^0Sr^
i JS* 1	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\	WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
SEP I 6 1S86
OFFICE OF
SOL'D WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ^Guidance tor^Deleting Sites from the National
priorities List fiMPL)
i :^^/i
J. Wiir'ston Portfer*
-Assistant Administrator
F ROM:
TO:	Regional Administrators
Regions 1-X
I am sending the enclosed draft guidance on deletion of
sites from the NPL for your review and comment. This guidance
document presents NPL deletion procedures developed by a workgroup
comprised of Headquarters and Regional representatives. A final
Headquarters review by those offices that were represented in
the workgroup will coincide with the Regional review. These
procedures are to supersede the "Interim Procedures for Deleting
Sites from the NPL," issued March 27, 1984. Principal revisions
reflect experience gained from the initial deletion of eight
sites on March 7, 1986, and amendments to section 300.66 of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP).
These deletion procedures involve Regional delegation for
the preparation and publication of National Notices of Intent to
Delete. Delegation of this authority is currently undergoing
Green Border review and a final draft of the delegation proposal
is attached. Regions also are responsible for preparing respon-
siveness summaries and the final Notice of Deletion which will
be submitted to the AA, OSWER for concurrence and publication
in the Federal Register. Headquarters anticipates delegating
the authority for publishing the final Notice of Deletion to
the Regions at a later date after the Agency has gained more
experience with the deletion process.
This guidance also introduces the establishment of a new
category on the NPL for those sites that have been classified as
completions but do not immediately qualify as deletion candidates.
Such sites are to be listed separately on the NPL as long-term
responses (LTRs). Regions are responsible for determining
whether completed sites are eligible for deletion or should be
placed in the LTR category.

-------
-2-
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Please submit your comments on the guidance to me by no
later than October 24, 1986. Should you have any questions
concerninq these procedures contact Steve Golian ( FTS 4 7 5 -{rh&5}
in the Hazardous Site Control Division or Blake Velde {FTS 382-
7789} in the CERCLA Enforcement Division.
Attachments

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
GUIDANCE ON DELETION
OF SITES FROM THE
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL)
DRAFT
AUGUST 12, 1986
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

-------
CSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Guidance on Deletion of Sites from the
National Priorities List (NPL)
Table of Contents
Page
Number
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION		1
SECTION 2.0 DETERMINING SITE COMPLETIONS		1
2.1	Remedial Sites		3
2.2	Removal Sites		3
2.3	Enforcement Sites		6
SECTION 3.0 LONG TERM RESPONSES		6
SECTION 4.0 N PL DELETION CRITERIA AND TECHNICAL
EVALUATION		8
4.1	NCP Amendments		8
4.2	Technical Evaluation ot Deletion Candidates		9
SECTION 5.0 DELETION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS		11
5.1	Initiation of the Process		11
5.2	Public Notices		11
5.2.1	National Notice		12
5.2.2	Local Notices		13
5.2.3	Responsiveness Summary		13
5.3	Publication of Deletions			14
APPENDIX A - SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR DELETION
PACKAGES		A-l
APPENDIX B - SAMPLE NATIONAL PUBLIC NOTICES OF INTENT
AND NOTICE OF DELETION		B-l
APPENDIX C - SAMPLE LOCAL PUBLIC NOTICES.OF INTENT		C-l
APPENDIX D - SUMMARY OF NPL DELETION RESPONSIBILITIES		D-l

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Under Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1960
(CERCLA), the Agency maintains a National Priorities List
(NPL). In addition to the inclusion of new sites to the
NPL, the Agency intends to delete sites from the list that
have been determined to no longer present a significant
threat to public health or the environment. The purpose
of NPL deletions is to notify the public of Agency actions
and to provide incentives for response to private parties
and public agencies.
The EPA will identify deletion candidates from .those
sites (remedial, removal and enforcement) that have' first
been classified as completions. In some situations,
completed remedials and enforcement sites will not qualify
immediately as deletion candidates and will remain on the
NPL until performance standards are met. These sites may
be classified separately as long term responses (LTRs).
Regions are responsible for determining whether completed
sites qualify as deletion candidates or LTRs and should
coordinate with Headquarters during the remedial design
and remedial action pnases as to the status of these
sites. Beginning in FY87, classification of sites as
deletion candidates or LTRs will become a quarterly target
for the Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS}.
Exhibit 1-1 illustrates this decision process.
These final procedures focus on notice and comment at
the local and National levels and constitute an efficient
process for deleting sites from the NPL by ensuring a
sound technical basis for all deletion decisions.
Although these procedures are not intended for the
reevaluation of Records of Decisions (RODs) developed in
the early stages of the Superfund program, they are
applicable to the deletion of those sites.
This guidance document is intended for use by EPA
Headquarters and Regional personnel, States and
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) involved in the
deletion process. The roles and responsibilities of
appropriate EPA offices (remedial, removal, enforcement,
and community relations) and States are outlined.
2.0 DETERMINING SITE COMPLETIONS
The classification of sites as completions will be
based, for the most part, on whether all required response
actions (e.g., construction activities) are complete and
performance monitoring has commenced. Specific
requirements for remedial, removal, and enforcement sites
are discussed separately in the following sections.

-------
GSWER Directive 9320.2-3
EXHIBIT 1-1
PROCESS TO DETERMINE SITE DISPOSITION
REMEDIAL
(INCLUDING
"NO ACTION-
SITES)
LONG TERM
RESPONSE (LTR)
-2-

-------
QSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Sites classified as completions will receive a "C"
cleanup status code on the NPL. Exhibit 2-1 illustrates
the necessary stages in the removal and remedial processes
before an NPL site may be classified as a completion.
2.1	Remedial Sites
Remedial sites include "no-action" sites and sites
where remedial actions are implemented. The latter are
considered as completions when all remeaial actions, as
described in the ROD, have been completed, and performance
monitoring has commenced. Performance monitoring is
conducted to ensure that the site-specific cleanup
requirements and criteria incorporated into the design of
remedial actions for each site have been met.
"No-action" sites are considered as completions once
the determination is maae that no response is necessary to
be protective o£ public health and the environment and the
no-action ROD has been approved. The determination that
the no-action alternative is protective of public health
ana the environment will require adequate assessment of
all appropriate media (e.g. soils, air, surface water,
ground water) to ascertain that levels are safe for each
exposure pathway. Evaluation raetnodologies for the
various media may be found in the "Draft Superfund Public
Health Evaluation Manual, the Draft Superfund Exposure
Manual, and the Draft Groundwater Decision Guidance
Manual. Other substantive public health and Federal
environmental requirements that are applicable or relevant
and appropriate will also neea to be met.
2.2	Removal Sites
For the purpose of this guidance, "removal" refers to
those NPL sites where a removal action is the only
response action necessary to effectively clean up the
site. Removal sites are considered as completions once:
1.	A determination is made that no further removal
actions are required.
2.	Confirmatory sampling (aescriDea in the OSC
report or conducted as part of a mini-RI)
determines that taking of remedial response
action is not appropriate, and
3.	The ROD for no further action has been approved.
-3-

-------
EXHIBIT 2-1
COMPLETION AND DELETION PROCESS
FOR FUND-LEAD AND FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT-LEAD SITES
c@iME»iLigirii®M ftipmiiMUBTBftTrovis Paocsaa
u. ®EttflEie)iiaiL soire - iFawM. ©^ekauxle ysaov
RI/FS

PUBLIC
COMMENT
PERIOD

ROO
APPROVAL ~
FINAL' REMEDY

RD/RA

REMEDIAL ACTION
REPORT/COMMENCE

SITE
CLASSIFIED

CLEANUP
OBJECTIVES
MET




PERFORMANCE
MONITORING

AS A
COMPLETION

-~©
2. HESflE®0aiL ©DV1S - M© &i(Ltg?Q<5)[Ni ABMawsTTBairiivB paoeBsa
?o
rl
0>
0
r*
h-»-
<

VO
u>
to
o
to
1
UJ

-------
QSWKR Directive 9320.2-3
In order to demonstrate that a removal site qualifies
as a completion, remedial program staff must review and
evaluate the data contained in the On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC) final report. OSC final reports are prepared for
all removal actions as outlined in section 300.40 of the
NCP. The report describes the overall response operation
and actions taken, and includes:
A summary of events (including disposal method
and/or destination of removed wastes)
An analysis of the effectiveness of the removal
action and any confirmatory sampling
Responsiveness Summary
A list of problems atfecting the response, if
applicable
OSC recommendations.
Within 60 days after the conclusion of a removal action,
the OSC prepares a final report and submits a copy to the
Emergency Response Division in the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR).
For those sites where the Region anticipates that no
remedial measures are necessary, the OSC should also
submit a copy of the report to the remedial program office
in the Region. Regional remedial staff are responsible
for reviewing OSC reports to determine if remedial
response is needed. This will require an analysis of all
confirmatory sampling to ascertain whether there is a
significant threat to public health or the environment.
Should the confirmatory sampling data be inadequate for
this purpose, additional sampling/monitoring by the
remedial program (mmi-RI) will be required.
The scope of the "mini-RI" is determined by evaluating
existing data and identifying data needs related to the
type and extent of contamination, pathways of contaminant
migration, and potential receptors. Evaluations should
focus on identifying limitations in the data for each of
the following categories:
Hazardous waste sources, including locations,
quantities, concentrations, and cnaracteristics
Migration pathways, including information on
geology, soils, hydrogeology, physiography,
hydrology, water quality, meteorology, and air
quality
-5-

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Receptors, including demographics, land use, and
ecology
Engineering aspects necessary for remedial design.
The data for these categories must be sufficient to
justify that no significant threat to human health or the
environment exists and that no further response actions
are necessary, although institutional controls may be
required.
A mini-RI will be needed for some sites where a
removal response was the only action performed. The
removal program will not be expected to perform responses
exceeding those identified in the original scope of work
(as outlined in the Action Memorandum} to address
contamination identified in a mini-RI. Should the Region
anticipate that remedial measures will not be required for
a site, the Region may eliminate the need for a mini-RI by
incorporating additional confirmatory sampling into the
scope of "Proposed Actions" outlined in the Action
Memorandum initiating the removal action.
2.3 Enforcement Sites
Enforcement sites include Federal and State
enforcement-lead sites and Federal facility sites which
are classified as completions as defined above for removal
and remedial sites. These sites are also required to have
approved decision documents detailing how cleanup criteria
have been met in order to qualify as a completion {i.e..
Enforcement Decision Documents (EDDs) for Federal-lead
enforcement sites and Compliance Agreements, or an
equivalent, for Federal facilities ana State
enforcement-lead sites).
3.0 LONG TERM RESPONSES
The Agency will identify deletion candidates from
those sites that have first been classified as
completions. Some remedial ano enforcement sites triat are
classified as completions may not qualify immediately as
deletion candidates ana woula remain on the NPL until
performance standards are met. These sites may be
classified separately as long term responses (LTRs).
Regions are responsible for assessing whether completed
sites qualify as deletion candidates {Section 4) or LTRs
ana should inform OERR/OWPE during the remedial aesign ana
remedial action phases as to this assessment for eacfl
site. Completed sites that do not meet the deletion
criteria should be designated as LTRs. This designation
should occur concurrently with verifying cleanup status
-6-

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
codes prior to the promulgation of & final NPL
rulemaking. LTRs will appear in a separate list in the
preamble to the final rule.
Examples of completed sites which would be placed in
the LTR category ace those where:
Long term remedial action is required.
e.g., a ground water extraction (pump ana
treat) system is constructed and expected to
achieve safe drinking water levels within 20
years. Operation ana maintenance of the
system is necessary to achieve environmental
and public health objectives and, therefore/
constitutes a long term response action.
Deletion would occur wnen the LTR meets
performance objectives.
Institutional controls that may be necessary for
the effective performance of the remedy have not
been put in place by local ana/or State
governments.
e.g., a source control, consisting of a cap,
slurry wall, and ground water monitoring is
completed. Deed notices may oe required to
ensure tnat the site will not be built upon
in tne future. The State has not
implemented such institutional controls and
without these, the remedy's long term
effectiveness could be impaired. The site
action is complete but the site would not be
eligible for deletion until these
institutional controls are in place.
Enforceable measures that will preclude human
exposure to contaminated ground water have not
been put in place.
e.g., for responses involving Class III
aquifers that will not achieve applicaDle or
relevant ana appropriate standards,
enforceable measures to preclude human
exposure to the contaminateo ground wacer
woula need to oe in place Defore the site
becomes eligible for deletion. Such
enforceable measures generally would not be
neeaeu for Class I aquitecs once applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements are
met.
-7-

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
The effectiveness of the remedial action has not
been verified.
e.g., a safe level for arsenic contamination
in the soil was established based on
predictive modeling and the past history of
migration through the soils. Verification
monitoring is required to confirm that the
underlying groundwater will not be
contaminated above drinking water
standards. This site action would be
complete after contaminated soils were
removed down to target levels but deletion
would not occur until the verification
modeling was complete.
4.0	NPL DELETION CRITERIA AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION
In order for sites to qualify as deletion candidates,
they must be designated as completions and undergo a
technical evaluation to determine that they satisfy the
criteria for deletion.
4.1	NCP Amendments
Section 300.66(c)(7) ot the NCP (5UFR 47912) provides
that sites may be deleted from, or recategocized on, tne
NPL when "no further response is appropriate." To delete
a site, the Regions and Headquarters must aetermine
whether one or more ot the following deletion criteria
have been met:
(1)	EPA, in consultation with the State, has
determined that responsible or other parties have
implemented all appropriate response actions
required
(2)	All appropriate Funo-£inanceo response under
CERCLA has been implemented, and EPA, in
consultation with the State, has determined that
no further response by responsible parties is
approprlate
(3)	Based on a remedial investigation, EPA, in
consultation with the State, has determined that
tne release poses no significant tnreat to public
healtn or the environment and remedial measures
are not appropriate.
-8-

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
These deletion criteria are not intended to establish
specific monitoring requirements or performance criteria.
Site-specific requirements and criteria will be
incorporated into the design of response actions for each
site as post-closure monitoring, confirmatory sampling,
and operation and maintenance plans.
Prior to deleting a site, EPA will make a
determination that the remedy or the decision that no
further response action is appropriate, is protective of
public health and the environment. This determination
will take into consideration Federal and State
environmental requirements which are applicable or
relevant and appropriate to CERCLA response actions at the
time of deletion. If cleanup standards/criteria have
changed since tne remedy was chosen, the leaa agency or
PRP will oo an assessment of the site to evaluate tne need
for additional response actions to meet current
standards/criteria.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude
eligibility for subsequent Fund-financed or PRP actions.
Section 300.66(c) (8) of the NCP states that Fund-financed
response actions may be taken at sites that have been
deleted from the NEL if future conditions warrant such
actions. Depending upon releases from liability contained
in the consent decree or administrative orcier, future
enforcement action may be taken if necessary.
4.2 Technical Evaluation of Deletion Canaidates
In oraec to determine that one or more of the deletion
criteria have been met, the Region should perform a
technical evaluation of the data generatea from
performance monitoring ana/or confirmatory sampling.
These data must demonstrate that the remedy has achieved
tne cleanup levels chosen tor the site as defined in the
ROD, EDO or an equivalent decision document. If the no
action alternative is selected, data must confirm that the
site poses no significant threat to public nealth or the
environment. -
More specifically, technical documentation and data
for any site must demonstrate that:
Ground water has met applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements and does not pose a
threat to human ana environmental receptors 0£
that controls/treatment achieve the degree of
cleanup or protection specified in the ROD/EDD
and outlined in the ground water protection
strategy for the classification ol affected
ground water.
-9-

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Soils/waste do not affect the achievement of
cleanup objectives specified for other
environmental meaia (e.g., ground water, surface
water, air) and that the direct contact threat is
at aa acceptaole risk.
Air emissions are protective of public health ana
the environment as defined in section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 1^77 CAA amendments
for primary and secondary major criteria
pollutants.
O&M specified for a site is guaranteed by the
State or PRP and is sufficient to maintain the
effectiveness of the source control remedy and
performance objectives.
Institutional controls necessary for the
effective performance of tne remedy are in place.
Other enforceable measures necessary to protect
public health and the environment are in place.
For pollutants witnout established standards, an
assessment of risk will be necessary to determine that
exposure levels are protective of public health and the
environment (i.e., range 10"^ to 10"?}.
If the technical evaluation confirms tnat the
requirements listed above are satisfied ana that one or
more of the deletion criteria have been met, the Site
qualifies as a deletion candidate. Should tne technical
evaluation indicate that further response actions may be
necessary, Regional staff should reevaluate response
actions taken at tne site ano should notify Headquarters
immediately.
Regional designation of sites as deletion candidates
should be as follows:
Removal sites - when tne Regional Administrator
(RA) approves the ROD tor no further action.
Remedial no-action sites - when tne RA approves
the no-action ROD.
Remedial final operable unit sites - when:
Performance monitoring and confirmatory
sampling for all operable units are
completed anc it is determined that cleanup
oojectives (as detmeo in the ROD and other
support documents) have been met.
-10-

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Institutional cantccls necessary for the
effective performan.ee of the remedy oc the
protection of public health are in place.
Enforcement sites are considered deletion candidates as
defined above for removal and remedial sites. Procedures
foe deleting State enforcement-lead sites are currently
under development and will be issued in separate
guidance. State enforcement-lead sites will be required
to meet similar deletion criteria.
5.0	DELETION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
Deletion of sites from the NFL consists of the
following three phases: 1) initiation of the process in
which the Regions obtain State concurrence and prepare
deletion dockets; 2) issuance of local and National
Notices of Intent to Delete; and 3) preparation of
responsiveness summaries and publication of the final
deletion notice. Exhibit 2-1 illustrates the stages in
the deletion process.
5.1	Initiation of the Process
Regions should initiate the deletion process by
consulting with States and obtaining their concurrence on
the Agency's intent to delete a site. In acme cases, tne
State or PRP may initiate this process by specifically
requesting the deletion ot a site. Following State
concurrence, Regional staff should brief the RA on the
status of cleanup response at the site and obtain the RA's
approval to proceea with aeletion.
Regions should prepare a deletion docket containing
all pertinent information supporting the Region's deletion
recommendation. Regions are encouraged to aeek
Headquarters assistance for the preparation of the
deletion docket, if necessary, or to help resolve any
outstanding issues. The necessary support documents for
deletion dockets are presented in Appendix h.
5.2	Public Notices
Prior to issuing the concurrent local and National
Notices of Intent to Delete, Regions should forward a copy
of the draft Federal Register notice foe a 2-week review
period to the Hazardous Site Control Division (HSCD) or
the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (UrtEE), whichever
is coordinating Headquarters assistance for that site.
Regions should notify ESCD/OWifi of their intent to delete
a site at least 90 days in advance of the regional
submission of the draft Federal Register to Headquarters.
-11-

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Regions should include an overview-memorandum with the
draft Federal Register notice that provides a concise
explanation of how the site qualifies for deletion.
Depending on the significance of any unresolved issues,
Headquarters will concur, concur with comment, or
non-concur within tnis two week period. Publication of
the Notice may proceed after remaining issues are
satisfactorily resolved.
Before the Regions publish their Notices of Intent to
Delete, the Regional public dockets and local repositories
must contain complete copies of all supporting documents.
Regional Program Offices should work with their Superfund
community relations staff to ensure that complete copies
of supporting documents are placed in the appropriate
local repositories. The public will have an opportunity
to review this pacnage during the National and local
comment periods that follow publication of the notices.
5.2.1 National Notice
The National Notice of Intent to Delete should
describe the Agency's deletion criteria and provide a:
Location of the Regional dockets
Request for public comments for a 30-day period
Name ano address of a Reyional contact where
comments may be sent and who to contact for
further information or questions.
Brief summary of site history (including
location, former use, type of contaminants, date
of promulgation on the NFL)
Description of all response actions taken at the
site (including scope of RI if applicable,
general results ano conclusions)
Specification of clean up standards and criteria
and results of all confirmatory Sampling
Summary of Super fund community relation activities
Description of the Agency's close-out plan for
the site, including an outline of the operation
and maintenance procedures ano the site
monitoring program
Summary of now each site meets the deletion
enter la
-12-

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Acknowledgment of State concurrence to delete the
site
A statement indicating that EPA retains the
authority to spend money on a deleted site if
future conditions warrant sucn actions (section
300 .66(c) (8) of the NCP) .
Examples of National Notices of Intent to Delete are
presented in Appendix B.
5.2.2	Local Notices
The Regional Superfuna Community Relations Coordinator
should prepare the local Notice of Intent to Delete. This
statement should De distributed to community, State, and
local officials; appropriate Federal agencies, including
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
National Response Team (NRT), and the U.S. Coast Guard;
enforcement personnel from the Office of Regional Counsel
(ORC) ? ana any local repositories. In addition, the ORC
should inform the State Attorney General and other
interested agencies (e.g.» State or Federal courts, U.S.
Department of Justice, as appropriate/ of the possible
deletion.
The local notice should provide the saiiie information
contained in tne National notice. It should, however,
announce a 3Q-aay local comment period (public meetings
are optional) that will start two weeks from the date of
the notice and provide a local repository of relevant
documents for community review, A sample local notice is
provided in Appendix C.
5.2.3	Responsiveness Summaries
Regions ate responsible tor preparing responsiveness
summaries of local and National comments including the
Agency's responses to tne comments. Headquarters will
assist the Regions in preparing responses to those
comments which address issues ot National concern.
Regions should send copies of comments received in
response to the local and National Notice of Intent to
hSCD or OWPE.
A responsiveness summary should describe the:
Community relations activities conducted during
the RI/PS, remedial design and remedial action
Comments received during the National and local
comment periods
-13-

-------
OSWZR Directive 9320.2-3
Comments tcom any public meetings (if held)
Comments from settlement-related comment periods
(if applicable)
Region's responses to National and local public
comments.
The summary should also provide justification for
proceeding with the deletion if public comments indicate
strong disagreement with tne recommendation. If
significant comments are received, Regions may elect to
delay publication of the deletion until tne issue (s) are
resolved. Regions must incluae a copy of the
responsiveness summary, approved by the RA, in the
Regional public oocxet.
5.3 Publication of Deletions
Regions will prepare a araft Federal Register notice
to announce tne deletion of sites from the NPL which will
include a summary of the comments received from the
Notices of Intent to Delete (local and National) , and the
Agency's responses, liegions will submit the Notice of
Deletion ana Action Memorandum to the AA/OSWER fot
concurrence and publication. Any supporting documents
relating to specific Agency responses to public comments
should also be submitted. The AA,OSWER will publish the
Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register, and final NPL
rulemakings that occur after its publication will reflect
the deleted sites.
A matrix summarizing the deletion responsioilities of
Headquarters, Regions, and States is presented in
Appendix D.
-14-

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
appendix A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR
DELETION DOCKETS
The necessary support documents will vary depending on
the deletion criterion and tne type of project (Federal,
State, potentially responsible party (PRP), or "no-action
alternative" sites)- This appendix provides a matrix of
support documents for each type of project. Regions
should compile these documents in the deletion docket in
chronological order. Responsiveness Summaries of puolic
comments to the local and National Notices of Intent to
Delete should be placed in the Public Docket before the
AA, OSWER publishes tne Notice ot Deletion.
A- 1

-------
APPENDIX A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR DELETION DOCKETS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Enforcement-Lead	Program-Lead No
Federal	Action
Federal State Facilities Federal State Sites
Remedial Investigation	X
Feasibility Study	X
Record of Decision {ROD) for each operable
unit, including any special ROD provisions
Community Relations Plan	X
Enforcement Decision Document (EDD)
or an equivalent	X
Responsible party or Federal Agency cleanup
protocol	X'
Agreements between EPA and other Federal
Agencies (MOA, MOU, 1AG)	X
EPA or State comments concerning the
responsible party or Federal Agency protocol X
State and Federal orders and filed court cases X
2'
X
XJ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Task or progress reports for each ROD, EDD,
EROD, or cleanup protocol that verify
remedy implementation and proper
performance	XX	X	XX
Remedial action report, including a
description of State O&M responsibilites	XX	X	XX
A-2

-------
APPENDIX A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT ATION FOR DELETION DOCKETS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Enforcement-Lead
Federal State
Description of the post closure monitoring
plan (if not provided in the ROD or EDD)
or justification if post closure monitoring
is not required
X
Program-Lead No
Federal	Action
Facitilites Federal State Sites
Description of the O&M Plan (if not provided
in the ROD or EDD), including:
A statement describing how State or
responsible party G&M assurances have
been met
A description of and schedule for
the implementation of the O&M Plan
Identification of the source of future
funding
Summary of Regional Counsel position or
relevant correspondence on the deletion
Bibliography of supporting documentation
Responsiveness summary of No-Action ROD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
50
n
ID
n
ft
<
o
to
0
ro
1
A-3

-------
If a feasibility study meeting EPA standards was not prepared, the EPA or State study used by the
Region to determine that the remedy was implemented and is performing properly should be included.
Similarly, when this determination is based on an EPA or State review of a responsible party (or
Federal Agency) study or documents, this review should be included.
The responsible party cleanup protocol and any EPA or State comments concerning the protocol should
be included in cases where an EDD or an equivalent was not prepared.
For no-action sites where monitoring is not required, a description of how it was determined that no
monitoring is required should also be included.

-------
OSWER Directive 9320-2-3
APPENDIX B.
SAMPLE NATIONAL PUBLIC NOTICES OF INTENT
AND NOTICE OF DELETION
B-l

-------
OSWKR Directive 9320.2-3
53448 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 251 / Tuesday. December 31. 1985 / Proposed Rulea
cjWffiONMEKTAL PROTECTION
SENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[SW-FPL-2945-4]
National Oil and Hazardous
Subatancea Contingency Plan; tha
National Priorities Uata
aoinct Environmental Protection
Agency.
actio* Notice of Intent to Delete Sites
from the National Priorities List Request
for Comments. 	
summary*. The Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA) announces its intent to
delete eight sites from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comment. The NPL is Appendix B to the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP). which EPA
promulgated pursuant to section 103 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
oatsk Comments concerning the sitea
may be submitted on or before January
30.1988.
AODRUSM: Comments may be mailed
Russel H. Wyer. Director. Hazardous
i Control Division (Attn: RAB Staff),
^ifice of Emergency and Remedial
Response (WH-548E). Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M. Street SW.,
Washington. DC 20460. The
Headquarters Docket clerk will maintain
some background information on each
site. Comprehensive information on
each site is available through the EPA
Regional Docket clerks.
The Headquarters public docket is
located in EPA Headquarter*. Waterside
Mall subbasement 401 M Street. SW.
Washington. DC 20440. and is available
for viewing by appointment* only from
9 00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.. Monday through
Friday excluding holidays. Requests for
copies of the background information
from the Headquarters public docket
should be directed to the EPA
Headquarters Docket Office. Requests
for comprehensive copies of documents
should be directed formally to the
appropriate Regional Docket Office.
Addresses for the Headquarters and
Regional Docket Office are:
For background information on all
eight: Denise Sines. Headquarters, U.S.
EPA CERCLA Docket Office. Waterside
Mall, Subbasement 401 M Street, SW„
'"ishington. DC 20480. 202/3B2-3046.
r the Friedman. New Jersey site:
ole Petersen. Region II. U S. EPA 20
Federal Plaza. 7th Floor. Room 734. New
York. NY 10278, 212/2W-66r7.
Far the Enterprise Avenue and Lehigh,.
Pennsylvania sites: Diane McCreary.
Region m. U.S. EPA Library. 3th Floor,
Ml Chestnut Bldg.. 9th & Chesnut
Streets. Philadelphia. PA 19106.213/597-
0560.
For the PCB Spills site. North
Carolina: Gayle Alston. Region IV, U.S.
EPA Library. Room G-8. 343 Courtland
Street. NE.. Atlanta, CA 30383,404/881-
4216.
For the Moms Dump site. Minnesota:
Lou Tdley. Region V. U.S. EPA Library.
Room 1420. 230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago. 1L 60604. 312/353-2022.
For PCB Warehouse site.
Commonwealth of the Northern Manana
Islands. PCB Waste sites. Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Taputimu Farm site. America Samoa:
Jean Circielio. Region IX, U.S. EPA
Library. 6tn Floor. 213 Fremont Stmt
San Franci9co, CA 94103.413/974-8078.
roil FUKTHKH INFORMATION COWTACT
Russel H. Wyer. Director. Hazardous
Site Control Division. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response
(WH-548E), Environmental Protecaon
Agency. 401M Street SW., Washington.
DC 20460. Phone (800) 424-9346 [or 382-
3000 in the Washington. DC
metropolitan area).
supumintaitv information:
Table of Contents:
I	Introduction
II	NPL Deletion Criteria
QI. Deletion Procedures
IV Best* for Intended Site Deletions
L Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency
(E7A) announces its intent to delete
eight sites from the Naitonal Priorities
List.fNPL). Appendix B. of the National
Oil end Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP). and requests
comments on these deletions The EPA
identifies sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare
or the environment and maintains the
NPL as the list of those sites. Sites on
the NPL may be the subject of
Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund [Fund) financed remedial actions.
Any sites deleted from the NPL remain
eligible for Fund-financed remedial
actions in the unlikely event that
conditions at the site warrant such
action.
The eight sites EPA intends to delete
from the NPL are:
1.	Enterprise Avenue. Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania.
2.	Friedman Property (once listed as
Upper Freehold], Upper Freehold. New
Jersey.
3 Lehigh Electric and Engineering Co„
Old Forge Borough.-Pennsylvania.
4.	Moms Arsenic Dump. Moms.
Minnesota.
5.	PCB Spills. 243 miles of roads. North
Carolina.
8. PCB Warehouse, Saipan.
Commonwealth of the Northern Ma-ana
Islands.
7 PCB Wastes. Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands.
6.	Taputunu Farm. Island of Tutu:la.
American Samoa.
The EPA will accept comments on
these eight sites for thirty da) s after
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
Section II of this notice explains the
criteria for deleting sites from the NPL
Section QI discusses procedures that
Q>A is using for this action and those
that the Agency is considering using for
future site deletions. Section IV
discusses each site and explains how
each site meets the deletion criteria.
C. NPL Deletion Criteria
Recent amendments to the NCP
establish the criteria the Agency uses to
delete sites from the NPL as published in
the Federal Register on November 20b
1983 (50 FR 47912). Section 300 66(c)(7)
of the NCP provides that sites:
* * * may ba deleted from or recategomed
- - ihe NPL where no further response it
o rpropntte. la making this determination.
IP A will consider whether any of the
foQjjwtag criteria hat been met
(iJ EPA. to consultation with the State, hat
eetermined that responsible or other parties
have implemented all appropriate response
actions required:
(it) Ail appropriate Fund-financed
responses under CERCLA has been
implemented, and &A. in consultauon with
the State, has determined that no further
cleanup by responsible parlies is appropriate,
or
(hi) Based on s remedial investigation.
EPA. ip. consultation with the State, hat
determined that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the
environment and. therefore, taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.
Before deciding to delete a site. EPA will
make a determination that the remedy
or decision that no remedy is necessary,
is protective of public health, welfare,
and the enwonmenl considering
environmental requirements which are
applicable or relevant and appropriate
at the time of the deletion.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does
not preclude eligibility for subsequent
Fund-financed actions if future
condition! warrant such actions Section
300 66(c)(8) of the NCP states that fund-
financed actions may be taken at sites
that have been deleted from the NPL

-------
# ,	OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 251 / Taeaday, December 31. 1965 / Proposed Rules 53449
HI. Deletion Procedure!
In the NPL rulemaking published in
the Federal Register on October 15. t9M
[49 FR 40320), the Agency solicited and
received comments on the question of
whether the notice and comment
procedures followed for adding sites to
the NPL shoufd also be used before sites
are deieted. Comments also were
received in response to 'he amendments
to theNCP that were p'cpcsed in the
Federal Register on February 12.1985,
(50 FR S662J Deletion of sites from the
NPL does not itself create, alter, cr
reroke any indrvrdaals rghts or
obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes and
to assist agency management. As is
mentioned m section II of this nonce.
I 30086(e)(8) of the NCP makes clear
lhai deletion of a site from the .VPL does
rot preclude eligibility for future Fund-
financed response actions
For the deletion of this group of eight
sites. EPA's Headquarters Office will
accept and evaluate public comments
before making the Gnat decision to
delete la the future. EPA's Regional
Offices may accept and evatuate public
comments The Agency believes that
deletion procedcres should focus on
notice and commenf at the local level.
S'mildr to those procedures for local
corn-rent outlined in CPA's March 27.
1964. "Interim Procedures for Deleting
Sites from the XPL" Comments from the
local community surrounding the sites
considered for deletion ate likely lo be
the most pertinent to deletion decisions.
The following procedures were o?ed for
the intended deletion of these eignl
sites. The Agency is considering using
similar procedures in the future, with the
exception that the notice and comment
period would be conducted concurrently
at the focal level and through the
Federal Register.
The procedures used a ere
l. EPA Regional Offices recc amended
deletion and prepared relevant
documents.
2 EPA Regional Offices provided a
two to three week public comment
pencd on the deletion package. The
notiPcaiton was provided to local
residents through local and community
newspapers. The Region made ards of
exicavated soil was identified as
contaminated with organic compounds
(toluene, benzene, ethylbe&zeae. ot
organic halogens). Remaining
contaminated soil was stockpiled on-
site in two separate piles and a sod
cover was paroally placed, but not
completed
In 1984. an EPA and C.ty funded
Phase 11 remedial acLon was started to
complete the remedial actions. AH of the
stockpiled sods were analyzed for a
variety of metals and organic*. Soils
were divided into 100 cubic yard lots for
analysis. A Key Indicator Analysis was
used to determine which soil lots would
be disposed of in an oil-site Jacihty Thrs
test established action levels fororgantc
compounds and inorganic elements
disposed of al the site as identified from
sampling results- If any one indicator
exceeded action levels, the entire soil lot
was deemed contaminated and disposed
of off-sile. Action levels for inorganics
were selected based upon the Extraction
Procedure Toxicity Test used to
determine 'f a waste is hazardous under
RCRA Organic acticm levels were
established utilizing similar
methodology and are consistent wuK
levels that would be used today After
removal of contaminated soils from (he
site. Ihe area was sampled on a gnd
partem to insure that all soils not
passing the test had been removed and
oisposed of off-site Tie results indicate
that the remedial obiectives were
attained and (hat all soils considered
contaminated were removed The site
was then capped and revegetated as a
further precaunonary measure and the
site fenced. A local public comment
period was held Aognst 2.1985, ihrough
August 23.1981 specifically concenung
deletion of the site. No public comments
were received.
&A. with the concurrence of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has
determined that all appropriate Fund-
financed response under CERCLA at the
Enterprise Avenue site has been
completed, and has determined that no
further cleanup by responsible parties is*
appropriate. Tbe Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources
(PADER1 committed to operate and
maintain the site. The PADER has also
developed and implemented an
operations and maintenance plan for the
cap approved by EPA and will monitor
the ground water to uuure that the
waiet quality terrains al background
levels.
Friedmar, Property Stte. Upper Freehold
Xew fersey
The Friedman Property is a 3-acte site
located in Upper Freehold Township,
Monmouth County. Sew Jersey. The site
ts located near 5 other NPL sites
collectively known, as the Plumsted
sites. In the late 1950's and early lS60's
the alleged dumping of free-flowing
liquids, household wastes, and
demolition debris occurred into a
natural ditch which was then covered
The site was croposed for inclusion on
the N'ational Priorities List (NPL) on
December 1G. 1982. and appeared on the
final N'PL on September 8.1983.
EPA and NJDEP completed a remedial
investigation/feasibility study (Rl/FS) in
1984. The Rl/FS studied the air. soils,
wastes, ground and surface water and
adjacent stream sediments for evidence
of contamination. Results of the Rl/FS
ind.cate thatkmited contamination is

-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
53430	Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 251 / Tuesday. December 31. 1985 / Proposed Rules
present at the site, and that the site was
not used as a hazardous waste disposal
facility. Its wastes were no different
than a typical municipal landfill.
Air monitoring during the Rl/FS did
nut show levels above ambient air
quality standards, and no complaints of
odors or fumes were received from area
citizens before cr during testing, or from
personnel conducting the RI/FS.
Ground water testing included the
ir stallaiion of six monitoring wells and
sampling of domestic welts in the
vicinity of the site The shallow ground
Mater was sampled for standard prionty
pollutants and indicated slightly
elevated levels of zinc below 0.5 mg/1
and detected some phenols at 0 03 mg/L
These levels are below current EPA
Health Effects Assessment levels of 7 4
irg/l far zinc and 3.5 mg/l for phenols.
Deep water sampling revealed only zinc
a i levels comparable to surface lesels
and no priority pollutants were detected.
No similarity exists between the
shallow and deep ground water data
except for comparable lev els of
naturally occurring zinc. Since similar
chemicals were not found between the
tw o aquifers, and geologic analysis does
not indicate the presence of
interconnections, there is no indication
"•at contamination of the lower aquifer
9 occurred or wtl] occur in the future.
Stream sediments and surface water
quality also were sampled. The study
indicated that the adjacent stream
sediments had not been significantly
contaminated by materials found at the
s.te although trace contamination
consistent with routine road
maintenance practices from the ad)acent
h.ghway was found.
In summary, the Rl/FS concluded that
there are no significant sources of
contamination at the site, and
coniammants have not migrated From
the site and are not expected to migrate.
Therefore, no remedial action was
appropnate. A local public comment
penod was held July 12.1984. through
August 11.19M. after a public meeting
ujj held to discuss the no action
alternative No widen comments were
reveived. Public comment al the meeting
consisted of a discussion of the extent of
the problem at the site A detailed report
of this discussion ia available through
the appropriate EPA docket offices
EPA. with the concurrence of 
-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Federal Register / Vol 50. Nc -~1 / Tuesday, December 3t. 1983 / Proposed Rules 53451
levels were considerably below the
Prtmary Dnnlang Water Standard of 50
jig/I Concentrations of arsenic were
found to be al or near 3 pg/L The
municipal well field for Moms is
approximately one mile m the opposite
direction of ground water flow and
would not be imoacted if there were
contaminat.'on at the site Other
domestic wells in the site viciruty were
sampled and did not show any
indications of arsenic contamination
above background. A public meeting
was held on. May 2.1985. and a local
three-week public comment period was
conducted from April 23.1985. to May
14.1985. concerning the ao action
alternative. No public comments were
received.
CA. with the concurrence of the Slate
of Minnesota, has determined that the
Morns Arsenic site poses no significant
threat to public health or the
environment and. therefore, taking
remedial treasures is not appropriate.
EPA has recommended to State. County
and local officials that as a further
precaution, a nonce be placed on the
property The deed notice would be
entered in county land records noting
previous use of the site for the disposal
of a hazardous substance.
PCB Spills Site. North Carolina
Between June 1978 and August 1978,
over 30 000 gallons of waste transformer
oil contaminated with polychlonnated
biphenyls (PCB's) were deliberately
discharged along 243 noncontiguous
miles of highway shoulders in fourteen
counties in North Carolina The site was
proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) on December 30.
1032. and appeared on the final \PL on
September 0.1983.
The State conducted several
irvestigaiicns and feasibti.tv studies
between 1979 a-c 3531 and ascertained
thdt contamination did r.ot m-jrate from
the spill areas into surface water biota
or ground water A detailed report was
prepared and evaluated by EPA
concerning ~.e siting and construction of
the landfill to receive the contaminated
soi's and wastes.
In May 1982. EPA and the State of
North Carolina initiated remedial action
to (!) Construct a landfill for disposal of
PCS wastes. (21 remove transport and
dispose of contaminated soils ard [3|
reconstruct the highway shoulders.
Disposal of contaminated soT *as
completed in November 1982. and the
Tone Substance Control Act iTSCA)
approved landfill was capped, graded,
and vegetated
Sampling was conducted durirg
removal at the beginning anu end points
of the contaminated strips in order to
insure that all contaminated soils werf
removed. Random samples were
collected from the areas after soils were
removed. Sampling results indicate that
a cleanup level of 10 pprn or less was
achieved for nearly all of the samples.
No soils contaminated with PCBs above
5Qppm were left in place Excavated
areas were then filled with clean soil
A local three-week pabt.c comment
penod was hela May 10.1S84. through
May 31.1984. with respect to deletion.
No public comments were received.
EPA with the concurrence of the State
of North Carolina, has determined that
all appropriate Fund-financed response
under CERCLA at the PCB Spills sue has
beer, completed and has determined that
no further cleanup by responsible
parties is appropriate. The State is
currently monitoring the landfill
constructed to contain contaminated
soils removed from the site and
continues to meet all reqoiresents for
post-closure mo ai to ting.
PCS U are fro use Site. Stupor.
Coni.Tior:veaJtfi of'.he Vorthsrr
A lancrra Islcrds
PCS Warehouse is a Public Works
warenouse building where intact drums
of PCB transformer oil were stored. The
warehouse is located adjacent to the
Philippine Sea. The concern was that the
PCB oil could be released in the eve-- of
a severe tropical storm thereby
endangering public health and the
environment through risk of direct
contact and contamination of marine
life The site was proposed for inclusion
on (he National Priorities List (NPl) on
December 20.1982. and appeared on the
final NPL on September 8.1983.
A remedial investigation of the site in
December 1982. revealed the presence of
21 drums of PCB contaminated oil and 3
crates of 3odium arsemte Drums were
found to be intact and there was no
evidence of any reported spills or leaks
The transformers from which the oil
was drained were located at the Saipan
Headquarters Building and at the
Department of Public Works Yard.
There was no 'nctcation of leaks or
sp-lls near those transformers
An immediate removal was conducted
in 1984 that removed the 21 drums of
PCB wastes and 3 crates of sodium
arsemte These were repackaged and
transported back to the Lrnited States
far disposal in a TSCA approved
disposal facility The sodium arsemte
was disposed of in the continental
Urutea Slates in a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]
permuted facility After removal, testing
was conducted on site, to insure that
cleanup was complete and that no spiiis
had occurred dunng or before cleanup
Test results confirmed that no PCB
wastes had been spilled during the
removal action
A local public comment period was
held June 13 1985 th'ough June 28 1985
with respect to deiet'on. No public
comments we'e received
EPA. with the concurrence of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Maran^
Islands, has determined that all
appropriate Fund-financed response
under CERCLA has been completed at
the PCB Warehouse site, and that no
further cleanup by responsible parties is
appropriate
PCB IVasfe Sues. Trust Territory of the
Pacjftc Islands
PCB Waste sites is a unique site
comprised of 8 separate locations
scattered throughout the Trust
Territories of the Pacific Islands, an 
-------
GSWER Directive 9320.2-3
53452 Federal Register I Vol. 50. No. 251 I Tuesday. December 31, 1985 / Proposed Rules
occurred before and after removal of
contaminated soils to ascertain whether
;ontamination over 50 ppm of PCB
remained. No PCBs above SO ppm were
found vn structures or 90ils after
removal. A local public comment period
v^as held July 1.1985, through July 22.
1985. with respect to deletion. No
comments were received.
EPA. with the concurrence of the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,
has determined that all appropriate
Fund-financed response under CERCLA
has been completed at the PCB Waste
s.ies. and that no further cleanup by
responsponsible parties is appropriate.
Taputimu Farm Sue. Island of Tutuila.
American Samoa
The Taputimu Farm site consisrs of
three rooms of a farm warehouse and a
trdilsr. The site was the repository for
unused and oul-of-date agricultural
chemicals and pesticides on American
Samoa. A remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS] conducted in
1932 revealed that :ne materials were
improperly stored within the facility
buildings. Analysis of the materials
collected inside the building identified
several pesticides and chlorinated
organic solvents. The site w^s proposed
for inclusion on the National Priorities
List (NPL) on December 30.1982. and
appeared on the final NPL on September
8. 1983.
Tne chemical/pesticide materials
were stored on a concrete or steel floor
of the storage areas and trailer Soil
sampling for primary pollutants and
visual examination of the site confirmed
thai contamination was confined to the
interior floor areas of the warehouse
and trailer
The remedial act:on alternative
selected and implemented at Tapufmu
Farm in 1984. involved reoacking the
chemical/pesticide materials for
shipping to the continental United States
for disposal in a RCRA approved
facility The remedial action aiso
included washing down ail exoosed
surfaces of the storage areas with
bleach to ensure deactivation of any
residual materials rot picked up by
sweeping and vacuuming Finally, two
layers of epoxy paint were applied to
the interior walls and three inches of
concrete were poured over the existing
floor thereby eliminating the threat of
direct contact. The American Samoa
Government on'y utilizes the structure
for farm equipment storage and has
banned all food storage from the
building Since all matenals were
removed and contaminated surfaces
cleaned and sealed no further
monitoring was conducted Warning
signs were placed on the building
prohibiting food storage as an additional
precautionary measure.
A local public comment period Mas
held from June 13.1985. through June 28,
1985 with respect to deletion No public
comments were received.
EPA. with the concurrence of the
Government of American Samoa, has
determined that all aopropriite Fund-
financed response under CERCLA has
been completed at the Taputimu Farm
site, and that no further cleanup by
responsible parties is appropriate
Dated. December is. 1985
|. Winsion Porter,
Idmimstralor, Office jfSohi
tVcjtP and E/iif^ency Response
(FRDoc 85-30806 Filed 12-30-85 6 45 am)
BILUNO COM IHO-U-M
-------
OSWER Directive 9320.2-3
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 45 / Friday, March 7, lfite ( Rufeg- Bfid Rigafatibob- :
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OSWER FRL-2977-6]
40 CFR Part 300
National Oil and Hazardous
SubstancasConUngency Plan;
National PriorltiM Utt Update
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency
ACTION: Notice of the deletion of sites
from the National Puorilieg List.	
summary: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of
eight sites from the National Priorities
List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B to the
National Oil and Hazardous Substance*
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EP^
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 19B0 [CERCLA).
EFFECTIVE date March 7.1EW6.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rufisel H. Wyer, Director. Hazardous
Site Control Division. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response
(Wf I-54AE). Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street, SW„ Washington,
DC 20460. Phone (800) 424-9346 (or 302-
3000 in the Washington. DC,
metropolitan area).
8UPPL£MENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA
identifies sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare
or the environment jnd maintains the
NPL as the hit ol those sites Sites on
the NPL may be the subject of
Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund (Vuntl| financed remedial acUou.
Any site deleted from the NPL remains
eligible For Fund-fuunced remedial
actiuiu in the unlikely event that
conditions at I he site warrant suth
acLion Section 300££(c|(8) of the NCP
slates lhal Fund-financed actions oitiy
be taken at sites deleted from the NPL.
The eight Bite* EPA deletes from tlje
NPL are.
1.	Enterprise Avenue. Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania
2.	Friedman Property (once listed 
-------
GSWER Directive 9320.2-3
APPENDIX C.
SAMPLE LOCAL PUBLIC NOTICES OF INTENT
(To be Included)
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF NPL DELETION RESPONSIBILITIES
CHAPTER
HEADQUARTERS
REGIONS
STATES
2.0 Determining Site
Completions
Provide guidance and
criteria for determining
completions
- Assist with coordination
of removal and remedial
programs
Report completions on NPL
Outline scope of a mini-RI
as required
Initiate confirmatory samp-
ling and monitoring as
described in the ROD
Develop and approve no-
action RODs
Provide assistance
as requested
Designate sites as
completions
- Assign "C" status codes
3.0 Long Term
Responses (LTRs)
Provide Regions with a
list of NPL sites prior
to promulgation of a
final NPL rule
Designate sites
as LTRs
50
o
H-
«-<
rt>
n
rr
H
<
vD
UJ
to
0
•
to
1
UJ
4.0 Determining Site
Deletions
Propose and promulgate
NCP deletion criteria
Provide guidance' for
determining deletions
Assist Regions in
technical evaluations
of completed sites
Perform technical evalua-
tions of data generated
from performance monitoring
and confirmatory sampling
Designate sites as deletion
candidates
Provide assistance
as requested
-------
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OP NPL DELETION RESPONSIBILITIES
(Continued)
CHAPTER	HEADQUARTERS	REGIONS	STATES
5.0	Deletion
Administ ratlve
Process
5.1 Initiation of the
Process
Provide support to
Regions as requested
Work with Region
to resolve any
issues
Obtain State concurrence
on intent to delete
Brief RA on status of
deletion candidate
Prepare deletion docket,
including compilation of
all support documents
Work with Headquarters to
resolve issues
Review and concur
on Agency's intent
Recommend site
deletions as
approprlate
Provide documents
and information
to Regions as
requested
Provide support
to Regions as
requested
-------
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF NPL DELETION RESPONSIBILITIES
(Continued)
CHAPTER
HEADQUARTERS
REGIONS
STATES
5.2 Public Notices
of Intent
Coordinate with the
Regions to assure com-
pilation of Regional
dockets
Review and comment on
National Notice of
Intent
Assist Regions in
preparation of
responses to comments
addressing National
concerns
Notify OERR/OWPE of intent
to delete 90 days in advance
of draft Federal Register
submission.
Ensure Regional public
dockets and local reposi-
tories are complete
Prepare National and local
Notices of Intent to
Delete and submit for
2-week HQ review period
Coordinate concurrent
publication of National
and local notices
Assist Regions in
publication of
local notices and
responding to
comments
Assist Regions
in compiling
appropriate local
repositories
Prepare responsiveness
summary and include a copy
in the Regional docket
		o
h-
ri
CD
n
rr
h-
<
(D
GJ
ro
0
NJ
1
OJ
O
LO
s
C3
-------
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF NPL DELETION RESPONSIBILITIES
(Continued)
CHAPTER
HEADQUARTERS
REGIONS
STATES
5.3 Publication of
Deletions
Review Notice of
Deletion
Publish subsequent
final NPL updates
reflecting deleted
sites
Prepare deletion notice
and submit to AA, OSWER
along with any supporting
documents ielating to
specific agency responses
to public comments
Notify State of deletion
publ1cat ion
Provide assistance
as requested
-------