SUPERCEDED
£EPA
United States
Environmental r-\o action
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9360.0-6
TITLE: Draft - Relationship of the Removal and Remedial
Programs under the Revised NCP
APPROVAL DATE: 11/19/85
EFFECTIVE DATE: .
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OERR
D FINAL
H DRAFT
STATUS: C: Regional Review and Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
UrineO Si.itts tn-.ironmaniai Prott-.-.iion Agency
Was.iington. OC 20450
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
ln:c''Ci Cureciivc Nurntei
Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
^77—Cheryl Maajcinn
irliXa •* I L
Lea
OERR
D OSW
OUST
O OWPE
Q AA.
Mail Code
r.fc [Jumoer
! for Review
Sigr.ar.ure of Oiiice Director
Title
DRAFT — Relationship of the Removal ar>.1 Ronedinl
NCP
5-Under the Revised
Suir..T.arv cl Directive
Draft guidance on redefining re-ifonse categories .-;r "tranoval actions" ar>.l
"remedial actions" so that rcsnovcilR now incliri-.? .Til activities fonnerly
considered immediate removals, planned ranovals a:x'. initial rfttio.'lia
Type c: Direciive 'Manual. Polic-f Oireclive. Announce.T.eni. eic.i
Final
I • r.e
Sees :niu uiractias Superssce Previous Directv/eis;' j j Yt=s
f "Yes" to E:tt-.er GucsTicn. What Directive (nurr.ter. tiilei
'o Oc-.'i i; SJEL-U .-".=i!: Previous Cirecii'-
Plan
D AA-OSWEH n OUST
CZ1 OEnn LJ OWPH
CD Regans
OSW
OEC.M
U CGC
LJ
I — I
Otne:
rus Recje-st Meets GSWES directives Svsi-jrn rcrrra:
of n'-aa Orf:ce Directives Officer
I Dolt:
?tu"r 01 O/tWEH Directives Officer
EPA Form T315-17 (10-35)
-------
nsvjER oir> 9360"6
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL FRO [ E'CTION AOOJCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20-100
NOV 21
:.{;: i:., WASTE AND C Ml: !
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Relationship of the Removal and Remedial Programs Under the
Revised NCR • "
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia
TO- Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Environmental Services Division Directors, Regions I, VI, and VII
Attached for your review is a draft issue paper entitled "Relationship
of the Removal ^Remedial Programs Under the Revised NCP". The Regions
expressed a need for guidance in this area at the recent D1Vis10n Doctors
Meeting in Orlando, Florida.
You should be 'aware that' I am continuing to examine other policy
issues raised by this change in removal criteria, e.g., State cost
share State assurances, and operation and maintenance Please review
tMs document and provide comments to Cheryl Hawkins Emargancy Response
Division, WH-54a-B, FTS 382-5650, by December i-J, 1^5.
Attachment
cc: J. Winston Porter, OSHER
Jack McGraw, OSMER
Gene Lucero, OWPE
Walt Kovalick, OERR
Russ Wyer, HSCO
Tim Fields, ERO
Steve Lingle, HRSO
Sherry Hawkins, ERD
Margie Russell, OWSER
-------
Relationship of the Removal and Remedial Programs Under
the Revised National Contingency Plan
ISSUE:
Revisions to the National Contingency Plan (NCP) redefine the
respond categories of "removal actions" and "remedial actions" so that
Xals now Include all activities formerly considered imme la tj J ™nov ;
olanned removals, and initial remedial measures (IRMs). While these changes
in response categories will expedite many cleanup activities by avoiding
pe o remedial requirements for remedial investigations/ easibi ity studies
fRl/FSs) and full cost effectiveness analyses, this expanded definition ot
removal actions may raise questions regarding the relationship between the
two programs in both Headquarters and the Regions.
BACKGROUND:
Earlier CERCLA program implementation tencM t.o dearly Differentiate
certain activities as removal or remedial , and those activities fell
according" into 'the removal or remedial program organizations. Subsequent
exp°riPncYin CFRCLA program implementation and new program directions being
"npiemented via 'the revised NCP indicate that a higher degree of program
n gra ion and flexibility will enable us to stabilize or c leanup a
Greater number of sites in a more expedited manner. In the case of Ueanjps,
th" will allow us to delete more sites from the Notional Priorities List
(NPL) WK? e this goal is seen 35 highly desirable. It creates some gray
ireai with regard to managing actions that were termed »,nit,al remeoial
measures," but that are now defined as removals.
Despite the NCP chances, certain types of response actions continue
to fall nto dlfcret* programmatic areas. In th. view or OERR, trie following
actSonl ire stni logically located in the removal and remedial programs
respectively.
Rwnovals are taken to ahato or -nitiyate threats Lo puhlic h"Hh
w-lfare or the environment and arc aurally surt-ce cl,..JnVps .Act io,.s
consiSered to be within the are, of removal program responsibility are.
- all response actions at non-NPL sites and releases
- stabilization actions at. NPL sites prior to initiating
remedial activities
. classic emergencies arising at ongoing nuneilial act.ions that
require On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) expertise anrt fast-track
contractor activation
- emergency provision of an alt-mate water supply
-------
93*50-6
-2-
Remedial actions are generally complete site cleanups that address
ground water impacts, where necessary. Actions within the area of remedial
program responsibility are:
- traditional, pre-planned remedial activities
- non-emergency removal actions determined to be necessary during the
course of a remedial action, within the expertise of the remedial
project manager (RPM), and for which sufficient time exists for
competitive contracting procedures.
Certain activities or phases of a response action, however,
may not lend themselves to classification into these specific program areas,
but rather require effective program integration and management flexibility
to"implement successfully. Examples of these situations are:
- A massive drum removal at an NPL site resulting in nearly
complete site cleanup which creates a question of whether
the removal or remedial program should complete the cleanup.
- A completed removal at an NPL site wh assure maximum
return for expenditures. The remedial construction procram, througn Ue
-------
9350-5
-3-
Corps of Engineers (COF.) and the REH contracts, uses the invitation for
bid procedures to secure lump sum or fixed unit price contracts. The
removal program uses Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERCS) contracts to
allow quick response on a pre-negotiatecl and pre-competod time and .mate-
rials basis. In addition, the removal program may procure fixed price
contracts on a case-by-case basis, if necessary, and if time permits.
IRK-type response activities may lend themselves, depending upon th<:
circumstances, to any of these procurement mechanisms. The ERCS contract
system provides expedited and knowledgeable response capability. REM
contracts and COE contracts provide cleanup capability when time allows
for full competition. ERCS should generally be reserved for removal and
IRM-type situations requiring rapid response such as drum removals or lagoon
drawdowns. Other IRM-type removals with 4-6 months lead time have probably
been identified in the FY 86 SCAP and could be pursued through REM or remedial
construction contracts. Thus, it may often be desirable to pursue fixed-price
contracts to address certain removal actions where urgency is not a critical
factor. Where urgency is a factor, ERCS is the preferred contract mode. It
must be noted, however, that a contracting warrant and appropriate training
is a prerequisite to an OSC or RPM using the ERCS contracts.
A test program is being developed by HSCP to facilitate removals at
NPL sites where remedial actions are underway and time exists for competi-
tive fixed price contracting. Removal actions taken under this pilot
program will be performed by remedial contractors to ensure continuity
with RI/FS activities and schedules as well .as consistency with the
final remedial alternative. The approach will entail the use of an
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) procedure, plans and specifi-
cations development, competitive bidding an-.i construction management to
plan, design, and implement the project. Initial pilot cases will include
cleanup of surface impoundments and provision of alternate water supplies.
Guidance for conducting the pilot projects and performing EE./CAs for
surface impoundments and alternate water supplies is under development
and will be available by December 1985.
Further, for certain "non-urgent" removals, it may he desirable to
perform a limited cost analysis that is consistent with the Guidance
Document for Cleanup of Surface Tank and Drum Sites cind draft guidance
or: EE/CAs. Where time- allows, such an analysis could 'ielp assure selection
of the best technical option at tno best price. Such an analysis would
not be appropriate for an urgent removal situation.
Response personnel are also remin-leil that it is F.i'A policy to provide
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) the opportunity to perform tne
response actions described in this memo pursuant to a CLKCLA Uilb Admini-
strative Order on consent. Where PRPs have; boon identified and iii> not
take appropriate or timely actions, EPA will iss-jp a unilateral order
where appropriate and initiate a fund-f inanoM «,-.lion. In those instances.
the Agency will also pursue cost recovery for all costs incurred in con-
ducting the removal actions. More specifically, once a site has been
identified for removal action the Region must determine the immediacy and
s°riousness of the release situation. At. sites presenting an extremely
urgent situation (e.g., delay of start-up of on-site work cannot exceed
one week following determination of the need for a removal), tn.,? rfegion
-------
93^0-5
-4-
should make a reasonable effort to identify PRPs and notify the parties
verbally as to their potential liability followed by a notice letter as
soon as possible. The parties should also be given a limited time.to
respond to the request for conducting the removal action. In the event.
the negotiations are successful and PRPs agree to undertake the removal
action, the agreement should be embodied in an Arlministrative Order
under §106 of CERCLA. It is also EPA policy to proceed with a unilateral
administrative order if PRPs fail to respond appropriately to the request,
provided necessary criteria are met. For nori-urgf?nt. removals, procedures
for obtaining PRP response should be essentially the same as those for
remedial actions. Notice letters should be issued to PRPs; negotiations
should be scheduled quickly in order to secure private party cleanup
within an established tlmeframe consistent with the conditions presented
by the site. After negotiations, the procedures for issuing administra-
tive orders are the same as those described above.
CONCLUSIONS
Experience has demonstrated that all remov.jls are not necessarily
urgent and that all remedial actions are not necessarily deferrable.
Having program flexibility to allow certain IKM-type measures to by per-
formed under the supervision of remedial staif and be deferred (because
of longer contracting procedures) or to have these actions performed by
removal staff on en expedited schedule, gives iiunagers a nK-ans of real-
istic and justifiable scheduling of response actions. This flexibility
also allows for management continuity and accountability within proyramr,,
and for the use of appropriate expertise.
------- |