJ iiii: L:oari
Landfill. NJ (II): Lone Pine Lanariii. Nj ill):
PAS Oswego. NY ill): Whitenouse Waste Oil
Pits. FL (IV)
Times Beach. MO (Vin
Re-Solve. MA (I): Bruin Lagoon PA (Ml)
Surface Water
Diversion/Collection
Venting
Miscellaneous
Competitive Bidding
Deferred Decision
Depth of Excavation
Dilution
Environmental
impacts
Federal Facilities
Key Indicator
Analysis
Muniacaiiy O'.vned
Sue
Off-Base
Contamination
Remnant
Contamination
Charles George. MA (I)'. McKm ME HI'
Nyanza Chemical. MA (I): Harvey-Knott. OE
(III); Moyer Landfill PA nil); Taylor Borcugn
PA (III):
Beacon Heights. CT Hi: Cnanes George. MA
ill'. GEMS LanatiM. NJ ill): Meien Krarre' NJ
ill): Moyer Landfill. PA (III). New L>me OH •>/
Bridgeport. NJ ill)
Lipan Landfill. NJ ill)'. Swooe Oil. Nj >IN
Oougiassviiie. PA ini): McAdoo Associates
PA (III)': Taylor Borough. PA (ill); Tyson s
Dump. PA (III): Davie Landfill. FL HVi Save.
Bonfouca. LA (VI): Ponders Corner. WA < •
South Tacoma Channel-Wen 12A. WA ,*••
Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II)
South Tacoma. WA (X): South Tacoma
Channel-Well 12A. WA |XP
Hudson River. NY ill); PAS Oswego NY
Highlands Acid Pit. TX (VI); Tar Cree« C*
(VI): Stringfellow Acid Pits. CA nxr
New Brighton-Interim Water Treat."?-• '."
(V); New Brighton-Water Supply 3>s:e~ v
(V)
Enterprise Avenue. PA (ill)
Enterprise Avenue. PA MID
New Brighton-interim Water Treatr-e" '•"
IV); New Brighton-Water Suociy Sysie"- •-•
(V)
' Bog Creek Farm. NJ (ID: Krysowat. : . •
(II)
' Second Record of Decision
S Suooiementai Recoro of Decision
£00 Enforcement Decision Document
-------
VVAUCONDA SAND
AND GRAVEL,
REGION V,
UJNOIS
Approved 9/30/85)
Description:
• A gravel pit was excavated to
depths up to 40 feet below
shallow aquifer water table.
43-acre unpermitted hazar-
dous waste landfill operated
onsite from 1950 to 1977. Shal-
low ground water and surface
water, in a creek near the site
boundaries, have been con-
taminated. A deep aquifer re-
mains contaminated.
Decision:
• Prevent leachate from entering
creek through collection; dis-
pose of leachate at offsite fa-
cility.
• Fence site; regrade ana reveg-
etate; repair existing clayey
loam soil; cap.
• Conduct further studies to de-
termine final ground water and
source remedy.
Contacts:
• Region: Cindy Nolan
FTS 886-0400
• Headquarters: Carol Lindsay
FTS 475-6704
A LINE ON RODs
RETURN OF THE ROD
WORKSHOP
The Regional Counsel's ROD
Workgroup is gearing up for two
new ROD workshops to be held
in February in Washington, D.C.,
and Dallas. Details coming soon.
EVIEW OF FY'85 RODs
-.SCO is preparing an annual
report on FY'85 RODs to be
issued in January. The review of
RODs involved in this effort has
revealed special points to be
highlighted in the ROD work-
shops and in future guidance.
For the time being, you should
be aware that all RODs should
include:
1. Specific clean-up levels for
contaminated soils and waste
(using SOCEM where appro-
priate);
2. Specific clean-up targets for
ground water (based on
health-based criteria);
3. Information on whether and
how the clean-up is to be
phased;
4. A description of the type of
cap used;
5. Information on the consisten-
cy of the remedy with RCRA
and other environmental
statutes; and
6. An evaluation of alternative
technologies for each source
control measure. (Guidance
on how to make decisions re-
garding alternative technolo-
gies with the objective of
selecting highly reliable reme-
dies is forthcoming.)
7. In addition, a letter from the
State concuring with the re-
medy must be included in the
ROD file.
REVISED HANDBOOK
AVAILABLE
A revised edition of the ORC
OSWER Handbook on Remea-j.
Action at Waste Disposal Site:
is now available. The handboc-
is a central reference
remedial action techniques •
describes established . 1- •
emerging technologies anc
eludes information on their •.:
plication and limitations, it a ,.
describes major design. :.-
struction, and maintenance •. r-
siderations and includes ..- •
and example cost data. To Q>-:*>
a copy, call FTS 684-7562. '-•.•
document number is EPA r-CS
685/006.
-------
SUPERFUND
Records Of Decision
Update
From: Hazardous Site Control Division
To: EPA Regional Offices
December 2, 1986
Vol. 2, No. 6
Superfund
Reauthorization
On October 17, 1986, the Presi-
dent signed the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthoriza-
tion Act of 1986 (SARA) into law.
The act codifies the process and
program established in the re-
vised National Contingency Plan
(NCP) in November 1985 while
A Line on RODS
ROD Data Base
The Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) and
the Office of Information
Resources Management (OIRM)
have been working together to
enter the Superfund remedy
selection documents (RODs and
EDDs) into BASIS, an automated
text search and retrieval system
similar to LEXIS, which EPA pur-
adding some new provisions
and statutory emphasis to por-
tions of the program. Most
significant for the remedy selec-
tion process are the cleanup
standards provisions in §121.
This section calls for remedial
actions that are protective of
human health and the environ-
ment, that are cost effective,
that attain the applicable or rele-
vant and appropriate require-
ments of other Federal environ-
mental statutes and more strin-
gent State requirements, anrj
that use permanent solutions
and treatment technologies :o
the maximum extent prac
ticable. Progress in deveioc^g
implementation guidelines 'ry
the cleanup standards wm tre
reported in the months to ccr-e
chased last year. At present, all
of the RODs signed from FY'82
through FY'85 have been
entered. Plans for institutionaliz-
ing this in-house system—con-
ducting QA/QC, entering the
FY'86 decision documents,
training—are under develop-
ment. EPA technical, legal, or
policy staff interested in beccr-
ing early users are welcome -••
you need is a PC, a modem -o
patch into the National Ccr~
puter Center at RTP. and a -se'
identification number. To oc:a -
the latter, and for more genera
information, call Betsy Snaw y.
FTS 382-3X4
FY'86 RECORD OF
DECISION (ROD)
SUMMARY TABLE
The FY'86 Record of Decision
Summary Table provides an
overview of site problems.
selected remedies, cleanup
criteria, and estimated costs
provided in all RODs signed in
FY'86. This table reflects
remedial program accomplish-
ments in incorporating alter-
native technologies into source
control remedial .actions. Sixty
of the 84 RODs signed in FY'86
address source control
remedies. Of these 60 RODs, 27
selected alternative technolo-
gies (ATs). Incineration was the
AT most often selected in FY'86
(39 percent), while solidification
was selected 22 percent of trie
time. These two technologies
comprise 61 percent of all ATs
selected in FY'86. For one site.
Fields Brook, Ohio, both in-
cineration and solidification
were selected as part of a
source control remedial action.
(Table begins next oagei
-------
FY'86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
SITE/ STATS
ROD
SW. DATE
THREAT/
PROBLEM
ESTIMATED
WASTE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
QUANTITY SELECTED REMEDY
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS/GOALS
ESTIMATED ANNUAL
CAPITAL COSTS 04M COSTS
REGION 1
Auourn Road
LF. NH
1SIO.U.
Baira ana
McGuire, MA
1st O.U.
industri-pi«.
MA
IStO.U.
Kellogg-
Oe«nng Well
Field. CT
istO.U.
Tinknam
Garage. NH
ist O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Wintnrop
'^ndfill. ME
ist O.U.
(Final Remedy)
09/17/86
09/30/86
09/30/86
09/25/86
09/30/86
11/22/85
GW. SW. sedi-
ments &
soils con-
taminated witn
VOCs. in-
organics. 4 ex-
tractaoie
organics
Sods, sedi-
ments. SW. &
GW contami-
nated witn
VOCs. inor-
ganics, oesti-
cides. dioxm.
onenois. oase-
neutral com-
pounds. PAHS.
4 heavy metais
GW. soil. 4 air
contaminated
with heavy
metais. VOCs.
toluene. 4
Denzene
GW contami-
nated with TCE.
PCE. OCE. 4
other VOCs
VOC -conta-
minated GW.
SW. 4 soils
GW contami-
nated With
organics
N/A Extension of existing water
suoply
'91 .000 cy Excavation 4 onsite thermal
destruction of contaminated
soils: GW oumo 4 treat
1 000.000 Soil grading and capping: GW
cy monitoring. GW oumo 4 treat:
institutional controls
N/A Bring into ooeration existing
air stripomg facilities to
remove VOCs trom GW.
discharge to an existing treat-
ment oiam
'0.800 cy Excavation 4 onsrte treatment
at soils via aeration, sou
washing, or composting: on-
site disoosal
N/A Alt. water suooiy insti-
tutional controls. GW monitor-
:ng. RCRA cao
Remedy comrjnes witn
SOWA 4 other ARARs
Excavation win remove
aoproximateiy 95 per-
cent ol contamination oy
mass, action levels tor
GW remediation will oe
developed ounng design
Specific performance
standards not outlined
m ROD
GW treatment will
achieve a 99 percent
TCE removal efficiency.
wnicn corresponds to a
10-* excess cancer risk
Son treatment to i oom
rvo or lower
Estaonsn ACT lor each
GW contaminant
2.372.000 57000
i present worth i
w 386.000 G4M :os:s -
ciuoeo r :•: •;
cost «s;'-r»
8. 380.000 or ir, iOC :•
8.570.00006- «960C :?:-"
pending on air ng .jr. i • • >y
treatment Tient
263.000 lore- 52 336
sent wonn i
2.058.000 374 ;cc
6.000.000 « :cc -
^xceecf-:
360 :•:•: .
1 43c : :•• •
e«ce«CfC
REGION II
Srewster Well
Fieid. NY
1st O.U
Caidweii
rrucxmg. NJ
ist 0 U
Comoe Fill
North. NJ
1st 0 U
i Final Remedy)
Comoe Fill
Soutn. NJ
ist O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Florence LF.
NJ
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Hyde Park. NY
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
09/30/86
09/25.86
09/29/86
09/29/86
06/27/86
11/26/86
'
GW contami-
nated with
voatue naioge-
nated organic
comoounos
iVHQsi >nciud-
•ng TCE. PCE. 4
OCE
GW 4 soils con-
taminated witn
VOCs. PC8s. in-
organics. 4 lead
Sods 4 GW con-
taminated with
low ttveis of
VOCs. onenoi. 4
Dase-neutrai
compounds
Soils 4 GW con-
taminated With
VOCs
Soils 4 GW con-
taminated with
neavy metais.
pmnaiates. 4
vinyl cnionde
Soils 4 GW con-
lammed witn
dioxm. PC 3s, 4
organics
N .' 4 Continue ooeration ot existing
air stnoomg system GW
oumo 4 treat
28 GOO cy Excavation neai acouion jnc
onsite lanotiiiing 01 sons GW
treat 4 ait water suooiy
N' A RCRA SuDtltie 0 ;-F dOSure
N/A RCRAcaooing ot LF GW
Oumo 4 treat: ait water SUO-
OIY
N / A Removal 4 onsite aisoosai ot
lagoon liquids 4 sediments.
cao 4 slurry wan. leacnate
collect. 4 treat
30.000 cy Extraction 4 incineration ot
nonagueous onase liquids.
GW oumo 4 treat
Existing air shooing
system exceeds AHARs
N.- A
Semecy *
-------
SITE/ STATE
REBION II
Kentucky
Avenue
Wtiifleid. NY
istO.U.
Lang Property.
NJ
istO.U.
(Final Remedy)
Marathon Bat-
tery. NY
tst O.U.
Metaftec/ Aero-
systems. NJ
1st O.U.
Price LF. NJ
2nd O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Rockaway
Borougn Weil
Field. NJ
istO.U.
Sharkey LF.
NJ
ist O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Syncon Resins.
NJ
1st O.U.
Vestal wen
1-1. NY
ist O.U.
REGION III
Army Creek
LF. OE
1st O.U.
Blosenski LF.
PA
1st O.U.
Srum Lagoon.
PA
2nd O.U.
(Final Remedy)
ROD
SIB. DATE
09/30/86
09/29/86
09/30/86
06/30/86
09/29/86
09/29/86
09/29/86
09/29/86
06/27/86
09/30/86
09/29/86
09/29/36
THREAT/
PROBLEM
GW contami-
nated with
VOCs, TCE. &
chlorinated
. solvents
VOC4neavy
metal-conta-
minated soils,
GW. SW. 4
sediments
SW & sediments
contaminated
with cadmium
nickel. 4 copalt
Soils 4 GW con-
taminated with
TCE. OCE. vinyl
chloride, 4 cop-
per
GW con-
taminated N/A
witn VOCs. in-
organics. 4
TCE
TCE 4 PCE con-
tamination ot GW
Soils 4 GW con-
taminated with
VOCs. TCE. in-
organics. 4
heavy^ metais
Soils.
sediments. 4
GW conta-
minated wrtn
VOCs. PCBs.
neavy metais. 4
oase-neutral
compounds
VOC- fCE-con-
laminated GW
GW. SW. soil. 4
sediments con-
taminated with
VOCs. rjenzene.
inorganics. 4
neavy metais
GW. SW. 4 son
contaminated
wan VOCs. in-
organics.
Oenzene. TCE.
PCBs. 4
pasticides
Sons 4 oearocK
contaminated
with aciaic
sludges 4 neavv
metais. noxious
gas release
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
V
N/A
6,500 cy
84,000 cy
10.000 cy
4.000 cy
N/A
N/A
N/A
700 cy
2.000cy
N/A
1.900.000
cy
N/A
i ? 500 cy
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
Hookup ot all private well
users to puOlic water supply
Excavation 4 offsrte disposal
ot soils & waste material. GW
pump 4 treat
Excavation & oflsrte disposal:
sediment thickening 4
chemical fixation: marsh
restoration; revegetation
Excavation, neat treatment. 4
orfsite disposal ot soils
Excavation 4 oftsrte disposal
ot soils
Alt. water supply
GW pumping: onsrte pre-
treatment 4 discharge to a
POTW; site capping
Rockaway Borougn will con-
tinue to operate GW treatment
system
LF capping: GW pump and
treat
Excavation ot (agoon
sediments 4 mgmy conta-
minated suPsurtace sons wrtn
ottsite disposal
Excavation 4 oftsrte oisposai
ot surface soils. GW oumo 4
treat
Air stripping of wen t • :
Downgradient GW lumomg
with monitoring. LF caoomg.
Dossirjie upgradiem controls
Excavation 4 removal ot
auneo arums: ottsite
aisposai. art water SUDOIV
GW monitoring 4 onsite treat-
ment: capping, source -educ-
tion program
Staoiiization- neutralization :t
siuage 4 oercneo X «- .
with upgradient g.-aoe" •
controls
n ooo.ooo to :Jj ;:c •-.-
15.000.000 ,u«. ' : .
(13.000.000
estimated
oasenne cost)
2.695.000 •• ;;•:
-------
SITE/STATE
REGION III
Ctiisman
Creek. VA
ist O.U.
'Delaware City
PVC. OE
2nd O.U.
Drake. PA
2nd O.U.
industrial
Lane. PA
tst O.U.
Lansoowne
Radiation. PA
2nd O.U.
leetown
=esticioe. wv
:st O.u.
(Final Remedy)
Limestone
Road. MO
ist O.U.
Miaoietown
Road. MO
ist O.U.
'Final Remedy)
Miiicreek
tst O.U.
'Final Remedy)
rayior
Sorougn. PA
2nd O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Tyoouts Cor-
ner. OE
ist O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Westiine Site.
PA
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
REGION IV
A.I. Taylor,
KY
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
ROD
SIB. DATE
09/30/88
09/30/86
05/13/86
09/29/86
09/22/86
03/31/86
09/30/86
03/17/86
05/07/86
03/17/86
03/06/86
07/03/86
06/18/86
THREAT/
PROBLEM
GW 4 SW con-
taminated wnn
neavy metais
(nickel): 3
disposal oits
•contaminated
witn fly asn
GW. SW. 4 soils
contaminated
wnn TCE. PVC.
EDC. 4 VCM
Soils (surface
and suosurfaca).
sludges. GW.
ouildings. 4
aeons con-
taminated witn
orqanics 4 in-
organics
GW contami-
nated witn VOCs
4 vinyl cntonde
Homes conta-
minated wun
radium 4 otner
radioactive
materials
Pesticide-con-
taminated soils
4 aeons
Soils. GW SW.
4 sediment con-
taminated witn
VOCs. neavy
metais. TCE.
PCE. 4 oase-
neutrai com-
oounds
No threat
Soils sediment.
nated witn
VOCs. ?C8s. in-
organics, neavy
metais. PAHs. 4
onmaiates
Possible GW
contamination oy
VOCs 4 metais
Soils 4 GW con-
taminated witn
TCE. Benzene.
VOCs. 4 inor-
ganics
Soils conta-
minated witn
tars containing
pnenois 4 PAHS
Sons 4 SW con-
taminated witn
VOCs. PC8s.
neavy metais.
PAHS.
chlorinated
aromatics. 4
onmaiates
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
484.600 cy
25.000 cy
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.600 cy
'SOIII
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
710 cy
N/A
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
Caoomg 12 pitsi: caoomg 4
uogradiem GW diversion m
one on
Excavation 4 removal ot con-
taminated soils 4 sludges:
offside aisoosai: caoomg: GW
monitoring
incineration ot onsite
cnemicais: aemomion and off-
site removal ot Duiidmgs.
tanks. 4 aeons: oumo 4 treat
waste water lagoons, metal
recycling: analysis 4 oossioie
aisoosai ot decontamination
metal recycling fluid
Alt. water suooiy: no 04M
Demolition 4 ottsite aisoosai
at two nomes. Excavation 4
offsite aisoosai of con-
taminated soils
Excavation, consolidation. 4
anaerooic owdegradation ot
contaminated son: Removal 4
Qtfsire aisoosai ot con-
taminated aeons.
Site grading 4 caoomg:
monitoring 4 data collection
No Action
Excavation & onsite csnsonoa-
cao. GW oumo 4 treat
Semiannual GW monitoring.
No action
Excavation of waste 4 soils
witn onsite consolidation 4
caoomg. GW oumo 4 treat
Excavation 4 offsite incinera-
tion of tar deoosits
Excavation of soils
sediments. 4 sludge wun on-
site containment 4 caoomg
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS/GOALS
3CRA Suomie 0 cao t2
Ditsi. RCRA SuOtitte C
cao 1 1 oil)
Recovery wells win
ooerate until concentra-
tions ot VCM. EDC. 4
TCE reacn i ooo. 0.94
000. 4 2.7 000. re-
spectively tor two con-
secutive samoi*
analyses
N/A
N/A
Soils. 5-i5oCi/g:
•aaon -contaminated
•natenais. 0.03 WL.
gam ma -contaminated
materials. 0.17 rem/yr
OOT less man 300 ooo
for treated soils
N / A
N/A
3T9s '5 OS"" 5*HS
300 3nenoiS 9 oom
•ouene ' '93 300
=or GW iQO 300 TVO.
tO~* :ancer ns» tor
carcinogens
Soils win oe excavated
to a '0"' cancer risx
•evei tor contaminants
oresent onsite
Cao win acnieve a
oermeaoiiiry of 10"'
cm/sec
ESTIMATED ANNUAL
CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS
U 119.000 506000 ''si
/ean
54 000 vears
2-30)
i 904 000 ^3 300
i 300.000 'i A
30.800 0
4 000.000 :o ,
4 500.000
i 014000 "3 30C v .
' :OC :v .
i 192.530 ': :e':*-» -
0 0
'H 3CO 300 :o ' '?:
o '6 :oc
FS estimate ^ :CC :•'•: .••
$35 000 000 =e"i «c"
?RP estimate
$15.000000
744.000 0
795.349 N,A
-------
SITE/STATE
REGION IV
Coieman-Evans
FL istO.U.
(Final Remedy)
Oistler
Brickyard. KY
1st O.U
(Final Remedy)
Oistler Farm.
KY
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Gaiiaway
Ponds. TN
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Hipos Roaa
IF. FL
IstO.U.
(Final Remedy)
Hoiiingsworth
Soideness. FL
istO.U.
(Final Remedy)
Lees Lane LF.
KY
2nd O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Moworay En-
gineering. AL
1st 0 U.
i Fmai Remeoy)
Peooer's Steei,
FL
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Pioneer Sand.
FL
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Sapo Battery. .
FL
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
ROD
SIG. DATE
09/25/86
08/19/86
08/19/86
09/26/86
09/93/86
04/10/86
09/25/86
09/25/86
03/'.2'86
09/26/36 •
09/26/86
THREAT/
PROBLEM
Soils, sedi-
ments, sw. 4
GW conta-
minated with
VOCs. PCP.
organics. neavy
metals.
chromium. 4
toluene
Soils 4 GW con-
taminated witn
VOCs. TCE.
toluene, heavy.
metals. 4 in-
organics
Soils 4 GW con-
taminated with
VOCs. PCE.
TCE. toluene, in-
organics, metais
Pond sediments
contaminated
with pesticides.
inorganics, tox-
aonene. & chior-
dane
GW con-
taminated with
VOCs. TCE. -
metals. 4 BTX
fractions
Soils 4 GW con-
taminated with
TCE. OCE. vinyl
chloride.. 4
neavy metal
Soil. SW. 4 GW
contaminated
"witn VOCs.
neavy mstais.
inorganics
Swamo soils
contaminated
with PC8s
Sons.
sediments. 4
GW con-
taminated with
PC9s. organics
4 neavy metals
Soil 4 30 no
waters con-
iaffiiiiaied wiin
sludges, neavy
metais. VOCs. 4
inorganics
Soils. GW SW
4 sediments
comaminatec
with neavy
metais . •
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
9.000 cy
8.000 cy
N/A
i.600cy
N/A
N/A
212.400
tons
4800cy
itor a
:;eanup
ievei of
20 pom)
PC8>1
DPm. ap-
prox
48.000cy.
'ead>i 000
oom
21.500 cy.
arsenioS
opm. 9 000
cy I waste
Qiys. not
additive)
N/A
94 000 cy
i soil 1
20 000 cv
.seoimenti
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
Excavation 4 onsite incinera-
tion ol soils: onsite backfilling
with decontaminated soils:
GW recovery 4 treatment:
storage 4 analysis ot
recovered GW: onsite caroon
adsorption: GW treatment
Excavation 4 otfsite disposal
ot contaminated soils: GW
pump 4 treat
Excavation 4 otfsite disposal
of all contaminated soil: GW
pump 4 offsite treatment at
POTW
Excavation of segments: on-
site disposal: RCRA SuOtitie C
closure
GW pumo 4 treatment at
POTW: RCRA Suomie-0
closure, relocation of residents
Excavation, aeration 4 onsite
replacement ot contaminated
soils. GW pump 4 treat
Removal ot exoosed drums 4
otfsite disposal: capping: gas
collection 4 venting system.
possiDie alt. water supply.
GW monitoring: oank
staonization: institutional con-
trols
Excavation ot PC8-
contammated soils *nn eitner
onsite incineration, oftsite m-
cmeraiion. or solidification/
stabilization ot me waste
Excavation solidification-
staoiiization 4 ensue aisposai
ot sons
Collection 4 otfsite disoosai ol
tree on
RCflA Suomie D LF Closure
leacnate collection, treatment.
4 onsite aisposai. SW treat-
ment 4 onsite discnarge:
cover system tor sludge aono
waste
Excavation solidification 4
onsite disposal ot con-
taminated soils & sediments.
GW pump 4 treat. SW treat-
ment indicator
PERFORMANCE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
STANDARDS/GOALS CAPITAL COSTS 04M COSTS
Excavation of ail sons 3.000.000 to j
containing PCP in ex- 3.300.000
cess ot 10 mg/kg; GW
win oe treated to levels
mat comply with Drink-
ing Water Standards or
Water Quality Criteria
Excavation of all sons to 7.500.000 lore- • :?a "C •:•
oackground levels: sent worth) .eys ' ;. ."
treatment of GW to 11 :-:c ••• .-:•:
oackground levels j-jc
Soils will oe excavated 11 138.400 ••••::•: ••
to Background levels. 4 .?.;•• • '
GW will oe treated to
oackground 'eveis
Site Closure will meet 344.735 '•• -• ••:
RCRA Suotitie C re- :•«•>•• - ••
quirements
LF closure will comply 3.900.000 to •• • .-
with RCRA Subtitle 0 re- 4 4QO.OOO
quirements: GW will oe
treated to meet SOWA
requirements or IO'6
cancer risk
Soilcmena: TVO. 1 553730 .•:-
ppm; lead. 0.5 mg/l:
nickel. 1 mg/l: copper
10 mg/l
GW criteria: TCE. 3.2
«g/i vinyl chloride, 1
ug/l. OCE. 70 «g/l
N/A 2.343.000 . ' •
Soils wiin 25 ppm PCSs Onsite mem ' ',v
or greater win oe ex- i M 8 M
:avateo ana treated Oftsrte mem - -
i 2-20 M
Sond/ stao.
750 000
Excavation o* sons ex- 5 2 '2. 000
teeamg : com »CB.
1 000 aom .ead. 4 5
Dpm arsenic
tF closure under SuOti- ^62.025 :
tie 0 ot RCRA 4 Chapter ,-j-
17-7 ot me Florida Ad- :- '••" •
-imistrative Code . .
Onsite LF will oe Ouilt to 14. 318.544 .': -
Florida Class i Sanitary
Landfill Standards:
cleanup criteria lor in-
dicator chemicals were
set oased on federal 4
state standards 4 risk-
oased levels
-------
SITE/STATE
WO
SN. DATE
THREAT/
PROBLEM
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
.,^RJRMANCE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
STANOAROJ/eOALS CAPITAL COSTS 0AM COSTS
ftESMNIV
SCHOl/Ooana.
SC
UtO.U.
(Rnal Remedy)
09/26/88
GWcon-
UfflinaM vntfl
VOCs. PAHs.
PCBi. PCE. in-
orgntei. &
• pudcidu
N/A
GW pump & treat: discharge
toSW
GW win oe treated to at- • 751.250 2.128.000
tain ACL equivalent to 1 30-year oerioo i
iO"5 excess cancer nsk
REBIONV
A4F. IL
2nd O.U.
(Rnal Remedy)
Arcanum iron.
OH
istO.U.
(Rnal Remady)
Arrownead
Refinery. MN
istO.U.
(final Remedy)
Burlington
Nortnem. MN
1st O.U.
(Rnal Remedy)
Burrows Sani-
tation. Ml
1st O.U.
ifinai Remedy)
Byron Jortnson
Salvage Yard. IL
2nd O.U.
Fields 3rcoK.
OH
istO U.
Forest waste.
Ml
2nd O.U.
Lake Sandy Jo.
IN
uto.u.
(Final Remedy)
USaile Elec-
tric. IL
tst O.U.
08/14/86
09/26/86
09/30/86
06/04/86
9/30/86
09/23/86
9/30/86
06/30/86
9/26/86
08/29/36
GWcon-
laminated wrm
VOCs. inor-
ganics. TCE. &
metals
Soils. GW. SW.
4 sediments
contaminated
wrtn lead, an-
timony. &
arsenic
GW. sals. 4
sediment conta-
minated with
VOCS. PAHS. 4
lead
Soils & small
areas of GW
contaminated
w«n creosote
wastes mcmoing
PAHS, onenots.
& neterocycies
SW. sediments.
GW. & soils
contaminated
wrtn Heavy
metals 4 cyanide
GW contami-
nated witn neavy
metais. TCE.
cyanide. & VOCs
STOCK sediments
contaminated
wrtn VOCs.
neavy metals.
TCE. PCE. PCBs.
& Dase-neutrai
compounds
Soils & sedi-
ments contami-
nated wrm or-
ganic* & neavy
metals
Soils. SW. &
sediments con-
taminated witn
PAHS. Base-
neutrai com-
pounds. & neavy
metals
Offsite soils
contaminated
witn PC 8s
N/A
Onsrte soils
witn>500
ppm lead.
20.000 cy:
Battery cas-
ing cnios.
3.800 cy:
otfsite soils
not
specified
4.600 cy
(Sludge)
20.500 cy
(soils &
sediments)
9.500 cy
250 cy
N/A
36.000 cy
16.000 cy
JOOOcy
1 10.000 gal
2.500 cy
25.530 cy
GW monitoring; installation of
additional monitoring wells:
institutional controls
Excavation 4 oftsite disposal
of all soils witn>500 oom
lead: Excavation 4 onsite
disposal of an soils witn lead
Between Background 4 500
opm
Excavation 4 onsite incinera-
tion of contaminated soils.
sediments. 4 sludge: GW
pump 4 treat: ait water sup-
oiy
Excavation 4 onsite aerooic
Breakdown 4 transformation
of contaminated sons 4
sludges: capping
Excavation, soiioiticanon/tiia-
tion. 4 otfsite disposal of
metal nydroxide siuages. GW
pump 4 treat
Provision lor alt water
supply via nome caroon
treatment units 4 Domed
water
Excavation, solidification i
onsne disposal of contami-
nated sediments
Excavation tnefiai treat-
ment, onsite residual disposal
of contaminated sediments
Excavation souaiticanon 4
oftiste disposal ot soils 4
sludges
Removal, solidification 4 on-
site disposal ot aqueous
lagoon wastes
Excavation 4 onsite consoli-
dation ot contaminated sedi-
ments: soil capping, ait
water suooiy
Excavation i onsrte incin-
eration ot otfsite sons
N/A PRP will oay tor PRP wm ;av -C'
remedy costs 04M costs
Offsrte disposal of soils 9.929.000 3.' JOO
«rtn>500 ppm lead.
Onsite disposal ot soils
witn iead Between
oacxground 4 500 ppm.
Excavation of offsite
soils will oe conducted
until Background levels
are reacned.
Soils 4 sediments will 22.000.000 ' 3C :CC •:
oe excavated 4 treated '50 :ry.
to acnieve a iO~* ex-
cess cancer nsk level:
GW treatment writ
remove 98 percent ot '
VOCs
Possmie goats are to 582.000 36 yx
acnieve detoxification of .
soils as defined oy me
microtox test 4 to
acnieve total PAH 4
Benzene extractaoie
concentrations in me
treatment zone less tnan
or equal to concentra-
tions present m soils left
m otace
GW cleanup uased on t. 256. 700 to ••:'•:•'
current lowest regulated 1.335.400
cone lor eacn indicator'
cnemical. soil cleanup
oasea on endang . .
assessment
N/A 115.500 ;6ii;
Sediments win ae-.exca- 35. '00. 000
vateo to a '0~* excess
cancer HSK or :o 50
DonrPCSs :r 'ess
Ctoanuo ;eveis win i 295.000
acnieve an appropriate
mgestion rate ot 0 i
g/aay ot soil lor a 70 vg
aouit
Sediments witn contami- 4.747000 53 ;OC
.lants apove me tO~* "
excess cancer nsk level
"m oe excavated 4
consolidated
Excavation 4 mcmera- 26.-iOO.QOO 0
tion ot soils witn greater (present wormi
tnan 5 oom PC 8s in me
first 12 :ncnes ot soil
and greater than iO
- apm m -soils at-oestns- -
oeiow 12 incnes.
-------
SITE/ STATE
Metamora LF.
Ml
tstO.U.
New Brighton/
Araen Hills/
St. Amnony.
MN
4tn O.u.
Novaco Indus-
tries Ml
1SIO.U.
Reilly Tar. MN
2nd O.U.
Seymour IN
1st O.U.
Spiegeioerg
LF. Ml
1st O.U.
REGION VI
Cecil Lind-
sey. AR
1st 0 U
(Final Remedy)
Geneva in-
dustries. TX •
1st O.U.
Odessa Chro-
mium i. TX
ist 0 U
Odessa Chro-
mium H. TX
'st O.U.
Sikes Oisoosai
Pit. TX . .
1st 0 U.
(Final .Remedy)
United Creosot-
mg. TX
isiOU.
REGION VII
Oes Momes
TCE. iA
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Eliisviile. MO
2nd O.U.
REGION VIII
Arsenic
Trioxide. NO
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
ROD
SIG. DATE
9/30/86
06/30/86 .
06/27/86
05/30/86
9/30/86
09/30/86
05/07/86
09/18/86
09/08/86
09/08/86
09/18/86
09- 30. 36
07/21/86
09/29/86
09/26/86
THREAT/
PROBLEM
GW & soil con-
taminated witn
VQCs. including
PCE & TCE. 4
heavy metals
GW contaminat-
ed witn TCE.
PCE. 4 other
organics
Chromium-con-
taminated GW
-" soils a GW •
contaminated
with PAHS 4
pnenois
Soil 4 GW
• contaminated
with VOCs.
organics. neavy
metals, toluene.
4 Benzene
Soils. GW. 4
sludges con-
taminated with
oamt wastes
' • consisting ol
VOCs 4 oase-
neutrai
compounds
No significant
•nreat
Soils 4 GW
-contaminated
with VOCs.
—-PAHS'. PCBS.
' TCE. 4 fuel oiis
GW contaminated
with chromium
4 other neavy
metals .'•••
GW contaminated
witn chromium
GW. sons, 4 SW
....contaminated ..
witn organics 4
• — BTX-'-raoisns- . _
Sons contami-
nated witn
PCP PAHS. 4
creosote
GW contaminat-
ed with TCE.
PCE. & other
..organics
Son contami-
nated with
flioxms. neavy ' ' •
metais. 4 VOCs
GW contaminat-
ed witn arsenic
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
18.150 cy
N/A
36.000.000
gal
N/A
N/A
5.000 cy
10.000 cy
N/A
22 500 cy
N/A
N/A
: 50.000 cy
34 000 cy
TA
N/A
N/A
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
Excavation 4 oftsiie incinera-
tion of wastes from areas
1 44
Well construction to provide
an alt. water supply
GW pump & treat: discharge
to SW
GW pump & treat: capping
4 filling of exposed wastes:
discharge of hazardous waste
to sanitary sewer
Extraction 4 treatment of GW
Excavation of waste materials:
oftsite incineration of
liquid paint sludges:
Offsite disposal ol solid pain;
sludges
No action, with site access
restriction 4 GW monitoring
Excavation 4 offsite dis-
posal of contaminated soils
4 drums: GW pump 4 treat:
cap
Negotiating agreements witn
Odessa City to extend water
suooiy. construct water
distripution system
Extension of municipal water
service to affected areas
Excavation 4 onsite incinera-
tion of sludges 4 soils onsite
asn disposal
Excavation 4 onsite consolida-
tion of soils, temporary cap.
permanent relocation of six
lousenoids
GW oump 4 treat, discnarae
to SW
Excavation 4 onsite interim
storage cl doxm -contaminated
soil: excavation, transport. 4
oftsite land disposal of soils
cnntainmn nnnrtnwn waste
Expansion of njrai water sys-
tem, construction ol system 4
nook -UP of nomes. treatment
system construction
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS/GOALS
The incinerator will
comply with current
HCRA standards
N/A
GW treatment will
acnieve federal or state
drinking water criteria
N/A
Water discharge will
conform with POTW
standards
All materials exceeding
a 10"6 excess cancer
risk will pe excavated
N/A
Excavation of soils to
:00 pom PCBs
N/A
N/A
Sludges 4 sous win oe
excavated to to oom
VOAs
Excavation 4 cisoosai
of an sons contaminated
aoove '00 apm PAH
Extraction 4 treatment
wni continue until
cone in monitonng
wells is 5ug/i or less tor
4 consecutive months
N/A
Removal of arsenic to
Background concentra-
tion of 0.025 mg/ 1
ESTIMATED ANNUAL
CAPITAL COSTS 04M COSTS
41.500.000 M -
(30-year ores-
em wonni
500.500 :? -2:
56.000 4:5 ;CC "•
«...es.- '^'c"
Cost esti- ::s: es; -ve:
mates not -o: '. .
fully developed :»•.»•::«•:
744 000 -"''"• '•"•" "
. 600 :•:•:
es; ">•>:
15.771.000to :
18.395.000
61.000 •; .
14.990.000 v.
247 920 ' :
476.570
102.217000 -
Cost estimate •
undeveloped
' :96.000 •:: •
20.200.000 CiM .;-.••
(estimated "Curec •
present worm i ?s:-~r»: .. ••
::s:s
2.296.000 : ;-.; :•:•:
-------
SITE/ STATE
Onvw
Radium/
flOBCO. CO
2nd O.U.
Onvw Radium
Street Situ.
CO
1st O.U.
UbDy Ground
Water. MT
1st O.U.
Marsnail. CO
ist O.u.
(Final Remedy)
Smuggler. CO
1st 0.1.
(Final Remedy)
Union Pacific.
WV
;st O.U.
{Final Remedy)
REGION IX
iron Mountain
Mine. CA
1st 0 U.
REGION X
Queen City
Farms. WA
1st O.U
toftaani
Drums. WA
ist O.U.
i Final Remedy)
United Cnrome.
OR
ist O.U.
i Final Remedy)
ROD
SI8. DATE
09/30/88
03/24/86
09/26/86
09/26/86
09/26/86
09/26/86
10/03/86
10/24/85
09/30/86
09/12/86
THREAT/
PROBLEM
Soil & buddings
conamnated
widi radium
Asonait contami-
nated witn
radium
Soil 4GW con-
taminated witn
witn creosote.
organic;. &
inorganics
Onsite GW & SW
4 offsne GW
contaminated
with VOCs. or-
games, neavy
metais. rCE.
PCE. & Benzene
SortiGW
contaminated
witn cadmium.
lead. & neavy
metals
Soil & GW con-
taminated witn
PCBs. creosote.
organ ics
SW runott trom
iron Mountain
contaminated
witn acid mine
drainage {AMOi
consisting of
suilunc acid 4
neavy metais.
Fisn 4 sediment
>n local SW are
also affected
Sous, sedimenrs.
4 SW contami-
nated witn VOCs.
cnromium. wad.
irt ?TAt JL
adds
No vgruficant
mrejt
GW4 sons
contaminated
witn cnromium
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
7.000 cy
of sod
200cyot
demoiisned
buildings
38.500 cy
N/A
N/A
4.010.000
cy
700.000 cy
I 5 acres
;to oe
:aooedi
22 000 cy
N/A
350 :ons
nor oftsite
aisoosaii
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
Excavation 4 offsite aisoosai
of contaminated sals 4
aeons: or
Excavation 4 temoorary
oftsite storage of soils: or
Excavation. saWizatwn. 4
onsite consolidation of con-
taminated sals
Leave contaminated material
m giace: institutional controls:
routine maintenance
Ait. water suooty:
institutional controls
Fencing, regrading. 4
revegetanon of site: construc-
tion of oenmeter attcnes to
collect contaminated GW.
GW sumo 4 treat:
air stnoomg: GW 4 SW
monitoring
Excavation: capping: GW moni-
tonng: alt. water suoply
Contaminant isolation system
consisting of recnanneung me
nver: treatment of contami-
nated water witn a caroon ad-
sorption system: slurry wail:
GW oumo 4 treat: GW
monitoring
Caoomg of setecteo cracxeo
4 caved grouno areas, clam
enlargement
Excavation staomjanon i
ortsite Qisoosai ot stages
sednems. 4 sons ;ao
oacement
No aciwn GW roniionng 3y
tne Slate ot Wasnmgton
Excavation 4 ofsite aisoosai
01 sons fiusnmg at soils
aoove snaiiow GW taoie. GW
Our: 4 treat: oiscnarge to
POTW or SW
PERFORMANCE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
STANDARDS/MAIS CAPITAL COSTS QAM COSTS
N/A 1 580.000 Not soecrfiec
N/A ... 88.430. . 5.000
N/A 1.320.000 Not soecmefl
Remedy meets standards' 30.000 -•"• Casts «' .ao
tor 'Remedial Action. at
inactive Uranium Pro-
cessing Sites" - - - • ••
N/A . .152.000 ' 54000
Contammateo water will t. 319.000 '52:0:
oe treated to acnieve
an effluent duality mat
meets ail ARAfls
Remedy will conform to 1.500. 000 to 3' :o:
RCRA SuDtme 0 closure i .300.000
requirements: GW will oe
monitored to comply witn
Safe OhnKing Water
Standards : _
Water oiscnarge will 7.000.000 i<" :OC
conform1 to NPOS ' V, ~" — -.-: -•
standards
Cieanuo orogram will oe 72.100. 000 :o '.01 .-•* -
resigned to meet EPA-- - .85,iOO.OOO— • - - -
water Quality Criteria "i :. ••' .".; • •''.
for Protection ot Aauatic '
•jie lor we worst ••:•••;'•
case. conoitiqn_ot 19_78. ;j_.^
... ' . *. • -."•'• '
: .•• ••:;•
N;-.; -: -,. — -3439-900" - - -:-,v - •
„.. ' -Ci-t . "'- '
r. : '."Ztr •
• -.'C"'
N/A . ' ~ .."".0'~ •_--•---- ----..-
"•eatea eWuent : 02 1530000 .':' ••.
-•<; :nfc.murn ;bn--.t • '•'.".. "" ' "
ireo aouiter 0 05 mg/i ' :. ..
c.nrorturw jncon- v. T"i
••'••eo acuifer 10 ~g^' , ...:-
;nfjrri.jm
ou.
N/A
Ooeraoie Unit
Not aopiicaoie or not avaiiaoie
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED AT SITES TO DATE
Ye*
FY'82
FY'83
FY'M
.fy:as
FY'86
RoglM
III
V
V
VI
VI
X
ft' 1
"•' II
"•' II
,-• „
II
II
IV
V
V
• V
VI
VI
VIII
X
1
1
II
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
ToM No. of
ROOt EmptoyUig
TraHmtnt 8oS
TodnatoglM On-Sto OB-Sta StaMuUoa/ WksUng/ VoMbiUon/
Sto* FoiHietlYiif IndMMta IndMraltan Kautratnttw FkiMng SoMnadoa Sol/UnUaa UodogrMMtoa
1
Bruin Ugaan. PA X
0 0
5
Berlin & farro. Ml X
Laskin/Podar. OH XX
ftoecotogy. TX X
Old Inger, LA X
Western Processing. WA X X
- . . _. »
s Mckin. ME •- . • X
' Boa"Creek"'Farm. NJ " " X
! Bridgeiwrt.'NJ X .
' 'Goose Farm. Nr X
;jfSwopeO«.'fU=" X
Wide Beach. NJ X
Oavie Landlill. FL ' X
• Acme So!vents. IL . X
Byrcn/Johnson, IL X
Varona Well FkHd. Ml X
MCTCO, TX ! ; X
Triangle Onmlcal. TX : X ' X . .
Woodburry Chemical. CO X
Soulh Tacoma Well, WA - • X
27
Baird & McGuire. MA X
Tinkham Garage, NH XX
Caldwell Trucking. \'J X
Hyds Park. NY X
Marathon Battery, NY X
Mtieliec Aerosystems, NJ X
Bruin Lagosn. PA • : X
(hake. PA X
Leetown Pesticide. WV X
Weslline. PA X
Und
Appfcidon/
ComposdttQ
X
-------
Year
FV86
' •>.
FV87
— rr
Region
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V '
V
V
V
V
V
V
VI
VI
X •
X
*i
1 '
VI ''
VI '•
VI ''
VI '•
_•_
Sites
Coleman Evans. FL
Hollingswonh. FL
Mobray Engineering , AL
Pepper Steel. FL
Sapp Battery, FL ' ".
Arrowhead Relinerv, MN
Burlington Northern, MN
Burrows Sanitation. Ml
Fields Brook. OH
Forest Waste. Ml
LaSalle Electric. IL
Metamora. Ml
Sptegeitiera Landlill. Ml
Denver Radium/ROBCO. CO
Sikes Disposal. TX
Queen Cily Farms. WA
United Chrome. OR
'.• "• • • ' ;i :
Onati and Gos4'"'NH
Bayou' Bonldiica ,' 'LA
CWeReDef.'uf
Gurtey Pil'>fR!> "' *'•
Hardage-Criner. OK
Total No. ol
BOth Employing
Treatment Sol Land
Technologies On-Slit Olt-SHt . StabNzttkM/ Washing/ Votatlzatlon/ ApplcaUon/
For Fiscal Year Incineration Incineration NtutrakzaUoo Rushing SolldfflMuon Sol Awjtton Blodegradatlon Composting
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X ' X
X
- • x — - • —
•"-• x • • - • • • .
- • x - • • -
)( --.... _
- . - x . -. , ......
. .. . x • -
x •
• (incomplete
at this time)
x —
X _-
X '
XX - . • ,
x • - , •
13
ll-JF-
s-
.5-'
------- |