OSWER 9320.2-01
Interim procedures for deleting sites from
the National Priorities List

-------

Liz Doyle/R 10/USEPA/US
08/17/2006 09:14 AM
cc
bcc
Subject Fw: [epalibnet] help locating guidance doc.
To
This is one of the guidance documents supporting the first update to the NPL, a final rule amendment
published in the 9/21/84 Federal Register. The FR notice specifically says that this document is in the
docket established for this final rule (NPL-U1), so I went there and found it in a folder with other HRS
guidance documents (NPL-U1-5). Its specific document no. in that particular docket is NPL-U1-5-5. It
should also be in your Region 10 NPL Public Docket, but since it's only 11 pages long, I'll fax it to you. By
the way, its an OSWER guidance document, and I found a number for it on an old Superfund document
inventory list as OSWER 9320.2-01.
If you need anything else NPL-related, feel free to contact me directly.
Dawn Shellenberger
(Contractor, ASRC Management Services)
Hazardous Waste Reference Librarian
U.S. EPA Region III Regional Center for Environmental Information
1650 Arch Street, 2nd Floor (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
shellenberger.dawn@epa.gov
215-814-5364 (phone)
215-814-5253 (fax)
Dawn

-------
AUG-17-2006 09:04
REGIONAL CTR ENUIR. INFO.
215 814 5253 P.02/12
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAR 2? 1984
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Procedures for Deleting Sites from the National
INTRODUCTION
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) requires that the National
Priorities List (NPL) be revised at least annually. Along with
the addition of new sites to the NPL, EPA has contemplated that
revisions would include deletions from the active NPL list to
indicate sites that have been cleaned up or that have been
determined not to present a health, welfare, or environmental
hazard. This memorandum sets forth deletion criteria and interim
procedures for making such deletion revisions to the NPL.
The interim approach to deletions, .which will be conducted
for the next update of the NPL (expected in August 1984), is to
establish a "deletion category" on the NPL. Although part of the
NPL, this category will be explicitly denoted as containing sites
that have satisfied one of the deletion criteria and hence been
deleted from the active NPL. This mechanism for deletion is being
used in light of the fact that the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
currently restricts expenditure of Fund monies to sites on the NPL.
The deletion category mechanism, because it denotes deletions
without actually removing the 3ite completely from the NPL, will
allow EPA to return to a site and expend Fund monies as warranted
for operation and maintenance costs, continued monitoring, or
correction of any failures of the remedy even though the site has
been "deleted."
The first group of deletions, since they will be proposed
in the next update of the NPL, will be made pursuant to the same
Federal Register notice and comment procedures that we use for
placing sites on the NPL. The update noticg in the Federal
FROM i
Assistant Administrator
TO
Regional Administrators
Regions I-X

-------
PUG-17-2006 09:04
REGIONAL CTR ENUIR. INFO.
215 814 5253 P.03/12
-2-
Reqister will present a list of sites proposed for deletion, and
request public comment for a period of sixty days. After the
comment period, EPA will evaluate the comments, arrive at final
decisions on the proposed deletions, and publish a list of the
deleted sites in the Federal Register.
We are considering alternatives to the various procedures
presented here, and may implement changes in this guidance if
experience with the first group of deletions supports any
alternatives. For example, it may be that the Federal Register
notice and comment procedures conducted for addition of sites is
more complex than is necessary for the deletion of sites. Conse-
quently, we are considering the possibility of more streamlined
administrative procedures for deletion decisions that arise after
this first group, including possible delegation to the Regions.
Also under consideration is the possibility of amending the NCP
to provide that Fund monies may be spent on NPL sites even after
they have been deleted, in order to allow deleted sites to be
removed from the list entirely. In addition, documentation
requirements may be expanded or adjusted to relate precisely to
the types of deletion situations that arise. EPA probably will
present these or other alternatives in the first deletion proposal
scheduled for August 1984.
Although deletion recommendations may be forwarded to
Headquarters at any time, deletion recommendations for the August
1984, update must be received by Headquarters by June 1, 1984.
This means that the advance notice to the public (see below) must
commence by mid-April. Please note that instructions for adding
new sites for the August 1984, update will be issued in the near
future. Regions are encouraged to coordinate closely with
Headquarters program staff prior to submitting deletion recommenda-
tions to ensure that documentation is adequate but not duplicative,
and to facilitate Headquarters concurrence. As the number of
sites that are potentially eligible for deletion increases, it is
important that we develop a process that establishes a strong
technical basis and adequate documentation for such decisions.
The decision to delete a site will be based on whether the
site meets one of three general deletion criteria reflecting
either cleanup of the site or the fact that the site does not
present a significant risk. In order to determine whether one of
the criteria have been met, EPA will determine if the designed
remedy has been implemented and is performing properly, including
whether monitoring results, if any, confirm the adequacy of the
remedy. Alternatively, if the site has been determined not
to present a health risk even though cleanup has not been prescribed
or performed, the deletion decision will be based on the study by
which that determination was reached.

-------
PUG-17-2006 09=05
REGIONAL CTR ENUIR. INFO.
215 814 5253 P.04/12
-3-
The deletion criteria and interim procedures for deletion
described herein are not intended to establish specific monitoring
requirements or performance criteria. These site-specific
parameters are incorporated into the design of individual remedial
actions at each site in the form of post-closure monitoring,
operation and maintenance plans, and remedy performance validations.
DELETION CRITERIA
Regions can recommend deletion of a site from the current
NPL at any time after consultation with the State or after a
State has specifically requested the deletion. A site can be
deleted when one or more of the following deletion criteria has
been met:
1)	EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined
that responsible parties have completed all appro-
priate response actions.
2)	EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined
that all appropriate Fund-financed response actions
have been completed and that no further cleanup by
responsible parties is appropriate.
3)	Based on a remedial investigation, EPA has deter-
mined that the facility poses no significant threat
to public health, welfare, or the environment and,
therefore, construction of remedial measures is not
appropriate.
These criteria, which have been adjusted slightly since they
were first formulated by the Agency, are the only deletion criteria
EPA has developed to date. As explained in the preamble to the
NPL, however, these criteria constitute guidance, not regulations.
They could be revised or supplemented if experience indicates
that other factors should be taken into account. At this time,
however, it appears that these thr.ee criteria are adequate.
INTERIM PROCEDURES
Advanced Notification
EPA Regional Offices should initiate the recommendation to
delete a site from the NPL after it has been determined that the
site meets one or more of the deletion criteria.
Subsequent to discussions with Headquarters program staff,
but before the deletion recommendation is transmitted to
Headquarters, the Regional office of Public Affairs/Superfund
Community Relations Coordinator will prepare a notification state-

-------
AUG-17-2006 09=05
REGIONAL CTR ENUIR. INFO.
215 814 5253 P.05/12

ment to announce the Agency's intent to propose a site deletion.
The notification statement should be provided to the local community,
State and local officials, appropriate Federal agencies such as -
the Center for Disease Control and the U.S. Coast Guard, and
enforcement personnel from the Office of Regional Counsel so that
they are aware of EPA's intent to delete the site and are given
an opportunity to comment on the proposed action. The Regional
Counsel should inform the State Attorney General and other con-
cerned agencies (e.g.. State or Federal courts, U.S. Department
of Justice, as appropriate) of the deletion proposal. A copy of
the notification statement should be sent to the Headquarters'
Hazardous Site Control Division (WH-548E).
The notification statement will be distributed to interested
local residents, local and State officials, and other Federal
agencies two weeks prior to the beginning of a three week comment
period. The Regions will use the responsiveness summary format
provided by Headquarters to summarize comments. A responsiveness
summary of the comments will be a required component of the
deletion recommendation and will be sent to individual commentors
and other interested parties. Based on the comments received in
response to the notification statement, Regions may elect to
delay forwarding the deletion recommendation until the issue(s)
raised can be resolved.
The notification statement will provide the dates of the
comment period, the location in the community of relevant documents
for review and the name and address of a Regional contact where
comments may be sent. Public meetings may also be held by the
Region during this period. The notification statement should
indicate that a second opportunity to comment will be provided
during the 60-day public comment period following proposal in the
Federal Register, if-the site is formally proposed for deletion.
Not ice of this 60-day public comment period will be mailed to the
local press, State and local officials, appropriate Federal
agencies, and interested community residents.
The notification statement should also include a description
of the Agency's close out plan for the site. The close-out plan
should delineate the operation and maintenance procedures that will
be implemented and the monitoring program, in addition, the notifi-
cation statement should indicate that even though a site is deleted,
EPA will retain the authority to spend money on deleted sites that
require additional work.
Management Process (See Attachment)
Subsequent to the receipt of public comments in response to
the advanced notification statement and the preparation of the
response summary, the Regional Administrator should transmit the
deletion recommendation to the Assistant Administrator for Solid

-------
AUG-17-2006 09=06
REGIONAL CTR ENUIR. INFO.
215 814 5253 P.06/12
Waste and Emergency Response (AA, OSWER) for formal concurrence.
Headquarters review and concurrence procedures will be directed
by the Hazardous Site ControL Division (HSCD), Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR). For sites which involve complex
technical aspects, Headquarters may request assistance from the
Regions in the form of a technical briefing.
Subsequent to concurrence on the Regional deletion recommen-
dation, the AA, OSWER, will recommend to the Administrator through
the formal Red Border Review process that the site be proposed for
the deletion category of the NPL. After considering the comments
received during the 60-day public comment period following proposal
in the Federal Register, the AA, OSWER will recommend to the-
Administrator the publication of the decision to place the site
in the deletion category.
Contents of Deletion Recommendation
The information contained in the Region's deletion recommen-
dation will be used by Headquarters to perform a concurrence
evaluation and establish an adequate and documented basis for a
deletion decision. Adequate documentation will be essential
given the variety of public and private parties potentially
interested in deletion decisions. The documentation requirements
are essentially identical to those established for rulemaking on
NPL site additions. The majority of the required information
can be provided by submitting existing documents.
The deletion recommendation will consist of a brief overview
memorandum and supporting documents that will be placed in the
Agency's docket. Presently, the Agency's final decision for
deletion from the NPL will be conducted in Headquarters. There-
fore, a docket supporting the deletion decision will be maintained
both in Headquarters and the Regions.
The overview memorandum should discuss several key points
to support site deletion, including the followingj
- Narrative summary briefly describing the site and
the implemented remedy, including a site chronology
describing the sequence of remedial response steps
and associated expenditures.
Description of how the site qualifies for one or
more of the deletion criteria. The description
should include a brief summary of monitoring results
and validation of remedy implementation and perfor-
mance contained in the task or progress reports, or
final technical reports accompanying the overview
memorandum or referenced as being in Headquarters.

-------
PUG-17-2006 09:06
REGIONAL CTR ENUIR. INFO.
215 B14 5253 P.07/12
-6—
Certification that the State and Enforcement
personnel of the Office of Regional Counsel have been
consulted concerning the intent to delete the site.
- Certification that the Region has provided the
local community with an advance public notification
and three week comment period on the Agency's intent
to propose the site for deletion and the Agency's
plans for closing out the site.
Bibliographic references to any additional pertinent
information in the Regional file that is not included
in deletion recommendation documents submitted to
Headquarters (these documents are described below).
In addition to the brief overview memorandum, the deletion
recommendation must include various supporting documents to be
placed in the Agency's docket for the deletion decision. Most of
the documents described below will already be in Headquarters
and, therefore, such documents need only be referenced. Those
which are not already in Headquarters must be submitted with the
overview memorandum.
The necessary documents will vary depending upon the deletion
criterion and the type of project (Federal, State, or responsible
party). Therefore, the minimum requirements for various criteria
are provided below:
Deletion Criterion #1. In order to qualify for this criterion, a
site must have been cleaned up by a responsible party.
Federal Enforcement Lead. For more recent Federal
enforcement lead projects, documentation should include
the enforcement feasibility study defining the remedy,
the Enforcement Record of Decision (EROD), and the
task or progress reports indicating that the remedy
has been implemented and is performing properly. If
more than one EROD was developed, the equivalent
documents will be required for each EROD. In addition,
any special provisions of the EROD(s) requiring further
action must be addressed.
For older Federal enforcement lead projects (no EROD),
documentation should include a copy of the responsible
party cleanup protocol, along with any EPA or State
comments concerning the protocol, and task or progress
reports sufficient to show that the protocol was
followed. Documentation should also include a copy of
an EPA study or an EPA review of *a responsible party
study or documents used by the Regions to make the
determination that the remedy has been implemented and
is performing properly and that nq further cleanup is
appropriate. The EPA review or study could be funded
via REM/FIT or TES.

-------
RUG-17-2006 09:0?
REGIONAL CTR ENUIR. INFO.
215 B14 5253 P.08/12
-7-
State Enforcement Lead. Documentation should include
the State feasibility study (if one has been prepared),
a copy of the responsible party cleanup protocol,
along with any EPA or State comments concerning the
protocol, and task or progress reports sufficient to
show that the protocol was followed and the remedy has
been implemented and is performing properly and that
no further cleanup is appropriate. If the State has
not prepared a feasibility study that meets EPA standards,
documentation should include a copy of an EPA or State
study, or an EPA or State review of a responsible
party study or documents used by the Regions to determine
that the remedy has been implemented and is performing
properly and that no further cleanup is appropriate.
The EPA review or study could be funded via REM/FIT or
TES.
Federal Facilities. Documentation should include at copy
of the appropriate Federal Agency's feasibility study
(if one has been prepared), a copy of the Agency's
cleanup protocol, along with any EPA or State comments
concerning the protocol, and task or progress reports
sufficient to show that the protocol was followed and
the remedy has been implemented and is performing
properly and that no further cleanup is appropriate.
If the Federal agency has not prepared a feasibility
study that meets EPA standards, documentation should
include a copy of an EPA or State study, or an EPA or
State review of a Federal agency's study or documents
used by the Regions to make a determination that the
remedy has been implemented and is performing properly
and that no further cleanup is appropriate. The EPA
review or study could be funded via REM/FIT.
Deletion Criterion #2. In order to qualify for this criterion,
a site cleanup must have been conducted by the State under a
negotiated Cooperative Agreement or by EPA under a Superfund
State Contract.
Cooperative Agreement. The final technical report from
the State, approved by EPA, must be included. This
report must describe the State's operation & maintenance
(O&M) responsibilities. In addition, the documentation
should include the feasibility study, the Record of
Decision (ROD), and the task or progress reports indi-
cating that the remedy has been implemented and is
performing properly. If more than one ROD was developed,
the equivalent documents will be required for each ROD.
In addition, any special provisions of the ROD(s)
requiring further action must be addressed.

-------
AUG-17-2006 09:07
REGIONPL CTR ENUIR. INFO.
215 B14 5253 P.09/12
-8-
Superfund State Contract. Documentation should include
the feasibility study, the BOD, and the task or progress
reports indicating that the remedy has been implemented
and is performing properly. If more than one ROD was
developed, the equivalent documents will be required
for each ROD. In addition, any special provisions of
the FOD(s) requiring further action must be addressed.
Deletion Criterion #3. In order to qualify for this criterion, EPA
must have selected the "No Action" alternative based on a determi-
nation that a site's present condition poses no significant threat
to public health, welfare or the environment.
"No Action" Alternative Was Selected. Documentation
should include the remedial investigation (or the
equivalent EPA-approved investigation) which demonstrates
that the release will pose no significant threat to
public health* welfare or the environment. In cases
where a remedial investigation/feasibility study was
prepared, the Region should enclose the ROD or EROD
recording approval of the "no action" alternative.
Deletion Criteria #1, #2, and #3. In addition to the criterion
specific requirements described above, the documentation
supporting the deletion decision must cover the following (Note;
the first three items below may be omitted if the required
information is provided in the ROD or EROD):
Post-Closure Monitoring. Documentation should include
a description of the EPA or State monitoring plan and
how the results confirm the reliability and performance
of the remedy. For Criterion #3/ the monitoring plan
should identify how monitoring will detect any release
prior to significant impact. In instances where no
monitoring will be required under Criterion #3, an
explanation as to how that determination was made will
suffice. For projects using standard remedies, prelim-
inary results demonstrating effects of the remedy may
be available within 1 to 2 months. However, more
complex treatment systems may require 6 or more months
to confirm the reliability and performance of the
remedy. If post-closure monitoring is judged to be
unnecessary, a justification must be included.
Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plan. Documentation should
include a statement that State or responsible party o&M
assurances have been met, a description of the OSM, a
schedule for its implementation, and identification of
the source of future funding.

-------
AUG-17-2006 09:08
REGIONAL CTR EMUIR. INFQ.
215 314 5253 P.10/12
-9-
Reqional Counsel consultation. Documentation should
include a summary of their position or relevant
correspondence on the proposed deletion.
Responsiveness Summary. Documentation should include
a summary of the response from the local community.
State and local officials, and other Federal agencies
to EPA's proposal to delete the site from the NPL and
the site close-out plan. The assessment should be
in the responsiveness summary format provided by
Headquarters and be based on the response to the advance
notification statement of EPA's intention to propose
the site for deletion. If the community, individuals,
or Agency response indicates a strong disagreement
with the deletion, justification for proceeding with
the deletion proposal should be provided.
If there are any specific questions concerning these procedures,
please contact Scott Parrish {FTS-382-5632).
cc: Superfund Coordinators, Regions I-X
Director, OEc. of Emergency & Remedial Resp., Reg. II
Director, Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Div., Region ill
Director, Air & Waste Mgmt. Div.,
Regions IV, VI, VII & VIII
Director, Waste Mgmt. Div., Regions I & V
Director, Toxics & Waste Mgmt. Div., Region IX
Director/ Air t Waste Division, Region X

-------
PUG— 17-2006 09: 08
REGIONAL CTR ENUIR. INFO.
215 814 5253 P.11/12
ATTACHMENT
Interim Procedures for Deleting
Sites from the NPL
Regional Responsibilities
Determine if site meets one or more deletion criteria.
Notify local community, State and local officials, and
appropriate Federal agencies of intent to delete. In
order to meet the June 1 deadline (below), notification
statements should be issued by April 15.
Notification statement should include:
dates of 3 week comment period
—	location of relevant documents
-	address of Regional contact for comments
statement that formal 60-day public comment
period will follow proposal in Federal Register
if decision is made to propose the site for
deletion
site close out plan (O&M and long-term
monitoring program)
-	Mail copy of notification statement to HSCD.
-	Using the responsiveness summary format provided by
Headquarters, Regions will respond to individual commentors
and other interested parties.
-	Notify Enforcement personnel from Office of Regional Counsel.
-	Transmit deletion recommendation from Regional Administrator
to AA, OSWER. In order to have a deletion recommendation
proposed in the August 1984 update, complete documentation
must be received by June 1.
HSCD may request Regional briefing on technically complex
sites.
Maintain public docket for deletion decision.
Headquarters Responsibilities
HSCD conducts review and concurrence process.
Review and concurrence from the following offices:
Office of Waste Program Enforcement (OWPE)
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM)
- Office of General Counsel-Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OCG-SWER)

-------
AUG-17-2006 09*08
REGIONAL CTR EWJIR. INFO.
215 B14 5253 P.12/12
-2-
Following review and concurrence, HSCD prepares Federal
Register notice recommending deletion to AA, OSWER through
DEBFU
Aft, OSWER concurs and forwards Federal Register notice to
Administrator via Red Border review process.
Deletion recommendations proposed in Federal Register.
Public comments received during 60-day comment period.
HSCD conducts response to comments and prepares final
deletion decision for AA, OSWER through OERR.
AA, OSWER concurs anil forwards deletion decision to
Administrator via Red Border review process.
Deletion decision printed in Federal Register.
Maintain public docket for deletion decision.
TOTAL P. 12

-------