oEPA
United St
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of
Solid WMM and
Emergency Re«pon»e
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 936°-CKLO
TITLE: Expedited Response Actions
July 8, 1986
July 8, 1986
OERR / HSCD
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
E FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS: Final
REFERENCE (other documents):
Supplements 9360-0-6A Relationship of the Removal and
Remedial Programs under the Revised NCP
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency Interim Directive Number
£* P~r>A Washington. DC 20460 (* * 1
V>EPA OSWER Directive Initiation Reauest 15(^^.0-10
Name of Contact Person
Ui 1 1 i am VaeohaV
Lead Office rj QUST
Q OERR Q owpE
D OSW Q AA-OSWER
Title
Expedited Response
Summary of Directive
Clarifies distinction be
Unit Remedial Actions.
and sketches the plannir
from Region 7. Henry Ic
(7/B/B6, 9 pp.)
Key words: Expedited RE
Remedial Act
Originator Information
Mail Code Telephone Number
WH-«54a-E 382-2348
/ - ^* Approved for Review
^po^^yKf^ *7/?/tt
Actions
'tween Expedited Response Actions and First Operable
Provides guidance on how to choose one or the other
ig process. Includes flow chart and inquiry memorandum
ingest to Region 7> cc's to all other Regions.
ispcnse Actions, J^trst Operable unit, Operable unitTT
:ion, Removal Action, National -Priorities List
Type of Directive /Manual. Policy Directive. Announcement, etc.) Status
D Draft EG New
Policy Directive g^, Q „„,.*„
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directives)? |_| Yes (Jj No Does It Supplement Previous Directive!*)? [jj Yes [_) No
If "Yes" to Either Question. What Directive (number, title) 9360. 06A - Relationship Of the
Removal and Remedi a I'tfnder Revised NCP.
•*
Review Plan
D AA-OSWER D OUST
G OERR D OWPE
D OSW D Regions
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System
~ignature_ol Lead Office Directive* Officer
Signature of OSWER Directive/Officer
D OECM D Other (Specify)
DOGC
D OPPE
Format
Date i
7** l>/
• -5 ^^[V
Date
EPA Form 1315-17(10-85)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUL 8
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
9360.0-10
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Expedited Response Actions
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia/[//?(£9pbnse
TO: David A. Wagonerr Director
Waste Management Division* Region VII
I am writing in response to your memorandum dated May 29,
1986, regarding Region VII's approach to Expedited Response
Actions (ERAs). In your memorandum, you discuss the procedures
you use to categorize sites to screen for the potential
implementation of ERA's and the various options for implementing
ERAs and first operable unit remedial actions. The major
factors to consider when deciding if an ERA can be implemented
for an operable unit project is whether the recommended
action meets the criteria in the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) for removal actions, and that the action can be implemented
within the statutory limits of $1 million in total cost and
six months in duration. These ceilings may increase to $2
million and one year with the reauthorization of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
The inability of a State to provide its 10 percent cost
share should not be a factor in making the distinction between
a removal and remedial action. In addition, if the site is
on the proposed National Priorities List (NPL) at the time a
decision is needed on whether to implement a remedial action,
we can work closely with you to expedite the listing of that
site on the final NPL. This has been done for selected sites
in special situations.
In order to clarify the distinction between an ERA and
a remedial action, the following paragraphs summarize the
procedures that are being developed. Also, a flow diagram of
the process is attached for your information. The following
discussion is limited to final or proposed NPL sites.
-------
9360.0-10
-2-
Plarining activities for ERAs are initiated during the early
stages of a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS),
usually during the initial scoping of remedial activities as the
RI/FS work plan is being developed. Once a decision has been
made to pursue an ERA, the remedial contractor would initiate
an initial screening of alternatives to see if the action
would meet the cost and duration limitations. The next step
would be the preparation of an Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis (EE/CA) to further develop the most likely alternatives.
Another check is made to ensure the proposed ERA will meet
the NCP criteria and the cost and duration ceilings. Once
this has been concluded, the Region would approve the ERA and
select the appropriate remedy by signing an action memorandum.
Implementation would then be carried out by the remedial •
contractor using removal authorities.
If the proposed actions, or portions thereof, cannot meet
the cost and duration ceilings for removal actions, then the
projects should be pursued under remedial authority. If an
EE/CA has been prepared, it should be possible to expand the
analysis into a focused feasibility study to recommend a
first operable unit remedial action. Prior to implementation
of the remedial action, the site must be on the final NPL and
the State must commit to the statutory assurances including
their 10 percent cost share.
At this time, I am unable to provide you with the funds to
conduct the ERAs. Until CERCLA is reauthorized, our ability
to fund projects is severely limited. These projects will be
included in our fourth quarter Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments
Plan and will be funded once funds become available.
Draft guidance on ERAs is being prepared which will be
distributed to the Regions for comment in the near future.
I will look forward to your comments on the proposed guidance.
If I may be of any further assistance to you, please let me
know.
Attachment
-------
9360.0-10
cc:
M. Hohman, Director Region I
C. Simon, Director Region II
W. Librizzi, Director Region II
S. Wassersug, Director Region III
P. Tobin, Director Region IV
B. Constantelos, Director Region
A. Davis, Director Region VI
R. Duprey, Director Region VIII
H. Seraydarian, Director Region
C. Findley, Director Region X
Seraydarian, Director Regi
Findley, Director Region X
ion V
IX
-------
9360.0-10
RGURE1-1
GUIDANCE FLOW DIAGRAM FOR EXPEDITED
RESPONSE ACTIONS (ERA)
IKIIIIIIB milMIIOIMB
COST Mums
OHICI AID COITQUCTIOI
oeiivER*e*.f
REMII
-------
9360.0-10
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101
MAY 29 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Proposed Expedited Resonse Actions at NPL Sites in Region VII
FROM: David A. Wagoner
Director, Waste Manio>tfevrft^Vision
TO: Henry L. Longest, II
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548)
Through study of your March 17, 1986, memo and a series of recent
telephone conversations with staff people from OERR and OWPE, we have"
explored the mechanisms for conducting expedited response actions (ERAs)
and operable unit remedial actions (OUs). In this memo we summarize oury
understanding of these mechanisms and propose ERAs at three sites in our
Region. We have discussed this initiative with our Regional Administrator,
Morris Kay, and have received his support.
At National Priorities List (NPL) sites where prompt action is warranted
and obvious, the agency can pursue either an OU or an ERA. (Please see
attached flowsheet.) To qualify for an OU the site must be on (not just pro-
posed for) the NPL and must have a 10% state match for construction costs
available. If these conditions are met, an Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis
(EECA) prepared for the site may be converted to an OU Focused Feasibility Study
(OUFFS). Then, the Regional Administrator (RA) may obtain delegation for the
action, take public comment and sign a Record of Decision to implement the OU.
The RA may obligate Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Plan (SCAP) funds
via a Procurement Request (PR) to a REM (remedial) contractor who will prepare
detailed plans and specifications, bid and oversee the construction work, and
conduct follow up monitoring. He may, as an alternative, task the Corps of
Engineers to perform these functions.
At sites only proposed for the NPL and/or ineligible for state match the
RA may convert the EECA to an action memorandum (AM), sign the" AM and obligate
SCAP funds to the REM or ERCS contractor via a PR. Then the REM contractor will
implement an ERA by preparing a detailed design, bidding and overseeing the
construction work and performing follow up monitoring. Or, the ERCS contractor
will perform the response actions on a time and materials basis.
-------
9360.0-10
At designated high priority npn-NPL dixoin sites the RA may task the REM
contractor to prepare the EECA for an ERA but must use either the ERCS
(removal) contractor or a site-specific dioxin contract to perform ttie actual
construction work.
The limits on removals of $1 million for construction work and 6 months of
construction time (unless an exception is granted) are acknowleged as applicable
to all ERAs but not to OUs. We also acknowledge that operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs must be borne by the PRP, state, city, etc., or by the agency under
an exception from the removal time and/or cost limits.
Our Region is presently evaluating all of our NPL (proposed and final) sites
and major dioxin sites and categorizing them as follows.
1. Sites so large and/or complex that a traditional RI/FS and RD/RA is
appropriate.
2. Sites at which the appropriate response action for final cleanup is
fairly obvious, and implementation and such actions is expected to eventually
result in'delisting the site from the NPL.
3. Sites with the combined characteristics of 1 and 2 above at which an
ERA or OU should be conducted for part of the site simultaneously with preparation
of the RI/FS/RD/RA for the entire site.
We will not consider an ERA or OU to be a final solution for any site (or
part thereof) until a ROD supported by a delisting RI/FS (or equivalent document)
has been signed.
One result of our evaluation to date is the identification of three category
2 sites. They are Waverly and A.Y. McDonald (a final and a both proposed NPL
site respectively), and Thompson Chemical (a non-NPL priority dioxin site).
Our REM II subcontractor, Woodward/Clyde Consultants (WCC) is preparing EECAs for
these sites and we are negotiating with the potentially responsible parties
(PRPs).
We request that you continue to support our enforcement strategy for these
sites by providing funds in the SCAP for ERAs in the following amounts:
Waverly 1000K
A.Y. McDonald 700K
Thompson Chemical 650K
If negotiations fail we intend to do the following things. For Thompson
Chemical, we would fund the ERCS contractor or a site-specific dioxin contractor
to perform the ERA with oversight by our Environmental Services Division. For
Waverly and A.Y. McDonald, we would fund our REM contractor to design, bid
and oversee the ERAs. The issuance of unilateral CERCLA 106 Administrative
Orders (AOs) to the PRPs prior to commencing work would enable us to recover
trebel damages in our subsequent cost recovery action.
-------
9360.0-10
If negotiations succeed, we plan to fund our REM contractor for oversight
of the PRP ERAs (under AOs or compliance agreements as appropriate) in the
following amounts:
Waverly 150K
A.Y. McDonald 1UOK
Thompson Chemical 125K
Depending on the mix of successful and unsucessful negotiations, varying
amounts of money would be freed to fund Regional response (remedial and/or
removal) actions at other sites.
We are confident that these plans will result in prompt, appropriate cleanup
actions and we appreciate the attention you are giving to this request.
! would like your thoughts on the process which we have outlined and am
anxious to start on ERA's at one or more sites as soon as you provide funds. If
you think a briefing would be useful, we would be glad to come in.
Attachment
cc: Tim Fields, (WH-548B)
Russ Uyer, (WH-548E)
-------
9360.0-10
FLOW SHEET FOR EXPEDITED ACTION'
AT NPL SITES UNDER
THE REMEDIAL & REMOVAL PROGRAMS
TAK2
COMMENT
* REVISE All
A3
APPROPRIATE
FKS =
•j'ossary of Acronyms
r-.'-1 = Action Memorandum
r"i!/CA = Engineering Evaluation/
Cost Analysis
Expedited Response Action
Focused Feasibility Study
= Initial Remedial Measure
Operable Unit
'r'4 = Remedial Contractor
(WCC or Hill)
M/FS = Remedial Investigation/
Feasibilty Study
'"")!_ = Renedial
= Removal
= Responsiveness Sumary
)u
CONVERT CECA TO
OU/FT3. PUBUSH FOR
PUBUC COkkKNT *
GET DELEGATION
RMVL
limit-, = r-: M
(construction only)
1 ye-i- (n months
construction time)
witn exceptions
"Little fin*l guidance -
this is mosMy Headquarters
verbal policy.
RA GET STATS f.
/3/ ROD W/ R3.
AND RQI BIDS OU
------- |