United States	Office of	Publication 9834 7-ibFS
Environmental Protection	Sotid Waste and	May 1991
Agency	Emergency Response
SEPA	Summary of "Methodologies for
Implementation of CERCLA Section
122(g)(1)(a) De Minimis Waste Contributor
Settlements'
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement	Quick Reference Fact Sheet
CERCLA Enforcement DivisiorVGEB/OS-510
A de minimis party is a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) who satisfies the requirements for liability
under CERCLA section 107(a) and who does not have a valid 107(b) defense, but who has made only a
minimal contribution (by amount and toxicity) of hazardous Ğcf>sat a site. De minimis settlements hel p
resolve de minimis party liability early, thereby simpnT • ,	>...sand litigation with remaining non-
de minimis parties.
This summary is intended for use only as a supplement, not a replacement, to the Agency guidance on
"Methodologies for Implementation of CERCLA section 122(g)(1)(a) De Minimis Waste Contributor
Settlements," OSWER Directive # 9834.7-1 B, issued December 20,1989.
Criteria for Eligibility
PRPs must meet the following criteria to qualify
for a de minimis settlement:
•	The settlement involves only a minor
portion of the response costs at the site,
•	Theamountof hazardous substances they
contributed is minimal compared to that
of other PRPs; and
•	The toxic or other hazardous effects of
their wastes are minimal compared to
other hazardous substances at the site.
PRPs may qualify as de minimis candidates if:
•	Thein-wastecontributionsareadequately
documented in waste-in lists. If insufficient
data exist, the burden should be placed on
the PRPs to provide this information to
back up any de minimis eligibility claims.
•	Past costs are well documented, and future
remedial responsecostscan be estimated.
•	Vtable non-de minimis PRPs exist against
whom the Agency has a strong liability
case.
Site Management Plan
The following should be incorporated into the site
management plan:
•	timeline for case strategy;
•	details of PRP search activities;
•	allocation of shares;
•	information on past and future costs; and
•	communication and information
exchange.
Communication
PRPs should organize themselves into steering
committees. The steering committees should

-------
develop a single proposal representing the de
minimis parties' agreement. Non-de minimis
parties should be informed about any potential de
minimis settlement.
Timing
A1 though a non-timecritical, non-NPL site removal
de minimis settlement may be appropriate in
limited circumstances, a de minimis proposal is
more easily developed for remedial sites.
Costs
EP Ashouid provide thefollowingcost information
to PRPs:
•	Pre-RI/FS costs;
•	RI /FS and ROD costs;
•	RD/RA costs;
•	Oversight costs;
•	Operation and maintenance costs; and
•	contingency for unknown future costs
Premiums
Premiums for future costs should be based on
whether a remedy has been selected, the Remedial
Project Manager's (RPM's) engineering judgment
of potential problems with a selected remedy,
potential cost overruns,and risk of off-site disposal
liability.
Reopeners
Reopeners may allow the government to:
•	seek further relief from any settling party
if information is discovered which
indicates that the party no longer satisfies
the de minimis criteria;
•	seek additional relief from settling parties
due to cost overruns; or
•	seek further relief for further necessary
r ...on.
Settlement Options
Some PRPs would rather cash out at a higher
premium and have more limited reopeners. Others
may prefer to pay a lower premium and have
broader reopeners. Other options include a
percentage-based settlement and a global
settlement with the non-de minimis settling PRPs
For more information or questions, please contact
the Guidance and Evaluation Branch, OWPE, at
FTS 475-6771.

-------